Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Status of Improvements to Development ReviewCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. SS 3 August 14, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949- 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting Processes This report transmits and explains Attachment 4 to the full report on this agenda item, the Plan Check Monitoring Report. This report is another product of the staffs increased use of the Permits Plus program and the data collected and managed by that program. The attached report covers the thirty days prior to August 10, 2007, and reports like this one will be sent to the City Council every month. The report has a summary page and graphs showing the duration of plan check for the Building, Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. The summary shows the total number of plan check applications received during the reporting period, the number of plans pending review in each department on the date of the report, the number of plans reviewed by each department during the reporting period, the average and median number of days for the plan reviews completed by each department during the reporting period, and the oldest plan pending review in each department. The graphs display the plan checks completed during the review period and the number of days these reviews took to be completed, along with the average and median number of days. The City's goal for completing the first plan check on a project is four weeks (28 days), in 90% of cases. Based on the average and median plan review time, all four departments are performing well against the goal. However, every department except Fire has plans that have been pending for more than 28 days, and the graphs show that every department had some plan reviews that took longer than 28 days. For three departments, the longer review times are aberrations, with the great majority of cases meeting the goal. Planning had a significant number of plans whose review took longer than 28 days, reflecting that department's continuing struggle to reach the staffing level needed to handle the workload, which is discussed in greater detail in the full report. Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 2 Department Directors and I have access to the full set of data used to compile the Plan Check Monitoring Report, which will be a valuable management tool. We can review details on projects that have taken longer, and see if there is an error in a Permits Plus entry, how long the plans have been with the City and how long they have been with the applicant for corrections, how complex the project is, whether there have been substantial changes to the project, whether permits from other agencies are pending, etc. — all of which impact the number of days the plan review has been pending. The Director can address these issues with the assigned staff member and decide if the City needs to do something to advance the project. As this is the first monitoring report, it represents only a point in time, and does not tell us whether our performance is better or worse than it was last month or last year. As we continue to compile these reports monthly, they will become even more valuable as we can see changes, trends and patterns. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachment: 4. Plan Check Monitoring Report Attachment 4 Plan Check Summary Data Total Plans Applied in the last 30 days: -- — Number of plans pending review: BLD PLN (August 2007) 112 — 39 62 _ _ PLW 12 _ FIRE 2 _ i Plans reviewed in the last 30 days: BLD PLN PLW FIRE _ _ 98 103 38 16 I Average 14 Median 14 - Plan reviewed time (days): BLD PLN 32 24 PLW 12 9 FI RE 9_ _2 Oldest Plan Pending: T BLD 35 PLN 72 80 — - PLW FIRE 4 45 40 35 30 25 N R 20 15 10 i Duration of Plan Checks - Building 50 100 150 200 250 No. of Records Reviewed • • • •i • Average, 14 ® Median, 14 ` i I 0 • l • I! 50 100 150 200 250 No. of Records Reviewed N A 10 L�71 Duration of Plan Checks - Planning 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 No. of Records Reviewed 00 _i- so- 00- 50 ~ ® Average; 32 1 Median, 24 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 No. of Records Reviewed 50 45 40 35 30 N 0 25 20 15 10 5 0 Duration of Plan Checks - Fire 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No. of Records Reviewed _ n9 IF kf I - t - Average, 9 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Median, 2 os♦s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No. of Records Reviewed 80 70 s0 50 N m 40 13 30 20 10 Duration of Plan Checks - Public Works 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 s0 90 100 No. of Records Reviewed !� D •• I, ©Average, 12' •�•NN Median, •N"N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 s0 90 100 No. of Records Reviewed CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.SS 3 August 14; 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 - 3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting Processes RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Receive and file report on improvements implemented or in progress. 2. Direct staff to develop short -term recommendations more fully; and return to City Council for approval of needed resources. 3. Direct staff to continue working on long -term recommendations. BACKGROUND In 2002, the staff in all departments involved in the plan check and permitting functions established a task force to review processes and procedures with the goal of reducing the amount of time required to complete the process and issue permits. Many ideas for improvements were identified and implemented by this group, including simultaneous review by all departments, empowering Public Works to conduct simple reviews for General, Services and Utilities, and a new Records Specialist position to manage the flow of plans. All of these improvements were implemented to facilitate meeting our goal of completing the first plan check within 4 weeks of submittal 95% of the time. Implementation of these improvements helped for a while, but development activity continued to increase, and we have not consistently been able to meet our 4 -week goal in all departments. The City retained Hogle- Ireland, Inc. in 2006, to conduct an evaluation of the development review and plan checking processes. A summary of their findings and recommendations is attached (Attachment 1); the major findings are as follows. City Hall has insufficient space. for staff involved in the development review, plan check and permitting; processes. Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 1,4, 2007 Page 2 • 9/80 work schedule results in staff members not working on alternate Mondays or Fridays, causing confusion and inefficiencies. ■ Interdepartmental coordination needs improvement. • Planning and Public Works Departments lack procedures manuals and good public information material. • Plan check applications are logged in without review for completeness, creating delays. • Permits Plus is not used to its full potential by all departments. • Planning Department has insufficient staff. • Zoning code provisions are overly complicated and require detailed, time- consuming plan check. At the study session of September 26, 2006, when City Council received this report, the Council directed the City Manager to provide increased and more formal coordination among the departments in this work area, and to evaluate the need for additional Planning Department staff. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION The City Council discussed a community development department as a way of improving interdepartmental coordination in September 2006, but did not reach consensus on that approach. The City Manager assigned an interdepartmental coordination role to an Assistant City Manager position, and gave me the responsibility for the Building Department as well as the Planning Department. The City Manager also directed staff to define standards for what we would consider excellent service to our customers and to design a process to achieve those standards, without regard to department lines of responsibility. He asked for seamless coordination; among departments to be implemented in our plan checking processes. I started meeting regularly with the Directors of the Building, Planning and Public Works Departments, and the four of us quickly concluded that we needed to involve the staff who do the work and experience the problems on a daily basis in our efforts to improve our processes. We began with a brainstorming session including the staff from every department that works on development review, plan check and permitting: Building, Fire, General Services, Information Technology, Planning, Public Works and Utilities. The staff reviewed and agreed on performance standards (Attachment 2), and brainstormed a 3 -page list of ideas (Attachment 3) on how we can achieve those standards. Some of those ideas duplicated recommendations from Hogle- Ireland, and some came from the staff based on their day -to -day experiences. Following the brainstorming session, I established two staff task forces to evaluate the ideas: Work Flow and Technology. Their charge was to review the brainstorming ideas, make short-term and long -term recommendations, and identify constraints and resources needed to implement other ideas that may be effective but cannot be N Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 3 implemented right away. The task forces have been meeting every two weeks since February. The improvements and recommendations discussed later in this report are largely due to the work of these staff task forces, whose members are listed below. Work Flow Suzanne Kusik, Chair (Building) David Lepo (Management Liaison) Sharon Wood (Management Liaison) Janet Brown (Planning) Steve Bunting (Fire) Alfred Castanon (Utilities) Leslie Duarte (Building) Faisal Jurdi (Building) David Keely (Public Works) Kim Lerch (Fire) Brandon Nichols (Planning) Andrea Riles (General Services) Fong Tse (Public Works) Technology Dan Campagnolo, Chair (Planning) Jay Elbettar (Management Liaison) Russell Bunim (Planning) Matt Dingwall (Recreation & Senior Services) Steve Hook (Building) Faisal Jurdi (Building) Kim Lerch (Fire) Mary Locey (Public Works) Jackie Luengas - Alwafi (IT) Susan McCourt (Building) Paul Malkemus (IT) Rod Murphy (IT) Randy Okada (Public Works) IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED OR IN PROGRESS Following are short descriptions of improvements that staff has already implemented, or is working to implement soon. Planning Staffing As discussed in greater detail below, Planning has been able to fill only one of the four new positions authorized by the City Council in January. Adding staff remains, critical to Planning's ability to meet the 4 -week plan check goal, as well as to support quicker plan check for simpler projects. In addition to recruiting new staff, the Planning Department has instituted changes in the assignments of existing staff to improve plan check service. The changes listed below have increased the efficiency and productivity of the existing staff, but at the same time the City has added new regulations that increase the complexity of the plan check function (e.g., compliance With Coastal Land Use Plan, design review for new single family houses). 1. Plan check responsibilities are shared among all current planning staff by assigning plan check to the planner who handled the project's discretionary review.. This not only adds to our plan check staff resources, but also provides more efficient review of plans by staff who are already familiar with those projects. J Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 4 2. The Zoning Administrator function is limited to making decisions, and the research and analysis of cases is assigned to staff who were previously limited to plan check assignments. This provides them with professional development opportunities and supports our goal of retaining staff. In addition, this change allows the Senior Planner who functions as Zoning Administrator to review plan check applications within a week of submittal to determine completeness and the need for discretionary permits, sort out simple projects that can be reviewed quickly, provide training to less experienced staff, and assist Code and Water Quality Enforcement staff with research on Code provisions and conditions of approval. 3. Counter hours are assigned to Assistant and Associate ,Planners to provide higher level customer service, quiet time for other staff to complete plan checks and mentoring to less experienced staff. 4. The public counter area was expanded to make more staff available to the public and to provide counter space that is accessible to disabled customers. Technology 1. The Planning Department has automated and streamlined notices, approval letters and weekly reports on staff approvals and decisions of the Zoning Administrator. 2. All departments make plan check corrections available online, - enabling customers to know the status of their plans with each reviewing department and to begin responding to corrections before all departments have completed review. Previously only the Building Department was using Permits Plus for this purpose. 3. The previous "Newport Beach Online Services" page on the City website was converted to an improved, comprehensive, centralized interdepartmental location called "e- on/ineservices ;`' The public can check permit status (including corrections), schedule inspections, apply for a job, pay municipal services bills, apply for parking permits; register for classes, etc. The site also provides a feature called "Select Alerts," an e- mail /fax notification system through which the public can receive information on selected categories. 4. Planning files are being archived and will be included in the permit history of properties and accessible through Permits Plus, with the first of three phases complete. One planner recently reported that, with this improvement, it took her five minutes to do the research that used to take more than an hour. 5. Cashiers in the Administrative Services Department are using Permits Plus to enter the paid status of permits in 'Yeah time" rather than waiting for a hard copy of the permit to be returned to the Building Department. This will save Building. staff the time of collecting batches of permits throughout the day and entering them in the system. With a high level of customer activity at the counter, Permit Technicians often could not complete these entries until the end of the day, . which delayed customer inspection requests. 1 Status of Improvements to Development Review,, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 5 6. A more informative Plan Check Monitoring Report has been developed so that the department directors can see how well their staffs are meeting the 4 -week goal, how long plans have been with the City and with the applicant, and how long every project has been in the plan check process. The report is dynamically linked to Permits Plus, and is refreshed every time the spreadsheet is opened. This information was used 'to create the plan check status report recently requested by Council Member Daigle, the first of which is included with this report as Attachment 4. It will be provided monthly, and include information on the plan check activities of the Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works Departments. 7. Special Event Permits administered by the Recreation and Senior Services Department will be added to Permits Plus for processing and tracking. The online application is available on "e- specialevents" and documents are being . scanned and routed for other departments' review via e- mail. These improvements will increase convenience for customers;, and save staff time in all departments; especially on late applications that need to be rushed through the review process. 8. Staff has begun to create permit relationships between department records in Permits Plus. This will link plan checks and building permits with the original discretionary Planning approval on a project, 'which will save research time for staff and applicants. 9. Staff is working on an expansion of GIS data retrieval, which would add building permit information to the information that can be viewed online for each parcel in the City. This will be another time saver for both staff and property owners. Work Flow 1. Department routing and review requirements were reviewed and updated, with some decrease in the extent of review for simple, standard projects and identification of projects that do not require review by all departments. Especially if it involves departments located away from City Hall, this will save plan review time. 2. Tenant improvement plans are routed directly to the Planning Department on the day of submittal so they can be reviewed quickly if there are no discretionary permits required or issues to resolve. 3. Plan check "tracks" (e.g., over the counter, quick check, appointment, expedited) have been reviewed, outlined and made available to the public so they know what options the City offers (Attachment 5). It should be noted that the Planning Department's ability to meet the time goals for these tracks depends on our ability to hire additional staff. 4 , Submittal requirements of all departments have been consolidated into one list for each major type of development, and these are available as public handouts (Attachment 6). J Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan_ Check and Permitting August 1.4,2007 Page 6 5. Within one week of submittal, plan check applications are given a cursory review for completeness per the list of submittal requirements and for the need for discretionary permits. The Building Department has provided this review for some time, and the Planning Department has recently added it. Although applications have already been logged into the system and the City's review time is running, this review prevents the situation where plans "wait their turn" for review before basic incompleteness or Code inconsistencies are noted. More complete screening of applications (e.g., to determine, if all the information, needed is shown on plans) requires additional staff and is discussed with short- term recommendations, below. 6. All departments that need to check an aspect of construction before a project receives final approval from the Building Inspector are able to add a "notice" in Permits Plus when the permit is issued, which will notify both the Inspector and the contractor that additional inspection(s) must be arranged. Other 1. New office space has been provided for the Planning and Public Works Departments in trailers. Building staff will gain some additional space vacated by Planning in Building C. 2. The Planning Department has completed a first draft of a procedures manual. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFFING The Planning Department has had the most difficulty in meeting the City's 4 -week goal for first plan check, because staffing was not adequate for the workload. In January 2007; City Council approved four additional staff positions for the Planning Department: one Associate Planner, two Assistant Planners and one Planning Technician. To date, we have been able to fill only two of those positions. The Associate Planner position was filled through promotion of an Assistant Planner and a Plan Review Specialist (Planning Technician) was hired, still leaving three vacant Assistant Planner positions. Prior to beginning recruitment for these positions, Human Resources and Planning Department staffs reviewed the job descriptions and titles for Assistant Planner and Planning Technician. The objective was to attract the greatest number of candidates whose qualifications and skills would match the Planning Department's plan checking needs. Two Assistant Planner positions were not changed, and the third was converted to a Plan Review Specialist h position with the same salary. The requirement for a bachelor's degree was dropped for the Plan Review Specialist II position in exchange for relevant experience in plan review. The Planning Technician title was changed to Plan Review Specialist I. No degree or experience was required for this position. Planning staff contacted administrators in construction and drafting programs at Orange Coast,; Golden West, and Saddleback Community Colleges. Feedback was encouraging and Human Resources included these institutions in the City's recruitment 0 Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 7 program when recruitments for the new positions opened in February 2007. Seven candidates for Assistant Planner and nine candidates for Plan Review Specialist 1 /II were deemed qualified, and interviews were held in March. An offer was made to one Assistant Planner candidate who rejected the offer to remain with his then - current employer. Three offers were-made to Plan Review Specialist candidates, and only one accepted. Human Resources continued to receive and screen applications for the open Assistant Planner recruitment. A second interview panel was held in July. Of seven applicants invited for interviews, three participated and only one was deemed' qualified. An offer was made but the applicant declined the position. Staff reviewed the disappointing results of this recruitment effort. The changes in title and minimum educational requirements for Plan Review Specialist 1 /II had not expanded the pool of applicants as we had hoped. Dropping the bachelor's degree requirement actually may have dissuaded some with degrees from applying in the belief that they were over- qualified or the position was not part of a "career ladder." After again reviewing job descriptions of planning positions in other cities, we have changed the Plan Review Specialist I title back to Planning Technician, and the Plan Review Specialist II title and requirements back to Assistant Planner. Recruitment for two Assistant Planner positions opened in July and four candidates were deemed qualified. These candidates will be interviewed on August 10. Recruitment for the Planning Technician position opened the week of August 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS Staff believes that the list above includes all the things we can do to improve our processes with existing resources. We believe that the following recommendations have the potential to provide significant additional service improvements. But they cannot be implemented without additional staff resources, financial resources, improved technology, or additional space. Short-term recommendations can be accomplished with minor additional resources, and staff is seeking the City Council's direction to proceed with them. Long -term recommendations require more time to develop, significant financial resources, and /or more space than we have in the current facility. They are presented to provide the Council with the full extent of staff's thinking, to let the Council know that we are continuing to develop these ideas, and for consideration in future budgets and future City Hall designs. Short-Term Recommendations 1. Make additional improvements to public counter area. The Public Works Department still lacks good counter space, and the staff who provide customer service are located away from the counter. Staff would like to Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 8 convert the Director's office to counter and office space for customer service staff, and replace the Director's office in a more quiet location, similar to the other directors. This change will mirror the recent addition of Planning counter space, make Public Works staff more available to the public and help with interdepartmental coordination. Staff also proposes to replace the two existing double doors into the counter area with one set of double doors. With this change, we will have more wall space for public information materials and space for the proposed Application Intake Coordinator position discussed below. Finally, staff is looking into reconfiguring staff work stations behind the public counter. These spaces are very crowded now; and we may be able to gain some space when files are completely converted to digital storage and cabinets can be removed. 2. Develop and update public information. The Planning Department has had handouts on discretionary application processes for several years, but they have not been updated recently. The Public Works Department has an informal guide for use by staff only. It, too, has not been updated recently. Developing and keeping these handouts current takes staff time. Staff believes this is important, and that time will be available when vacant positions in these two departments are filled and Planning can catch up with their plan check backlog. 3. Develop and implement staff training programs. Customer service training is at the top of the list of training topics, and staff is considering people who might provide this training. Staff members think it is equally important to their ability to provide good service to have cross- training among the departments. They would like to be able to answer more questions for the public, advise customers of approvals needed from all City departments, and ,perhaps allow City Hall staff to handle street tree issues and non - engineers to handle simpler Public Works issues. Staff has developed a list of training topics, including general procedures and priority issues for each department, Zoning Code basics, condominium conversion and parcel map processes, street tree sign -offs and exemptions, Public Works issues, traffic issues, inspections and how plans relate to actual construction, Fire requirements, and underground requirements. • It is important to remember that training programs will take staff away from their regular work, which could cause short-term delays in service, and there will be costs for any outside trainers that would be used. Nonetheless, staff strongly believes that this is an investment the City should make. 'Status of Improvements to Development Review,, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 9 4. Investigate "Project Manager" concept or other means of coordinating plan check corrections before they are given to applicants. This recommendation from Hogle- Ireland, Inc. has not been fully explored by staff yet, and we would like to consider it and how it would work with our existing staffing levels._ We already use project managers to some extent when Economic Development staff is assigned to facilitate significant projects, when the Planner assigned to a discretionary case maintains responsibility for the project through plan check, and when the same Plan Check Engineer maintains responsibility for a project from submittal through issuance of all permits. There may be benefit in expanding and formalizing these roles, and staff believes that it would be a service enhancement for the City to address conflicts between different code requirements before applicants need to ask about them. 5. Formalize Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee (DRC) began as the Restaurant Review Committee, one of the Economic Development Committee's first recommendations in the mid- nineties. DRC is a staff group with representatives from all departments involved in development review and sometimes special event permits. They meet once a week, and the public may schedule appointments to discuss potential applications. There are no minimum information requirements, and people come to DRC with concepts in varying states of development. Staff provides information on City regulations, approvals needed, how difficult those might be to obtain, issues that need to be addressed, suggested project modifications, etc. No fee is charged for this service, and there is no formal follow -up. We receive positive feedback on this service from applicants and potential applicants who decide'not to proceed with a land purchase based on information from the DRC. However, staff has found that applicationsi submitted after a DRC meeting are not consistently more complete than others, nor do applicants always address and correct issues that had been raised in DRC. We would like to explore whether the current operation of DRC is a good use of staff time, or whether it should be made more formal with minimum information requirements, a follow -up report or minutes, and a fee for the increased 'staff time that would be required. 6. Establish a new position of Application Intake Coordinator. Staff has observed that we often have customers who do not understand' permitting or the City's requirements, and they are lost when they come to the public counter. They may have simple questions that can be answered without waiting in a line at the counter, they may put themselves on a list for service and wait at the incorrect department counter, or they may not know which departments they need to visit, or the order in which they should visit them. We have no staff person whose job it is to guide people, and they become confused and frustrated, and use their own time and 6 Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 10 staff time unproductively. Staff believes that an Application Intake Coordinator would provide a valuable service to our less experienced customers, as well as help us accomplish things that staff strains to do or is unable to do now, as listed below. The likely cost of this position would be approximately $80,000 annually. a. Provide general information on development services, at the counter and over the phone. b. Explain requirements and process to customers. c. Direct customers to the proper staff for technical assistance. d. Maintain public information on development services. e. Screen applications for completeness before they are accepted and logged into Permits Plus. f. Verify valuation of projects for determination of applicable fees. g. Explain corrections reports to applicants. 7. Close City offices every other Friday to eliminate confusion and inefficiencies with 9/80 work schedules Most City office staff have 9/80 work schedules, which were 'implemented in the 1990's as one way of meeting air quality requirements and to provide employee benefits. Memoranda of Understanding with our employee associations now provide for this work schedule. Newport Beach also used this schedule to increase the hours in which staff is available to assist the public — City Hall offices have extended hours of 7:30 - 5:30 Monday through Thursday and 7:30 — 5:00 Friday. With the small size of our departments, we could not ,provide full service if half the staff were not here one day every week, so we generally divide the days off equally between Monday and Friday. Unfortunately, this means that we are missing some staff members every Monday and Friday. Without knowing the schedule of plan check staff, customers come to City Hall with questions for the person working on their project and learn that the staff person is not working on that day. Sometimes other staff can help, although it takes them away from their own projects and takes additional time for them to understand questions on an unfamiliar project, but sometimes the customer must return when the correct staff person is scheduled to work. It is doubtful that employees would agree to return to a traditional, 5/40 work . schedule, and it still would be problematic for some departments to limit scheduled days off to one day a week. Many cities deal with these issues by closing every other Friday, and the development community is quite accustomed to this practice. 8. Simplify the Zoning' Code. The City's existing methods for regulating the height, size and bulk of single and two- family houses is complicated and results in detailed and time consuming plan j E:% Status of Improvements to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 11 checks for the Planning Department. One of the objectives of the ongoing re -write of the Zoning Code is to simplify these regulations and make them easier to use. The General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee, its technical advisory group of local designers and developers, and staff are maintaining this objective as a priority as we develop new regulations, especially for single family and two - family houses Long -Term Recommendations Maintain up -to -date information on utilities, City trees, etc. in the geographic information system (GIS). Existing 'information is not systematically updated with as- built plans for new utility projects or changes in the City tree inventory, so General Services and Utilities staff must do field verifications as part of their plan check on many projects. Having reliable information in GIS would save this staff time and shorten the duration of some plan checks. 2. Convert all records used in development services to GIS. Currently, some records are in GIS but some are in Alchemy, and not linked to parcel information. This increases the time needed to research previous approval documents. 3. Convert to electronic submittal and review of plans. The advantages to this conversion include immediate notification to City staff that plans have been submitted for review, immediate notification to applicants and staff in other departments that corrections are available, clear identification of changes made to plans after initial submittal, and a very significant reduction in the amount of paper plans that now must be managed and stored. Staff has received presentations from a few vendors of electronic plan check software, and is visiting some sites where these systems are in use to learn more about them. Constraints include the cost of software and hardware, office space to accommodate two large . monitors for each staff member who works on plan check, training staff to review plans and make corrections in an entirely new way, and managing the transition from paper to electronic submittals, including maintaining a paper system for homeowners doing simple projects without professional assistance., Recommendation Not Made In the 2002 staff effort, staff effected a significant change in the way we conduct plan check: from sequential to concurrent review of plans. Prior to 2002, the same set of plans was reviewed by one department and then routed to the others in turn, until all Status of Improvements-to Development Review, Plan Check and Permitting August 14, 2007 Page 12 departments had reviewed the plans and they were returned' to the applicant for corrections. Sequential review is a better process in terms of coordinating comments among departments, but it takes more time. We could not achieve 4 -week turnaround of first plan check with sequential review with the workload in 2002. The Work Flow Task Force, the Department Directors and I considered returning to sequential review, .and concluded that our workload is still so high that we would increase, rather than decrease, plan check time by making that change. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change to sequential plan review at this time. CONCLUSION Staff from all the departments involved in the plan check and permitting processes have put a great deal of care; thought, time and effort into reviewing and improving these processes over the past several months. This work has resulted in the implementation of many improvements to our work space, technological resources and processes. Among these improvements is a new Plan Check Monitoring Report that will provide more information to the City Council and Department Directors. This report will allow Directors to easily identify cases that have been in the system too long and the reasons for delay, and help us track the effect of improvements and make additional adjustments. Staff believes that more improvements are needed and possible, but these will require additional resources. We are asking the City Council's direction to proceed with the short -term recommendations in this report, and return to the Council for action when programs are more fully developed and costs identified. In addition, we are asking for the Council's support in continuing to research and develop the long -term recommendations. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations by Hogle - Ireland', Inc. 2. Performance Standards 3. Staff Brainstorming Ideas 4, Plan Check Monitoring Report 5. Plan Check Tracks 6. Submittal Requirements 3� I� Attachment 1 SECTION VII SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding & -The general attitude and professionalism of all staff involved in the development review and permitting processes for development is to be commended. Staff is very dedicated to the City, theirlobs, and to the provision of a high'qualiry=service to the residents and clients of the City. Findin¢ G -B - There is a lack of available working space for all staff and departments involved in the development application review processes. This lack of work space creates significant problems in providing a high quahry and efficient level of service and limits the actions that can be easily implemented to improve the-development application processes. Recommendation G -I - Consideration should be given to relocating certain staff in Planning, Building, and Public Works to an off -site location and remodeling the first floor of the building that houses the Planning, Building; and Public Works Departments to accommodate a modern, well functioning public counter area. The staff to be located to the off -site location should be limited to those staff who typically have little need to be at the public counter In addition to, providing d e opportunity to modernize the public counter area, this would provide, the opportunity to also provide better functioning offices on both floors of the existing building for the staff remaining at the present location, storage areas, and additional, better hinctioning conference rooms. Recommendation G -2- Move old plans, reports, and reference materials that are not used on a regular basis into a storage facility off- site This will require a complete mventor5,ing of plans and reports, but it will provide for much needed additional work space at the staff work stations. Recommendation G <3- Identify a clay or days for general cleanup of the Planning; Building, and Public Works work areas. The goal would be to identify, materials that can go into long term storage, unused materials that can be disposed of, and to make all of the workspaces neater and better organized. In addition to malting additional space available, the work areas will look more rofessional -and conducive to an efficient operation. Finding & -There is a;general lack of coordination related to codes and the development review and plan checking processes between departments. Recommendation G -4- The City should consider establishing 'a Community Development Department consisting of at least the present Building and Planning Departments with one Director or administrator overseeing both operations. Recommendation G -} - As an alternative and interim measure to Recommendation G -4 noted above, increase coordination bemleen departments by establishing monthly or bi- weekly meetings with the Public Works, Building, and Planning Director to discuss 'current development related issues to be addressed. August 3006 City of Newport Beach. Page 35 Evaluation of therCiry's'Development Retdew and Plan Checking Processes 13 Finding G -D No one in the three major departments responsible for elements of the development application processing activities functions as "project manager" 4 'project manager° has the responsibility for ensuring that the comments received from the reviewing departments are not in conflict with each other and in coordinating, and expediting the application through the Cit y review processes. Recommendation G -6 - A 'Project ,Manager" concept should be established in each Department that accepts plans and applications and routes them to other departments for review and comment. The Project Manager would have the primary responsibility for: • Making sure that the plans are routed to the appropriate departments • Monitoring the review schedule to ensure that the various reviews are being completed within the specified time frame, The Project Manager would be responsible for contacting any Department or staff that is behind schedule to determine the reasons for the delay and to 'push" to keep the project reviews on schedule • Reviews all corrections and comments from the various departments and resolve any conflicts before returning the application and plans along with the corrections and comments to the applicant. The Project Manager would have the responsibility for actually discussing any conflicting corrections with the reviewing department and in facilitating resolution of the conflict prior to returning the plans and corrections to the applicant and in making sure that the actual reviews are complete. The Project Manager responsibility typically would be assigned to: • The planner in the Planning Department who has the primary responsibility, for reviewing .the project. • The plan checker in the Building Department. • The plan checker or engineer in the Public Works Department who has the primary responsibility for reviewing the project. Project Managers are not new or additional positions, but is a concept that is applied to existing staff within each Department. Recommendation G -7- Conduct training within the departments that will be utilizing the Project Manager concept so that all persons functioning as a Project Manager clearly understand their responsibilities. It is important that management and supervisory staff also attend the training, so that they also will have a clear understanding of the Project Manager concept and can be supportive. Recommendation G -8 Please see Recommendation PWA on page 32, which will help decrease and address customers' and clients' concerns regarding incomplete reviews. Finding G- -The Permits Plus database is not used in a uniform and consistent manner by all departments resulting in an actual or perceived lack of coordination between departments. Recommendation G -9- Establish standard procedures for all departments on how to input information into Permits Plus and take steps to make sure that all staff and departments involved in the development review processes have access ugust City of Newport Beach Page 36' Evaluadon of the City's Development. Review ind Plan Checking Processes lq to the Permits Plus system. These procedures should be formalized into a document shared bvall departments and placed in each department's procedures manual. This recornsnendation would be easy to incorporate into each department's procedures and can be iin lemented quickly. Finding G- - There is a lack of easily accessible and up -to -date information at the ubhc counter area describing the various permits and application processes. Recommendation G -10 - Each department should assign the responsibilit , of creating handouts to address common questions that the public has specific to their department. As an example, Planning Department may provide a handout on what a Use Permit is, who is subject to submitting an application for a Use Permit, ghat is required from the applicant for an application to be deemed complete; and the time frame involved Mth a Use Permit. The handouts should address those questions the public commonly has that can be answered without taking the time of a staff person at the counter. It is also very important that these handout materials be kept up -to -date and reflect the actual City processes and procedures. Someone within each department should' be responsible for reviewing, and revising the handouts annuafl . Finding G -G - The vvebsites for the City Departments lack cohesiveness and consistency. Recommendation G -11- Each department should assign one person to work with the Management Information Services Department (MIS) to provide input into the development of a consistent and uniform website for nat for each Department. For each department, . a webpage that is similar to those of other Departments with information presented in similar formats would be more user - friendly. For' department specific information, a layout should be created to suit each department's needs. As an example, navigation from each department homepage to the applications and forms should be similar for each department. This recommendation would be fairly simple to accomplish and should be implemented as soon as possible. The person responsible for web design for the City will need to be in contact with the designated person from each department for the initial creation of the webpage, and afterward for updating the department's web a es With new information. Finding G -H - The. City's 9/80 schedule makes it difficult for customers to keep track of When particular staff members are working. Recommendation G -12 Consideration should be given to revising the 9/80 schedule so that City Hall is closed every other Friday and all staff have the same Fridays off. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding P -A - The Planning Department is understaffed in being able to service the public counter in an effective and efficient manner and in reviewing and responding to development applications. Recommendation P -1- Provide one additional technical staff person at the Planning counter. This person could either be a qualified Planning Technician or an entry level Planner. August 2006 City of Newport Reach Page 37' Evaluation of the City's Development Reilew and Plan .Checlang:Processes 15 Recommendation P -1 - Increase the professional planning staff by three positions at the experienced Assistant or Associate levels to perform project review and application processing services. Instead,of hiring the additional planners as full time City staff, consider entering into a Iona term contract (two to three years) with a planning consulting firm that provides contract planning staff to cities to provide the necessary qualified staff to meet the City's needs. A long term contract would allow the planning consulting firm to schedule staffing resources to guarantee the provision of highly qualified and trained staff. This type of arrangement is successfully utilized by many cities and counties and allows the number of planning staff to flex up and down according to the City's needs and has many budgetary and administrative advantages for the City. Recommendation P -3- Establish a counter Planner rotation system similar ,to the system being used in the Building Department. Planners would be assigned on a rotating basis to come to the counter when required to answer the more technical planning and zoning questions and to review and clear the more simple permits such as swunining pools and tenant improvements so the permits can be issued over the counter by the Building Department. This would help eliminate the need for the less complicated building plans to be submitted for the formal routing rocess and "clogging'up the system. Finding P -B - The City Codes (Zoning) are complicated and extremely difficult to interpret and explain to the public resulting in confusion and frustration for -those ersons submitting development applications. Recommendation P -4 - Initiate a zone change process to revise the residential building height provisions of the Zoning Code to a more simplified standard that can be easily understood and enforced by both staff and applicants. It is recommended that this revision be undertaken before the update of the entire Zoning Code which will be started following the completion of the General Plan update process. It is further recommended that a committee consisting of architects familiar w irh the existing height provisions, builders who are experienced in constructing building in the City, and City staff be established to: • Develop a revision to the height standards that addresses all parties concerns and that is easy to understand and use. The revised standards adopted by the County of Santa Barbara will be -a good place to start. • Review the present plan checking processes and procedures used by the Planning staff in their review of plans for compliance with the height re uirements with the goal of simplifying and expediting the process. Finding P' -C - The Planning applications should be reviewed to eliminate any requirement for applicants to submit unnecessary materials and to remove technical jargon that is not easily understood by the public. The use of multiple planning applications should be discontinued: and one master application should be developed. Recommendation P-5- Combine applications into a single all encompassing application. The application should include detailed explanations of each step in the application process from submittal to approval, alon xith a checklist of the :august 2006 City of Nmporr Beach Page 38 Evaluation of the City's, Development Rc Aew and Plan'Checking Processes E required submittal items. The application language should be written in easy to understand language limiting the use of professional plannin�g terminology. Finding P -D - P1anning,handout materials should be reviewed for inconsistencies and inaccuracies and new materials should be developed to e %-plain all of the commonly used planning applications and processes. Recommendation P -6- Develop handout materials that explain standards and requirements for commonly used planning applications and submittals. This should be done in -house by staff who thoroughly understand the processes and requirements. Finding P -E - The development of a Planning Department Policy and Procedures Manual that memorializes the Department's plan check practices and procedures, code interpretations, and. administrative procedures in one location is essential for training new staff and in ensuring that development applications are reviewed in a consistent; efficient, and effective manner by all staff. Recommendation P -7 Immediately establish the format for a Planning Department Policy and Procedures Manual and start preparing the policies and procedures. It is recognized that the development of the actual policies and procedures is a task that will take considerable time. Examples of items that should be in the Manual include: • Interpretations of the Zoning and other Codes used by the Planning Department. • Establishment of standard procedures for plan and application review. • Departmental. administrative matters such as hoar to create a case file, how to close a case file, file management, contacts with the press, how to fill out a time card, how to receive City Attorney review and comment on documents, the format to use for rep_ orts that are submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council; etc. The manual must have a procedure and requirement for periodic review and updating and be provided to every technical staff member for use and reference at their work station. Finding P -F - The existing Development Review Committee (DRC,) process should be revised to require the submittal of an application and the payment of fees by the applicant if more than one review is requested by the applicant. Recommendation P -8- Maintain the existing DRC preliminary project review process and allow applicant /project to utilize it one time. Additional reviews prior to formal project submittal would be required to use a pre- application process that incorporates the following elements: • Require submittal of an application along with a letter request indicating �N71iat preliminary review input is being required. • Require a deposit to be submitted with the application and all staff rune to be billed at the City's normal hourly rate. • The Planning Department's Project Manager for the project shall have the responsibility for scheduling the pre- application review meeting with the representatives from the various departments based upon the applicant's request. August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 39 Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes a FolloNving the meeting, provide a written summary of comments to the applicant. Finding. P -G - There are administrative processes within the Planning Department that can be,initiated that will assist in making the development review processes more effective and efficient. 1 Recommendation P -9 - Consider implementation of the following programs within the Planning Department: a Set aside time such as all morning or afternoon during which planning staff . who are reviewing project applications will not be interrupted by telephone calls or requests to assist at the public counter. Develop comprehensive plan check correction sheets for staff that contain all typical comments and corrections in a user friendly computer program for easy generation of correction sheets. Formalize an in -house training program for all staff that identifies and provides training directly related to their job responsibilities. a Develop a comprehensive list of standard conditions of approval. BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding B -A - The Building Department is to be commended for maintaining a Policy and Procedures Manual that sets forth Building Department policies and interpretations of the various codes for use and reference by Building Department staff. Finding BBB The Building Department is to be commended for providing a user - friendly Plan Review Procedure Work Flow User Manual which discusses and pro vides information on the City's plan review processes. Recommendation B -I - Provide a link to a .pdf version of the Plan Review Work Flow User Manual on the Building Department w.ebsite so that the public has access to ap2licable portions of it online. Recommendation B -2 - Initiate an in -house review of the Manual to correct any existing inconsistencies and requirements that have been changed. Recommendation B -3 - Develop a policy for inclusion in the Building Department Policy and Procedures Manual that establishes a regularly scheduled review and update of the Plan Review Work Flow User Manual. Recommendation B-4 - Develop a public version of the Manual and make it available for purchase at the public counter. Finding B' -C - The organization of the plan check function lacks accountability and runs the risk of providing the applicant corrections that are not consistent with those of other departments. Recommendation B -5 Please see Recommendation G -6 on page 13, regarding P_ ro'ect Managers. Finding_B -D - Plan Check Engineers make additional corrections that are not specified in the correction checklists for each permit type resulting in a real or perceived inconsistency between corrections provided by each plan check engineer for similar ro`ects. Recommendation B -6 - Initiate a review and update of the currently used correction checklists to include items that address the additional corrections that plan check engineers make on a regular basis. Findin B -E - There is inadequate information provided to the public regarding. which Augusc 3006 Ciry of Newport Beach Page 40 Evaluation of the City's Developmenr ReAew and Plan Checking Processes - � er_mits and activities are included in the various combination permits. Recommendation B -7 - Provide handouts at the counter and online that would inform the public specifically is7hich plans and permits are included in each of the combination permits and what the department is looking for in the plan check. Finding,B -F The use of outside plan check consultants creates some real or perceived coordination concerns. Recommendation B -8 - Reese Departmental procedures to include the following:. 1. Have the in -house Plan Check Engineer who performs the 'completeness check" check consultant attempt to answer the applicant's questions before referring them to the plan. ?. When an applicant is directly referred to the plan check consultant, the consultant should be notified by telephone or e -mail to expect the contact. 3. Advise the applicant to notify Cir)T staff if a prompt response is not received, from the -tan check consultant. Finding B' -G -The first round of review by outside plan check consultants is not thorough and as a result the time frame involved in a project's review is longer than necessary. Recommendation B -9 - City staff Plan Check Engineers and the plan check consultants should be advised of this concern as expressed by applicants and that they need to perform complete and more accurate plan checks the first time. The Deputy Building Official should initiate review procedures to ensure that this is occurring. Finding B_H - The Building Department is to be commended for having a process to review inspection area boundaries on a regular basis and to rotate inspectors between the various inspection areas. Recommendation B-10 - Formalize this process for reviewing inspection area boundaries and rotating inspectors between areas for inclusion in the Building Department Policy and Procedures Manual. Finding B -I Coordination of the plan checking function is inefficient for smaller project types, such as minor tenant improvements. Projects that could be approved over- the-counter are taken in for a more formal process thus creating a time delay chat is unnecessary. Recommendation B -11- This Finding and Recommendation is addressed in Finding P -8 -and Recommendation P -9 in the discussion of staffing for the Planning Department. Finding B -T The Building Department's Appointment Plan Check (APC) process does not expedite the applicant's time involved with their project, as intended for all projects, . because applicanti -still need to wait forapproval from other departments. Recommendation B -12 - The Department Directors from Building, Public Works, and Planning should designate staff to meet and to develop a process so the APC process functions as intended. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding PW -A The Public Works Department does not collect fees when meeting with private developers regarding project reviews and plan cheeks. As'a result, the cost of private development is borne by the public through the City's general fund August 2005 Liry of Newport Beach Page 41 Evaluation of the Qty s Development Review and Plan'Checking. Processes I Recommendation PVij -I -The preliminary project reviev'7 process for Public' Works should be maintained with the following changes: • Require submittal of an application along with a letter of request indicating `twat preliminary review input is being required. • Require a deposit to be submitted with the application and all staff time to be billed at the City's nonnal hourly rate. • Establish an hourly rate that is to be used. for billing against deposits submitted for the preliminary project review process.. • Incorporate the new fee into the most current fee schedule for Public Works. • Following the preliminary review meeting, provide a written sumtnary of comments to the applicant. Finding PW -B the Public Works Department is very efficient in routing and receiving comments from each of the Public Works Divisions. Recommendation PW -2 - Formalize this currently practiced procedure by including it in the Policy and Procedures Manual that is recommended to be, developed. Finding PW -C - The development of a Public Works Department Policy and Procedures Manual that memorializes the Department's plan :check practices and procedures, code interpretations, and administrative procedures in one location is essential for training, new staff and in ensuring that development applications are reviewed in a consistent, efficient, and effective maLer by all staff. Recommendation PW -3 - Immediately establish the format for a Public Works Department Policy and Procedures Manual and start preparing the policies and procedures. It is recognized that the development of the actual policies and procedures is a task that will take considerable time. Examples of items that should be in the Manual include: • Interpretation of Codes used by the Public Works. Department. • Establishment of standard procedures for plan and application review. • Departmental administrative matters such as how to create and close a case file, file management, how to fill out a time card, etc. The manual must have a procedure and requirement for periodic review and updating and be provided to every staff member for use and reference at their work station. Finding PW -D - When projects are submitted and routed to Public Works for plan check, departmental staff will review the plans even if the submittal is incomplete because they want to ensure that the target date is met. As a result, the time involved in the review rocess is increased due to the need for re- submittals and rechecks. Recommendation PW -4 The Permit Technicians in Building and the Planning counter staff should be trained to check for items needed for a more complete submittal. Finding PW -E - When a project needs to be reviewed by the Utilities Department, it involves sending plan sets offsite for Utilities Department to review, thus- creating an unnecessary time delay. Recommendation PW -5 - Assign counter duty responsibilities to Associate Engineers in the Public Works Department, They would be available at the August 2006. City of Newport Beach Page 42' Evaluation of the Gay's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes �v counter and work directly with technicians in the Buildina and Planning Departments during, the intake process upon call by Building andlor Planning Department. Counter duty should be rotated between associate Engineers of the Recommendation_PW -6 — Implement a new procedure where a staff member of the Utilities Department comes to City Hall on a weekly or bi- « %eekly basis to i -iew plans. August 2006 City of Nev,port Beach Page 43 Evaluation of the •Citys Development Review and Plan Checking; Processes. Attachment 2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Timeliness a. Completion of first round of plan check by all departments as follows: • Tenant Improvements 10 days • Quick Checks (pools, etc.) 2 weeks • Expedited 10 days (75% surcharge) • All Others 4 weeks b. Completion of re- checks as follows: Y Tenant Improvements 3:days • Quick Checks 3 days ■ All Others (including incomplete initial submittals) 1 week • Advise applicant if more time needed c. Phone calls returned within 24 hours 2. Courteous and friendly service, even when we have to say "no" 3. Review and comments /corrections coordinated among all departments before release to applicant 4. True "one-stop shop," including off -site departments 5. Customers are told how to prepare; and we accept; only complete applications 6. Development Services Team crosses department boundaries 7. Maximum use of technology (Permits Plus, internet ........;) 8. Developers pay full cost of improved service 9. Sufficient staff who are well- trained; up -to -date, and have opportunities for professional growth 10. Thresholds for expedited plan check 11. Equal access to Permits Plus for all departments 12. Coordination of CIP projects, including pre- application meeting ,l #1 Attachment 3 BRAINSTORMING IDEAS (By Performance Standard #) December 7; 2006 • Consideration of time required for field checks by departments • Required designer participation in plancheck • Rechecks by same person who did initial plancheck • Required pre- application meeting with applicant • Require applicant to complete some calculations e.g. building areas; open space • Time standards for rechecks • System for PW & Fire review of quick checks • Triage for plancheck submittal • Proper sequence for pre- application meetings e.g. Planning 1st or Building 1.5t • Code revisions • Applicant involvement appreciation for process • More Planning staff • Checklist narrative on expectations for applicants; architect, engineer, draftsman • Projects not requiring plancheck by all departments • Checklist for complete application with requirements of ALL departments • Pre -app. Phone review • "I'm on your side" (of the counter) • Application Intake Coordinator • Property- specific regulations checklist (electronic format) • Summary overview narrative of process on application • Additional sets of plans for submittal • "Litmus" test by department for questionable projects Following submitted after the meeting by Gregg Ramirez: • City Hall closed every other Friday. Everyone has same RDO • Submittal checklist has line next to each item where applicant indicates on which sheet that requirement can be found #'1 &4 • Coordinated records management #2 • Application "concierge "' and status boards • Supervisory support of staff especially with problem customers • Analysis of spatial needs • Photo I.D. • Next steps: (Trimble) a3 #3 o Staff task forces • Customer Service Employee of the Month with use of Sharon's parking space • Total technical & customer service training • Appropriate assignment of staff resources • Photo ID's of "Special Customers" • Photo ID's of "suck -up staff'— Russell's rule • Sequential review • Comments coordinator /comments coord. process • Consider plancheck process for City sponsored projects #3,5 &6 • Departmental cross- training #4 — One —:Stop Shopping' • Cashiers in Building /Planning — one location More counter space • Straight - forward procedure for sign -.offs on inspections card • Quality control on accuracy of improvements /utility locations • Counter Manager for one -stop shop (Planning /Building) • Inter - department meetings • Off -site departments to City Hall periodically • Permanent move of off -site departments to mobile home park @ City Hall • Empower & train City Hall staff to review on behalf of off- site departments, #5 #6 #7 • Open House • Electronic completeness checklist with mandatory fields to be completed • Regular face -to -face inter - department training • Annual training schedule • Work program for each department including scheduled training • Development Services Team trailer • Catered inter - department discussions • Discretionary project inter - department meetings • Fully utilize Permits Plus - modifications already available • Centralized data repository • Zoning /Building regulations in GIS • Utilize GIS information to automate applications completion • Internet Permitting au • Electronic applications • Electronic plan submittal • Building space for improved IT equipment e.g. larger monitor screens, enclose breezeway • Field trips for'fact- finding • Volume- driven changes • Interim space options • Evaluate utility /efficacy or permit data • Consider alternative to Permits Plus e.g. Internet -based • Review output of Permits Plus • Permits Plus training • Standards for data input • Detailed application locator e.g. who last had the,app. • Pre- approved contractors by -pass plancheck • Bar -code on plans • Automated plan I.D. label printer • Technology Committee • Color cop ierlscanner /printer • IT Coordinator in each department #10 — Performance Standards • Thresholds for expedited plancheck #11 #12 #13 • Equal access to Permits Plus • Standard for plancheck of discretionary Planning applications • Coordination of CIP projects including pre - application meeting a5 Attachment 4 Plan Check Monitoring Report Will be delivered on Friday, August 10, 2007 Attachment 4 r C N t U ro a+ Q V � V Ql a m � O Y a V W ju Z w O Z J ° N D d X ar 0 0 c X a) Q E. U O Q) 0 a c y O N O N N. U N a m CO 'N T a � a boo N U p Epp Or O N Q— @ c 3 d ur d s ° E A = .= 5 3 a3: CL O' 0 a) Z ti K F¢ z z' C .-. O `o a to -a w c a Z O= U (n C Q z z z 3. EC a06' aTu W G N U N c@ N N U, O v �eQ) v v L ¢ 5 LU C O �= tA".+ > E Cc U = a) a N N IA Y ay. O N T� �3 Tom' T� �3 z3 2aci� £ zmY �3 N W d' 0 W 7 E N'o a). �.{ �� m .2 ...N O 33 Z J po a c r co W lC' U1 4) N j.. c. a33 coo 'o °° 1.3 0) ada) W c N a) :Sa i s 3 3 0 2 3 3 d .-°'.. O 3 C 0. ry O v N CO . ,. o j r U O. v h -p U U y �. Y a c ` N O O: c0 O T o. tm UOa= N a U E��� o 3 U. m a o T a) c —2 E � 7 U y.. ¢ ,bl C 2` d "06 �N E N VI. (0 'O Oa Y m 0 0.0 (1: a N CI O@ a) @ a) C a 3 m�p¢� E 0 v it- x0Of F -C) c. a LL AD '`�. ':` m 0. m 0 O > v'. E .. W a m C YC= U V N O W T W a) @ d p v 0- a m n C G 0.0 C = 0 C Oo`) °.a:� CL �) UmN U y �, O LL 0 0 b aEiN.'m > N° = a 1p, C W o= `m ¢ S `0< 0.0 3 m c `O ° c¢ m 3.. E� m d m >O I. , @ 0o y rnLL c c c O;C c',m E O '.o � � o 0 V) v w 0 .V K.�� m Y E o 'c 0 ° c Q- W W W ) nd( Q EU) LL (Omd Y Y ya) C fD. ZWY N C-- .2 N U E N E d c U Y x m L aW� >o W > m U OU a LL Q ° N D d X ar 0 0 c X a) Q E. U O Q) 0 a c y O N O N N. U N a m CO 'N T a � a boo N U p Epp Or O N Q— @ c 3 d ur d s ° E A = .= 5 3 a3: CL O' 0 a) Z ti K F¢ z z' Attachment 6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS Three sets of identical plans, with the following information: General 1. 18" x 24" minimum, drawn in a commonly used scale (118 or 1/4 inch architectural, or 10 scale engineering) 2. Scale and north arrow on each page 3. Address of project, including building number; suite, room or unit number; and floor number for multi- story buildings; and legal description of property 4. Name, address, and phone number of owner 5. Name, address, phone number and signature of individual who prepared plans on each sheet 6. Complete and accurate description of work 7. Tenant name and occupancy classification(s) for building /tenant space(s) 8. Type of construction 9. Square footage of subject area. 10. Complete floor plan, with all room uses, labeled' 11. All dimensions, sizes, etc., necessary to review proposed project 12. Site plan showing disabled parking and accessible path of travel 13. Fully dimensioned parking lot plan, illustrating existing configuration and all proposed changes Building 1. Occupant load and number of required exits 2. Details for fire assemblies re: construction and installation 3. Furniture layout 4. Exit system(s) for entire floor, including corridors, stairs, exit signs, rated assemblies, door hardware etc. 5. Door and finish schedules 6. Bathrooms showing disabled access compliance T Electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans for area of work' Fire 1. Fire extinguisher type and location(s) 2. Fire protection plans (sprinkler system, alarm) for the building /tenant area(s) 3'. Areas where there is use; storage and /or handling of flammable, combustible, toxic, corrosive, oxidizing, explosive, or otherwise hazardous materials 4. Type, quantity; method of storage /use for hazardous materials 5. Location of medical gas , storage, piping, type and quantity, if used Planning 1. Zoning designation of the property 2. Parking summary and calculations for the site, including the parking requirements for the various uses on site, and the number of existing, new, and total proposed parking spaces provided 3. List of any current discretionary approvals received for the project (i_e. Use Permit; Development Plan Review, Coastal Development Permit. etc.) 4. Existing and proposed roof top mechanical equipment and screening apparatus on both the roof plan and elevations, including details illustrating how the equipment will be screened and will comply with the height limitations of the site. /� SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL & MIXED USE ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION Three sets of identical blueprints, with the following information: General- 1. 18" x 24" minimum, drawn in a commonly used scale (1/8 or 1/4 inch architectural, 10 scale engineering). 2. Scale and north arrow on each page 3. Address of project, and legal description of property 4. Name, address and phone number of owner 5. Name, ,address, phone number and signature of individual who prepared plans on each sheet 6. Proposed site plan showing: a property lines and dimensions, b. all proposed buildings and additions c. front /rear /side yard setbacks (required and proposed), and projections into setbacks, such as eaves, stairs, fireplace, etc. d. sidewalks, e. easements 7. Complete topographic survey by a California licensed surveyor including: a. elevations; b. bearings, distances, dimensions, monuments, lot corners, etc. c. ,property lines and dimensions, d.. all existing buildings e. front /rear /side yard setbacks (required and existing), and existing projections into setbacks, such as eaves, stairs, fireplace, etc. f. sidewalks, g. easements 8. All building elevations,, or elevations where changes are proposed, including existing and proposed roof top equipment and screening apparatus 9. Fully dimensioned floor plans showing uses of all rooms, proposed and existing portions including all doors and windows 10. Fully dimensioned parking layout designed per City Standard STD- 805 -L -A and STD- 805 -L -B, number of parking spaces and circulation plan 11. Location of trash enclosure(s), and details showing raised foundation with drain going to sewer system (if new), walls on three sides, gate(s), and cover 12. Proposed site walls and hardscape 13. Required and proposed landscaping Building 1. Grading plans showing property lines, elevations, adjacent street curb elevations and all easements 2. Foundation plans showing the proposed and existing foundation, and typical sections 0 i 3. Roof and floor framing plans indicating structural materials to be used and existing sizes as applicable (Example: Rafter 2" x 8" @ 16' O.C. Header 4" x 8. ;' 4. Structural sections and cross references where applicable 5. Material specifications, e.g., concrete: 2500 psi @ 28 days, rebar 40 ksi, grade of all lumber„ plywood, etc. 6. Conformance with State Energy Law 7. Disabled access features 8. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans Fire 1. Site plan showing all structures, openings to buildings, on -site hydrants, hydrants within 500 feet of property lines, fire access surface roadways, engineered alternative roadways, grade of all roadways, access to walkways, locations and types of gates (manual or electric). 2. Current water flow availability. 3. Complete fire flow guidelines B.01. 4. Fire access Planning 1. Zoning designation of the property 2. Permitted and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), existing, proposed and total gross floor area (as defined in NBMC 20.03.030), and total proposed Building Bulk (calculated 'in accordance with NBMC 20.63,060). A tissue overlay showing area dimensions and calculations for gross floor area and building bulk must be submitted for projects that are within 10 % of maximum allowed. 3. Parking requirement, summary and calculations for the various uses on site 4. Copies of any current discretionary approvals received for the project (e.g., Use Permit, Development Plan Review, Coastal Development Permit, etc).. 5. Roof plan showing property lines; worst case natural grade point below -- and elevation of -- roof ridges, midpoints and flat elements (deck finished floor heights, deck rail heights, top of roof top equipment, etc,); existing and proposed roof top mechanical equipment and screening apparatus including details illustrating how the equipment will be screened and comply with height limitations. Plan Checker may require that the topographic information and roof plan be shown on one plan sheet. 6. Photometric survey for entire site illustrating the locationof all existing and proposed light standards. Public Works The following information, with appropriate dimensions and spatial relationships to the project: 1. Street or alley centerlines, RAN lines,:striping /lane lines 2. Curb (both sides of the street), adjacent sidewalk and street trees, medians and turning movements 3. Street improvements such as catch basins fire hydrants; vaults, pullboxes, vents, streetlights, and traffic signals 4. Complete landscaping and irrigation plan when adjacent to driveways, roadways, and alleys. 5. Adjacent improvements that may affect design including driveways, entry walkways, sidewalks, signs, and landscaping 3o SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION Three sets of identical blueprints, with the following information: General 1. 18 ":x 24" minimum, drawn in a commonly used scale (1/8 or 1/4 inch architectural, 10 scale engineering) 2. Scale and north arrow on each page 3. Address of project, and legal description of property 4. Name, address and phone number of owner 5. Name, address, phone number and signature of individual who prepared plans on each sheet 6. Site plan showing size of property, property lines and dimensions, all buildings on the lot, property lines, front/rear/side yard setbacks (required, existing and proposed), sidewalks, easements, and projections into setbacks, such as eaves, stairs, fireplace, etc. 7. Elevation of all sides, or of sides where changes are proposed 8. For major remodels or new construction, complete topographic survey by a California licensed surveyor including elevations, bearings, distances, dimensions, monuments, lot corners, etc,. 9. Fully dimensioned, floor plans showing uses of all rooms including garages, and all doors and windows 10. Name, address and phone number of owner and architect Building 1. Grading plans showing property lines, elevations, adjacent street curb elevations and all easements 2. Foundation plans showing the proposed' and existing foundation, and typical sections 3. Roof and floor framing plans including structural materials to be used and existing sizes as applicable (Example: Rafter 2" x 8 "@ 16' O.C. Header 4 "x'8 ") 4. Structural sections with cross reference where applicable, including Full section through fireplace (if applicable) 5. Roof construction, pitch and materials to be used 6. Additional details as required, such as stairs, etc. 7. Heating system 8 Electrical outlets shown not more than 12' - 0" apart (measured along wall) and location of lights and switches 9. Material specifications, e.g., concrete 2500 psi @ 28 days rebar 40 ksi, grade of all lumber; plywood„ etc. 10. Conformance with State Energy Law Fire. 1. Fuel modification plan, if in Special Fire Protection Area 31 Planning 1. Existing and proposed number of units 2. 'Buildable area of the site per NBMC 20.03.030, and calculations 3. Maximum allowable, existing, and total proposed floor area. If the project is within 10% of the maximum allowable floor area, a tissue overlay showing area dimensions and calculations must be submitted. 4. Open space required and provided (if applicable) 5. Lot coverage (if applicable) 6. Parking spaces required and provided 7. Roof plan showing property lines; worst case natural grade point below -- and elevation of -- roof ridges, midpoints and flat elements (deck finished floor heights, deck rail heights, top of roof top equipment, etc.). If "imaginary" roof projections are being used, the projection must be shown and the midpoint elevation must be labeled. Plan Checker may require that the topographic information and roof plan be shown on one plan sheet. 8. List of any current discretionary approvals received for the project (i.e., Use Permit, Development Plan Review, Coastal Development Permit, etc.) 9. Any construction permitted by a Modification Permit labeled and clouded, and Modification Permit Approval Letter incorporated into the drawings Public Works The following information, with appropriate dimensions and spatial relationships to the project: 1. Street or alley centerlines and R/W 2. Adjacent curb, sidewalk, and street trees 3. Street improvements such as catch basins, fire hydrants, vaults, pullboxes, vents, streetlights. 4.' Landscaping when adjacent to driveways, roadways, and alleys. . 5. Adjacent improvements that may affect design including driveways, entry walkways, and sidewalks. ),-