HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Evaluation of Development Review, Plan Checking Processes & Planning Department StaffingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. SS2
September 26, 2006
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: Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes,
and Planning Department Staffing
ISSUE:
How should the City improve its service to customers in development review, plan
check and permit issuance?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Direct the City Manager to provide increased and more formal coordination
among the departments involved in development review and permit issuance,
and to implement recommendations of the "Evaluation of the Development
Review and Plan Checking Processes" report dated August 2006.
2. Direct staff to evaluate the nee d
greater detail and provide specific
DISCUSSION:
Background:
for additional Planning Department staff in
recommendations.
The development review, plan checking and permit issuance processes involve staff in
a number of departments. The Planning and Building Departments have the highest
level of involvement,; followed by Public Works, Fire, General Services and Utilities. The
City receives many compliments for the professionalism, commitment and helpfulness
of our staff. Unfortunately, in recent years we have also received complaints, primarily
in two areas: interdepartmental coordination and timeliness.
Four years ago, the: staff in all departments involved in the development review 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. Many
improvements were identified and implemented by this group, including simultaneous
review by all departments, a new Records Specialist position to manage the flow of
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 2
plans, and empowering Public Works to conduct simple reviews for General Services
and Utilities, all with the goal of completing the first plan check within 4 weeks of
submittal. Even with these improvements, we are not consistently able to meet our 4-
week goal, and the City Council and Manager continue to receive complaints.
The City retained Hogle- Ireland, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of the development
review and plan checking processes in January, and their report was completed in
August. This evaluation primarily addresses processes and procedures and how they
can be improved.
To a large extent, the timeliness problem is related to the very high volume of
development activity in the past several years. The Building Department has been able
to keep up with this volume with the use of outside plan check consultants as well as
increases in staff. The Planning Department, on the other hand, has not had success
with outside consultants because of the unique nature of Newport Beach's land use
regulations and the lack of consultants who provide this service. The Planning
Department has not increased staff to handle the increasing workload, as discussed
later in this report.
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
The report by Hogle- Ireland, Inc. (Attachment 1) provides findings and
recommendations in four areas: general, and with regard to the Planning, Building and
Public Works Departments.
Genera! Findings and Recommendations
The first general finding is that there is a lack of space for all staff and departments in
the development review and plan checking processes. The recommendation for this
finding is to move staff who do not need to be accessible to the public counter to an off -
site location and to remodel the public counter area so that it functions better and can
provide more conference and storage space. While staff agrees with this finding, we do
not recommend making any significant changes to the current facility until the City
Council makes a decision regarding a new City Hall.
Another general finding is that the City's 9180 work schedule makes it difficult for
customers to keep track of when particular staff members are working. This also results
in inefficiencies when a staff member who is not familiar with a project must take some
action when the primary staff person has a scheduled day off. The suggestion is that
the City consider closing City Hall on alternate Fridays so that all staff are present every
day that City Hall is open. Many other cities use this system, and residents and
customers become accustomed to it. Eliminating the uncertainty of whether a particular
staff member may be working on a Monday or Friday may be a sufficient benefit to the
public that they would accept City Hall closure on alternate Fridays. Staff believes that
this recommendation should be given further consideration.
9
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 3
The general recommendation to increase interdepartmental coordination is to establish
a Community Development Department consisting of at least the Planning and Building
Departments, with one director or administrator who would oversee both operations. I
have worked in Community Development Departments in two previous cities, and that
mode of organization worked very well. It may be less appropriate for Newport Beach,
where the complexity and volume of construction projects requires a person at the
director level to manage the building function. Newport Beach had a Community
Development Department many years ago, and converted to separate departments in
the late 1970's.
As an alternative to a Community Development Department, Hogle- Ireland
recommends regular meetings of the Planning, Building and Public Works Directors to
improve coordination. An outgrowth of the staff task force in 2002 was a group of
representatives from each department who meet as needed to improve and change
procedures. This approach has not been as successful as hoped because meetings
are not held regularly and because the level of staff from different departments varies.
Staff is recommending an approach between the two Hogle- Ireland recommendations,
that separate departments be maintained, and that an Assistant City Manager be given
the responsibility for oversight of the development review, plan checking and permit
issuance functions. The Assistant City Manager would meet regularly with the
Planning, Building and Public Works Directors, and include other directors and staff as
needed. This would ensure that management level staff stays involved in
interdepartmental coordination, and would provide the City Manager's influence to
resolve difficult issues. The first tasks for this group would be to implement the other
recommendations from the Hogle- Ireland report, with priority given to the following
general recommendations as well as to the departmental recommendations noted in the
following sections.
1. Develop procedures manuals for the Planning and Public Works Departments
(Building already has a manual).
2. Explore the use of project managers for major projects and/or the use of staff to
screen incoming applications to ensure they are complete before review begins.
This may require an additional staff position.
3. Make full use of Permits Plus so that information on corrections and project
status is available online from all departments.
4. Make up -to -date materials on application requirements and processes available
to the public.
5. Standardize plan check correction checklists to the maximum extent possible.
Planning Department Findings and Recommendations
Findings and recommendations specific to the Planning Department include increasing
staff. A staffing analysis was not part of Hogle- Ireland's scope of work, but their
observations during this study led them to suggest the addition of four positions.
Another noteworthy recommendation is to revise the Zoning Code, especially residential
3
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 4
height provisions, so that they can be more easily understood and administered. An
effort to revise the Zoning Code was begun last year, but we were unable to maintain
that effort at the same time that the General Plan and Local Coastal Program were
being done. Staff anticipates that a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Code will be
a high priority after the General Plan update is finally approved. The final Planning
recommendation to be highlighted is to formalize the Development Review Committee
(DRC) process, including charging a fee for this service. Staff agrees that a pre -
application fee should be charged after a certain amount of time is spent on a potential
application, and we will include such a fee in the updated fee schedule for all City
services that is being developed through the Administrative Services Department.
However, our DRC review occurs at the very early stages of project development and
does not require significant staff time. In addition, this is a service that was begun
several years ago to improve customer service and provide information to applicants as
early as possible. Property owners find the DRC very helpful and it is one of things
about Newport Beach's process that is often complimented. Therefore, staff
recommends no change to the DRC process.
Building Department Findings and Recommendations
The most significant finding and recommendation that applies only to the Building
Department pertains to the use of outside plan check consultants. While this is the only
way for the Building Department to keep up with the workload, there are concerns that
the first review by outside plan checkers is not thorough, which results in a longer
overall review time for projects. The recommendation is to initiate procedures to review
the work of these consultants. The Building Department does conduct some reviews
and has terminated agreements with consultants who are not found to be doing an
adequate job. Staff agrees that a more formal review process should improve the
quality of outside reviews.
Public Works Department Findings and Recommendations
The Public Works Department seems to spend more time with applicants in the pre -
application phase than other departments, so the recommendation for a pre - application
procedure and fee is especially important for this department. The other
recommendation in this area involves coordination with the Utilities Department, and
may apply to General Services as well. One of the changes instituted by staff four
years ago was for the Public Works Department to review routine matters for the other
two departments, and this has resulted in time savings. But when plans must be routed
to the off -site departments, time is lost in the transition, if the appropriate staff member
is not in, or if the appropriate staff member has other priorities or isn't immediately
aware that a plan is awaiting review. The recommendation is for the off -site staff to
spend time at the permit counter on a weekly or bi- weekly basis. This would provide
time devoted to development review when needed; if there are no projects needing
review, the off -site staff would not need to come to City Hall.
E
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 5
Planning Department Staffing
The Planning Department is organized into four sections: Current Planning, Plan
Check/Zoning Administrator, Advance Planning and Economic Development. The first
two sections, which are responsible for development review and plan checking, have
been overwhelmed by increasing workload. Building permit valuation in Newport Beach
has increased by 34% from 2000 -01 to 2005 -06, and was over $300 million in 2005 -06.
The Current Planning and/or Plan Check/Zoning Administrator staff play a role in the
issuance of all these permits.
We have taken a number of small steps to address the increase in workload, trying to
avoid significant increases in staff for what we thought was a peak in development
activity that would not continue. Figure 1 shows the change in staffing since 1991.
Since 2000 -01, Current Planning staff was increased by 20% and our use of overtime
has increased by nearly 70% and our use of consultants by 50 %. Overtime and
consultant hours together amount to approximately .5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff.
Even with these extra hours, staff cannot bring applications to public hearing as quickly
as property owners would like. If so many of the projects did not involve legislative acts,
the City would likely not be able to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and could
risk having applications approved by operation of law without full City review. Plan
Check/Zoning Administrator staff was increased by 9% and their overtime increased by
nearly 40 %. We have also attempted to use consultants for plan check, with mixed
success. After a training period, one consulting staff person was productive for several
months, but wished to move on to other areas of planning, and we have not been able
to replace him with consulting staff. When the City's 4 -week goal for first review of
plans is not met, it is generally the Planning Department that is behind. Planning is
currently missing the 4-week goal on 22% of applications.
In addition to not keeping up with development activity, we have not been able to
accomplish many other important things, listed below. Some of these items are among
the recommendations in the Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking
Processes, discussed earlier in this report.
• Regular review and update of codes, policies and regulations to reflect changes in
California Law
• Review and update Zoning Code to address problems and community concerns
• Regular update informational handouts
• Proactively monitor past discretionary approvals, especially annual review of
Development Agreements
• Respond to zoning amendments requested by City Council
• Regularly review and update local CEQA guidelines
• Implement the Housing Element
• Improve interdepartmental coordination
5
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 6
Improve Department administration (e.g. regular staffing analysis; fee updates for
development review, park dedication, etc.; manuals for administrative procedures
and Zoning Code interpretation
Provide staff training
Implement document imaging
Plan Check/Zoning Administrator
This is the section of the Planning Department that is commonly referred to as "plan
check," but the five staff members in this section perform many other functions. In fact,
plan check activities use only about 40% of the staff time in this section. The next
largest consumer of staff time is customer service, which uses 33% of the staff hours in
this section. This function includes telephone calls and visits to the counter by property
owners or architects asking questions about the Zoning Code, application requirements
and procedures, application status, etc. Approximately 20% of staff time is devoted to
the Zoning Administrator function, including modification permits, condominium
conversions, parcel maps, Planning Director use permits, etc. The remaining staff time
is used on approvals in concept (for Coastal Commission permits), addressing changes,
telecommunication permits, etc.
Analysis of the workload in this section shows that the volume of some applications has
remained fairly constant over the past six years,. while others. have increased
dramatically.
Plan check applications have increased by about 7 %, although the number of reviews
for plan check applications (the number of times a Planner handles a project) has
increased by about 84 %, reflecting the increasing complexity of projects, applicants'
desires to maximize use of their properties, staffs review of additional detail and
additional caution since discovering fraud in some applications a few years ago, and the
submittal of incomplete applications by design professionals who are overwhelmed with
work and want to tell clients that an application has been submitted to the City. This is
illustrated in Figure 2, which shows a sharp increase in reviews while the number of
plan check applications increased only slightly.
The most dramatic increase in number of applications is in those reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator. Although modification permits have remained steady at an
average of 115 per year, other applications have increased by 165% since 2000 -01
(See Figure 3).
Current Planning
This section of the Department, with three staff members, prepares all applications for
review by the Planning Commission, and City Council if needed. The majority of staff
time is spent on application review and processing, including research, environmental
review, consultant selection and management, coordination with Public Works and other
departments, meetings with applicants, staff report preparation and attendance at
0
Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes, and
Planning Department Staffing
June 13, 2006
Page 7
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. As with the plan check section,
considerable time is also spent on customer service, with potential applicants for larger,
more complicated projects learning what approvals are needed, how projects may be
changed to comply with City codes, and application requirements and timing.
The workload and the complexity of projects in this section have also increased since
2001 -02. The number of projects reviewed increased by 14 %, while the number of
applications increased by 33% (See Figure 4). The increase in applications is more
than double the increase in projects, which reflects the greater complexity of cases
coming before the City.
Conclusion
The Evaluation of the Development review and Plan Checking Processes provides
many good suggestions on how the City of Newport Beach can improve our processes
and provide better, more efficient service to our customers. Two key elements are
needed to fully implement these recommendations: interdepartmental coordination and
adequate staffing. The City Manager's Office is prepared to take the lead on
coordination. The Building Department has increased staff as the workload increased,
and additional staff was added to the Public Works Department in the 2006 -07 budget.
With City Council direction, staff will provide a more detailed analysis and
recommendations for staffing in the Planning Department, which has not increased staff
to keep up with its workload.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOO
Assistant City MOdger
Attachments: 1. Evaluation of the Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
2. Figure 1, Staffing Levels by Function
3. Figure 2, Plan Reviews & Plan Checks
4. Figure 3, Modifications/Zoning Administrator Actions
5. Planning Project Complexity
7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
EVALUATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
.le
PLAN CHECKING PROCESSES
August 2006
Study conducted by:
Hogle- Ireland, Inc.
2860 Michelle Dr. Suite 100
Irvine, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I
Introduction and Summary of Findings ..... ...............................
1
IIMethodology
............................................... ...............................
6
III
General Findings and Recommendations .... ...............................
8
IV
Planning Department Findings and Recommendations ...............
17
V
Building Department Findings and Recommendations ...............
24
VI
Public Works Department Findings and Recommendations ........
31
VII
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ...............................
35
VIIIAppendices
................................................. ....................... I..........
44
O
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study evaluated the City of Newport Beach's process for reviewing development
applications and plan checking. The objective was to make recommendations to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the review processes. The study evaluated
staffs roles and responsibilities , inter - departmental coordination, information accessible
by the public, submittal processes and requirements, workflow documentation, use of
outside technical consultants, and timelines for processing applications. The evaluation
reviewed the processes and responsibilities of Planning, Public Works, Building, Fire,
and all other departments and agencies involved in the development application and plan
checking review processes.
The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on information
gathered from the following components of this study:
• An in -depth review and analysis of the City applications, processes, and operating
procedures, and
• Interviews with City staff and clientele of the City (i.e. developers, architects,
engineers).
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND PLAN CHECKING
RESPONSIBILITIES
The responsibilities for coordinating and processing development applications are
primarily assigned to three Departments:
1. Planning Department
2. Building Department
3. Public Works Department
Additional input is received from the Fire Department and other departments, divisions,
and agencies of the City.
Planning Department
The Planning Department has the primary responsibility for processing all planning and
land use applications related to the General Plan and Zoning Code. Examples include
General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Use Permits, Variances, and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental studies, documents and actions.
The Planning Department also reviews building and other development permit
applications for consistency with the Zoning Code.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 1
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
10
Building Department
The Building Department is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the
Uniform Codes and related federal, State, and City adopted laws and ordinances that are
primarily related to buildings and structures constructed on private property. This is
accomplished through the permitting and inspection processes involving plan review
(plan check), permit. issuance, and field inspections.
The Building Department also participates in the review processes of development
applications initiated and coordinated by the Planning and Public Works Departments.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department is primarily responsible for the permitting processes
related to the maintenance and improvement of facilities such as publicly owned streets,
storm drains, traffic signals, and similar facilities.
The Public Works Department also participates in the review processes of development
applications initiated and coordinated by the Planning and Building Departments.
FINDINGS
Findings are conclusions reached after reviewing the information obtained from the
study and are expressed in general terms which then are used to develop specific
recommendations for implementation.
Findings of the study are presented for the following four functional areas:
1. General Findings - these are findings that relate to the overall
development process and not specific to individual departments or
divisions.
2. Planning Department
3. Building Department
4. Public Works Department
A detailed discussion of. the Findings along with Recommendations addressing each
Finding is provided in the main body of this report.
General Findings
G -A. 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, their jobs, and to the
provision of a high quality service to the residents and clients of the City.
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 quality and
August 2006 City of Newport Beach
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
efficient level of service and limits the actions that can be easily
implemented to improve the development application processes.
G -C. There is a general lack of coordination related to codes and the
development review and plan checking processes between departments.
G -D. No one in the three major departments responsible for elements of the
development application processing activities functions as "project
manager ". A '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 City processes.
G -E. 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.
G -F. There is a lack of easily accessible and up -to -date information at the
public counter area describing the various permits and application
processes.
G -G. The websites for the City Departments lack cohesiveness and consistency.
G -H. The City's 9/80 schedule makes it difficult for customers to keep track of
when particular staff members are working.
Planning Department Findings
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:
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 persons submitting development applications.
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.
P -D. Planning handout materials should be reviewed for inconsistencies and
inaccuracies and new materials should be developed to explain all of the
commonly used planning applications and processes.
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.
P -F. The existing Development Review Committee (DRC) process should be
formalized 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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 3
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes _
11
P -G. There are administrative processes within the Planning Department that
can be initiated to assist in making the development review processes
more effective and efficient.
Building Department Findings
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.
B -B. The Building Department is to be commended for providing a user -
friendly Plan Review Procedure Work Flow User Manual which
discusses and provides information on the City's plan review processes.
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.
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 projects.
B -E. There'. is inadequate information provided to the public regarding which
permits and activities are included in the various combination permits.
B -F. The use of outside plan check consultants creates some real'or perceived
coordination concerns.
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.
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
irispeetors between the various inspection areas.
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 that is unnecessary. .
B -J. The Building Department's Appointment Plan Check (APQ process does
not expedite the applicant's time involved with their project, as intended
for all projects, because applicants still need to wait for approval from
other departments.
Public Works Department Findings
PW -A. The Public Works Department does not collect fees when meeting with
private developers regarding project reviews and plan checks. As a result,
the cost of private development is borne by the public through the City's
general fund.
PW -B. The Public Works Department is very efficient in routing and receiving
comments from each of the Public Works Divisions.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 4
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
13
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 manner by all staff.
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 process is increased due to the need
for re- submittals and rechecks.
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.
August 2006 City of Newport: Beach Page 5
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
Iq
SECTION II
METHODOLOGY
The project team obtained information regarding the City development review processes
utilizing five primary sources:
• The use of a written questionnaire distributed to all staff within the Planning,
Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments who are directly involved in the
development review and plan checking processes.
• Interviews with Department heads, management staff, and other key staff
directly involved in the development review and plan checking processes.
• On -site observations of the processes and procedures.
• Interviews with architects, permit processors, and others who submit
development applications or process development plans and applications
through the City.
• The review of the development application review and plan checking processes of
other cities.
Written Questionnaire
Project kick -off meetings were held with City staff to. explain the purpose of the study
and to distribute a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked a wide range of questions
about the development review and plan checking processes and asked for suggestions on
how to improve the processes. Staff was asked to complete the questionnaire and to mail
it back to the project team in a self addressed stamped envelope in order to maintain
confidentiality.
The comments and suggestions received from the questionnaires were used by the
project team to focus their work efforts.
City Staff Interviews
Department heads, key management staff, and others involved in the development review
and plan checking processes were interviewed. Through these interviews, the project
team obtained an overview of the processes and was able to discuss and explore existing
systems and processes.
On -Site Observations
Project team members spent time at City Hall observing operations.
Client Interviews
Interviews were conducted with architects, permit processors, planners, and others who
have recently processed applications and projects through the City. These individuals
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 6
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
15
were asked to discuss their experiences with the City processes, any problems they may
have experienced, and to make any suggestions they may have to improve the processes.
Other City's Processes
The development review and plan checking processes of three jurisdictions in Southern
California were reviewed to determine whether elements of their processes could be
utilized by the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, the project team considered those
processes of other cities they were familiar with.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 7
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
SECTION III
GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The General Findings are those findings that relate to the overall development review
and plan checking processes and not specific to individual departments or divisions.
Finding G -A - 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, their jobs, and to the provision of a high quality service
to the residents and clients of the City.
Discussion: The project team found the City staff to be very cooperative in explaining the
existing processes and in making suggestions for improvement. This was also borne out
in the interviews with clients of the City. Although the clients described concerns and
problems they had experienced with the City processes, they were unanimous in
expressing their high regard for the professionalism of the City staff especially with their
ability to work in extremely crowded conditions.
The project team found this attitude to be very refreshing and somewhat unusual as
opposed to the 'typical" government employee attitude found in many jurisdictions.
Finding 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 quality and efficient level of service and
limits the actions . that can be easily implemented to improve the development
application processes.
Discussion: As it relates to the development review and plan checking processes and the
City Departments and staff that handle these processes, there is a severe lack of adequate
work space. This directly impacts two service areas:
Public areas including the counter.
Staff work spaces away from the counter.
The public counter and public space in front of the counter is entirely inadequate for a
City with the workload of the City of Newport Beach. An adequately functioning public
counter area to accommodate development related activities and staff for Planning,
Building, and Public Works is an important element in any well functioning processing
operation. The public counter area should include the following elements:
Length adequate to support Planning, Building, and Public Works. The present
counter really does not provide any work space for the Public Works Department
and there is not adequate work space to accommodate more than one planning
staff member. A rough estimate of the length of a public counter to support the
City of Newport Beach activity is two to three times the length of the present
counter.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 6
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
17
• A width/depth adequate to handle the typical set of building plans so that they
can be reviewed at the counter.
• Adequate work stations behind the counter and immediately accessible to the
counter to accommodate three or more staff from each of the three departments.
• Space for public handout materials and applications.
• Space for plan storage after the intake process or for plans ready to be picked up
by applicants.
• Several conference areas for the more in -depth review of applications and
development plans.
There is not adequate space available in the existing building the way it is presently
configured to accommodate a properly functioning public counter.
Staff areas away from the counter are very crowded and inefficient. Many offices do not
have adequate space to unroll and review development plans and to store plans and
reference materials. There is not adequate space for the additional staff that is necessary
to adequately handle the existing work load Conference and meeting rooms are not of
adequate size and in the proper locations to appropriately respond to needs. Handicap
accessibility to the second floor above the public counter area is a potential issue.
These space constraints at the public counter and in the staff work areas are well known
and are being taken into account in planning for a potential new City Hall or expansion
of the existing facility. Unfortunately, without adequate space for the Planning,
Building, and Public Works Departments and the public counter area, many of the more
innovative systems and operations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
development review and plan checking processes cannot be implemented. An example is
the implementation of a 'one stop shop' where the public can obtain all information and
permits relating to development at one location. Many examples of effective and
efficient public counter areas exist in Orange County cities.
Recommendation G -1 - 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 that
typically has little need to be at the public counter. In addition to providing the
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 functioning
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
inventorying of plans and reports, but it.will provide for much needed additional work
space at the staff work stations.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 9
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
12
Recommendation G -3 - Identify a day 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 work spaces neater and better organized. In addition to making additional space
available, the work areas will look more professional and conducive to an efficient
operation.
Finding G -C - There is a general lack of coordination related to codes and the
development review and plan checking processes between departments.
Discussion: This general lack of coordination appears to be primarily between the
Building and Planning Departments and manifests itself in various ways that is confusing
and disruptive to both staff and the clients of the City. As an example, the Building
Department apparently learned six - months after it occurred that the Planning
Department amended its setbacks regarding barbeques and outdoor fireplaces. Having
no knowledge of the new code provisions, the Building Department continued approving
barbeques and outdoor fireplaces based on the previous ordinance, thereby making them
in violation of the Zoning Code.
The reviewing departments do not act in unison and each department's approval policies
are different. For example as previously discussed in conjunction with the Permits Plus
database, the Public Works Department directly enters their plan check corrections into
the City's electronic system (Permits Plus for all .Departments to review), the Building
Department attaches their comments in PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format), and
the Planning Department fails to do either. The Planning Department usually makes
their corrections on the plans and then communicates their corrections back to the
customer. Clients of the City who process plans and applications through the City
processes have expressed this as an example of the lack of coordination within the City
organization.
Another example is the disparity of number of staff working the public counter between
the Building and Planning Departments. The Building Department appears to be
adequately, staffed at the public counter while the Planning Department is severely
understaffed. This results, in delays in receiving approvals for building permits that
typically would be issued over the counter.
The Building Department has generally met its goal of a four week maximum time period
for the review of building plans by extensively utilizing outside plan check consultants.
The Public Works .and Fire Departments are also able to meet the four week goal.
However, because of inadequate staffing levels, the Planning Department regularly turns
around plan reviews in eight to nine weeks. This again creates frustration for both the
clients of the City as well as for staff. Although the use of outside plan check consultants
by the Building Department is an excellent way to respond to a high work load level,
clients of the Citywho process building permits have expressed concerns that the
pressure placed onthe outside plan check consultants to quickly turn around plan
checks has resulted in incomplete plan checks.
August 2008 City of Newport Beach Page 10
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
W
These and other similar situations are viewed by the clients of the City as being "proof of
the common view of City workers and processes as being inefficient and uncoordinated
There is no one thing that causes this lack of coordination as described, but it is founded
in:
The lack of communication between departments at the management as well as
general staff levels.
A lack of understanding of all of the functions and processes of the various
departments involved in the development review and plan checking processes.
The lack of budget resources for the Planning Department to engage adequate
staffing or consultant services.
It is virtually impossible to identify any specific reason for this issue of lack of
coordination. However, it is not uncommon within city and county organizations and is
the primary reason many jurisdictions have restructured the traditional departmental
organizational structure of separate Building and Planning Departments into what is
commonly called a Community Development Department. Although these Community
Development Department organizations take many forms depending upon the specific
needs and culture of the jurisdiction, they typically include the Planning and Building
Departments. Some jurisdictions have also placed the subdivision and plan review and
permitting portions of the Public Works Department in the Community Development
Department.
The advantage to the Community Development Department organization is that the
individual elements of the Department are under one Director who provides
administrative directions and mandates coordination and communication between the
various functioning sub departments or divisions. This type of organizational structure
has proven successful for numerous cities and counties and over time, has changed the
entire attitude and functioning of an organization. Just initiating the action to create a
Community Development Department does not increase coordination and change the
existing culture of the organization and operating departments. It requires a person to
head up the Department who has highly developed administrative and management
skills and who has clearly been given the authority and responsibility for implementing
the department consolidation.
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 -S- As an alternative and interim measure to Recommendation G -4
noted above, increase coordination between 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 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 11
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
0
Finding G -D - No one in the three major departments responsible for elements of the
development application processing activities functions as 'project manager ". A'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 City review processes.
Discussion: Applications for development processes and development plans for review are
typically submitted to one of the following three departments:
• Planning - responsible for projects and applications related to the General Plan
and Zoning Code. Examples include General Plan Amendments, Zone changes,
variances, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental
studies, documents and actions. The Planning Department accepts the
applications for these types of projects and routes the applications, documents,
and plans to the other City Departments and Divisions for review and comment.
After completion of the internal review, the comments are returned to the
applicant who makes the required corrections and revisions and resubmits the
materials to the City for re- review. This process continues until the City is
satisfied that the project is in compliance with City codes and policies. The
Planning Department then takes the project through the required processes and
public hearings required for final review and approval.
• Building - responsible primarily for plan checking and permit issuance for
buildings and structures on private property. Following permit issuance, field
inspections are made to ensure that construction is done in conformance with the
approved plans. When applications and plans are submitted that require input
and review by other City Departments such as Planning, Public Works, and Fire,
the plans are routed to those Departments for review for conformance with the
codes and standards within their responsibilities.
The plans along with the corrections from the various City Departments are then
returned to the applicant so that revisions can be made. The revised plans are
resubmitted to Building and if necessary, are also re- routed to the original
reviewing Department for re- review.
• Public Works - primarily responsible for the . permitting processes and
inspections related to the maintenance and improvement of facilities such as
public owned streets, storm drains, traffic signals, and similar facilities. The plan
checking process is basically the same as that described for Building above.
As described above; these processes for reviewing applications and plans sound quite
straight forward; however, there are many complications and areas where delays and
inconsistencies can and will occur that frustrate both staff and the applicants. These can
be categorized into three general areas:
1.. Excessive review times
2. Conflicting corrections and comments
2006 City of Newport Beach Page 12
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
91
3. Incomplete reviews
Excessive review times - the City has established a standard of completing reviews by
the individual Departments within a four week period. However, this standard is not
uniformly complied with due to staffing levels. It apparently is not unusual for Planning
to take eight or nine weeks to review plans routed to them from Building. The staffing
for the Planning Department is discussed in the Planning section of this report.
It has been our experience that a turn around time of two or three weeks should be
adequate for all except the most complicated projects. This assumes adequate staffing
levels. It is not recommended that the City consider reducing the four week turn around
time until the present four week standard is able to be met.
Conflicting corrections and comments - as an example, consider a project submitted for
plan check to the Building Department and routed to Planning, Public Works, Fire, and
Police for comments. Each of these Departments reviews the plans and develops a
correction list that is returned to the applicant. However, these various correction lists
are not reviewed by any one person for consistency and possible conflicting corrections.
Several clients of the City stated that they have received conflicting corrections that took
additional time to resolve prior to permit issuance.
This problem of conflicting corrections is compounded by the inability of Planning to
meet the four week turn around tithes. In the example discussed above, Building will
return the corrections received from Public Works, Fire, and Police along with the
Building corrections to the applicant prior to receiving the corrections from Planning.
The applicant will then typically start making the corrections and changes to the plans.
When the corrections are received from Planning four or five weeks later, there may be
major corrections relating to Zoning and land use that require significant revisions to the
proposed project. However, the applicant has already spent time and expense making
the other Department's corrections.
Incomplete reviews - this is a very common problem experienced in many cities. The
City of Newport Beach is not unique in this problem. It is anticipated that when the
Departments review a project, their corrections and comments will be complete and
address all of their, concerns. However, it is not uncommon for subsequent reviews to
bring up new corrections or concerns that should have been made the first time. This is
extremely frustrating to persons submitting applications and plans to -the City and
results in increased costs and time delays.
This issue was identified by staff and applicants as being a problem related to all
departments of the City.
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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach page 13
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
z
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 review on
schedule.
• Review 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 acrually 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 Manage; 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 -B— Please see Recommendation PW -4 on page 32, which will help
decrease and address customers' and clients' concerns regarding incomplete reviews.
Findin5Z G -E -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.
Discussion: Applicants are able to access plan check corrections through a link on
Newport Beach Building Department's webpage. However, corrections from each
department are not: provided in a consistent manner. The Building Department uses
"Office Link" to attach correction lists into the system, the Planning Department redlines
corrections onto the hard copy and does not enter the corrections electronically, while
Public Works types their corrections directly into Permits Plus. When each department
has different procedures for using the database, there are conflicts concerning delivery of
information to the applicant via Permits Plus. The information available to the public is
not complete. The public perceives this as a lack of coordination between the
departments.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 14
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
A3
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 to the Permits
Plus system. These procedures should be formalized into a document shared by all
departments and placed in each department's procedures manual. This recommendation
would be easy to incorporate into each department's procedures and can be implemented
quickly.
Findint G -F - There is a lack of easily accessible and up -to -date information at the
public counter area describing the various permits and application processes.
Discussion: It is important to have as much information related to development
applications, processes, and submittal requirements available and easily accessible to the
public as possible. Doing so will substantially decrease City staff time spent with each
individual customer to repeatedly provide the same information. Brochures, pamphlets,
and other various forms should be created and constantly revised to address some
general questions that the public may have. In addition to saving time for City staff, the
public will feel like the City is devoted to providing them with excellent customer
service.
Information that is presently available is located at the far end of the permit counter and
is not clearly identified or strategically located for easy visibility. Concern with the lack
of availability of appropriate and up -to -date materials was expressed by both staff and
clients of the City. As an example, the Permit Process Series of pamphlets are dated
September 1&, 2001 and contain inaccurate information.
Recommendation G -10 - Each department should assign the responsibility 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, what is required from the
applicant for an application to be deemed complete, and the time frame involved with 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 annually.
Findine G -G - The websites for the City Departments lack cohesiveness and
consistency.
Discussion: jurisdictions now use the internet as an additional resource to provide helpful
information to the public and the public is becoming more used to assessing information
via the internet. It saves both the public and the City time with fewer customers calling
and coming into City Hall for general inquiries. Presentation of the City's webpage is
important, as it is sometimes the first way some customers come into contact with the
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 15
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
gy
departments. A well- organized webpage that is consistent across all departments
portrays cooperation between the departments.
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 format 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 webpages 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.
Discussion: Currently, the City has adopted a 9/80 schedule in which staff members
alternate their Fridays off. The current schedule ensures that City Hall is open five (5)
days a week, with each Friday operating at half the staff level. However, because some
staff members opt to take Mondays off rather than Fridays, the result is only three
working days in which City Hall is fully staffed. The limited amount of days that a
customer is able to contact staff can make it frustrating for the customers.
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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 16
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
RM
SECTION IV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
These Findings and Recommendations relate primarily to the Planning Department.
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.
Discussion: The Building Department has several Permit Technicians assisting the public
at the public counter most of the time. The Planning Department has one Planning
Technician assisting the public at the public counter. In addition to general counter
duties, the Planning Technician answers the telephone, approves over the counter
permits and coordinates planning approvals with the Building permit counter. Because
of the Planning Technician's multiple duties, the wait time for service from the Planning
Department is longer than for Building Department which has several Permit
Technicians at the counter. By the time the customers receive service from the Planning
staff, they are frustrated from the long wait. An additional person assigned to the
planning counter is necessary.
The Planning Department's inability to review plans within the standard time period
established by the City was briefly discussed in the discussion of Finding G -C earlier in
this report. Although there are many factors contributing to this problem, the primary
one is the lack of planning staff. Although it is difficult to quantify the number of
additional staff required, a reasonable estimate based upon our observations and
experience would be three additional Planner positions in addition to the additional
person assigned to the public counter.
Although we firmly believe that additional planning staff is necessary, we also recognize
the serious problem of inadequate work space. This was discussed in Finding G -B.
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.
Recommendation P -2- 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
long 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
Augusc 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 17
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
Z
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 swimming
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 process and "clogging" up the
system.
Finding - The; City Codes (Zoning) are complicated and extremely difficult to
interpret and explain to the public resulting in confusion and frustration for those
persons submitting development applications.
Discussion: The Zoning Code is confusing and difficult to interpret resulting in a plan
check process that is too long and inefficient. An example is the height provision of the
Code for residential buildings. The height calculation is a multi -step process that is time
consuming, cumbersome and complicated for both applicants and staff. When
conducting a plan check, the planners spend a significant amount of their time figuring
out if the proposed structure is in compliance with the building height requirements.
This is a problem mentioned by every architect interviewed in conjunction with this
study and by staff 'as being a major hindrance to the plan checking and permitting
process.
Similar to the City.of Newport Beach, the County of Santa Barbara's building height
regulation confused its customers and staff. Therefore, the County changed their
building height from complex calculations to using an overall building envelope. The
building must fit entirely within the envelope thereby ensuring that height calculations
are not manipulated and all projects receive consistent treatment. The revised height
definition uses pre - defined building heights by zoning district. Their definition does not
penalize buildings that follow slope contours and eliminates any ambiguities associated
with architectural projections.
The Zoning Code requires extensive updates and revisions to address and resolve this
and other concerns. It is our understanding that once the General Plan update process
that is presently underway is completed, a complete update of the Zoning Code will be
undertaken. However, this is a process that typically takes between one and two years.
It may be beneficial for the City to immediately implement a revision to the Zoning Code
to address the building height issue and any other issue of similar importance and
concern.
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
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 18
Evaluation of the Cicy's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
0,1
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 with 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 requirements with
the goal of simplifying and expediting the process.
Finder 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.
Discussion The Planning Department utilizes multiple applications instead of one master
planning application. The applications are not simple to use and understand and contain
technical terms and references that are not easily understood by the applicants.
Completing the applications by the public requires that they have knowledge of the code
requirements. This leads to many unnecessary questions to the planning counter staff.
As an example, the Modification Application and the general Planning Application
require that the applicant know the applicable setbacks, building height, parking
requirements and open -space requirements. The average applicant is generally unaware
of this information and must either ask the permit technician for assistance or seek the
information elsewhere. Moreover, the application requires a Findings section and directs
the applicant to relate the Findings to their request. Generally, these terms are confusing
and unfamiliar to the public. The customer winds up needing to ask staff questions,
adding additional time to the application process.
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, along with a checklist of the required
submittal items. The application language should be written in easy to understand
language limiting the use of professional planning terminology.
Finding P -D - Planning handout materials should be reviewed for inconsistencies and
inaccuracies and new materials should be developed to explain all of the commonly used
planning applications and processes.
Discussion: The existing Permit Process Series are informational handouts that are
available at the public counter. While the overall format and structure is helpful, the
content needs updating to reflect current information. As an example, the Modification
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 19
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
�8
Permit pamphlet incorrectly states that the Modifications Committee consists of three
staff members from Planning, Building, and Public Works, when in fact the Zoning
Administrator alone has replaced the Committee. The Public Works and Building
Department will conduct reviews to ensure that the project complies with Public Works
and Building related issues, but the Modification Permit process is primarily the Zoning
Administrator's responsibility. Moreover, simple items such as the fees, meeting dates
and times need to be accurate.
Handout materials explaining all of the commonly used planning approvals and
processes should be developed and be available at the public counter. The availability of
handouts reduces the time counter staff has to spend with applicants and assists the
applicants in making complete submittals.
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 understands 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.
Discussion: Planning Department policies, procedures, and administrative interpretations
of Zoning Code provisions are not consistently set in writing in a standardized format
and made available to all staff at their individual working areas. A policy and procedures
manual is an important resource for both new and existing staff.
The Building Department has a Policy and Procedures Manual that is kept up -to -date
and is available for the use of all staff. The Building Department Manual can serve as an
example of a format that can be used by the Planning Department.
The provision of an up -to -date Policy and Procedures Manual is a key element in a well
functioning Planning Department. The Manual should provide those policies and
procedures that are unique to the operation of the Planning Department and should not
contain general City policies and procedures.
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 how 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
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 20'
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
i ,
format to use for reports 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
formalized 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.
Discussion The use of the DRC is a voluntary process through which the applicant can
receive informal, preliminary comments on their proposed project. There is no fee for
this service. It is an informal meeting between the applicant and a representative from
the various City departments during which the City staff provides comments on the
project. Written comments are not provided The applicant then makes any necessary
revisions to the project and submits a formal application along with the required fees for
processing.
Variations of this process are used by many cities and if properly utilized, can result in
projects that more closely meet City requirements at the time of official submission and
saves time for both the applicant and staff. However, it is very unusual to provide this
preliminary project review service to applicants at no cost. Projects submitted for DRC
review are development projects and should pay their own way without being
subsidized by the general funds of the City.
The existing informal, no cost process appears to be a service that is seen as a benefit by
both the applicant and staff. However, sometimes applicants will request that their
project go through the DRC process multiple times. This is very time consuming for
staff As an alternative to eliminating the informal, no cost DRC process, an applicant
could be allowed to use the existing process one time per project with additional reviews
being required to utilize a more formal process that includes the payment of fees to
recover City costs.
Cities commonly have a Preliminary Project submittal process through which an
applicant for a project that usually is large and/or complex requests preliminary, informal
input from staff. They file an application specifying the type of input they want, pay a
deposit, and are charged the City's normal hourly rate for all City time spent on the
review. Planning staff would schedule an informal meeting with the applicant and
would make sure that all necessary department representatives are present. The
applicant would describe the project and would have preliminary plans available for
review. City staff would then enter into a roundtable discussion with the applicant and
ask questions and provide comments and suggestions. Generally, these comments and
suggestions are summarized in writing and provided to the applicant. The applicant
then revises the project as necessary and submits a formal application to the City.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 21
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
39
After the project is officially submitted for City processing and has been routed to the
various departments for review, many cities schedule an internal project review meeting
with the impacted City department representatives without the applicant being present.
This is generally only done for the larger more complicated projects and provides an
opportunity for all staff reviewing the project to share comments and concerns and
assists the Planning Department Project Manager in coordinating and understanding all
comments. The Planning Department Project Manager makes the decision as to whether
this step is necessary and beneficial. This internal staff review meeting and process is
generally referred to as the Development Review Committee process. For applicants
used to processing. projects in other cities, the Newport Beach reference to the
Development Review Committee (DRC) creates some confusion.
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 what
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 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.
• Following 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 to assist in making the development review processes more effective and
efficient.
Discussion: Although it is recognized that the two major constraints to providing
dramatic improvements to the Planning Department development review processes are
the lack of space within the City Hall and inadequate staffing levels, there are
administrative processes and procedures that can be implemented that will improve the
processes. Certain of these processes are relatively easy to implement while others
require an allocation of staff time and may more be more difficult to implement.
Recommendation P -9- Consider implementation of the following programs within the
Planning Department:
• 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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 22
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
31
• Develop a comprehensive list of standard conditions of approval.
August 2006 Ciry of Newport Beach Page 23
Evaluation of the City's Developmenc Review and Plan Checking Processes
0
SECTION V
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
These Findings and Recommendations relate primarily to the Building Department
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.
Discussion: A Policy and Procedures Manual is an important element in any well
functioning department involved in the development review and plan checking
processes. This Building Department Manual should serve as a model for both the
Planning and Public Works Departments in the development of their policy and
procedures manual.
Finding — The Building Department is to be commended for providing a user -
friendly Plan Review Procedure Work Flow User Manual which discusses and provides
information on the City's plan review processes.
Discussion: The Plan Review Procedure Work Flow User Manual includes a thorough
discussion of the primary departments involved in .the plan review process, a step -by-
step guide and flowchart of what occurs from intake to when the plans are approved and
ready for permit issuance. it also provides detailed information regarding the required
number of sets for submittal of each project type, the plan review turnaround time for
each project type, and the departments that are involved in the plan check for each
project type.
The manual is user - friendly and provides samples of various applications and what is
required for submittal. Applicable portions of this information is available at the public
counter but is not all available online; and unlike the documents at the counter, which
have been compiled into a user - friendly manual, the webpage has information linked as
separate items. This could cause confusion for customers who seek to obtain
information solely or primarily through the internet. Navigating through each of the
links provided on Building Department's home page is confusing.
For the general public, who may not be aware of the processes involved in plan checks
and development review, the information online is not organized in a manner that makes
it easy for them to know where to start or what to expect in the plan check submittal
process. There is no unity among the multiple links to clearly indicate how the
individual links are associated with one another in terms of the process and the steps
involved with a plan check submittal.
The Manual must be reviewed and revised on a regular basis so that it is kept up -to -date.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 24
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
33
Recommendation B -1- Provide a link to a .pdf version of the Plan Review Work Flow
User Manual on the Building Department website so that the public has access to
applicable 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.
Discussion: An overall discussion is provided under the General Findings and
Recommendations section discussing the Project Manager concept that should be
incorporated into each department's development review process.
The Building Department is responsible primarily for plan checking and permit issuance
for buildings and structures on private property. Applicants submit plans to the
Building Department, who routes sets to departments that need to be involved in the
review process. In some instances, Building Department will review plans on behalf of
Fire Department for less complex projects. However, a set of plans will be routed to Fire
Department for review for more complex projects. When each department completes
their plan check, they forward their set of plans back into a "holding bin" for Building
Department to collect. The Building Department consolidates the corrections from each
department and notifies applicants of plans being ready for pickup.
Although the Building Department is responsible for collecting plan sets from each of the
departments and consolidating the marked -up sets for the applicant, Building
Department staff does not check the corrections to verify that there are no conflicts in
corrections and comments from each department. Unfortunately, this runs the risk of
applicants receiving corrections that may not be consistent.
Conflicting corrections and comments under the discussion section for Finding G -C
provides a more detailed discussion out problems associated with a conflict in
corrections and comments received from each department.
Recommendation B -5 - Please see Recommendation G -6 on page 13, regarding Project
Managers.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 25
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
0
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
projects.
Discussion: The Building Department currently has correction checklists for: Water
Quality Management Plans (WQMP), commercial plan checks, residential plan checks,
electrical/mechanical/plumbing plan checks, residential fire alarms, residential and non-
residential fire sprinkler plans, grading/drainage plan checks, and various tenant
improvement related plan checks. The Plan Check Engineers verify that the submitted
plans meet the requirements indicated in the checklist as well as other applicable code
requirements. If an item from the checklist is not addressed in the plans submitted, the
Plan Check Engineer will include the item in a list of corrections that is printed out and
returned to the applicant with the red -lined submitted plans. Naturally, with some
unique issues specific to the project, a Plan Check Engineer may include additional
corrections.
The Plan Check Engineer has the responsibility for reviewing the project for compliance
with all applicable codes; if simply including an item off the correction checklist is not
sufficient, the engineer will use his or her judgment to determine if elaborating on a
checklist item or including an additional correction is necessary. While the correction
checklists that Building Department has created are rather extensive in the various
correction items provided, the additional corrections that each individual plan check
engineer makes results in a perceived lack in consistency of project reviews.
Correction checklists for more minor plan checks such as swimming pools /spas should
be reviewed and expanded upon to include corrections and comments that are made
frequently, but not yet included currently in the checklists. Projects that are more
complex, such as commercial buildings will tend to have more unique circumstances that
require tailored corrections and comments specific to the project, thus these correction
checklists may not have too many more checklist items that could be added.
This issue was identified by applicants as being a problem that results in increased cost
and time delays for project reviews.
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.
Finding B- - There is inadequate information provided to the public regarding which
permits and activities are included in the various combination permits.
Discussion: The Building Department has created several Combination Permits, which are
intended make it easier for applicants who seek to obtain multiple permits all relating to
one project. As an example, an applicant building a pool would need to obtain a pool
permit, a drainage permit, a wall/fencing permit, and possibly other permits associated
with creating a pool.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 26
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
0
There is a combination permit that is offered for pools /spas, but it only includes permit
issuance for the pool and drainage. Although the combination pool/spa permit requires
that a plan check for wall/fencing be conducted in conjunction with the combination
permit plan check, permits for fencing are issued separately. This is confusing to the
applicant.
It would be beneficial for applicants to have information related to combination permits
provided ahead of time, so that they can be prepared in advance by filling out the
appropriate applications and having the correct amount to pay building permit fees. For
customers who hire contractors to process their application with the City, this
knowledge would be of extreme benefit, saving the homeowner both time and money.
Recommendation B -7 — Provide handouts at the counter and online that would inform
the public specifically which 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.
Discussion: To meet acceptable turnaround times because of increased work load, the
Building Department uses outside plan check consultants. The Deputy Building Official
makes the determination whether plans should be sent to one of the three plan check
consulting firms. When the plans are returned from the consultant, a Plan Check
Engineer will conduct a "completeness check" to ensure that the plan check was
properly completed. This is the extent to which the City is involved with the consultant.
Upon receiving plans after a plan check has been conducted, the Building Department
will inform the applicant that their plans are ready to be picked up. If the applicant has
any questions, they are referred directly to the consultant to have their questions
addressed.
Several comments were received regarding the Building Department's coordination with
outside plan check consultants. Several applicants indicated that when they have any
questions or concerns, regarding corrections or comments made by the consultant, they
have difficulty obtaining a response either because the Building Department does not
readily provide them the consultant's contact information, or simply because it is
difficult to get a hold of the consultant. Applicants wind up feeling frustrated and
feeling as if the City is diverting their responsibility onto the contract consultants by not
getting involved in the plan check process.
This is a common concern for Building Departments that use outside plan check
consultants that could be resolved by only using City staff to check plans. However, this
is not an acceptable solution because of the varying volume of plans that are submitted
to the Building Department for plan check and permitting. A Builcling Department
cannot economically maintain the number of in -house staff that would be necessary to
handle all plan checking in- house. The only feasible solution is to utilize plan check
consultants.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 27
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
M
Resolution of this concern requires that the Building. Department initiate the following:
• Continually monitor the quality of the plan checks performed by the outside
consultants.
• Have the in -house Plan Check Engineer who performs the 'completeness check'
attempt to answer the applicant's questions before referring them to the plan
check consultant.
• Only refer the applicant to the plan check consultant if the questions cannot be
answered or resolved by City staff.
• 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.
• Advise the applicant to notify City staff if a prompt response is not received from
the plan check consultant.
Recommendation B -8 - Revise Departmental procedures to include the following:
1. Have the in-house Plan Check Engineer who performs the 'completeness check"
attempt to answer the applicant's questions before referring them to the plan
check consultant.
2. 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 City staff if a prompt response is not received from
the plan 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.
Discussion: It is not uncommon to make additional corrections and comments on projects
that are resubmitted after the first plan check. This may occur for a number of reasons:
(1) the Plan Check Engineer has obtained additional information after completing a plan
check; (2) the applicant has made substantial revisions to their plans that would require
additional corrections or comments; or (3) the Plan Check Engineer simply overlooked
something that should have been addressed in a previous plan check.
There are various other legitimate reasons for why additional corrections /comments are
made in subsequent reviews of a project. However, the City should strive to take
preventative measures so as. to avoid situations of plan check engineers overlooking a
necessary correction/comment during the first plan check. One preventative measure to
ensure efficient processing is doing more thorough reviews the first time around. This
applies to both Plan Check Engineers and consultants.
An applicant who has made an effort to address all corrections and comments from each
department prior to resubmitting for another round of plan checks will be frustrated
when he /she receives additional corrections that are based on information previously
provided, and that could have been made during the first round of review. Needless to
say, more thorough plan checks the first time around would not only keep customers
2006 City of Newport Beach Page 28
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
37
satisfied with the quality of service, it will also help expedite the review process - a great
benefit to the City.
Input from both applicants and City staff was received regarding plan checks completed
by, consultants for the Building Department. Concern was expressed about plans
needing to be resubmitted beyond a second round for corrections or comments that are
not made until a second submittal, which suggests there is a perceived or actual problem
of inefficient processing of projects outsourced to consultants. Comments were made
suggesting that some of these problems could be caused by excess pressure being placed
on the plan check consultants to adhere to the four week turnaround time period for
Plan checks, thus resulting in incomplete plan checks.
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.
Discussion: Inspectors are responsible for projects within a designated geographical area,
which are defined by "inspection area boundaries." Inspection areas have an inspector
assigned to each area.
The Building Department recently adjusted the boundaries approximately one and a half
years ago and reviews the inspection area boundaries on a regular basis. Inspectors are
rotated and reassigned to a different inspection area approximately every two to three
years. These activities, which the Building Department conducts regularly, are
important in ensuring that inspections are completed in a timely manner and that the
quality of inspections are optimal and that the workload is balanced between inspection
areas. The Building Department is currently doing a good job in rotating inspectors and
reviewing inspection boundaries.
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 that is
unnecessary.
Discussion: In many cases, permits for minor construction that typically would be issued
over the counter while the applicant waits must be submitted for a more formalized plan
check procedure because Planning staff is not available to review the plans for
compliance with the Zoning Code.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 29
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
32
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 -1 - 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 applicants still need to wait for approval from other departments.
Discussion: The Building Department's Appointment Plan Check (APC) process is
intended to provide expedited plan check for projects that will not take more than one
hour to plan check and process. An appointment is made and a plan checker meets with
the applicant to review and approve the plans for permit issuance.
This process, in many cases, does not result in expedited plan check and permit issuance
because of the necessity to also receive approvals from Planning and Public Works.
Commonly staff from these Departments is not available and the plans are required to be
submitted for a more formal and time consuming two week review process.
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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 30
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
33
SECTION VI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
These Findings and Recommendations relate primarily to the Public Works Department
Finding PW -A — The Public Works Department does not collect fees when meeting
with private developers regarding project reviews and plan checks. As a result, the cost
of private development is borne by the public through the City's general fund.
Discussion The Planning Department Findings and Recommendations section of this
study includes a discussion about the existing Design Review Committee (DRC)
process, which involves City staff from Planning, Building, and Public Works
Departments. It is a process that is primarily headed by the Planning Department and
involves Public Works when needed. The informal preliminary process is offered to
applicants upon request at no cost.
After the DRC meeting(s) with the applicant, Public Works recommends a "preliminary
review" if they feel it is needed. This preliminary review is initiated upon request from
the applicant, and is a one -on -one meeting with Public Works staff to address strictly
Public Works related issues. It is also a process that is offered to the applicant at no
charge and is conducted prior to a formal submittal.
Public Works is primarily responsible for maintenance and improvement of public
owned facilities. Aside from projects routed from another department, Public Works
also reviews projects that are not initiated and coordinated by Planning or Building
Departments. As an example, off -site improvements that are required from a private
developer would involve Public Works meeting directly with applicants. Even though
the off -site improvement may be related to a private development project, meetings with
the applicant/developer are also at no cost.
The Public Works Department's preliminary review process is similar to Building
Department's preliminary review process, except Building Department charges the
applicant an hourly rate with a one hour minimum. Public Works should consider
modeling its preliminary review process after Building's with regard to billing the
applicant for time spent reviewing and providing recommendations for their projects.
Recommendation PW -1 — The preliminary project review process for Public Works
should be maintained with the following changes:
• Require submittal of an application along with a letter of request indicating what
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 normal 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.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 31
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
V
• Following the preliminary review meeting, provide a written summary 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.
Discussion: The Public Works Department receives plans and routes to the various
divisions in Public Works as necessary. When each plan check is complete, the sets are
re- routed to the Civil Engineer, who then verifies that corrections do not conflict. Their
attention to quality of corrections made by divisions of the department is to be
commended.
The Civil Engineer essentially serves as the Project Manager for the department. He is
the first staff person to review plans that are routed to the Public Works Department. If
multiple divisions are involved in the review process, the Department may receive
between two to four sets of plans, all of which are taken in by the Civil Engineer. The
Civil Engineer routes plans to each division as needed; when the divisions. complete their
reviews, plans are all consolidated and routed back to either Planning or Building
Department through the Civil Engineer who ensures that the corrections and comments
made by all the Public Works Divisions involved are internally consistent before
returning to the holding bin, It is efficient and effective to have the Civil Engineer
oversee the entire plan review process for the department.
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 manner by all staff.
Discussion: The Public Works Department does not have an up -to -date policy and
procedures manual to use as a guide for operations of the department. The department
likes to be flexible and review projects with the understanding that each one is unique
and should be looked at on a case -by -case basis. This is a good philosophy for the
department to adopt and it encourages better customer service; however, it is still
important to have a manual that serves as a starting point for staff and provides
consistency.
A policy and procedures manual should provide those policies and procedures that are
related to the operation of the Public Works Department and should not contain general
City policies and procedures. It should also be consistent with the Public
Works/Traffic/Utilities section of the Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual.
Recommendation PW -3 - Immediately establish the format for a Public Works
Department Policy and Procedures Manual and start preparing the policies and
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 32
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
T
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 process is increased due to the need for re- submittals and rechecks.
Discussion When plans are submitted incomplete, it is difficult to provide a thorough
review; the review process winds up costing more to the applicant and it is less efficient
for the City. Despite the fact that the project is submitted incomplete, Public Works
Department will still review a project as thoroughly as possible, based on what is
submitted by the applicant. The frequency of incomplete submittals could easily be
reduced if plans were quickly checked at the counter prior to intake.
As examples, it is important that Planning Department review elevations on a proposed
second -story residential addition to ensure that the height complies with Zoning Code.
When plans are submitted, elevation drawings are one item that the technician looks for
to determine if the plans are complete for Planning Department to review. For Public
Works, items such as electrical boxes or light fixtures need to be indicated on drawings
for Utilities to do a thorough project review. If during the intake process, the technician
looks for these items, it could save the City a lot of time and save the applicant money.
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.
Submittal checklists should be created for Planning, Building, and Public Works
Department. These checklists would serve as a guide for the Technicians and other
counter staff to use when they briefly look over the materials provided, prior to intake. If
any of the general checklist items are not included, the technician would inform the
applicant of what is missing and request that they submit at a later time once the items
are included in the plans.
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.
Discussion: The Utilities Department is located off -site from City Hall. Public Works
Department will conduct plan checks on behalf of the Utilities and General Services
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 33
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
qa
Departments most of the time. However, more complex projects will be routed to the
Utilities and General Services Departments for review. When the Utilities Department
needs to be involved with the project review process, the Civil Engineer will route a set
of plans to them. Public Works will wait for Utilities Department to return the set of
plans and will consolidate corrections and comments with other sets reviewed by any
Public Works Divisions that may have been involved in the process prior to routing back
to Building or Planning Department.
As noted above, Public Works Department indicated that it is common practice for them
to make corrections on behalf of the Utilities and the General Service Departments for
minor issues in order to save time. However, in the case where there is lack of
information provided by the applicant, the Utilities Department does not become
involved in the review process until a later stage, thus creating a time delay in the review
process. If the Building Department is more aware of issues related to the Utilities
Department, time delays could have been avoided by requesting additional information
upon submittal. Coordination between the Utilities Department, the Public Works
Department, and the Building Department should be improved so that the project review
process is more efficient.
This may be achieved by training permit technicians in the Building Department on what
items are needed for Public Works Department. Recommendation PWA could address
this problem It includes a brief discussion about submittal checklists that may be used
by staff members taking in submittals
Another option would be to involve Public Works staff more at the counter. Currently,
the Public Works staff members are rarely involved with serving customers at the
counter. If Public Works became more involved during the intake process, it could save
the City a significant amount of time during plan checks. Counter duty for the Public
Works Department would not require as much presence at the counter as it does for
Building or Planning Technicians, but he/she should be prepared to tend to the counter
on an on -call basis.
Recommendation PW -5 — Assign counter duty responsibilities to Associate Engineers
in the Public Works Department. They would be available at the counter and work
directly with technicians in the Building and Planning Departments during the intake
process upon call by Building and/or Planning Department. Counter duty should be
rotated between Associate Engineers of the Department.
Recommendation PW -6 — Implement a new procedure where a staff member of the
Utilities Department comes to City Hall on a weekly or bi- weekly basis to review plans.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 34
Evaluation of the Cit}+s Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
M
SECTION VII
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding G- -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, their jobs, and to the provision of a high quality service
to the residents and clients of the City.
Finding 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 quality and efficient level of service and
limits the actions that can be easily implemented to improve the development
application processes.
Recommendation G -1- 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 the
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 functioning 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 inventorying of plans and reports, but it will provide for much needed
additional works ace at the staff work stations.
Recommendation G -3- Identify a day 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 work spaces neater and better organized. In
addition to making additional space available, the work areas will look more
professional and conducive to an efficient operation.
Finding G -C - 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 -S - As an alternative and interim measure to
Recommendation G -4 noted above, increase coordination between 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 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 35
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
liu
lI
Finding G -D - No one in the three major departments responsible for elements of the
development application processing activities functions as *project manager'. A "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 ap2lication through the City 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 review on
schedule.
• Review 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 PW -4 on page 32, which
will help decrease and address customers' and clients' concerns regarding
incomplete reviews.
Finding & -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
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 36
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
M
to the Permits Plus system. These procedures should be formalized into a
document shared by all departments and placed in each department's procedures
manual. This recommendation would be easy to incorporate into each
department's procedures and can be implemented quickly.
Finding G -F - There is a lack of easily accessible and up -to -date information at the
public counter area describing the various permits and application processes.
Recommendation G -10 - Each department should assign the responsibility 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, what is required from the applicant for an application to be deemed
complete, and the time frame involved with 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
annually.
Findini G -G - The websites 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 format 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
de artment'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 Beach Page 37
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
FMI
Recommendation P -2 - 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 long 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 swimming 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 process 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
persons 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 with
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
requirements 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 -S- 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, along with a checklist of the
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 38
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
W
required submittal items. The application language should be written in easy to
understand language limiting the use of professional planning terminology.
Finding P- - Planning handout materials should be reviewed for inconsistencies and
inaccuracies and new materials should be developed to explain 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.
Findiniz 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 how 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 reports 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.
Findin 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
what 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 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
• Following 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.
Recommendation P -9 - Consider implementation of the following programs
within the Planning Department:
• 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. .
• Develop a comprehensive list of standard conditions of approval.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding B- -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 B -B – The Building Department is to be commended for providing a user -
friendly Plan Review Procedure Work Flow User Manual which discusses and provides
information on the Citys plan review processes.
Recommendation B -1- Provide a link to a .pdf version of the Plan Review Work
Flow User Manual on the Building Department website so that the public has
access to applicable 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
Project 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
projects.
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
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 40
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
TM
KAI
permits 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 which 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 - Revise 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.
2. 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 City staff if a prompt response is not received
from the plan check consultant.
Finding B- -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 that 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 applicants still need to wait for approval 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 P W -A - The Public Works Department does not collect fees when meeting
with private developers regarding project reviews and plan checks. As a result, the cost
of private development is borne by the public through the City's general fund.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
la
Recommendation PW -1 - The preliminary project review process for Public
Works should be maintained with the following changes:
• Require submittal of an application along with a letter of request indicating what
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 normal 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 summary 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 manner 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 process 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 City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
counter and work directly with technicians in the Building and Planning
Departments during the intake process upon call by Building and/or Planning
Department. Counter duty should be rotated between Associate Engineers of the
Department.
Recommendation PW -6 - Implement a new procedure where a staff member of
the Utilities Department comes to City Hall on a weekly or bi- weekly basis to
review plans.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 43
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
P]
SECTION VIII
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Interviews and Survey
Appendix B - Comparison Agencies
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 44
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
53
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWS & SURVEY
Staff Survey
At the kick -off meetings with City staff, a survey was distributed. To ensure
confidentiality, they were asked to mail the completed survey directly back to Hogle-
Ireland in a self - addressed, stamped envelope. The survey asked a variety of questions
regarding handout materials /applications, overall development review and plan checking
process, timeliness of review /approval and coordination between city departments. The
overwhelming problem measured by the number of survey responses and staff interviews
was that changes in the current procedures that involve interdepartmental coordination
and communication, and customer service are necessary if the City is to improve its
development application and plan checking process. The following is a summary of
staff's comments organized into broader components of the plan check processes:
Handout Materials /Applications
The majority of respondents indicated that the handout materials are confusing and
could use improvement if they are to aid the applicant. After reading the handouts, the
customer usually asks the counter technician additional questions related to meeting
times, agendas, and permit types that are not adequately addressed in the handout
materials.
Handout materials are not located where customers will easily find them, run out
quickly, and are not well stocked. Customers wind up asking the permit technicians
questions that could have been answered if the handout materials were available and
easily visible.
The information contained within the handouts does not adequately address the most
commonly sought permits such as barbeques, fences, and privacy walls. Having this
information readily available at the counter would better inform the public on the City's
requirements, increase the number of complete applications, and shorten the overall
approval time.
There are too many different applications requiring the applicant to have prior
knowledge of the City's Code for an effective completion. As an example, the
Modification Application and the general Planning Application requires that the
applicant know the applicable setbacks, building height, parking requirements and
open -space requirements. The average applicant is generally unaware of this information
and must either ask the permit technician for assistance or seek the information
elsewhere. Moreover, the application requires a Findings section and directs the applicant
to relate the Findings to their request. Generally, these terms are confusing and unfamiliar
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 45
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
54
to the public. The customer winds up needing to ask staff questions, adding additional
time to the application process.
Overall Development Review and Plan Checking Process
The public tolerates the overall plan checking process, yet they are frustrated with the
Planning Department's approval time.
The discretionary plan submittal process lacks inter - departmental communication. The
departments fail to communicate their expectations and requirements to the customer.
The Planning and the Building Departments' initial review time on discretionary projects
are short. Too often, the departments fail to communicate with each other and defer
their review until the building permit phase. Their review usually suggests last minute
project changes causing the customer to spend additional time and money.
The Planning Code is confusing and difficult to interpret; as a result the plan check
process is too long and inefficient. An example is the method that plan checkers use in
calculating the residential building height. The height calculation is a multi-step process
that is time consuming, cumbersome and complicated. When conducting a plan check,
the planners spend the bulk of their time figuring out if the proposed structure is
compliant with the building height.
Timeliness of Review /Approval
Generally, the Building Department completes its plan checks within four weeks of
initial submittal. However, the Planning Department takes approximately eight to nine
weeks to complete their plan check. The difference of plan check time between the two
departments frustrates the customers because they expect to receive their building
permit following the Building Department's plan check. The different turnaround times
of each department also gives the impression that the departments fail to communicate
and are not on the same page.
Coordination between City Departments
The Planning Department should increase its communication with the Building
.Department relative to changes in the Planning Code that affect building code review
and approval. As an example, the Building Department learned six - months after the
Planning Department amended its setbacks regarding barbeques and outdoor fireplaces.
Having no knowledge of the new code the Building Department continued approving
barbeques and outdoor fireplaces based on the previous ordinance, thereby making them
in violation of the Planning Code.
The reviewing departments do not act in unison and each department's approval policies
are different. For example, the Public Works Department enters their plan check
corrections into the City's electronic system (Permits Plus for all Departments to
review), the Building Department attaches their comments in PDF (Adobe Portable
Document Format), and the Planning Department fails to do either. The Planning
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 46
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
M
Department usually makes their corrections on the plans and then communicates their
corrections back to the customer.
Staff Interviews
Hogle -Ireland interviewed City management staff from primarily the Planning, Building,
and Public Works Departments and obtained insightful suggestions and concerns
regarding the development review process. Some of the suggestions made by
management staff addressed concerns that clients had and/or related to the City's
development processes that we felt need improvement. The Findings and
Recommendations chapter discusses in detail several of the suggestions we received
from City staff. The chapter includes recommendations that are associated with a
finding.
Client Interviews
City Administration provided a list of customers familiar with the City of Newport
Beach development application process. The list was comprised of permit specialists,
architects, developers, and consultants. Those interviewed shared their experiences and
concerns with the development approval process. Their main concern is the method and
interpretation used in calculating the residential building height as it causes lengthy plan
check delays. As an example, under the present code a taller building could technically
comply because of its roofline(s), while a shorter building with a different roofline could
violate the height requirement.
Another concern is the number of plans that are required for plan submittal. Currently
the Building Department requires a range in terms of the required number of copies for
plan submittal, depending on the application type. Those interviewed suggested that
instead of submitting multiple hard copies to the Building Department, electronic
submittal or paperless, would be simpler. They believed paperless submittals offer
numerous advantages that would save time, space, and money. Architects for example
could instantaneously incorporate city directed comments and corrections and re-
submit the amended portions instead of the entire set. Advantages for the City would
include reduced storage capacity and increased manageability. Moreover, submittals
could be tailored according to each department's need thus decreasing the number of
overall sheets and eliminate sheets that do not pertain to those departments.
To save time, the City could also have a pre- approved list of traffic and environmental
consultants immediately available to the public. Having a pre- approved list enables the
City to bypass a potentially lengthy bidding process thus expediting the review and
approval process.
Other suggestions made by the interviewed clientele were specific to Planning and/or
Building Department, as these are the two departments that customers interact with
most. Below are some suggestions that were made:
Augusd 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 47
Evaluation of die City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
5�
Planning Department
c Planner's schedule should include sequestered plan check time devoted
exclusively to plan checking. This would minimize the plan check time for each
project and increase the number of plans that are checked before the target date.
Assignment of projects should be based upon the plan checker's skill level.
Projects with a higher degree of complexity would be assigned to planners with
more experience. As an example, upon application submittal a senior level
planner should assess the work effort involved with the plan check and then
assign it to a plan checker who is able to complete the plan check in its entirety.
The City should consider hiring former City of Newport Beach plan check
planners on a part-time basis to reduce the Planning Department's backlog.
According to some design professionals there are many customers who are
willing to pay an additional fee for an expedited review of their plans.
The Planning Department should development detailed handout materials that
explain the. more complicated rules and regulations such as the height
calculation. Doing so, will educate the public, reduce mistakes on applications,
and increase the number of applications deemed complete on the first round of
submittals.
Building Department
The correction lists should be modified so that additional comments /corrections
made by the plan check engineer do not deviate from the list substantially. When
the additional comments made by the engineer deviate from the correction list,
the applicants feel frustrated that they addressed all the issues identified in the
correction list yet still wind up with additional corrections that need to be ma
The Appointment Plan Check (APC) system could be efficient if it was better
coordinated with Planning Department. Currently, even if Building Department
approves the plans during the APC, the applicant may still have to wait for
Planning Department's approval anyway. The two departments should
coordinate their plan check approval time.
The comments /corrections received from the plan check engineers need to be
more consistent. The plan check engineers are rotated for APC; if there is a
follow -up meeting and it happens to be with a different plan check engineer, the
applicant doesn't know what new comments /corrections to expect. The
inconsistencies in comments affect the plan check time because despite
addressing comments, a subsequent submittal will still be required with
additional comments.
The combination permit is too complicated because it merges individual permits
that a homeowner may want to pull separately. If a homeowner wants to hire
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 48
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
57
different consultants to work on the separate projects (e.g. fencing and pool), the
timing for the completion of each project may differ, and the combination permit
makes it difficult to divide the permit issuance responsibility
Some of the suggestions made in this section are included as Findings &e
Recommendations while others were not.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 49
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
APPENDIX B
COMPARISON AGENCIES
In consultation with the City Administration, three southern California governmental
agencies were selected and compared to the City of Newport Beach. The agencies
selected were the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Barbara, and the County of Santa
Barbara. In addition, Hogle- Ireland drew upon its experience with the organization and
development review processes of numerous other cities and counties in Southern
California.
The purpose of comparing the processes of these agencies with those of Newport Beach
was to gather elements from their development application processes and plan- checking
methods and incorporate them into the City of Newport Beach if they would improve
the efficiency of Newport Beach's procedures. Examples include informative handout
materials; a step -by -step permit application that explains the complete application
process from start to finish; an advisory committee that offers written feedback on
applications; a customer - friendly planning code that is easy to interpret; and planners
that assume a project manager role who manage the entire approval-
Long Beach
The City of Long Beach accepts plans through its Department of Planning and Building.
The Department uses one application for all of its permits making it relatively easy for
the customer and eliminates confusion over which is the correct application to submit.
Included within the application is a fee schedule, an estimated approval/processing
period, filing requirements with explanations, and a list of private permit assistance
firms.
Additionally, the City of Long Beach utilizes a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
comprised of representatives from the Planning and Building, Public Works, Water, Fire,
Police, Community Development and Health Departments. The fee for this service is
included within the application submittal fee. The TAC provides a service to customers
seeking discretionary plan approval. During the TAC process a staff member of the
Planning Department acts as the applications' project manager and presents it to the
TAC. Potential conflicts are cooperatively resolved between staff and the customer
during the Technical Advisory Committee meeting. The project manager then
formulates the TAC's comments and conditions into a letter and transmits it to the
customer. The letter offers the customer an opportunity to satisfy TAC's comments
prior to seeking formal city approval..
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 50
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checking Processes
59
Cif? of Santa Barbara
The City of Santa Barbara also uses an application that is customer - friendly and
informative. Their application lists detailed submittal requirements and explanations of
each step involved in obtaining a building permit. Similar to the City of Long Beach's
TAC, Santa Barbara uses a Pre- Application Review Team (PRT) and the fee for their
service is included within the application cost..
County of Santa Barbara
To make the development review process more efficient and increase customer - service
the County hosts a customer -friendly webpage providing the necessary information one
deeds in order to get a permit or a project approved. The webpage houses all of the
County's Handouts /Applications, provides an easy to follow flow -chart tracking a
typical permit from submittal to approval along with a systematic overview of each step
within the process.
Similar to the City of Newport Beach, the County of Santa Barbara's building height
regulation confused its customers and staff. Therefore, the County changed their
building height from complex calculations to using an overall building envelope. The
building must fit entirely within the envelope thereby ensuring that height calculations
are not manipulated and all projects receive consistent treatment. The revised height
definition uses pre- defined building heights by zoning district. Their definition does not
penalize buildings that follow slope contours and eliminates any ambiguities associated
with architectural projections.
August 2006 City of Newport Beach Page 51
Evaluation of the City's Development Review and Plan Checlang Processes
FIR
Staffing Levels by Function
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
-*-Current Planning Zoning /Plan Check
w
C
m
10
9
8
7
U)
W
~
6
w
0
5
m
.a
E
4
3
z
3
2
1
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
-*-Current Planning Zoning /Plan Check
w
C
m
7000
son .f��
I.
.a
m
N
d 4000
v
O
L-
0. 3000
m
O
H
KEW
1000
0
Plan Reviews & Plan Checks
i
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
-4— Reviews Checks
N
350
Hill
P
.11W
d
N
N
u 200
O
L
a 150
ca
w
O
f- 100
50
Modifications /Zoning Actions
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
--Modifications Zoning Actions
UO
C
m
Emil
J
M111
m 300
N
N
250
0
L-
0- 200
0 150
it"#
+317
M
Planning Project Complexity
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
-*- Applications Projects]