DRAFT 2
OCTOBER 25, 2023
CITY OF GLENDALE
633 E Broadway, Glendale, California 91206
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
1 of 26 | Page
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Executive Summary ................................................................................... 2 3 About City of Glendale ............................................................................... 3 4 Introduction ............................................................................................ 4 5 Methods................................................................................................ . 5 6 Identified Challenges and Recommended Solutions .............................................. 6
6.1 Design Review Board, design review process, community sentiment contentious towards development ................................................................................... 7 Table 6.1: Recommendations..................................................................... 8
6.2 Staffing, silos, work culture, leadership ..................................................... 9 Table 6.2: Recommendations.................................................................... 10
6.3 Time to review, streamlining, process, documentation .................................. 11 Table 6.3: Recommendations.................................................................... 13
6.4 Front-facing customer service ................................................................ 14 Table 6.4: Recommendations.................................................................... 15
6.5 Zoning code and policy changes .............................................................. 18 Table 6.5: Recommendations.................................................................... 18 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 20
7.1 Appendix A: About 4LEAF, Inc. ............................................................... 21
7.2 Appendix B: Interview methodology ......................................................... 22
7.3 Appendix C: Interview questionnaire ........................................................ 23
7.4 Appendix D: Outline of initial 10 key themes and topical mentions .................... 24
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
2 of 26 | Page
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of the Community Development Department, the City of Glendale engaged 4LEAF, Inc. to evaluate its land development and entitlement processes and zoning code in response to stakeholder concerns. The goal was to understand challenges, obstacles, outdated or onerous zoning codes, and to identify actionable solutions to improve the entitlements process.
The evaluation was carried out from July 2023 to October 2023. After sending invitations to 58 prospective participants, interviews were conducted with 43 stakeholders, including 16 city staffers from planning, building, and economic development (internal stakeholders) and 27 applicants including residents, developers, and architects (external stakeholders). The interviews focused on understanding how the entitlement process works, uncovering strengths, weaknesses, and challenges, and discussing areas of improvement. The confidential interviews elicited candid insights about revamping the entitlements process and zoning code. A qualitative content analysis of interview transcriptions identified salient issues and was used to distill stakeholder feedback into the following five thematic categories comprising the core of this report:
1. Design Review Board, design review, community sentiment contentious towards development
2. Staffing, silos, work culture, leadership
3. Time to review, streamlining, review processes, documentation
4. Front-facing customer service
5. Zoning code and policy changes
In the body of this report, each of these five categories provides a high-level description of issues and concerns stakeholders expressed during the interviews. Notably, internal and external stakeholders share many of the same concerns about the entitlements process. Recommended solutions are provided in each of the five categories. A timeline indicates if solutions are in progress or the duration (in months or years) to complete the recommended action. Solutions are assigned priority levels of “High,” “Medium,” and “Low” to help the city prioritize implementation.
The City of Glendale cares deeply about planning, design, and development. Stakeholders agree that the current entitlements process and zoning code, while intended to protect local community character, create burdens on applicants seeking permits and city staff reviewing them. The recommended solutions offer a road map for a more user-friendly entitlements process.
Moving forward, the city should forge an environment where applicants and staff work together to create a better Glendale. Encouraging empathy and respect for one another will advance meaningful partnerships among all stakeholders.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
3 of 26 | Page
3 ABOUT CITY OF GLENDALE
The land encompassing Glendale is part of the original territory of the Tongva-Gabrielino indigenous peoples. This area was later part of Rancho San Rafael under the Spanish and Mexican land grant system, with the Verdugo Family an early developer. Dissolution of Rancho San Rafael in the late 1800s led to the creation of small parcels and formation of the Town of Glendale in 1887. Nearly two decades later, the City of Glendale incorporated in 1906. Since incorporation, Glendale has grown exponentially from 1,486 acres or 2.32 miles to 30.5 square miles.
Located in the San Fernando Valley and nestled in the Verdugo Mountains, the City of Glendale has become an internationally recognized destination in Southern California. The city is renowned for its historic architecture and preservation, bustling commercial areas such as Brand Boulevard, abundant civic pride, and high quality of life. And the city continues to grow. Data from the 2020 Census shows Glendale’s population increased to 196,543 residents. It is the 4 th largest city in Los Angeles County and
24th largest city in California by population.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
4 of 26 | Page
4 INTRODUCTION
Various parties in the City of Glendale – including applicants, city staff, and elected officials – have expressed concerns about the current process for land development. The entitlements process has been described as slow, overly complex, and bureaucratic, and parts of the zoning code are considered outdated and challenging to use. Among other consequences, this has resulted in developers preferring to build in other cities, planning staff leaving for other cities, some tense city-community relationships, and bottlenecks for development projects, including much-needed housing to address Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets and commercial ventures to boost the local economy.
At the request of the Community Development Department, the City of Glendale desires to understand and address these concerns. The city engaged 4LEAF, Inc. to study the existing conditions and recommend improvements to the entitlement process and zoning code. The scope of this work included:
1) Stakeholder interviews with internal staff and external applicants to gain first-hand experience from those submitting and reviewing applications and candid feedback about challenges faced. 2) Review of existing processes and the zoning code to identify opportunities for streamlining and transparency, simplify board, commission, and city council reviews, and identify outdated zoning codes and rules that create project challenges; and
3) Based on interviews, reviews, and analysis, recommend opportunities for improvement and solutions to the identified challenges.
An approach was created to gain key insights from stakeholders about the entitlements process. The approach was built around stakeholder interviews that provided intimate perspectives on challenges faced, including processes, protocols, particular codes, and potential improvements and solutions. This approach is described in more detail in the following section on Methods.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
5 of 26 | Page
5 METHODS
A total of 58 stakeholders were invited to participate in this study. The majority of interviewees were on a list provided by the city and included both staff and applicants. Additional interviewee contacts were cultivated through the interview process. A pre-survey was sent to prospective interviewees on the city’s list that briefly explained the study and requested availability for an interview.
Interviews were conducted following a standardized interview methodology (See Appendix B). Of the 58 stakeholders contacted, 43 stakeholders were interviewed, including 16 internal city staff members representing planning, building, and economic development and 27 external applicants including residents, developers, and architects, for a response rate of 74%. Hereafter, staff and applicant interviewees are referred to as internal and external stakeholders, respectively.
Interviews were conducted in person in a private office at the City of Glendale Department of Community Development or virtually via Teams software. For in person interviews, the interviewee received a copy of the questions on arrival to use as a reference (See Appendix C). For virtual interviews, the questions were previewed for interviewees at the start of the interview. All interviewees were briefed on the purpose of the study and confidentiality measures to encourage candid discussion. Some interviewees followed the structured questionnaire to respond, others gave “stream of consciousness” feedback, and some did both.
4LEAF staff captured feedback by typing summaries of interviewee responses into a blank questionnaire form saved on laptops. This created a record of each interview with substantial qualitative data. After the interview, a qualitative content analysis of the interview record was conducted. The content analysis entailed a close reading of each interview record to identify recurring themes, issues, concerns, and solutions. These items were then transcribed into separate documents for closer analysis of issue mentions and thematic coding.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
6 of 26 | Page
6 IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
As a result of the interview process, 10 key themes were identified across all stakeholder interviews.
Next to each theme is the percentage of internal and external interviewees who mentioned these themes relative to their stakeholder category. See Appendix D for a list of specific issues and concerns mentioned under each theme.
THEME INTERNAL EXTERNAL
Staffing 75% 70%
Time to review 75% 81%
Streamlining 50% 37%
Customer relations 63% 67%
Communication 44% 59%
Design Review Board 44% 67%
Community sentiment toward development 0%
23%
Silos 69% 22%
Online interface 50% 59%
Documentation 38% 15%
Additional content analysis was conducted to make these disparate themes more conducive to understanding to implement organizational improvements. Resulting from this analysis, 4LEAF condensed these into five thematic categories as follows:
Design Review Board, design review, community sentiment contentious towards development Staffing, silos, work culture, leadership
Time to review, streamlining, review processes, documentation Front-facing customer service
Zoning code and policy changes
Below, a discussion is provided on the findings of the five thematic categories. Each category describes the various issues and challenges identified through interviews and analysis, and provides a table outlining recommended solutions.
Priority levels are assigned to help the city determine next steps. The priority levels of “High,” “Medium,” and “Low” are defined as:
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
7 of 26 | Page
High: these issues are imperative and should be acted upon immediately to address urgent concerns
Medium: these issues are important and should be acted upon speedily to address concerns Low: these issues do not require immediate action but should be considered for departmental action in the future
Additionally, a timeline indicates if the solution is in progress or the general duration (in months or years) to complete the recommended action.
6.1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, COMMUNITY SENTIMENT
TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT
The city’s Design Review Board (DRB) has the authority to review building plans, including site plan and design aspects prior to issuance of building permits for projects not exempt from design review. DRB plays a key role in upholding thoughtful design and high-quality aesthetics in Glendale. While this goal is essential to community quality of life, interviewees expressed concerns about the DRB’s review authority and the general community ethos around design review, development, and community change.
Both external and internal stakeholders shared concerns about the DRB’s extensive review authority. As currently set up, the DRB has authority over large- and small-scale proposed development. Large-scale development includes new housing (single- and multi-family), new commercial buildings, and major building renovations. Small-scale development includes construction or modification of fences, windows, decks, pools, as well as exterior commercial tenant improvements. Comments described DRB’s review authority as overreaching and controlling while also lacking transparency. One external stakeholder reported that public comments submitted about projects under DRB review are not viewable by the public; only the applicant and DRB had access to public comments. The interviewee questioned whether this complies with California open meeting laws. Interviewees also questioned DRB’s review authority of Density Bonus projects. At a time of acute housing demand, rising housing costs, and exponentially increasing RHNA targets, DRB review of Density Bonus projects slows the intent of streamlined housing production, interviewees said.
Compounding this concern is the impression that DRB evaluation is entirely subjective. Interviewees said the lack of objective, applicable design review standards result in purely personal judgments deciding what can and cannot be built. Some external designers said “outside the box” design is discouraged in favor of subjectively determined “proper” architecture for Glendale. Though some architectural, design, and planning qualifications are required for DRB membership, interviewees questioned the lack of required design experience for design review. Interviewees called for more board and city council member education on design review, including the option to not weigh in on projects. As one external applicant said: “Sometimes no comment is the correct course of action.” The interviews uncovered a shared concern among external and internal interviewees that DRB is utilized to delay and sometimes even derail projects. Interviewees reported that a large segment of the community is resistant to new development. Several interviewees cited the 1980s-era construction boom of large new apartment buildings and the demolition of beloved historic buildings in the city. As a result, they said, zoning codes were added with the intent to limit development and prevent change, including the design review requirement for many projects.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
8 of 26 | Page
Interviewees characterized DRB meetings as venues to showcase well-organized, provocative opposition to all scales of construction, from large developments to small renovations or additions. Opponents are actively recruited to testify against projects. An external stakeholder recounted a story of their project being assailed by “organized opposition from residents and their families,” where their neighbors and neighbors’ relatives spoke out against their project at DRB. Their neighbors’ relatives said they didn't want to see the development when they visited. Homeowners Associations (HOAs) were described as powerful entities in thwarting development using techniques such as organized opposition at DRB and other public hearings, and even lawsuits. One external stakeholder lamented, “It becomes a show on TV because of the disputes. Commissioners should leave the thinking to the staff and support the staff.” Reflecting on a negative design review experience, an external stakeholder said, “The DRB process felt steamrolled.”
The consensus is that the DRB and design review process should be substantially reevaluated. This is needed to build community-wide trust in DRB activities serving the greater good and not special interests that hold substantial power in shaping planning and design. Below are recommended solutions.
It should be noted that the scope of the DRB would not be proposed to change. Rather, identifying opportunities to bring clarity to the role and responsibilities to ensure consistency and accuracy will retain the DRBs role in the public process.
TABLE 6.1: RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY REF # RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TIMELINE
High A1 Add objective standards for design review. Create easier to use standards resources In Progress
High A2 Revise and better define the role of the DRB to ensure consistency and clarity.
High A3
Reduce the overall number of application types that need to be reviewed by the Design Review, focusing only on those that have a relative impact on the aesthetics of the community
High A4 Increase appeal fee (currently $2,000) to discourage land use planning through stakeholder opposition via DRB
Medium A5 Create education sessions/workshops/webinars for design professionals to understand the entitlement and review process Medium A6
Create education sessions/workshops for reviewing bodies to understand purpose and process of design review and the entitlement process
Low A7 Revise DRB board member qualifications criteria to require some design background for design review
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
9 of 26 | Page
6.2 STAFFING, SILOS, WORK CULTURE, LEADERSHIP
Staffing issues contribute to a substantial source of frustration in the entitlements process. Both internal and external stakeholders shared concerns about the day-to-day issues staff face in the city. The city has experienced ongoing challenges in hiring and retaining planning staff. According to interviewees, planners regularly join the city for a brief stint, then quit to work at other city planning departments.
The reasons cited include low pay compared to other cities, vacancies contributing to increasingly high workloads, uneven training, lack of hybrid or Work From Home options, professionals doing clerical work, belligerent applicants and little support from the city, and lack of empowerment to exercise professional judgment and decision making as professional staff, among others. This environment makes it hard to retain high-performing planning staff and recruit new hires. Considering the high turnover of community development personnel, one internal stakeholder said staff who stay are “carrying the burden of the critique and not getting the help.” Several external stakeholders agreed.
Citing staff’s need for better pay and supervision, one external stakeholder said, “You cannot squeeze people to perform without paying them well.”
Staff morale is low, which diminishes productivity, customer service levels, and general performance.
Applicants, in turn, experience what they describe as insufficient empathy and a deficiency mindset from the city. They contend that an exhausted city staff appears to find problems with proposed projects so they can “say no.” External stakeholders want to see a more supportive department culture.
Said one external interviewee, “You are here to guide people and not be negative. It must be a solutions-based staff. Identify issues, ‘I’m sorry it does meet the code, however…’ and help them see the cup is half full.”
Hiring and retention concerns extend to building and inspection services as well. Many external interviewees said it is harder now to reach inspectors and schedule timely inspections for new construction. The additional time, they said, translates into increasing costs. On balance, the last 3 years of COVID took a toll on inspectors. According to one internal stakeholder, “BSD staff is on edge right now.”
Adding complication is the setup of the city’s review process. Reviews are done separately by each reviewing department. The process relies on routed plans, progress on certain timelines, and interdepartmental communication about statuses and issues. But interviewees shared that the review process suffers from entrenched organizational silos. Instead of working together to advance development projects, departments operate with a mentality of “us vs. them,” interviewees said. They described it as Building vs. Planning, Planning vs. Economic Development, several departments vs.
Glendale Water & Power (GWP). One external stakeholder described the obstacles rising from a lack of communication and unity among plan reviewers: “Each department is a village. To enter you need to have your own pass.”
Both internal and external stakeholders highlighted challenges with GWP. They described projects held up in GWP review for proposed work that appeared not to be within this department’s jurisdiction, or GWP had minimal jurisdiction (e.g., small renovations, ADUs). The absence of interdepartmental cross- training and intentional collaboration exacerbates these tensions.
All of this combines to generate more public frustration with the divisions within the Department of Community Development.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
10 of 26 | Page
Desired from both internal and external stakeholders are significant improvements to the underlying work culture at the city. Many external applicants spoke about their frustration hearing what appears to be a reflexive “no” by staff. Accompanying this predilection for staff denying projects is the absence of solutions offered to improve a project. External stakeholders said they look for staff to help them find workable solutions, but for the most part, they must figure it out themselves. Meanwhile, internal stakeholders spoke about their frustrations with what is perceived as a lack of support from the city against belligerent applicants. Internal stakeholders spoke of applicants disparaging them at the public counter or applicants complaining about staff to the City Council or City Manager when projects don’t go their way. Internal stakeholders described feeling caught in a no-win situation where it seems impossible to make applicants happy while frequently defending themselves against applicants’ allegations to unsupportive city and department leaders. Said one concerned internal stakeholder, “We have amazing individuals but it's a lack of leadership.” Both internal and external stakeholders spoke of the need for improvements in communication.
External stakeholders desire better responsiveness, accountability, and professionalism, especially for emailed inquiries and meetings with Department staff. They also want more consistency in comments and determinations on projects and clear explanations of codes and policies in plain language. Internal stakeholders expressed a strong desire to be treated with respect and courtesy and not be berated by the public for doing their job. Both said clear communication between departments is urgently needed.
The Department of Community Development would benefit from several cultural, procedural, and operational changes to address these wide-ranging staffing concerns. Below are recommended solutions.
TABLE 6.2: RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY REF # RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TIMELINE
High B1 Create a culture of solutions-based approaches to work, service, accountability, and productivity In Progress
High B2 Communicate the department vision in writing and motivate staff to pursue vision, and incorporate into new staff training High B3 Hire more staff across the Planning and Building & Safety Divisions.
Create a pipeline so not only hiring at entry level positions High B4
For new hires and refreshers, conduct formal training for live phone calls and in person consultations to underscore customer service and empathy
In Progress
High B5
Do a salary study for planners in comparable cities and cities that Glendale is losing planners to, in addition to the number of permit types to understanding corresponding workload
High B6 Provide cross-training for code enforcement staff to understand construction issues so violations are not presumed In Progress High B7 Celebrate the helpful and dedicated staff and uplift the department’s wins to boost morale
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
11 of 26 | Page
High B8
Bring in HR as a partner to proactively address concerns about staff who present challenges to the team, as part of solutions-oriented approach
High B9 Management should address needed improvements immediately and not wait for performance evaluations
High B10 Organize team building activities away from city hall to bring people together and improve morale
High B11 Develop and implement a policy to address disruptive or abusive customers
High B12
Encourage staff to take a “get to yes” approach to educate and explain codes and policies - the “why” – when the original alternative is not possible for the applicant
Medium B13 Conduct staff training on EV and new state laws to get everyone updated
Medium B14
Provide cross training for planners to gain experience in current planning, advance planning, economic development, code
enforcement, to diversify skills and support staff retention
Medium B15
Encourage code enforcement staff to write more descriptive reports and notices of issues found to aid compliance. For example:
“Tenant improvement needs permit” should specify what
improvements were found during inspection that need permits
Medium B16 Encourage code enforcement staff to offer potential solutions to problems found during inspections
Medium B17 Memorialize department decisions and interpretations in memorandums for consistency, accountability, and applicability Low B18
Hire third party private inspectors to expedite permit and inspection sign offs. Consider for general or specialized inspections or major projects
6.3 TIME TO REVIEW, STREAMLINING, PROCESS, DOCUMENTATION
Stakeholders lamented the extended time it takes to get through plan review. Concerns were expressed for both Planning and Plan Check. External and internal stakeholders said the long review time creates frustrations and challenges that exacerbate other areas of concern. For example, the lengthy review periods create tensions between staff and applicants, contributing to public complaints, staff morale issues, and attrition. Indeed, staffing shortages worsen backlogged projects. But external and internal interviewees also pointed to operational issues causing delays. These include: lack of standardized review processes, lack of educational resources for applicants, insufficient and inconsistent staff training, lack of collaborative interdepartmental reviews, complex and politically fraught design review, internal protocols limiting which staff members can perform particular reviews, reliance on Energov instead of face-to-face interaction (particularly for applicants not versed in new technologies), onerous CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
12 of 26 | Page
zoning codes and lack of consistent interpretations, the project comments process requiring staff to manually compile comments from other departments to send to applicants, among other challenges.
External stakeholders said it takes too long to schedule meetings with case planners and that additional time in review translates into higher costs. Internal stakeholders said the current operational challenges and dealings with frustrated applicants, especially due to Energov distance, keep them playing perennial “catch up” on all projects large and small.
In the words of one external stakeholder with extensive development experience, the process for obtaining permits “has become less people-friendly. They used to walk you through the process. The bureaucracy has increased and politics have taken a toll on the profession. They (community development staff) spend more time following up with every single department to do their job. The lack of communication between departments is a huge issue.”
Interviewees discussed ways to reduce the project review delays. A shared desire among internal and external stakeholders was the implementation of various streamlining measures. They both called for reinstating the in-person One Stop offering an initial review and comment session with all relevant departments. Conversely, interviewees also recommended the removal of unnecessary departments without essential review necessity, such as GWP. External stakeholders expressed a need for simplified ways to book meetings with case planners to keep communication open and processes moving forward.
Both external and internal stakeholders support expedited permits, instant permits, and more over-the- counter permits.
Another common desire from internal stakeholders was improvements at the point of plan intake. They spoke about previous protocols that allowed plan checkers to do more detailed screening of applications at the public counter for completeness. Incomplete applications were flagged for additional documentation required before they could be taken in, thus preventing a premature start of the plan review time clock. One longtime internal stakeholder highlighted application quality as a factor: “The quality of applications is poor. That is part of the timeline. The applicants have to fix their work for us to review.”
Interviewees spoke about improvements to various forms of documentation to reduce plan review time.
Both external and internal stakeholders asked for new flow charts illustrating the review process and more, better, and updated handouts, one-sheets, checklists, flyers, and FAQs in multiple languages.
Internal stakeholders said management should convey policy direction and memorialize interpretations and determinations in memorandums for better consistency and accountability. External stakeholders said policy memorandums should be made readily available for public review. Internal stakeholders also urged improving permit file retention and access to satisfy Public Records Act requests.
External stakeholders stressed the need to improve the entitlements process to bolster economic development. The status quo is a hindrance to community investment. One external applicant bluntly stated, “I cannot look to investors and say this is a city we want to do business in.” Indeed, these challenges are intertwined with others found in this study. The city can take several potential actions to address plan review delays and related concerns. Below are recommended solutions.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
13 of 26 | Page
TABLE 6.3: RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY REF # RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TIMELINE
High C1
Create a One-Stop plan review in person option with all departments present to advise applicant, including the creation of an enterprise operation to reflect accurate collection of fees
High C2
Consider extended hours for counter operations with dedicated staff, including for walk-in meetings and over the counter review and submittal
High C3 Restore walk-in counter hours for questions and for plan submission 1 on 1 reviews to catch issues at the counter, especially Title 24 issues High C4 Remove GWP for simple reviews to streamline the process High C5
Do a fee study to understand the cost of project hours and whether fee increase is needed. Determine if workload matches fees paid and labor costs
High C6 Hire junior level staff that can focus on small projects and assist in project management and communication with more senior staff High C7 Formalize the DRC process and expand to more project reviews High C8
Create FAQ sheet for simple frequent questions. Provide at counter and on website, and updated checklist that provided information on what is required for submittals
High C9 Update existing checklists and handouts for planning and building submissions In Progress
High C10 Update the schedule of fees, and post a worksheet that allows prospective applicants to identify anticipated costs upfront High C11 Prioritize project reviews around scale, scope, safety, order received, and not complaints by applicants who want to jump the line In Progress High C12
Intake: Allow plan checker to screen for complete set and the correct departments included in application package, then planning tech takes in plan
High C13
Train planners to contact applicant to inform they are working on the plan and provide applicants their contact information to ensure that applicants are current on project status and review expectations In Progress
High C14 Conduct concurrent Planning and Building review to expedite and streamline review process (with a hold harmless agreement) In Progress High C15
Train planners to take notes and memorialize what was discussed and determined in project review meetings. Applicants have had to send confirmation emails to document what was determined
High C16 Overhaul the pre-application: remove the 3-step process, charge a fee to account for processing time, codify or make it policy CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
14 of 26 | Page
High C17 Provide applicants one set of comments from all departments to address, rather than sending out piecemeal In Progress High C18 Create express/instant permits for selected development to streamline the process In Progress
Medium C19 Create a visual flow chart of the review process for applicants. Use if/then branching for ease of understanding
Medium C20
Establish a system to clearly separate over the counter permits from other entitlements (Reports received that over-the-counter permits are getting mixed up with others, causing delays)
In Progress
Medium C21 Create pre-approved ADU plans for the city
Medium C22
Incentivize high performing staff with option for remote work for plan reviews. Establish benchmarks and metrics for tracking remote plan review performance
Medium C23 Hire a combination zoning plan checker to do current planning work:
zoning and planning reviews and plan check In Progress Low C24 Evaluate city Historic Preservation group’s review scope and ability to slow/stop projects
6.4 FRONT-FACING CUSTOMER SERVICE
External interviewees want a better entitlements process experience. They shared frustrations about their experience as customers seeking an essential city service – required plan review for land development. While many customer frustrations relate to the various challenges described in this study, the city’s approach to customer service would benefit from improvement. This sentiment was shared by both stakeholder groups. Notably, many internal stakeholders empathized with applicants’ concerns; they understand applicants’ frustrations with the process and experience them, too. Improvements to the city’s front-facing customer service will better the entitlements process experience. In this context, front-facing customer service is applicant-focused assistance the city provides for the entitlements and land development process.
Both external and internal stakeholders spoke extensively about customer service concerns with the city’s online portals, Glendale Permits (Energov) and the city’s website. External stakeholders described the Energov portal as difficult to use, inefficient, and inaccurate. They reported glitches and errors, compounded by a lack of IT support to help users navigate the site. They said the lack of application review transparency and real-time updates undercuts the goal of using online technology for efficient plan review. One frustrated external stakeholder compared the current digital submission requirement to the prior method at city hall: “With the old process, you did this in person by going to each station.
Now, it’s in the portal waiting but you have no updates or accountability or contact people. Zero acknowledgment of receiving and processing plans.” Meanwhile, internal stakeholders empathized with this concern. Said one internal interviewee: “If I were an applicant, I would want a smooth, flexible, easier transition from one department to another. They go counter to counter digitally. It’s inefficient.” Further, the pivot from in person to online submission ironically created more inefficiencies, said external stakeholders. The difficulty of using Energov requires more time and effort to compile CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
15 of 26 | Page
entitlement packages. At the same time, the limited ability to ask questions of staff in person leaves applicants frustrated and confused. Interviewees said non-tech savvy applicants experience significant consternation with the requirement to submit online without assistance. Many internal stakeholders emphasized with applicants and seconded this concern.
Internal stakeholders shared concerns about the city’s Community Development website. Updates are needed to correct outdated zoning code, policy, and contacts references. Timelines for project review are not accurate given current conditions, they said. They also highlighted a need for enhanced website design, especially compared to Economic Development’s more modern and engaging website, which internal stakeholders said looks better than and “separate from” the Department of Community Development.
Interviewees spoke about process and protocol enhancements for customer service. External stakeholders want a publicly accessible resource indicating who is their assigned case planner, plan checker, or inspector. They want to have the option to speak with staff in person. They want the ability to provide feedback after any staff interactions. And they expect more transparency about departmental policies. Interviewees also shared an interest in developing a formal Concierge to remove customer service obstacles, and an Ombudsman to mediate disagreements between applicants and staff. Both applicants and staff desire empathy from each other.
External stakeholders see opportunities to improve customer service through community relationship development. They asked for more public engagement with residential and business communities and city-provided education about planning and development processes.
Improving front-facing customer service will better the entitlements process experience for applicants and city staff, alleviating stakeholder frustrations and assuaging related concerns. Below are recommended solutions.
TABLE 6.4: RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY REF # RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TIMELINE
High D1 Energov: Simplify the public user interface to be more intuitive and user friendly
High D2 Energov: Categorize project permit types
High D3 Energov: Place information checklist on “Planning” tab High D4 Energov: Send automatic status updates to applicant High D5 Energov: Create color codes for status. Change color on screen to show plan submission is complete/not complete
High D6
Energov: Update terminology on plan status by adding “on hold”, “incomplete”, “not been routed”, “not under review” to clearly show status in the review process
High D7 Energov: Create a user-friendly how-to guide for applicants to understand Energov
High D8 Energov: Create customer user accounts for both the applicant and the client
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
16 of 26 | Page
High D9 Energov: Upgrade service level subscription from Tyler Technology to gain more tech support
High D10 Energov: Add deadlines to applications and application tasks so plan submissions do not sit in perpetuity
High D11
Energov: Require more specific verbiage for application submissions online for more detail and description to benefit the staff review.
For example, “Add one 1-story Accessory Dwelling Unit in backyard of residence” rather than “Add ADU”
High D12 Energov: For enhanced security, limit access and ability to modify applications to only the required departments doing project reviews High D13 Energov: Form a superuser group to be expert problem solvers for internal and external users. See LA County DRP
High D14 Energov: Create a virtual team to assist the public trying to submit online
High D15
Energov: Allow applicants to upload attachments one at a time and not require one single document with all sheets at once. To account for the completeness act timeclock, add verbiage that says: “I understand that by uploading this document my project is not complete until all documents required are submitted for review.” Include a hold harmless statement
High D16 Energov: Auto send comments to applicant so plan checker does not have to compile and send manually like the current practice High D17 Update the city website for Planning to communicate a more realistic time for project reviews and volume
High D18 Allow in person 20-30 minute appointments at public counter for non-tech savvy applicants
High D19 Create formal ombudsman that can track down difficult cases and assist in completion
Medium D20
Offer simple satisfaction feedback surveys for applicants and community members to rate their experience at the Department (using happy face emojis, short answers, scale). Use the data to monitor and adjust work as needed
Medium D21 Energov: Create a virtual visit to the public counter to simulate if you were in person
Medium D22
Create a publicly viewable organization chart identifying planning and building staff by job level, with contact information, to reduce requests made to City Manager and Councilmembers
Medium D23
Leverage relationships with the city’s business community to help communicate planning initiatives and reach residents, businesses, workers
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
17 of 26 | Page
Medium D24
Create a minimum standard checklist for community outreach and engagement approaches. Include methods of engagement, metrics (attendance, comments received, etc)
Medium D25
Require all staff emails to the public to have a signature block with contact information so applicant follow up, either staff email or general email and phone numbers that are answered
Low D26
Update and modernize the community development department website so it is akin to the more contemporary and engaging economic development website
Low D27
Provide a complimentary concierge computer at the Department lobby to allow applicants to submit there, seek in person technical assistance, and ask questions of staff at the public counter
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
18 of 26 | Page
6.5 ZONING CODE AND POLICY CHANGES
Across the interviews, stakeholders discussed the challenges with city zoning codes and policies. Both internal and external stakeholders see existing codes, policies, and their implementation as hindrances to a smoother entitlements process. Codes and policies relate to other areas of concern; for example, they contribute to extended time frames for plan review, enable weaponization of the design review process, impact staff effectiveness and erode morale, leading to diminished customer service for applicants. Both stakeholder groups called for changes to codes and policies to alleviate frustrations.
As discussed in the Design Review section above, the consensus was to assess and consider removing zoning codes adopted in the 1980s that had the intent of limiting development and community change.
External and internal stakeholders described these codes as a reaction at the time to the increasing construction of large apartments and the removal of historic buildings in the city. The codes have led to sweeping and granular city scrutiny in design review, a slowdown in entitlements processing, and tensions among neighbors over design and development issues at DRB, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings, among other challenges. Several interviewees pointed to the 1980s codes as a significant source of frustration in the city. Reassessing these codes for continuing value is critical to bettering the entitlements process. As one external stakeholder framed it, “This city is poised for greatness.” But the main challenge is the impact of its past. “We have to buck the old laws. Rewrite old codes,” they said.
External and internal stakeholders also said the complexity of the city’s code makes it difficult to do development. This is especially the case for “mom and pop” applicants who do not have consultants and technical advisors to aid their application development. Interviewees raised the possibility of doing a comprehensive review of the Zoning Code to simplify, streamline, and unify the code for better implementation.
In addition to these high-level critiques, interviewees identified codes and policies that would benefit from revision, clarification, streamlining, or deletion. Below are recommended solutions.
TABLE 6.5: RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY REF # RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TIMELINE
High E1 Reassess zoning codes with redundant, conflicted, or antiquated rules to help create a simpler process and less cases
High E2
Conduct an end-to-end review of development codes and perform a comprehensive update to simplify and unify the codes for better implementation
High E3 Create a streamlining ordinance identifying eligible development and allowed processes to expedite review
High E4 Remove zoning code review for: stucco replacement High E5 Create policy to track and prioritize projects to standardize productivity outputs
High E6 Establish a process, form, policy, or confirmation that a project is locked into SB 330 provisions
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
19 of 26 | Page
Medium E7 Align development standards for mass, FAR, minimum units, etc to achieve realistic and maximum development potential In Progress Medium E8 Consider reducing or removing minimum unit sizes for Density Bonus projects 3-6 months
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
20 of 26 | Page
7 CONCLUSION
The City of Glendale is a community that cares deeply about planning, design, and development. That is evident in the passionate commentaries from stakeholders in this study. Planning and zoning processes guide community development. Stakeholders agree that the city’s current entitlements process and zoning code, while intended to protect local community character, create burdens on applicants seeking development permits and city staff reviewing them. This study provided a long-desired forum for internal and external stakeholders to express their concerns while actively pursuing constructive alternatives.
An extensive stakeholder interview process yielded candid insights about land development in the city.
The interviews uncovered challenges and opportunities but also solutions. The consensus of internal and external stakeholders is that the entitlements process and zoning code are due for change.
The entitlements process needs streamlining, simplification, and a reassessment of design review authority that, at present, appears to be overreaching and subjective. Several zoning codes and policies should be assessed for revision or deletion. More investment in staff hiring, career development, wellness, and training will address issues of extended plan review times, burnout, and attrition. More collaborative approaches to reviews will remove existing organizational silos. A focus on improving customer experience will create opportunities for applicants and staff to partner in the entitlements process.
This study was not limited to cataloging concerns. We also wish to highlight the praise expressed for city staff throughout the interviews. For example, external stakeholders noted the routinely excellent customer service at the Department of Community Development’s public counter. On the issue of customer service, one senior manager noted, “For every one complaint, we did a thousand things right.” Several applicants identified helpful city staff by name and recounted specific instances of excellence.
Notwithstanding concerns about the entitlements process, one applicant shared this praise: “Glendale is our preferred city to do business in. They are straight shooters.” The city can build on this goodwill.
Moving forward, the city should frame and support applicants and staff working together in the entitlements process to create a better Glendale. The two sides are not adversaries, though it can feel that way under current conditions. Encouraging empathy and respect for one another advances meaningful partnerships among staff and applicants. The city should support such partnerships.
The recommended solutions in this report are a starting point. They offer a road map to creating a more user-friendly entitlements process. Taking these steps will lead the Department of Community Development to new opportunities for cooperation, amicable stakeholder relations, reduced frustrations, and a greater community desire to invest and develop in Glendale.
The 4LEAF team thanks the city for allowing us to partner with you on this project. We believe the fruits of our collaborative work will improve the city for all community members.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
21 of 26 | Page
7.1 APPENDIX A: ABOUT 4LEAF, INC.
4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) is a California “C” Corporation that was established in 1999 and incorporated in 2001. Our extensive team of professionals are fully equipped with the training and experience required to provide complete services including planning, code enforcement, plan check, inspection, permit technician assistance, professional development training, and other related professional and technical services to the city. Our goal is to set the industry standard for excellent customer service, and over the past 22 years of business, we have grown to more than 400 personnel throughout the Western United States.
4LEAF was founded and built to serve the varied needs of public agencies. We understand public service because we come from public service. We realize that budgets and staffing are a challenge—this is why 4LEAF is so willing to explore cost-saving opportunities for our clients. Our flexibility is key to our ability to provide our public agency clients with services that are truly responsive to their needs. 4LEAF employs 40+ professional planners with a variety of skills and experience necessary to meet the City’s needs. 4LEAF approaches client relationships differently than what you might encounter with a large corporation. The 4LEAF philosophy is to be the best firm by providing our clients with outstanding customer care and first-rate customer service—we put our philosophy into action by building relationships and prioritizing the needs of our clients. This has led us to become the industry leader in providing planners and planning services to public agencies.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
22 of 26 | Page
7.2 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY
INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY: Glendale Evaluation of Existing Entitlement Process and Zoning Code
Protocol:
Record participant information:
o Interviewee Name:
o Interviewee Title:
o Section or Organization:
Provide a paper copy of interview questions the day of interview as a visual aid. Participant/4LEAF introductions:
o Briefly introduce 4LEAF and interviewers and our role in the project. o Explain purpose of interview for qualitative data gathering for Development Process evaluation.
o Explain answers are anonymized in a summary report with no attribution to individuals or organizations. No use of audio or video recording will be done. During the Interview:
o Document interviewee answers by typing responses into this digital document to save. o OK to use unscripted follow up questions as these can glean additional clarity and detail. o At conclusion of interview, invite any follow up communications by phone, email, etc., if additional insights come to mind
o Tell interviewee that we plan to discuss the following topics but are open to expand if there is anything they feel needs to be addressed:
Time for development process
Communication (staff to public)
Streamlining and efficiency
Workload and understaffing
Questions:
1. Can you briefly tell me about your staff/stakeholder role with the community development department?
2. What are the biggest challenges or areas of improvement in the department’s review process?
3. What are the key challenges in the review process you face as a city staffer/stakeholder?
4. What development applications are the most challenging or time consuming to process?
5. Can you tell me about any contradictory, redundant, or overly complex zoning codes you’ve encountered?
6. What would help improve the department’s review times and communications?
7. Anything else you would like to add?
*Invite any follow up communications by phone, email, etc., if additional insights come to mind. Be sure to thank the interviewee for their time and thoughts.
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
23 of 26 | Page
7.3 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Questions:
1. Can you briefly tell me about your staff/stakeholder role with the community development department?
2. What are the biggest challenges or areas of improvement in the department’s review process?
3. What are the key challenges in the review process you face as a city staffer/stakeholder?
4. What development applications are the most challenging or time consuming to process?
5. Can you tell me about any contradictory, redundant, or overly complex zoning codes you’ve encountered?
6. What would help improve the department’s review times and communications?
7. Anything else you would like to add?
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
24 of 26 | Page
7.4 APPENDIX D: OUTLINE OF INITIAL 10 KEY THEMES AND TOPICAL MENTIONS
From Stakeholder Interviews:
1. Staffing (75% city staff / 70% applicants)
• Understaffing
• Underpaid
• High turnover and attrition
• Workload / overworked
• Morale is low
• Modality of Work From Home (Hybrid vs Work From Office only) • Professionals doing clerical work
• Not empowered to make decisions, rely on supervisor
• Need training for customer service
• Need training for consistency, formalize to increase staff retention • Need cross training to learn other departments’ duties, needs and empathize with them • Better management accountability
• Revamp the planner recruitment process, timeline, pay, etc • More advance planning opportunities desired
• Support staff against abusive applicants
2. Time to review (75% city staff / 81% applicants)
• Takes too long for application review, Plan Check and Planning • Takes too long to set up a meeting with Planning
• Projects backlogged
• Process not standardized
• Delays increase costs
• Need new flow chart of review process
3. Streamlining (50% city staff / 37% applicants)
• Concierge to help applicants navigate process
• Bring back a fully functioning One Stop for review
• Streamline permits routing
• Desire for expedited review option
• Remove unnecessary departments from review
• Reduce the current 6 departments for review - too many depts doing review • Simplify method and time it takes to book meetings
• Notices/Appeals: is the process consistent with state law?
4. Customer relations (63% city staff / 67% applicants) • Workplace culture
• Consistency
• Need solutions-based approach (find path to “yes”, offer solutions) • Planners to make decisions, don’t rely on supervisor
• Need team ethos of problem solving, not passing the responsibility • Be proactive, take initiative
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
25 of 26 | Page
• Need team ethos of providing good service to the public • Be better prepared at meetings
• Better accountability, to the public and other city departments • Respect customers, be courteous
• Staff to empathize with applicant
• Applicants to empathize with staff
• Educate the public about the planning process
5. Communication (44% city staff / 59% applicants)
• More professionalism needed
• Better responsiveness and accountability
• Consistency in determinations and comments
• Clear communication between departments
• Explain code and policy clearly in plain language
6. Design Review Board (44% city staff / 67% applicants) • Too much review authority
• Delays, DRB is utilized to delay
• Subjective evaluation and directives
• Controlling
• Remove authority from small scale development
• Board qualifications do not include design experience • Transparency
• Overhaul the process
7. Community sentiment toward development (0% city staff / 23% applicants) • Organized opposition to development, construction, and change • HOAs powerful in thwarting development
• Older zoning codes were adopted to limit development and prevent change • Appeal process is weaponized
• Antagonistic, litigious
8. Silos (69% city staff / 22% applicants)
• Improve interdepartmental collaboration, communication, routing (not walled gardens) • Cultivate departments supporting each other, remove the “us vs them” ethos. For example:
BSD vs Planning, Planning vs Redevelopment, Planning vs Code Enforcement, GWP vs everyone
• GWP: not relevant department for some reviews but holds projects • GWP: delays from this silo’d review step
9. Online interface (50% city staff / 59% applicants)
Energov portal
• Difficult to use
• Inefficient
• Glitches
• Lack of application transparency
CITY OF GLENDALE: ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS ANALYSIS
26 of 26 | Page
• Lack of IT support
• Community development website consistency with Energov information Improve website design
• Economic Development website looks better and “separate from” Community Development Department
• Update information on department website (codes, policies, contacts, etc are outdated; timelines for project review are not accurate given current conditions)
10. Documentation (38% city staff / 15% applicants)
• Write and convey policy direction
• Memorialize policy direction in memos
• Memorialize determinations for consistency, accountability • Improve permit file retention and access (for PRAs etc) • New flow chart of review process
• Create more, better, and up-to-date handouts, one sheets, checklists, FAQs, flyers