{{section.number}}2
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
Report: Update on the Entitlement and Code Review Process
1. Motion to note and file the update regarding the entitlement and code review process, and provide direction on additional elements to review and develop alternatives to improve.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an effort to improve the entitlement process within the Community Development Department, staff has engaged with an outside consultant to begin an evaluation and recommendation process to create improvements that will reduce the overall review time, create more predictability and clarity, and enhance customer service.
This body of work was separated into two phases. The first phase included interviews with local architects, business owners, and other stakeholders that have frequent engagement with the process, and also interviews with staff. The intent of these interviews were to identify challenging points within the process, and opportunities to make improvements that would update and expedite the process. This report will provide highlights and common themes that were identified during those interviews. The second phase of work will incorporate these concepts, as well as feedback from the Council, and provide recommendations on steps to make improvements.
Item Type: Action Item
Approved forNovember 28, 2023 calendar
2 {{section.number}}2
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council note and file the report and provide input and feedback and direction on elements of the process and code to analyze in the second phase of work for improvements and streamlining.
ANALYSIS
In the past year, Community Development has taken a number of steps to improve its entitlement and review process. This has included projects and reviews through the Planning and Building & Safety processes. The improvements have included a refreshed approach to customer service and the advancement of a “get to yes” philosophy where staff serve as resources to assist in realizing projects. Staff is also in the process of making several improvements to the review process that were previously approved by Council. These changes will be returning to Council in the coming weeks for final approval.
As part of these efforts, CDD has contracted with 4Leaf, an engineering, design, planning, and code enforcement consultant, to assist in identifying opportunities to make the entitlement and review process more efficient and predictable. The work includes two phases; the first of which includes interviews with designers, architects, developers, stakeholders, and staff to identify where changes can be proposed. These interviews are intended to identify common themes and specific points within the process that create challenges, confusion, inconsistency, or may be antiquated.
The second phase is to develop a list of items to evaluate for review, improvements, or changes. Staff is seeking input from Council, in addition to the completed interviews, to begin identifying and evaluating these potential short, medium, and long-term changes.
At which point, staff would return with a report identifying the potential changes, their impacts, and seeking direction whether to begin implementation as proposed or to undertake the necessary process(es) as directed by Council, to begin these changes.
Interviews were conducted between July 2023 and October of 2023. A total of 58 invitations were sent, with a total of 43 interviews confirmed and completed. This included 16 staff members from Planning, Building & Safety, and Economic Development; in addition to 27 outside stakeholders that included developers, architects, residents, and business owners. The interviews were confidential, to obtain candid insights on improving the entitlement process and associated codes.
From these interviews, the feedback was placed into five categories including:
•Design Review Board, Design Review Process, Community Sentiment Towards Development
•Staffing, work culture, leadership
•Review time, streamlining, process, documentation
•Front-facing Customer Service
•Zoning Code and Policy Change
3 {{section.number}}2
Through the interview process, there were many similarities, concerns, and desires for change amongst staff and stakeholders. The report highlights these potential areas for improvement and steps towards solutions. Timelines will be created as an action plan is developed. Where relevant, items that are already in progress have been noted.
Summaries and main themes of the report are provided here, for Council consideration.
Design Review Board, Design Review Process, Community Sentiment Towards Development
Concerns
•That the Design Review Board evaluations are subjective. •Standards and guidelines are subjective and not objective. •A need for more education and training for reviewing bodies. •Utilization of public meetings and appeals to delay or discourage projects.
Potential Solutions
•Add objective design standards and easier to use resources. •Revise the Design Review Board scope.
•Reduce the overall number of applications and permits needed. •Increase fee for appeals.
•Create education resources for boards and applicants.
Staffing, Silos, Work Culture, Leadership
Concerns
•Hiring and retention concerns, leading to high turnover. •Siloed review processes.
•Imbalance between pay and workload.
•Departments and divisions workflows are independent and siloed. •An approach of “no” when reviewing projects.
•A lack of consistency in overall communication, and the communication of rules and regulations.
•A great need for respect amongst all parties involved in the process.
Potential Solutions
•Focus on a “get to yes” approach to project review.
•Hire more staff at various experience levels.
•Conduct salary study and evaluate permit types and quantities of other cities to balance workload and pay.
•Celebrate the successes and wins of the department and team. 4 {{section.number}}2
•Cross training amongst divisions to diversify skills.
•Consider third-party companies to assist in review, expediting, and inspections.
Time to Review, Streamlining, Process, Documentation
Concerns
•Overall length of review time.
•Backlog of review projects due to insufficient number of staff. •Standardization of processes and reviews.
•Overreliance on Energov.
•Processes that are too complex.
•Departments and divisions workflows are independent and siloed. •Lack of educational resources for applicants.
•Quality of applications received.
Potential Solutions
•Create a one-stop shop to include all departments, executed through a potential enterprise operation.
•Remove unnecessary review by specific departments or divisions. •Update checklists and handouts.
•Improve memorialization of comments and feedback on projects. •Overhaul pre-application process.
•Create express/instant permits.
Front-Facing Customer Service
Concerns
•Energov is difficult, inefficient, and inaccurate.
•Transitions between each division or department are not smooth or efficient. •Community Development website is not up to date, and should be more engaging, such as the Economic Development website.
•A need for more engagement and education on processes.
Potential Solutions
•Continuously update and improve Energov.
•Update Department website and make more user friendly. •Offer feedback surveys.
•Expand counter hours.
5 {{section.number}}2
Zoning Code and Policy Changes
Concerns
•Zoning code has antiquated or outdated regulations.
•Zoning code is too complex.
Potential Solutions
•Evaluate zoning code or old or antiquated regulations. •Identify eligible projects for expedited review.
•Align development standards with allowable density.
The items listed in this report highlight some of the major items for improvement and evaluation, with Exhibit 1 containing the full list of items that were points of discussion. It should be noted that the items listed in the report focus on areas of improvements.
Stakeholders also provided several examples of excellence by staff, and according to one stakeholder, “Glendale is our preferred city to do business.” Staff is seeking input and feedback for additional or specific items to evaluate, so that staff can return with an action plan for next evaluation steps and implementation of those that will not require further evaluation. Items that require further analysis, such as changes to the zoning code, enterprise operation, or other codified elements would return to Council for further evaluation and direction.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Interviews were conducted with outside stakeholders as well as internal staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide additional input to include with the attached report so that staff may develop an action and implementation plan to improve the entitlement process.
2. Do not provide additional input, and staff will proceed with developing an action plan based on the items listed in the attached report.
6 {{section.number}}2
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Entitlement Process Analysis - Draft