{{section.number}}{{item.number}}
24-86857
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Improvements to the Entitlement and Permitting Process: Phase II
1. Note and file the update regarding the entitlement and code review process, and provide direction on the next phase of improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 19, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In mid-2022, Community Development began identifying opportunities to improve the permitting and entitlement review process to reduce timelines and enhance consistency.
The process included panels with frequent applicants, architects, and developers; as well as a third-party consultant that assisted in creating a workplan and list of items for improvement and enhancement. Staff received approval from City Council of the work plan in early 2024, as well as the first phase of improvements. The first phase of improvements has led to a significant reduction in review timelines for first reviews, as well as resubmittals. Staff is presenting the second phase of improvements, seeking to build on the momentum of reducing timelines, improving customer service, and achieving consistency in application of policies and rules.
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}2
24-86857
5 6
3 7
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council provide feedback on the next phase of improvements to the entitlement and permit review process.
ANALYSIS
In 2022, Community Development began the process of evaluating its entitlement and permitting process. Concerns and frustrations had been expressed from designers, developers, homeowners, and businesses regarding the length of time and inconsistent review of applications to Planning and Building & Safety. In order to improve and respond to these concerns, staff conducted roundtables and hired a third-party consultant to conduct interviews to identify consistent challenges that applicants were experiencing.
From this process, a comprehensive list that included improvements to internal operations, zoning code, development standards, customer service, and the online permitting system. In 2023, staff returned to City Council to obtain approval on the workplan and then began developing phases to implement improvements.
The first phase of improvements included a number of items that sought to make immediate improvements. The improvements implemented to date include:
•Implemented express permits;
•Eliminated reviews of divisions or departments that were no longer applicable; •Updated checklists and bulletins that provide clearer information and guidance; •Updated Energov to fix bugs and improve user experience; •Updated codes that allowed for continuance of non-conforming conditions, concurrent review, and reduction in items reviewed by the Design Review Board, all aimed to reduce timelines and make modest changes simpler to move through the process;
•Implemented new exemptions for geotechnical reports;
•Collaborated with GWP to remove the final utility inspection on most new residential panels and upgrades;
•Begun the process of pre-approved ADUs; and
•Completed the update of mixed-use and multi-family development standards.
These changes have assisted in significant reductions to permit timelines over the past year. The permits listed below have seen the following percent changes year over year for first round of review by the Planning Division
•ADU (-30.91%)
•Commercial / Mixed Use (-32.26%)
•Multi-Family (-33.33%)
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}3
24-86857
5 6
3 7
•Single – Family (-13.95%)
•Fences (+13.16%)
•Stucco (-28.57%)
Moreover, Planning Entitlement reviews have seen the following percent changes year over by the Planning Division:
•Administrative Design Review (-43%)
•Administrative Exception (-47%)
•Administrative Use Permit (-60%)
•Design Review (-40%)
The Building & Safety Division has also reduced timelines on first round reviews, including the following percent changes year over year:
•ADU (-41.07%)
•Commercial / Mixed-Use (-48.98%)
•Multi-Family (-40%)
•Single-Family (-20.93%)
•Fences (-3.28%)
•Stucco (-86.67%)
During this period, the overall number of applications has increased by over 9% for both Building & Safety and Planning Divisions. The number of resubmittals for Building & Safety has reduced by 17%. In summary, the Department was busier over the prior fiscal year, while reducing timelines and the number of resubmittals. While these numbers represent positive trends in reducing timelines and demonstrating consistency, there are still a number of additional changes that can be made to continue to improve the customer experience and to improve overall timelines.
As part of the second phase of process improvements, staff is putting forth a number of items that are intended to continue the positive trends over the past year. Those recommended improvements are as such:
Free-Standing Fences and Walls
Eliminate design review of free-standing fences and walls: Amend 30.47 (Design Review) to eliminate staff’s review of free-standing fences and block walls (excluding retaining walls) that do not require a building permit for compliance with the Comprehensive Design Guidelines. As part of this streamlining initiative, objective development and design standards will be established for criteria related to height, materials, location, etc. Note: removing the design review portion for review of free- {{section.number}}{{item.number}}4
24-86857
5 6
3 7
standing fences and walls will result in reduction in fees collected for DRB exemptions and may require changes to Title 30.
Free-standing fence and wall amnesty: Formulate a policy that will allow free-standing fences and block walls that are currently in violation and have an active code enforcement case with the Neighborhood Services Division to be maintained. As part of this effort, staff will coordinate with Neighborhood Services to obtain an inventory of violations regarding free-standing fences and block walls to help develop an amnesty policy that will be beneficial to the community. This will require a starting point so that fences built tomorrow are not allowed to violate existing rules. A good place to start may be the inventory taken to council in 2005 when Council was considering enforcement of non-permitted fences.
Modifications to the Administrative Use Permit
Eliminate AUPs for alcohol sales at restaurants. Instead, require restaurants that want to serve alcohol to acquire a Title 5 license. This is currently only done in the Maryland Arts and Entertainment, Alex Theater and Broadway Center Districts through a “Special District License”. Note that removing the AUP will result in reduction in planning fees collected and require changes to Title 30 and Title 5. Additional coordination with Neighborhood Services and Police Department with be required as part of this effort.
Eliminate need to apply for AUP and CUP for Banquet Halls. Currently, a new or expansion to an existing banquet hall requires the approval of a CUP for the banquet use and an AUP for the sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages on-site.
This process assumes that not all banquet halls choose to serve alcohol. Although both applications could be heard in one hearing before the PHO, it requires double the work of both the planner taking the case to PHO and the planner acting as the PHO, who will have to issue two separate decisions. To streamline this process, banquet halls should only be subject to the approval of a CUP for the banquet hall use that would allow them to either serve or not serve alcohol like taverns. Note that removing the AUP will result in reduction in planning fees collected and may require changes to Title 30.
Sign Re-facing
Remove permit requirements for sign refacing within existing channel boxes. Currently,
30.33.050 (Permit Required, Signs) identifies that a building permit is required to construct, place, erect, maintain, alter, or relocate any sign or advertising structure. At present, a permit is required to change the sign face – while no other features of the sign are being altered (e.g. the existing sign cabinet, electrical, and sign mounting hardware). To streamline the process for wall sign face change outs only, a permit will {{section.number}}{{item.number}}5
24-86857
5 6
3 7
no longer be necessary. This will require changes to Title 30 and will result in a reduction of building permit fees collected.
Reduce or Eliminate Minimum Unit Sizes
The Council previously issued direction for staff to study potential modification or elimination of minimum unit sizes for multi-family dwellings. This could allow for flexibility in future developments, while encouraging a wider range of unit sizes within the city. In districts such as the DSP, the zoning code also ensures that not only small units will be built by requiring a specific unit mix to encourage multi-generational households as well as unity diversity. The current requirements are as such:
Multi-family residential zones (R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 and R-1250) DU size minimums:
•Efficiency and one bedroom units: 600 square feet.
•Two bedroom units: 800 square feet.
•Three or more bedroom units: 1,000 square feet.
Downtown Specific Plan DU size minimums:
•Senior or affordable: 540 square feet
•Efficiency and one bedroom units: 600 square feet
•Two bedroom units: 800 square feet.
•Three or more bedroom units: 1,000 square feet.
Inground Pools
To minimize the amount of plan checking roles, the Planning Division staff will train Building & Safety staff to review simple stand alone, in-ground pools to check for setbacks, fencing and equipment locations. Pools that are not completely in-ground, project out from the hillside topography, and located within the hillsides will remain under review for design and zoning compliance. This will reduce the amount of plan checking roles on a simple permit. Note: removing the design review portion for pool review will result in reduction in fees collected for DRB exemptions and may require changes to Title 30.
Remove Basements from FAR Requirements
Currently, basements are calculated towards floor area ratio for residential development. One of the purposes of maximum floor area ratio (FAR) thresholds are to control massing typically in residentially zoned development. Because fully- subterranean basements are not visible, these basements do not impact a building’s {{section.number}}{{item.number}}6
24-86857
5 6
3 7
appearance (mass) as viewed from adjacent properties or the public right-of-way.
Exempting a certain amount of basements from the FAR requirement (e.g. up to 500 square-feet) will allow property owners flexibility of use and development of their property.
Ministerial Parcel Maps (10 or Fewer Units)
SB 684 - GOV §§ 65852.28, 65913.4.5, 66499.41 - Requires local agencies to ministerially approve a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development with 10 or fewer units on an urban lot of less than 5 acres that meets specified requirements. Allows housing development projects on a ministerially approved parcel map or tentative and final map to comply with objective standards and prohibits local agencies from imposing requirements on the project inconsistent with the bill’s requirements.
Pre-Application Refinement
Staff will revise the internal process for Planners to meet with applicants to capture missed opportunities of communication and customer service.
Planning is proposing to utilize our current policy of requiring new housing development to go through a pre-application process before submitting for entitlements to create a more informed process that would allow for compliance with SB 330 approved by the Governor on October 9, 2019 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), related to timelines and streamlining. SB 330 which was set to expire on January 1, 2025, was recently extended to January 1, 2030, with SB 8.
The changes to this policy will allow staff to better comply with this important housing legislation. Staff is proposing to request a fee upfront, that could eventually be credited towards the future entitlement, such as Design Review to ensure that staff time is captured for those projects that are never formally submitted. For instance, if the SB330 “Pre-application” has a cost of $500 dollars, that fee would go towards the eventual submittal of an actual entitlement request, most of which will be design review. Staff can either require that all projects submit for pre-application or allow it as an option to developers in order to assist in the expediting of design review. Staff will also refine the submittal requirements to make them easier and simpler, and requesting only information that is needed at early guidance stages.
Updates to the Parking Chapter
Staff will update the parking chapter to be consistent with State law, and to consider other direction that Council may require such as providing parking maximums in lieu of parking minimums.
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}7
24-86857
5 6
3 7
Refinement of the Concierge Service
Currently, staff employs the concierge team on particular projects such as those that are large scale, sensitive to the community, or referred to the department. Staff proposes developing a long-term plan that is more structured. The role of the concierge team is to improve coordination across divisions and departments, while providing a unique customer service to applicants as well. Staff recommends that the utilization of the concierge team should serve as a fee-based service for large-scale development or those wishing to utilize the service, offering an opportunity to recoup some of the costs associated with the service. Staff also recommends that the service can be deployed in a programmatic fashion based on Council priorities. This could include small business tenant improvement projects, or others identified by Council. This would be in addition to the fee-based service also recommended by Council.
Environmental Review Contracting Process
The Glendale CEQA Guidelines require staff to prepare the environmental documents for discretionary projects. With the exception of EIRs, staff prepares all environmental documents such as negative declarations and mitigated negative declarations.
However, due to their technical complexity and demands on staffing, Planning contracts with consultants to prepare EIR’s. As a result, for certain projects, staff must complete a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to solicit bids for EIR services. This creates additional workloads for staff and adds 3 to 5 months to the schedule for such projects.
To address this inefficiency, staff proposes eliminating the stand-alone RFP process and retaining three environmental firms for on-call environmental services. For future complex or environmentally sensitive projects, staff would request proposals from each firm to ensure competitive pricing and a suitable match for the requested services. Staff recommends a limited Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to a select number of firms staff believes has the prerequisite experience and demonstrated capability to provide the necessary environmental services.
Low Impact Development
Shifting the Low Impact Development (LID) review within private properties from the Public Works Department to the Building and Safety Division offers substantial benefits for managing stormwater impacts and pollutant loading developments projects. Given the Building and Safety Division’s expertise in residential, commercial, and industrial project oversight, this transition could streamline the review process, ensuring more consistent application of LID principles across Glendale’s construction activities. The Glendale Municipal Code (§ 13.43.010) emphasizes minimizing pollutants, erosion, and hydrologic disruptions from impervious surfaces, objectives that align well with the {{section.number}}{{item.number}}8
24-86857
5 6
3 7
technical knowledge and procedural approach of Building and Safety staff. By centralizing development-related requirements within the Building and Safety Division, Glendale can expect improved coordination and potentially more effective stormwater management on project sites.
Additionally, transferring LID responsibilities could enhance the review and enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as the Building and Safety Division already collaborates closely with developers to enforce construction standards. This division’s ongoing focus on upholding municipal and statewide safety and environmental codes allows for more robust implementation of LID measures at each project phase, from planning to construction completion. Current provisions requiring erosion control and hydromodification technologies can be more directly overseen by Building and Safety professionals trained to evaluate these engineering principles. This change will likely lead to more resilient, environmentally friendly infrastructure in Glendale’s urban landscapes, addressing adverse impacts on water quality and drainage systems more comprehensively than before.
LID and Stormwater Mitigation within Public right-of-way will remain under Public Works Department jurisdiction. This applies to stormwater and urban runoff from streets, roads, highways, freeway projects, and also, to coordination with County of Los Angeles and Regional Water Board.
Staff believes that these series of improvements, both near and longer term, will lead to reduced timelines and consistency for smaller projects such as fences and the calculation of FAR for basements; while also improving larger scale issues related to parking, EIR for large projects, and how the City deploys the concierge team to assist applicants and projects. Staff is seeking direction and input from Council, and will return with updates as each items moves through the process. Elements that are impactful to the code and public will also go through a public engagement process.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Where applicable, staff will conduct public outreach for items that impact the code and aesthetic quality of the built environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report at this time. If Council chooses to make the previously mentioned changes to the permitting and planning process, the department will return to Council at a future date to directly address any impacts upon existing fees and make appropriate amendments to the Citywide Fee Schedule. {{section.number}}{{item.number}}9
24-86857
5 6
3 7
If Council chooses to approve the shift in LID review from the Public Works department to the Building and Safety Division, the Community Development Division will be able to absorb the staffing cost within the department’s General Fund budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Council may decline to move forward with the recommended improvements, and staff will return with a revised list.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS