planning and community development department update on improvements to the development review...

Planning and Community Development Department

Update on Improvements to the Development Review Process and

Recommended Changes Related to Design Review

City CouncilDecember 8, 2014


Development Process Review

2

Purpose

• Report on the progress of process improvements.

• Present future improvements staff will be implementing.

• Review proposed ideas to change the Design Review process.



3

Development Process Overview



4

Departments that are part of the development review process



Sample of Building Code Regulations

5



Sample of California Retail Food Code (Public Health)

6

7

Phase One: Planning Entitlement

Prepare for hearing• CEQA conducted • Staff report

prepared

Project deemed Complete

Incomplete ProjectCorrections provided and applicant resubmits when addressed

Application submitted to

Planning Division

Various departments review and provide conditions

Planner reviews case for

completeness

Hearing Held• Approval or

Disapproval


8

Applicant submits plans

Staff reviews plans for

conformance to applicable codes

Building Permit issued

Inspections conducted

(preliminary and final)

Corrections required


Phase Two: Plan check



Development Review Study

9



Development Review Study• Consultant studied the development review process.

• Consultant conducted focus group meetings.

• Study identified best practices currently in place.

• Study identified where improvements could be made.

10



Improvements Made to Date

11



12

Interdepartmental Improvements

Matrix Report:

IRT

Work Program

• Interdepartmental Review Team (IRT) formed.

• Managed by Planning and Community Development staff.

• Two-year work program created.

• Improvements made.



IRT Work Program Improvements • Custom tracking system implemented.

• E-mail notifications sent to supervisors.

• Business license routing procedures improved.

• Entitlement cases routed electronically.

13



14

Improved Customer Service in the Permit Center

• Staff relocated.

• Sub-trade permit window established.

• Q-flow system upgraded.

• Real wait times provided on-line.



15

Planning and Community Development Department Process Improvements

• Early feedback provided to applicants.

• Cases routed within one week.

• New application forms developed.

• Applications reviewed upon submittal.

• New Design Review staff report templates created.



Results of Improvements

16



As compared to 2010, the processing time for the most common planning cases has been reduced as follows:

• Certificates of Appropriateness (Historic Preservation Permits) reduced by 34%

• Conditional Use Permits reduced by 44%

• Hillside Development Permits reduced by 53%

• Minor Conditional Use Permits reduced by 43%

• Minor Variances reduced by 46%

17


Staff Implemented Recommendations

18

Table 1 – Planning Case Processing Times



19

Table 2: Medium Projects are generally classified as: Tenant Improvements between 3,000 and 10,000 square feet, Single-Family residential additions between 500 and 1,000 square feet outside of Hillside Districts, all residential remodels over 500 square feet (interior only), swimming pools and spas in Hillside Districts, Commercial and Multi-Family additions under 500 square feet, signs requiring Zoning Field Inspection or Design Review, Retaining Walls, Wireless Communication Facilities and foundation only for new construction.



20

Table 3: Large Projects are classified as Tenant Improvements over 10,000 square feet, Commercial and Multi-Family additions over 500 square feet, all new construction of single-family residential structures, Duplexes, Multi-Family, Commercial, Mixed-Use, industrial or Institutional projects, all single-family additions over 1,000 square feet, seismic retrofit, all grading.

Decrease of 40% from 2010-2014



Table 4 – Total Planning cases received FY 2010 through FY 2014

28% increase from 2010 - 2014

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY140

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Total Planning Cases

Total Planning Cases



Table 5: Total Building Permit Valuation over last five Fiscal Years

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY140

50

100

150

200

250

Building Valuation (in Millions)

Building Valuation (in Millions)

212% increase from 2010-2014



Doing More with Less

• 28% increase in number of planning cases

• 212% increase in Building Permit Valuation

• 24% decrease in staffing levels

23



Future Improvements

24



Future Improvements to be Implemented by Staff• Establish Personalized Case Manager program.

• Replace the land management system.

• Introduce Permit Technician job classification.

• Improve communications regarding the development review process.

25



Design Review

• Pasadena places high value on quality design.

• Design Commission plays important role.

• Design Commission and Planning staff have been working together to improve the Design Commission Process

26



Design Review Process

27

Staff Level

Design staff reviews project

Director approves or disapproves projectDecision appealable to Design Commission

Design Commission

Design staff reviews project and makes recommendations

to Design Commission

Design Commission approves or disapproves project

Decision appealable to City Council



Design Review

Design Commission cases a four-step process:

28

Preliminary Consultation

50% Conce

pt Review

Concept

Review

Final Review




Current Design Commission composition requirements (Title 2.80)

The Commission consists of 9 members appointed as follows:

• The mayor nominates 5 members from persons nominated by the City Councilmembers.

• The Transportation Advisory Commission, the Arts and Culture Commission, the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Planning Commission each nominate 1 member for a total of 4 members.

• All appointments are subject to ratification by the City Council

29




Current Design Commission composition requirements (Title 2.80)

• All members must be residents of the City; provided however, that a person nominated by a Councilmember need not reside in the Councilmember’s district.

• The criteria for selection of members must be a demonstrated interest in the community and professional expertise and experience in a design related field, including one or more of the following fields:

30

1. Architecture;

2. Landscape architecture;

3. City planning;

4. Historic preservation;

5. Artist;

6. Urban design;

7. Engineering; and

8. Transportation planning.



Design Review Process• Current Design Review Process mentioned in study focus

groups.

• Study recommends:> Comprehensive design guidelines> Transition to two-step process and possibly into one-phase> Membership reduced from nine to five> Minimum of three licensed architects

31



Three-year Review of Design Cases

32

Average of four meetings per case

60% required the 50% Concept Review

20% included Public Art component

93% included Planning entitlement

29 Cases




Staff Proposed Process (three-steps):• Eliminating 50% Concept Review• Clarify Preliminary Consultation

33

Preliminary Consultation

Concept Review

Final Review




Staff Proposed Composition:

• Reduce from nine to seven members

• Establish specific qualifications: Two commissioners with a background in Architecture (Mayor appointed) One commissioner with a background in Historic Preservation (Mayor

appointed) One commissioner with a background in Landscape Architecture (Mayor

appointed) One commissioner that is a community member at large (Mayor appointed) One commissioner that is a representative of the Planning Commission One commissioner that is a representative of the Historic Preservation

Commission

34



Design Review Process• Study recommendations presented to various commissions.

• Staff asked for recommendations from the Planning Commission and Design Commission.

• Neither Commission was supportive of reducing the number of Design Commission members.

The Planning Commission commented:

• Modify the membership of the Design Commission to replace the existing Arts and Culture Commission representative with a Mayoral appointee with expertise in Historic Preservation.

• One of the existing Mayoral appointees should have expertise in Historic Preservation.

• Did not comment on eliminating the 50% Concept Review phase.

35



Design Review ProcessThe Design Commission commented that:

• The Design Commission could benefit from ensuring certain disciplines with experience in historic preservation are represented on the commission (e.g. an architect or urban planner with an expertise in historic preservation).

• The Commission was not opposed to eliminating the 50% Concept Review phase.

36



Staff RecommendationIt is recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare amendments to the Municipal Code which:

• Amend the Design Review process to eliminate the “optional” 50% Concept Review and clarify the Preliminary Consultation review; and

• Modify the composition of the Design Commission by reducing the number of members from the current nine to seven and establish specific qualifications for its members.

37



Next Steps

• Should the City Council wish to implement the proposed changes, amendments to Title 2 and Title 17 of the Municipal Code would be required.

• Planning Commission review is required for Title 17 changes (Design Review Process).

• The City Council would need to conduct a future public hearing on an ordinance to review any required changes to the Municipal Code.

• City Council should provide direction on any additional public outreach desired prior to City Council action.

38


Update on Improvements to the Development Review Process and Recommended Changes

Related to Design ReviewCity Council

December 8, 2014



40

Custom Program for Electronic Routing


C. Third Quarter Report: Cycle Times

Case Type Average Number of Days Goal (7 Days) % Meeting GoalNumber of Plan Checks

Represented

Building Review 4 7 84 400D & HP Review 3 7 80 129

Fire Review 3 7 95 174Health Review 4 7 92 26Power Review 8 7 50 10Public Works Review 1 7 100 233Water - Domestic 3 7 96 27Zoning Review 6 7 67 221

Projects Received 1/1/2014-9/30/2014

Building Review

D&HP Review

Fire Review

Health Review

Power Review

Public Works Review

Water - Domestic

Zoning Review

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Final Review - Medium Plan Checks

Goal (14 days)

Average Number of DaysAverage Number of Days

Goal (7 Days)

planning and community development department update on improvements to the development review...

Documents

community development

design review process

planning entitlementprepare

new design review staff

review of recommended

review proposed ideas

permit center staff

twoyear work program