CC SR 20221206 02 - Planning Permit Process Improvement
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/06/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a report on the City’s planning permit review
process.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a report prepared by Michael Baker International on the City’s
planning permit review process; and,
(2) Provide Staff with direction on the proposed recommendations intended to improve
efficiency with processing planning applications.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Octavio Silva, Interim Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Michael Baker International Planning Permit Review Efficiency Assessment
Memorandum dated October 31, 2022 (page A-1)
BACKGROUND:
From a bathroom remodel to the construction of a new single-family residence, the City’s
development review process is the mechanism that ensures such projects conform to
established zoning regulations and building code requirements. Depending on the scope
of a project and Municipal Code requirements, the development review process can range
from an over-the-counter review of construction plans and application materials to a more
complex land-use entitlement process requiring public notification and discretionary-level
review. While Staff strives to make the process a streamlined customer experien ce, the
City’s development review process, in particular the planning permit review process, can
be complicated, which may cause delays in the approval and permitting of a project.
1
The overall development process in the City involves various departments at City Hall, as
well as outside agencies such as Los Angeles County Fire Department. T his report
addresses efforts to better understand the planning process, which is the first step in the
overall development process. Based on an assessment of the City’s planning process
prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI), a planning consulting firm,
recommendations are intended to improve the efficiency and enhance the customer
experience of the planning process.
This report will first present a “nuts and bolts” of the City’s Community Development
Department as the main driver of the City’s development review process, followed by an
outline of the findings and recommendations of the MBI study that analyzed the City’s
planning process.
DISCUSSION:
Nuts and Bolts of Community Development Department
The Community Development Department is responsible for the orderly physical
development of the community by upholding the goals and policies of the City’s General
Plan through the issuance of land use entitlements and permits for improvements and
development of private property while balancing the needs of residents, businesses,
property owners and visitors. Generally speaking, the Community Development
Department manages the following:
• Land Use Entitlements
• Building and Safety Permits
• Code Enforcement Cases
• View Restoration Permits
• Land Use Studies and Master Plans
• The City’s General Plan
• The City’s Housing Element
• Coastal Specific Plan
• Western Avenue Specific Plan
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
• Equestrian Uses and Animal Control
• Coyote Management Plan
• Peafowl Management Plan
• Prohibition of Short-Term Rentals
The Community Development Department is comprised of the following four divisions:
• Planning
• Building and Safety
• Code Enforcement
• View Restoration
2
Regarding development applications, these are typically processed by the Planning and
the Building and Safety Divisions, and depending on the application type, also in
coordination with the City’s Public Works Department for approval of drainage, grading,
stormwater quality plans, and review of proposed maps and lot line adjustments.
Planning Division
The mission of the Planning Division is to preserve and enhance the City’s quality of life;
to protect the City’s natural resources; to ensure quality and sustainable community
development and affordable housing; and to protect the public health, safety, a nd welfare
of our community through the application and enforcement of the City’s Development
Codes and land use policies. This division is responsible for reviewing development
projects to ensure compliance with land use and environmental standards and providing
support to the Planning Commission. The Planning Division also manages planning
documents which affect the quality of life for City residents, such as the General Plan,
and provides zoning and other land use information to property owners, develope rs,
community organizations, businesses and any other members of the public.
Building and Safety Division
The Building and Safety Division focuses on building construction safety through the
implementation and enforcement of construction standards and codes. The Building and
Safety Division’s responsibilities and functions include checking construction and
engineering plans for compliance with all the applicable codes, issuing building permits,
and conducting inspections of the construction projects as they progress to ensure that
the code standards are met and that the project is constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and building code requirements. In addition, the division coordinates with
the City's geological consultants on the review of geology and soils reports for new
construction projects.
Code Enforcement Division
The Code Enforcement Division responds to resident and business complaints about
violations of the planning and building codes, including but not limited to the following
issues:
• Hazardous Property Conditions
• Illegal Grading
• Illegal Short-Term Rentals
• Illegal Storage Units [PODS]
• Inoperable and Abandoned Vehicles on Private Property
• Property Maintenance
• Signs, Including Signs in Public Right-of-Way and Signs without Permits
• Swale Maintenance
• Work without Permits
• Coyote and Peafowl Management (and other animal related matters)
3
Code Enforcement Staff often works closely with Planning as well as Building and Safety
Staff when permits are required to legalize work that has been completed or in the process
of being completed without permits.
View Restoration Division
The View Restoration Division implements the foliage component of the View Preservation
and Restoration Ordinance passed by the voters of the City as Proposition M on November
7, 1989, which is codified in Section 17.02.040 of the Municipal Code. This division’s duties
include assisting Planners with foliage analyses, and processing View Restoration and
View Preservation Permits, which address view impairment by privately-owned trees, and
providing input for the City Tree Review Permit program administered by the Public Works
Department that addresses view impairment by City-owned trees.
Planning Review Permit Process
The development review process encompasses a number of distinct but related functions
that provide approvals or entitlements for the development and use of public and private
properties. The process generally involves an assessment of a project's consistency and
compliance with the City's stated goals and objectives that are established in the General
Plan, Municipal Code including the Zoning Code, Coastal Specific Plan and in other
regulations and standards. The “planning permit review process” is generally the first step
in the overall development review process, which again, is the primary focus of this report.
The Planning Division is responsible for the processing of various types of planning
applications, which can be divided into two processing categories:
• Ministerial
• Discretionary
Ministerial applications involve planning decisions that are rendered over the counter by a
Planner to ensure that the proposed improvements meet the City’s Zoning
(Development) Code standards (i.e., setbacks, lot coverage, height, etc.), with the
possible necessity of a foliage analysis (if a project is 120 square feet or larger, and is
enclosed or if exterior, e.g., a patio cover, is considered a viewing area).
Decisions on planning applications that are rendered by the Director, Planning
Commission or City Council are discretionary decisions that usually involve, among
others, the finding of Neighborhood Compatibility and compliance with the City’s View
Ordinance. The review process for a discretionary application can be lengthy and is
summarized as follows:
4
Decisions rendered by the Planning Commission or City Council require more time to
process since they necessitate the publication and distribution of notices, scheduling of a
public hearing and often more than one public hearing is needed to render a decision.
Decisions by the City Council typically only occur as a result of an appeal, which are
processed as a “de novo” hearing.
Processing time between application submittal and application completeness (the time
when an application is deemed complete to begin the public noticing and staff report
process) includes the time taken by applicants to respond to incomplete application
items, which can vary in duration and which Staff has no control over. The Planning
Division conducts its completeness review of project plans within 30 calendar days, as
required by the State’s Permit Streamlining Act. Planning applications typically
processed by the Planning Division are as follows:
• Site Plan Review Permits
o Minor
o Major (Over the Counter without Foliage Analysis)
o Major (Over the Counter with Foliage Analysis)
o Major (With Neighborhood Compatibility)
• Height Variation Permit – to exceed 16’ in height
• Grading Permits
o Minor – between 20 and 50 cubic yards of earth movement on slopes of
less than 35%
o Major (Director Level Review)
o Major (Planning Commission Level Review)
• Conditional Use Permits-New and Revised (for various types of projects, including
wireless telecommunication facilities on private property, new commercial
buildings, residential planned developments, etc.)
• Variance Permit
• Coastal Permit
• Fence/Wall Permit
• Division of Land (Subdivisions including tract maps, parcel maps and lot line
adjustments)
• Zone Changes and Code Amendments
The multiple layers of review, public engagement, and project considerations at the
“planning stage” of an application have the effect of creating a process within a process,
i.e., a planning permit review process. After these applications are processed through the
5
planning permit review process and if approved either by a Planner, the Director, the
Planning Commission, or the City Council; applications for physical development are then
reviewed by the Building and Safety Division, the Public Works Department and outside
agencies (Fire Department, Sanitation District, etc.).
MBI’s Planning Process Assessment
At its August 17, 2021 meeting, the City Council requested that Staff review the planning
permit review process to make the process as friendly and efficient as possible. This was
because of public concerns that some of the planning processes are difficult and
inefficient, and there were likely opportunities to improve the planning permit review
process. At this meeting, it was stated that it would be helpful to retain a consultant who
would be able to assess the City’s planning permit review process and identify areas that
may need improvement, while identifying ways to make the process as friendly and
efficient as possible.
In response, Staff researched firms that could perform a cost-efficient procedural analysis
to study the City’s current development review process with an emphasis on the planning
permit review process. Staff identified MBI as the firm best suited due to its direct
experience providing technical planning support to the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Palos Verdes Estates and several other cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The
scope of work included a 1) review of existing land use entitlement applications and
workflows; 2) staff interviews to understand process requirements and identify reasons
for delays; 3) develop stakeholder questionnaire and analyze responses; 4) identify
entitlement best practices in adjacent and comparable agencies compared to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes; and 5) develop recommendations for process improvements and
efficiencies.
The attached report (Attachment A) focuses on identifying potential obstacles and
improvements in the “planning stage” of the development review process because this
stage in the process is critical to the customer experience. It should be noted that the
completion and presentation of this report is the first step in a larger effort to assess and
make improvements to ensure that ultimately all City departments and outside agencies
are working together seamlessly. The following summarizes the salient components and
findings of the MBI assessment report:
Questionnaire
MBI studied the existing planning permit review process and workflows of the Planning
Division and met with City Staff to learn more about review procedures and discern
potential process obstacles. In preparation, Staff provided MBI with a list of approximately
100 stakeholders, which included both Staff and members of the public who have
processed projects through the planning permit review process (Applicants). These
Applicants were provided a questionnaire developed by MBI and reviewed by Staff to
further gain insight into their perceptions of the review process. This questionnaire was
composed of six questions, which inquired about processing timelines, effectiveness of
staff communication, and information availability. MBI received 19 responses to the
6
questionnaire (approximately 20% response). As a result of the compilation of responses,
MBI identified what it determined to be the most common hindrances and concerns of the
review process and provided recommendations for improving the planning process based
on feedback received and best practices in similar and surrounding cities.
Several issues were identified by MBI, Staff, as well as Applicants regarding the areas of
the planning permit review process that are working well and those that warrant
improvement and process modifications, as summarized below.
• Areas that are Working Well
In general, MBI observed that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ planning permit
review process is fairly efficient and noted the following areas as positively
contributing to the process:
o Helpful public resources including online applications, guidelines,
handbooks and handouts.
o Availability of project review checklists to ensure application completeness.
o Digital review and processing of project plans and application materials.
o Weekly review meetings with all Staff, including the Director and Deputy
Director to discuss project components.
o Utilization of multi-departmental project and permitting tracking system
(Trakit).
o implementation of new online submittal portal for Building and Safety plan-
check.
• Areas for Improvement and Process Modifications
Both Staff and Applicants identified several issues that can be improved and
modified with the planning permit review process, as listed below:
Issues identified by Staff:
o Lack of direction to Applicants about coordination with outside agencies
until too late in the process.
o Inconsistent direction to Applicants regarding submittal requirements and
information provided, based on planner experience .
o Staffing levels that make it difficult to complete required tasks in a timely
manner.
Issues identified by Applicants:
o Excessive permit processing time due to:
▪ incorrect timelines provided by Staff
▪ incomplete initial project review
▪ overly strict development code
▪ onerous permit application requirements
▪ staff turnover
7
o Permit requirements are difficult to understand.
In addition to the aforementioned questionnaire, MBI also assessed the planning permit
review process of neighboring and/or similarly sized cities to obtain examples of
potentially more user-friendly websites that include illustrative tables and frequently asked
questions (FAQ) sections, as well as more explanatory planning application materials.
The cities studied by MBI included the cities of Calabasas, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos
Verdes Estates.
Assessment Report Recommendations
Based on the information collected by MBI via the questionnaire, interviews and research
of surrounding cities, MBI provided recommendations that fall into three main themes that
include Staff review improvements, improving Applicants’ understanding of requirements,
and availability of user-friendly information. These themes are identified below in bold
text. Under each theme, MBI identified specific recommendations, which are further
identified in italics. Following these recommendations, Staff included a response and a
potential timeline for implementation. Staff seeks Council direction on how to proceed
with the recommendations listed below.
• Improve overall understanding and consistency of process requirements by:
o Conducting an internal training workshop on at least an annual basis with
Planning Division staff to discuss concerns and questions regarding
Planning application review and update applicati on checklists to improve
these processes.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs, but would suggest conducting an
internal training workshop at least twice per year, allotting time as
well to update the applications and checklists as needed.
▪ Timing: The first workshop could feasibly be held in the first quarter
of 2023, as Staff believes such a workshop would be more valuable
once the Planning Division is fully staffed, and there are currently
four open positions of seven total (not including Director and Deputy
Director positions).
o Ensuring that subjective comments used in Planning application response
letters refer to existing City documents and Design Guidelines, such as the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and General Plan.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs, and this can be accomplished
through more thorough training of existing and new Staff utilizing an
updated Department Procedures Manual which has not been
updated since 2011.
▪ Timing: This most likely can be accomplished by June 30, 2023, the
end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, as Staff recommends updating the
Department Procedures Manual as a first priority to improving this
8
process (see additional Staff-generated improvement
recommendations below.)
o Creating policies or handouts to clarify unclear Municipal Code information
provided by planning Staff in response to planning submittals.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs, but Staff will first need to identify
which portions of the Municipal Code could benefit from additional
clarification. Based on the results of the recent questionnaire, Staff
has been made aware that the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permit
process is a bit opaque. However, it should be noted Staff recently
created an ADU webpage, which will eventually include additional
information regarding the ADU permit process, including handouts,
etc. Other informational webpages are in development for two-unit
developments (SB 9), and the Building and Safety Division recently
updated a dozen different handouts, notices, and flyers as part of
their streamlined process updates.
▪ Timing: This should be able to be completed within the first quarter
of 2023, after additional planning Staff are brought on board.
o Ensuring that all documents that are referred in planning application
response letters comments are posted on the City’s webpage.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs that all documents referred to when
requesting additional information and/or corrected plans should be
available on the Planning Division’s webpage and should be checked
and updated on a regular basis. It should be straightforward to review
the Planning Division’s webpage and verify if all the documents that
are typically mentioned in planning application response letters are
referenced.
▪ Timing: Staff should be able to complete this prior to the end of the
2022 calendar year.
• Ensure that Planning Division information is accessible and user-friendly for
all customers by:
o Creating a FAQ section in the Planning Division section of the City’s
webpage, updating the planning project review flowcharts, and adding
“cheat sheets” to better help Applicants navigate the process.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs as these recommendations would
be beneficial in that providing Applicants with answers to common
questions would help to relieve some of the stress on the planning
counter staff and free up staff time for processing of submitted
projects.
▪ Timing: This should be able to be completed within the first quarter
of 2023, after additional Planning Division staff are brought on board.
9
o Simplify the existing Planning Division’s informational handouts by
combining some handouts and creating a sample plan set that can be
posted on the City's website.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs and is already researching ways to
best provide planning permit processing information through more
simplified handouts and the types of sample plan sets that would be
most beneficial to publish.
▪ Timing: This should be able to be completed within the second
quarter of 2023, after additional Planning Division Staff are brought
on board.
o Per stakeholder’s suggestions, a partnership with a digital database or
mapping company to provide a digital platform that gathers all applicable
regulations and ordinances for all parcels within City limits could be very
beneficial for customer due diligence and ensure a smoother review
process.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs and will work with the City’s GIS
consultant to determine the requirements and required effort this
would entail. The City’s GIS consultant is currently in the end stages
of transitioning the City’s GIS interface to the latest ArcGIS software
by ESRI, which will allow the residents and businesses to take
advantage of new features introduced in the latest ArcGIS releases,
including better access to zoning and land-use information. Staff will
also maintain ongoing efforts to provide online information including
access to permit records.
▪ Timing: Ongoing.
• Consider potential long-range policy and/or Municipal Code changes
including:
o Scheduling a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to
examine the Zoning (Development) Code and its nexus and impacts to
review timeframes of certain discretionary applications, resulting in possible
code amendments or removal of arduous or subjective application
requirements.
▪ Staff’s Response: Staff concurs, but seeks direction from the City
Council regarding whether or not to proceed with this option. Often
times, applicants have expressed that the length of time to
processing planning applications is directly related to the somewhat
onerous and daunting requirements of the Zoning Code
▪ Timing: If directed to by the City Council, a joint study session can
be scheduled by the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, after additional
Planning Division Staff and a Director are brought on board.
10
o Hiring of additional Planning Division Staff to manage workloads of existing
staff.
▪ Staff’s Response: This is strongly recommended by Staff, as the
Planning Division (not including the Deputy Director) is currently
working with a team of three, instead of a fully-staffed division of
seven). It should be noted that the division has not been fully-staffed
since the beginning of the fiscal year. View Restoration Division Staff
are currently assisting the Planning Division with planning case work,
which increases the staffing level by one additional Senior Planner
and one Associate Planner. Additionally, starting the week of
November 21, 2022, staffing support is also being provided by MBI.
▪ Timing: Recruitment efforts to fill all vacant positions are currently
underway and ongoing.
Staff requests the City Council review the recommendations suggested by MBI and to
provide further direction. It should be noted that the current Community Development
Director, Ken Rukavina, is retiring from municipal services (his last day in the office
being November 30, 2022). Recruitment for this department head position will
commence after the holidays, and Octavio Silva, the current Deputy Community
Development Director will be serving as the Interim Community Development Director.
The recommendations made by MBI to improve and enhance the efficiency of the
planning process can proceed, if directed by the City Council. However, it may be
beneficial to time the implementation of some of the recommendations with the hiring
of the new permanent Community Development Director to allow added input and
insight.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Comprehensive Assessment of the Development Process
As previously noted, the City’s development process involves various departments at
City Hall (Community Development and Public Works), as well as outside agencies
such as Los Angeles County Fire Department. The assessment report presented this
evening focuses on the planning process as a first step in a larger effort to assess and
make improvements to City’s overall development process which will occur after
implementation of the proposed recommendations noted in the Discussion section
above.
CONCLUSION:
As stated in this staff report and the attached MBI report, development application
processes have been identified for improvement and the Planning Division is
motivated to improve its development review process to enhance the existing suite of
project review resources and Staff expertise. Additionally, Staff believes implementing
the above recommendations will streamline the application review process; improve
11
clarity for Applicants, property owners and other customers ; and enhance internal
organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
12
1
MEMORANDOM
DATE: October 31, 2022
TO: Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
FROM: John Obing, Assistant Planner, Michael Baker International
Jeffrey Graham, Senior Planner, Michael Baker International
SUBJECT: Planning Permit Review Process Efficiency Assessment
Summary
In response to direction from the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and in
response to customer concerns related to processing timeframes and overall lack of
predictability in terms of required materials and application processing times, Michael
Baker International (MBI) was retained by the Community Development Department of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to assess the Planning Division’s planning permit review
process and provide a report that summarizes the results.
This study was conducted to provide an assessment of the City’s current planning permit
review process, identify opportunities to streamline application review periods, improve
clarity for property owners and other customers, and enhance internal organizational
efficiency and effectiveness. The planning permit review process is the first step of a
larger development review process that involves other divisions of Community
Development and other City Departments. The planning permit review process typically
begins with submittal of the required application, plans and fees to the planning counter
staff either in person or virtually. City staff (“staff”) reviews the materials, requests
corrections, and when the materials are considered complete for processing, a public
notice is sent out and public comments are received within a 15- or 30-day comment
period (length dependent on the application type). The last step is for the staff report to
be prepared, which describes the project, existing and proposed conditions, staff’s
findings as they relate to the Development Code, provides a recommendation for approval
or denial, and addresses any public comments, and once approved, either by the Director
or the Planning Commission, there is a 15-day appeal period.
MBI Staff studied the existing planning permit review process and workflows of the
Planning Division and also met with City staff to learn more about planning permit review
process procedures and potential obstacles in the process. In preparation, staff provided
MBI with a list of approximately 100 stakeholders, which included both staff and members
of the public who have been involved in development projects with the City ("Applicants”).
These stakeholders were provided a questionnaire specifically developed by MBI to
A-1
2
further gain insight into customers’ perceptions of the review process. As a result of the
questionnaire answers, MBI staff has identified the most common hindrances and
concerns of the review process and in this report, provided recommendations for
improvements based on feedback received and best practices in similar and surrounding
cities.
Current Planning Permit Review Process
Figure No. 1 - Current Planning Permit Review Process
Figure No. 1 above provides an overview of the current workflow for most planning permit
review applications. Based on the information collected, the average planning permit
review process takes approximately 5 to 6 months using the following timeline:
• 1-3 days from submittal to project assignment
• 30 days max from submittal to first incomplete letter (initial review)
A-2
3
• 30 days max for each subsequent submittal (time for applicant submittal can vary
from a few days to months)
• Once project is deemed complete for processing, 60 days to project decision,
whether that be Director, Planning Commission, and/or City Council decision. A
15- or 30-day comment period is part of the 60-day decision deadline
• Once the decision is rendered (Director/PC/CC), there is usually a 15-day appeal
period (Coastal Permits and Special Use Permits have slightly different appeal
periods)
Current Project Review Resources
Several project review resources are currently available to staff. These include a review
checklist which was drafted by previous Planning Division staff to help ensure that all
major project items are submitted and/or addressed, a Department Procedures Manual
that includes general planning permit review processing policies and procedures,
programs to digitally review and comment on plans, which eliminates the need for
scanning paper plans, weekly review meetings with all staff, including the Planning
Director and Deputy Director, and review of project status letters by more senior staff.
Another resource available to staff is the City’s “Trakit” permit tracking system, which is
used by the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department, the
Finance Department, and the Recreation and Parks Department. This online program has
many project management features built into it, such as an integrated review checklist
that is automatically populated for different types of projects, and a “Schedule Event”
option within the chronology tab of the program. Staff can select an event type and date,
and the program automatically inserts due dates for various time sensitive deliverables
such as public notices and staff reports.
However, as all staff does not consistently utilize these resources, MBI is of the opinion
that there may be ways to utilize these existing resources more fully and more efficiently.
These suggestions are discussed further in the “Recommendations” section below.
Analysis
To better understand the Planning Division’s planning permit review process and to
establish baseline recommendations, MBI Staff conducted staff interviews and sent out a
questionnaire to approximately 100 key stakeholders.
Staff Interviews
MBI Staff interviewed senior-level staff in the Planning Division to learn more about
application review procedures. Planning Division staff shared the following observations:
A-3
4
• Many customers are not informed about additional department or outside agency
(e.g., Los Angeles County Fire Department and/or Public Health Department)
reviews and requirements until later in the planning permit review process.
Although shown on the flow-chart above, the pre-application meeting in which
Planning Division staff can provide application and review process information
based on a customer’s intended scope of work is not mandatory. Additionally, staff
will typically provide the customer with information solely based on Planning
Division requirements. However, many customers are not informed that other City
departments and/or outside agencies review the application and may have
additional review procedures and submittal requirements.
• During the initial review of a project, staff may provide recommendations outside
of the application checklist requirements. These recommendations may be
subjective in nature, as they are developed based on the approval or denial of past
projects or design elements of an area of the City. As these recommendations are
based on a Planner’s experience with past projects and not found specifically in
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; at times they have led to extended
negotiations between staff and applicants, extending the review timeline.
• There are a few neighborhoods within the City that are subject to different
development and/or design standards through a Specific Plan or Planned
Development, but these requirements cannot be found within the City’s Municipal
Code or on the Planning Division’s webpage. Depending on a Planner’s
experience with the City, this information could be missed during an initial review
of the project proposal.
• Planning Division staff have increasingly mounting workloads. A recent influx of
planning permit applications combined with daily demands of the Planning Division
public counter, phones and administrative tasks have made it difficult for Planning
Division staff to ensure an efficient planning permit review process.
Stakeholder Questionnaire
In order to efficiently obtain feedback about the planning permit review process, MBI Staff
and senior Planning Division staff prepared a questionnaire that was given or sent to key
stakeholders. As stated above, Planning staff identified approximately 100 stakeholders,
including staff, architects, contractors, owner-builders, developers, designers and other
Applicants who have a history working with the Planning Division, and have applied for
various types of applications, such as Minor Site Plan Reviews for simple projects such
as air conditioning units and firepits; Major Site Plan Reviews for simple, small additions;
Site Plan Reviews with Neighborhood Compatibility for larger additions/new homes, etc.;
Major Grading Permits; Conditional Use Permits; and Variances.
A-4
5
The goal of this questionnaire was to gain insights on the issues and concerns
stakeholders have regarding their experiences with the City’s planning permit review
process. The questionnaire also provided a way to crowdsource ideas and
recommendations from stakeholders for improving processing timeframes and managing
expectations. The questionnaire included six questions regarding planning permit review
process turnaround time, common hindrances, and suggestions for process
improvements. MBI Staff created the questionnaire using Google Forms and sent to the
stakeholders via email. The stakeholders were given one week to complete the
questionnaire. A total of 19 stakeholders responded to the questionnaire. Below is a
summary of responses and issues identified by the stakeholders (full stakeholder
questionnaire is included in Attachment A):
1. In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review process, what is
the general turnaround time for a Planning Division Permit approval?
The responses to this question were mixed; a majority of the stakeholders responded that
the process for a planning permit was approximately 6 months or longer, which is outside
of the Planning Division’s provided review time of 5-6 months.
A-5
6
2. In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review process, do you
feel your project(s) was/were processed in a timely manner?
Many of the stakeholders felt that their projects were not processed in a timely manner.
To provide reasons for this response, one of the main stakeholder answers was that they
were given incorrect timelines by Planning Division staff. Many felt that ministerial projects
were processed on time, but those that required discretionary review (i.e., by Director,
Planning Commission and/or City Council) review took longer than expected due to the
requirements being onerous and/or overly detailed. Others stated that the review process
for all City departments took longer than expected due to staff workload.
3. Do you think the Planning Division’s development process is easy to understand and
follow?
Most of the stakeholders agree that the Planning Division’s processes are easy to
understand. However, some of the stakeholders also commented how the City’s planning
permit review process is easy to understand if one is a professional, such as a licensed
contractor or architect who has previous knowledge of planning permit review processes.
The average person who does not have formal experience in the field or has had little
A-6
7
contact with the Planning Division may have a difficult time understanding the processes
as they could seem unclear or vague.
4. When proposing and/or submitting a project, do you feel staff provided adequate
information regarding all the necessary permit processing steps?
The stakeholders mostly agree that staff provide adequate information regarding review
processes for development projects. A few stakeholders disagreed with this question,
citing that some staff gives vague answers or are unaware of certain permit processing
steps. The planning permit review process of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
applications were cited more than once as a process that is difficult to understand.
5. Do you feel that staff’s communication methods, (e.g., letters, emails, etc.) are
adequately effective?
Most of the stakeholders agree that the Planning Division’s modes of communication are
effective. Based on several responses, the stakeholders prefer emails to letter responses
from Planning staff. The stakeholders mostly received timely responses from staff through
email regarding their questions and inquiries.
A-7
8
6. In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review process, what
common issues arise that delay or hinder a project?
The issues that stakeholders face during the planning permit review process range
widely. Many stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the length of time given by
Planner staff in the initial project meeting does not account for the time required to
obtain certain application submittal requirements. According to several stakeholder
responses, discretionary application requirements such as constructing a silhouette
and obtaining neighbor signatures can be difficult to obtain and add unforeseen
schedules delays to the review process. Based on the questionnaire responses,
changes in staff assigned to a particular project over the project’s review period
resulted in additional requirements. Stakeholders also mentioned that their projects
would take multiple rounds of staff review because application and/or code
requirements were not brought up to the applicant in the initial review.
Similar and Surrounding Cities and Best Practices
MBI Staff reached out to staff and reviewed the planning materials of neighboring and/or
similar cities to learn how their processes compared with those of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The cities of Calabasas, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates were analyzed
due to their similar size and demographic to Rancho Palos Verdes. The following are the
key takeaways of this study:
• Planning information that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes provides to customers
is comparable to the municipalities studied. Rancho Palos Verdes provides a
submittal checklist along with any supplemental forms within each application. In
discussions with the City staff surveyed, the checklists and forms were an effective
way of relaying information on the processing of Planning Applications.
• The Cities of Calabasas, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estates appear to offer a
more user-friendly website for homeowners and building professionals alike,
specifically on their Planning website using tables and Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) sections. The City of Palos Verdes Estates provides its customers with a
planning application “cheat sheet” (Attachment B) which outlines the triggers,
approximate timelines, and appeal periods for all the City’s development projects.
Both the Cities of Calabasas and Rolling Hills Estates have a FAQ section
(Attachments C and D) on their websites that refers to commonly asked questions
regarding application processing.
Recommendations
After analyzing the staff interview responses, stakeholder questionnaire responses, and
planning permit Review Process best practices from the neighboring and/or similar cities,
MBI Staff is of the opinion that the three most common issue areas surrounding the
A-8
9
planning permit review process are: lack of easily accessible resources available for
customers to be informed about the planning permit review process, project review
timelines and inconsistencies, and the strenuous requirements for discretionary projects.
To address these issues, MBI Staff has compiled a list of recommended actions below:
• Restructure staff review of planning permit applications. During the pre-application
meeting, staff should encourage customers to contact other departments for
feedback on their proposed scope of work. Another possible solution could be the
creation of a Development Advisory Board, in which representatives from all
departments (Building, Public Works, Fire, etc.) could meet during a specified
time(s) during the month to provide feedback on recently submitted projects. This
feedback would be translated to comments by each department and provided to
the Project Planner to include in their response letter to the applicant. By allowing
all departments to review the application and provide preliminary comments within
the first 30 days of the intake of the application, applicants can be aware of all
application requirements in the early stages of a project. Existing digital programs
such as Trakit, the City’s digital workflow management system for managing
planning applications and permits, could be more formally integrated into the
planning permit review process, perhaps by training all planners to utilize the
aforementioned checklist and “Scheduled Event” program features. A more
formalized permit review procedure in Trakit may be helpful as well, which can also
be used as a means for improving communication between departments by
serving as a shared database for all project comments, plans, applications, and
review status. Required training in this program for all planning staff is
recommended for best results. Additionally, the Department Procedures manual
could be updated, as it has not been formally updated since 2011. This would allow
for a centralized planner training guide to be created.
• Improve overall understanding and consistency of process requirements. To
ensure that there is common understanding of the level of review required for each
project, a workshop with Planning Division staff could be conducted annually to
discuss concerns and questions regarding Planning application review and update
application checklists to improve these processes. Subjective comments used in
Planning application response letters should refer to existing City documents and
Design Guidelines, like the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and General
Plan. Other subjective comments that are used often by Planning staff could be
catalogued as City policies. All documents that are referred to when making these
comments should be posted on the City’s webpage or accessible at the Planning
Counter so that customers are aware of the additional requirements that could
arise in the review of their project.
• Ensure that Planning Division information is accessible and user-friendly for all
customers. Creating a FAQ section, planning project review flowcharts, and cheat
sheets such as used in Palos Verdes Estates (Appendix B) on the Planning
A-9
10
Division section of the City’s webpage, could minimize the time spent by staff
answering basic questions, and allow staff to focus on reviewing planning
applications. Another way to improve customer education on what is required for
planning applications is to simplify the existing Planning Division’s informational
handouts by combining some handouts so that all or most of the information is in
one place and create an example plan set that can be posted in the City's website.
Per a stakeholder’s suggestion, a partnership with a digital database or mapping
company to provide a digital platform that gathers all applicable regulations and
ordinances for all parcels within City limits could be very beneficial for customer
due diligence and ensure a smoother review process.
• Potential long-range changes. The stakeholders and City staff expressed concerns
that existing code and application requirements may contribute towards longer
processing times for some projects. A joint City Council and Planning Commission
study session could be held to examine the Development Code and its nexus and
impacts to lengthy review timeframes of certain discretionary applications and the
reasons for those delays, resulting in possible code amendments or removal of
arduous application requirements. Additionally, the hiring of additional Planning
Division staff would be beneficial to manage workloads of existing staff.
Conclusion
As a result of this assessment, MBI staff believes that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’
planning permit review process is fairly efficient and comparable to those found in similar
and surrounding cities. While there are some chokepoints that could benefit from the
recommendations contained in this report, the Planning Division is well positioned to
improve its planning permit review process due to its existing suite of review resources
and staff expertise. MBI staff is of the opinion that using these assets and alleviating the
key issue areas surrounding the planning permit review process will streamline
application review periods, improve clarity for property owners and other customers, and
enhance internal organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
Attachments
Attachment A - Stakeholder Questionnaire & Results (Separate Document)
Attachment B - City of Palos Verdes Estates Planning Application Cheat Sheet
Attachment C - City of Rolling Hills FAQ Section
Attachment D - City of Calabasas FAQ Section
A-10
11
Attachment B - City of Palos Verdes Estates Planning Application Cheat Sheet
A-11
12
Attachment C - City of Rolling Hills FAQ Section
A-12
13
Attachment D - City of Calabasas FAQ Section
A-13
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 1/16
What is the nature of your business? (i.e., architect, contractor, designer,
engineer, owner-builder, etc.)
19 responses
In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review
process, what is the general turnaround time for a Planning Permit
approval?
19 responses
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division
Questionnaire
19 responses
Publish analytics
Copy
Architect
Architect/builder/owner
Assistant Planner at…
DESIGNER
Designer & Engineer
Owner
Planning
architect
0
1
2
3
4
4 (21.1%)4 (21.1%)4 (21.1%)
1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%1 (5.3%1 (5.3%
Copy
0-3 months
3-6 months
6-9 months
9+ months
N/A
21.1%
36.8%
26.3%
10.5%
A-14
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 2/16
In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review
process, do you feel your project(s) was/were processed in a timely
manner?
19 responses
Copy
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A
26.3%21.1%
21.1%
26.3%
A-15
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 3/16
Please explain your answer to the question above. Please feel free to provide any
recommendations for improvement.
19 responses
Planners have always been responsive and well informed on the code. Emails returned within
one work day.
Initially we were going to do a 2nd story but partially because of the review and the height
variance we decided against the 2nd story. there should be a way of waiving the height
variance and all the additional cost associated with that review for houses that have no
obvious views.
I believe the city follows the guidelines of the permit streamlining act which allow for 30 days
before responses need to be given back and they seems to slow things down especially for
minor corrections or after we've put up a silhouette. There have been times where planners got
back to me faster but they usually take the whole time. Other cities are usually faster but we
usually have to go to the planning commission for projects. In RPV we generally don't have to
go to the planning commission which is great that so much more can be handled on a staff
level.
Planning response time is typically close to the 35 day’s turnaround for response even in
resubmittals regardless of how simple the corrections are.
often a plan is submitted and it receives little to no attention. There needs to be more formality
to the review process with respect to time responses. For instance I informally submitted a
new home for review and input three weeks ago, I am still waiting for the staff review
comments, even though I was told I would have them last Thursday after the staff meeting.
I had another project which was required to have an elevator for a disabled home owner, the
review took 7-8 times the normal, when ADA item are supposed to be fast tracked by director. I
know the director has changed 3 times now and this is a historic issue, but it plays to the
question above.
It takes at least 2 years to get anything approved
The planning review process seems timely, but once it gets into the higher review we get less
explanation on what the time lines should be.
Didn't get response from the same planner. When I didn't hear back, had to reach out to other
planners for information requested.
They are processed within the permit streamlining act. Eliminating discretionary reviews or
reducing workload will help process projects more quickly.
There doesn't seem to be a streamlined process. We have had a few jobs with RPV now and
each one has been exhausting with the amount of time it takes to get permits approved. I'mA-16
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 4/16
currently working on one that has been in the departments hands for a year now and we still
have a ways to go before approval. This is so much time, our clients sometimes stop paying us
and we end up taking on and paying the costs ourselves to try and preserve client relations.
Timely compared to other cities.
The Planning Staff does the best they can. Unfortunately, because of the planning code, the
process to approve a single story addition that needs neighborhood compatibility, or a second
story addition, or new home that needs a height variation application is very lengthy. I have
several recommendations.
1) Perhaps the Council should review the thresholds for area/ square footage for single story
neighborhood compatibility. It seems reasonable to me that, since this portion of the code was
written over thirty years ago, that it may need to be revisited. Currently, most modest single
story, under 16 feet, residential additions are require neighborhood compatibility review which
is lengthy and costly for the owner.
2) The Council should investigate the possibility of implementing a Floor to Area Ratio(FAR)
this may be a beneficial way to limit the size proposed structures and decreasing the
bureaucratic process - perhaps looking as the City of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills
Estates as a model may be beneficial.
3) I think that, although it's very time consuming, the High Variation application makes
reasonable sense. Views are important to our community. This being said, the requirement to
gather signatures from door to door should be expanded to also send a letter and plans though
certified US mail. I've been practicing in the City for over two years, and this requirement, in my
opinion, has turned into a hardship for the homeowner. I've had clients who are disabled and
could not navigate the streets. Also in 2022, and after a pandemic and high crime/theft in our
city, neighbors are more reluctant to answer the door. Having an option to gsather signatures
or certified mail would be an improvement in the process.
4) The council should mandate that all Planning Commissioners visit the project site prior to
the hearing date. Also, they should be strongly encouraged to read the Staff recommendations
prior to the haring date.
Depending on the Planner , the review time varies
I built 22 homes at the Trump Estates. With So Kim before Amy I could get a planning approval
in 45 days the last 3 houses took 2 1/2 years to get Amy to approve my plans. It was the
longest process ever in 35 years of Development. I have built over 600 homes in 35 years. The
Trump family wants me to purchase more land and develop some more homes. I am going to
pass and move my development company to another City it takes too long.
The processing of plans were done as expeditiously as possible by staff, however the
requirements on what the City needs to process discretionary development applicants can
often be onerous and planning staff is often waiting for the applicants to submit additional
materials. All discretionary planning applications require mailing labels for public notices and
a silhouette to be constructed partway through the review. The process of constructing a
project silhouette, having it stamped by a licensed surveyor, and the ensuing site visit can
often add 2-3 months of time to a project from when staff requests the silhouette be
constructed to final sign off on the silhouette and proceeding to the public noticing period. Not
to mention additional constraints presented by financing the project as some homeowners areA-17
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 5/16
unaware that a silhouette is necessary when they are submitting their materials. Other
requirements that can be required for minor home additions would be mailing labels for a
public notice which includes a 15 or 30 day public noticing period. At the end, the staff reports
that are required are often 12-15 pages long and require considerable staff time to draft and
finalize. Most staff reports take 30 to 45 days to complete due to existing work loads from
other projects, deadlines, and the public facing counter.
The answer may vary on the type of approval required.
The process of Neighborhood Compatibility from our perspective is running ok.
One issue that comes to mind as an example, is the requirement that very simple deviations
from approved plans require a Minor Mod. This has burden staff with a lot more work and the
owners with extra cost and delays.
The Director for many years had the authority to approve deviations over the counter which do
not impact neighbors.
Another example is that if conditions of approval are established by the Planning Commission,
these should not be considered changes that require a Minor Mod since these revisions were
presented and directed during the public hearing.
In terms of the Public Hearings, a few suggestions would include:
1. More control of the hearings by the Director to the Planning Commission to focus on the
main impacts of the project and let staff handle small items administratively.
2. I also believe that The Planning Commission could exercise more fairness to the applicants
when reviewing the projects, as an example:
For many years new projects were evaluated in height by a string line between the two
adjacent properties for the height proposed (which seemed fair to everyone); but in the recent
years, there is no metric used and the result has pushed properties into a "hole" destroying
harmony on the street and neighborhood character.
If requested, I will be glad to share other instances which I think could have been handled
differently and saved everyone a lot of time and cost.
Regarding residential developments, the required effort to get to a Planning Department and
Planning Commission review is extremely detailed and overkill. No other city including Palos
Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Beverly Hills, Laguna Beach and other cities
with the same type of communities and topography have so many requirements, delays and
cost like RPV.
Many of the tasks required should be requested once the project has been conceptually
approved by the Planning Department and Planning Commission. Examples such as Public
Works, Fire Department, Soils and Geology and other reports/efforts could be coordinated
after a conceptual approval has been granted, otherwise this effort may need to be completely
re-done if changes are requested by the Planning Commission. This could result in cost
exceeding 100 K and delays of several years.
Another outdated requirement is the "Early consultation with the neighbors". As we know in
A-18
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 6/16
today's "scenario", no one will open the door to strangers or sign any unfamiliar document.
Perhaps a sign should be put on the property after the silhouette is erected and any interested
party can come to the city or look at the website to review the proposed project.
Also as suggested before, applicants should be able to request a preliminary review with the
Planning Commission for guidance before investing time and money on a project that may be
shut down.
There are many other suggestions which I would like to share which could save a lot of time
and cost to the city and applicants.
Ministerial projects are reviewed/approved quickly (within a few weeks); however, the
discretionary project review/approval process is lengthy due to all the steps involved and could
use streamlining. I suggest removing certain requirements such as the "Early Neighborhood
Consultation Process" for Height Variation Permit projects, which requires applicants to go
door-to-door to obtain signatures from neighbors within a 500 ft. radius of the project site
acknowledging that they were consulted with on the project. I feel as if this requirement puts a
burden on applicants since some homeowners may feel uncomfortable opening their door to
strangers, may not be home or in a different area, etc.; causes misunderstandings among
neighbors who do not understand that the 1st plan submittal is not the final design; and
causes project delays and cancellations. Applicants should have the ability to submit their
projects and all unforeseen issues can be addressed during the planning review process.
Neighbors/public have the ability to provide comments/concerns after the project silhouette
goes up and after they've been mailed a public notice. If they miss the notice in the mail, the
silhouette on the property should cause attention to the property and make it obvious that it is
to be developed soon.
Lastly, I find it difficult to find time to review plans and do other work tasks due to our current
counter hours. I suggest reducing the City's counter hours, even minimally, to provide staff
additional time for other tasks, similar to many other jurisdictions. Alternatively, I suggest
hiring additional staff (Assistant Planner/Planning Technician/Intern) to assist with inquiries
and code enforcement cases.
LME coupled with ADU to SB-9 ‘second-unit’ designation, for our proposed development took
almost a year. The planner did the best she could, too much politics, hesitation to move
forward as housing mandate evolved.
A-19
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 7/16
Do you think the Planning Division's development process is easy to
understand and follow?
19 responses
Copy
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A10.5%
15.8%
15.8%
21.1%
36.8%
A-20
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 8/16
Please explain your answer to the question above. Please feel free to provide any
recommendations for improvement.
19 responses
Are all city codes or a bit difficult to understand as they are added to. Trying to placate
presidents as a difficult task. But I find Rancho Palos Verdes Has a process that is easier to
comply with and other cities. Even though it is tiered on the size and location
its easy if you have done it before. for a first timer its byzantine.
I've done enough projects where I am pretty clear on the process but if it was my first time
there may be a learning curve as I feel like I usually ask a lot of questions to make sure I am
getting all the info I need up front.
It is pretty straightforward
I believe I understand the process because I have developed so many projects in RPV but as
compared to many of the other city planning departments RPV is rather complex. Sometimes it
appears even subjective in its review. I have designed homes for clients and told it is too large
and not compatible and then a new home pops up near the proposed home and it is even
larger than the home I was proposing. Why so subjective?
Better educated staff. Well defined requirements
Depends on the project I have, and the scale.
Once the planner went over the process, what is required, etc... it made it easy to understand.
Would be easier to have the information on line so it can be shared with the client and other
parties.
Projects are "processed" in a timely manner within the permit streamlining act. However, due to
the details required for review and complexity of the code, as well as the workload, turnaround
time is not as quick as applicant's expect.
Neutral. Maybe an online portal that details what has been submitted, where we on in the
process, shows open requirements, and required reviews; all in one easy to read place. This
way we can see any special requirements on the spot and consult early on with our clients
about where their project is headed during the review process.
Yeah, its pretty clearly laid out.
It's understandable to a professional who has some experience with it, however, the typical
property owner is usually unaware of the lengthy and costly project. They do not understand
how the large planning review fees and time spend is a benefit to them or the community.
A-21
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 9/16
We work on many different projects and sometimes the corrections and direction from
Planning staff is not always 100 percent clear.
The staff used to be very helpful and supportive. Now nothing but excuses and no response to
emails and phone calls for 2 1/2 years it was awful process.
The process can be easy to understand since the City provides clear instruction on what is
necessary for review.
The handouts seem easy to follow and the guidelines are generally clear.
The simple answer is yes, but to execute is very costly and time consuming. Refer to a few
suggestions above.
The planning/development process is very complex at the City. There are numerous
regulations and requirements that staff goes over with residents and applicants; however, to
save time I suggest improving our informational handouts, perhaps combining some handouts
so that all or most of the information is in one place, or creating an example plan set that we
can post on the City's website so applicants can better understand the information we're
looking for on plans. Another (more costly) suggestion would be to partner with companies
like Symbium or Tyler Technologies (Decision Engine integrated with Tyler’s Enterprise
Permitting & Licensing software) to provide a digital platform that gathers all applicable
regulations, ordinances, etc. for a specific property, etc.
No clear steps on a ‘road map’ - due in part to evolving statue.
When proposing and/or submitting a project, do you feel Staff provided
adequate information regarding all the necessary permit processing
steps?
19 responses
Copy
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A
10.5%
15.8%10.5%
26.3%
36.8%
A-22
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 10/16
Please explain your answer to the question above. Please feel free to provide any
recommendations for improvement.
19 responses
Lately with the ADU situation concrete answers are a bit hard to come bye
i think a YouTube video would be easy to prepare and it could run you thru the whole process
for a typical addition.
Similar response to the above...I know what questions to ask which helps get me the
information I need to get through the process faster.
They’ve always been able to provide answers to these type of questions.
When we reach out to staff, they do a good job in getting us a response quickly. It is the review
time process that seems to be an issue. I would like to also qualify my comments to working
with staff for over 20 years so I know the current staff is new and they have been good to work
with thus far.
Many times they do not know the process
They usually map out map out the permits and fees once they review my plans.
Once i got the information verbally and thru a couple of planners it was.
Depending on experience with the City, it may feel more difficult/easier than others.
We've had calls in with the planners to get a gage on timeframes and other requirements that
could hold the project up. Months and months will go by through some review process to just
have department come back with potential setbacks that could have been stated and
established early in the process. This causes a cycle of unknowns, including the fact that a
project may cease and close due to client concerns that we could not discuss with them prior.
Compared to surrounding cities, RPV staff is definitely the best to work with.
Yes, in my experience, the planning staff does a very good job at this.
Sometimes additional applications might be needed as further review of the project is done by
the city staff. ADU’s seem to be A bit confusing to both staff and how the codes apply
So Kim was great
This is more dependent on the person who is guiding a new applicant through the process.
Some planners are purposely vague as to not commit the City to any specific position andA-23
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 11/16
some provide a lot of detail but can sometimes cause issues with misleading expectations
down the line if the review process discovers a new issue that was not previously identified.
From my experience, that seems to be working well
Yes.
I feel like staff does their best to provide adequate information regarding necessary permit
processing steps. I feel as if certain planners provide more detailed and helpful information to
applicants, but there is not always time to do so. I suggest providing more resources
(handouts, the suggestions I mentioned previously, etc.) to applicants so they can easily find
information on their own.
Same as above
A-24
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 12/16
In your experience with the Planning Division’s development review process, what
common issues arise that delay or hinder a project?
19 responses
It usually comes down to the grading element and how one interprets the requirements based
on yardage and how those cubic yards are calculated.
i think the whole initial notifying your neighbors was a complete waste of time. you have to pay
for a map and they get notified by mail anyways. walking around and getting the to sign the
initial was a pain. they all signed since there is no view where we live.
Going around getting signatures and trying to explain that the neighbors aren't "approving"
plans, just acknowledging receipt, is a huge waste of time...mailing packages out would be
much easier.
Sometimes the planner comes up with responses that are not backed up by codes.
The time line of review is the issue I most have to deal with. Often my clients are asking where
do we stand and what is going on. The number of times a project has to be reviewed from staff
seems excessive. On my last project we were proposing a 50 sq ft addition, but when we
submitted it I was told it had to go to a public hearing for that small addition. This killed the
addition and we reworked the plans to skip this step. The initial review should be critical in the
process and comprehensive. Often it feels as though if the plans were reviewed and
incomplete (with in the 30 day review) staff does not complete the review and bounces it back
only to find more items in the next 30 day review. Why does every subsequent review take as
long as the first. At the building department they have 10 days to review the entire set of plans
and 5 days on the resubmittal and they are dealing with life safety. We have to change the
length of time for check 2, 3 and 4. Hopefully there are no more than 3 reviews. Yes often we
as architects miss something but would it not be quicker for us to meet at the counter for 5
minutes and check off that job from the list vs. 30 more days?
We answer initial questions and after a 30 day review have more questions
usually the scale of the project changing
not having the same planner get back to you on the project. I had to go to other planners to ask
for the same project.
Multiple round of corrections by the applicant due to misunderstanding of incomplete items or
errors that are repeatedly not addressed. Also, staffing issues as some take on more projects
or take longer to review, resulting in providing responses close to the 30-day deadline or past
it.
A-25
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 13/16
Early detection of potential hiccups or added costs or reviews
I haven't ran into common delays with the planning division.
In my experience, the most common issue that arises are complaints from a few neighbors,
and the inability of a large part of the Planning Commission to either understand the project
and be familiar with the project. Once again, the RPV zoning code is VERY loose and open to a
great deal of discretion. Perhaps implementing some reasonable limits on development (size)
that are not discretionary may be a good idea - please see my response to the first questions..
Not understanding the complete process and applications needed for the project.
No response to emails or phone calls from Amy and staff
Delays are commonly associated with the following.
Missing materials needed for a discretionary application. Some applicants are required to do
an early neighbor consultation for height increases above 16 feet , this survey requires that the
applicant go door to door and ask a certain percentage of neighbors within the vicinity to
review the plans prior to submittal of the application. During the review, Staff has to then check
every signature and address to ensure that they meet the requirements for this specific
process. Keep in mind that this is separate from our public noticing requires as that is a
simpler 500 foot radius around the parcel and is done by a third party company.
Staff is also responsible for ensuring that the design, massing, and architecture of the home is
consistent with the surrounding area. This involves looking at building permits for the closest
20 homes and creating tables/charts of the square footages of these homes so that staff can
compare the proposal to the existing area. Often times site visits to multiple homes are also
necessary as complaints come in from various neighbors.
There are often delays associated with the surveyors and the plan elevations. The project
silhouette that is required about halfway through the process notes that varying grade and
ridgeline elevations of a project. However, the first design and submittal of most projects do
not contain these elevation numbers or have different numbers, there's sometimes back and
forth communication with the planner and applicant on ensuring that these numbers match.
The staff report required for discretionary review projects is very detailed. Some sections
require for staff to justify the architecture and design of the proposed home to the surrounding
area with verbose text explaining the most minute details.
Refer to my summary above
Unnecessary efforts at the Planning Approval stages... refer to above
Early Neighborhood Consultation process which I previously mentioned; staff reports (perhaps
having some other method to review/approve minor projects or not requiring staff reports for
A-26
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 14/16
very minor projects); requiring grade elevation points on plans to determine height (usually
requires a land survey, perhaps getting rid of this requirement for pad lots); requiring
discretionary review for very minor projects like front porch enclosures due to the current
Neighborhood Compatibility criteria that cause no impacts to surrounding neighbors.
Evolving legislature, not being able ti adjust in a timely manner to accommodate
Do you feel that Staff’s communication methods, (e.g., letters, emails,
etc.) are adequately effective?
19 responses
Copy
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A
36.8%
47.4%
A-27
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 15/16
Please explain your answer to the question above. Please feel free to provide any
recommendations for improvement.
19 responses
I have never had an email go on returned. RPV really does have the better trained and
conscientious planners
communicating what exactly?
Emails are easy and quick vs. letters
That’s been my experience.
Email is faster. Letters are okay, but why not email comments and provide a quicker response
time. Follow up with the letters if you need those in your file.
Satisfactory
The planners that I have dealt with have been very helpful.
Email sometimes seemed to be a quick response
Staff is good with all communication methods and follow-up. Although some may take longer
to respond than others.
Overall the department answers emails or calls pretty consistently
In my experience the staff has been responsive and has clearly explained processes and
corrections etc.
I have no problem with Staff's communication - good job.
M
No would not return phone calls or emails for months.
The City requires a lot of materials and details on plans and applications. The planners here
for the most part do a good job of explaining the materials and process necessary to complete
a project.
Generally speaking is going good, I do understand that the workload is a lot and your resources
are limited. I do enjoy the team. Thank you for that and the opportunity to share my thoughts.
A-28
10/13/22, 11:24 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Division Questionnaire
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VZLPNDRVwmX7wjRZdHu9uumJu5Mut7Rba83WgJ5C2Mo/viewanalytics 16/16
Yes, timely and detailed
I believe staff's communication methods are effective; one suggestion I have in mind is having
a active projects list or creating an active projects GIS public viewer so residents can look up
projects and project descriptions on their own if they're interested. I've seen other jurisdictions
do this.
Assigned Planner was diligent in day to day correspondence.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Forms
A-29