HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Plan Check Activity & Review DurationaE°'Pip^r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
• 1i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-3275; FAX (949) 644 -3250
SUBJECT:
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
BACKGROUND:
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 24, 2000
SS2
Faisal Jurdi
(949) 644 -3277
Building Department Plan Check Activity and Review Duration
This report represents the Building Department plan check activity,
department resources, and measures taken to maintain our service level,
in response to Council direction to City Manager regarding plan check
review duration.
• In 1991, the construction activity decreased due to the declining economy and continued its decline
until 1995. Since 1995, the construction activity has steadily increased and leveled off at three
times the 1993 volume (Exhibit I).
In 1994, the city cut back staff in all departments due to the slowing economy and low revenue. In
July 1994, the Building Department took over the fire alarm and fire sprinkler plan check from the
Fire Department in lieu of laying off one of the plan check engineers. This change also streamlined
the plan check process. In June 1995, the grading engineer was laid off due to staff cutbacks and
plan check staff was reduced from four engineers to three. Following the layoff, construction
valuation almost doubled in fiscal year 1995/1996 and continued to climb from $79,692,000 in
1994 to $220,623,000 in 1999 (Exhibit I).
Current Work Load:
Currently and for the last four years, the plan check workload has been at an all time high
(Exhibit I). Plan check staff has had to cope with higher customer service demand at the permit
counter since a much larger number of walk -in customers come in to see an engineer for technical
information or to ask clarification questions on a plan check done either by staff plan check
engineers or by plan check consultants. On February 9, 2000, we suffered a setback due to the
departure of one of our staff engineers. We filled the vacant position expeditiously by April 24,
2000, to minimize the impact on the plan check service.
In July 2000, the Building Department assumed the responsibility of plan check and record
• keeping for construction within the Harbor, which was previously done by Public Works and the
Marine Division of the Fire Department. This was done in conjunction with the reorganization
of the Marine Division under the Harbor Resources Division. It is too soon to determine the
impact of this added responsibility.
99
In order to issue a building permit, a residential construction project has to be approved by both the •
Building and Planning Departments. The planning plan check hum- around time exceeded that of
the Building Department because overflow planning plan check cannot be done by outside plan
check consultants as can for building plan check. This slowed down the overall plan check and
approval process. While the Building Department target hum- around time is three weeks, we
allowed it to fall back to four and a half weeks, which is closer to Planning Department's hum -
around time of 6 to 7 weeks.
Measures Taken:
To keep up with the increased workload, we have taken the following measures:
a) Plan Check Consultants
Following the layoff of the grading engineer in 1995, the City signed an agreement
with a geotechnical consultant to check complex grading projects. Due to the
increase in work volume, the Building Department expanded the outside plan check service in
1997 and signed agreements with four plan check consultants for overflow plan check (Exhibit
II). While plan check consultants are a common relief used by cities to take care of fluctuations
of plan check workload, it has many shortfalls. Plan check consultants provide services for
many jurisdictions and have to be educated and informed of local requirements. Consultants
tend to run a mass production operation, which does not render the same quality plan check and
customer service, which staff delivers. Also some of our plan check staff time is used
monitoring the quality of consultant plan check and reviewing and approving revisions to the
approved drawings. In general, our customers prefer that their drawings be plan checked in- •
house and prefer dealing with familiar city staff.
b) Expedited Plan Review
In addition to using consultants for overflow plan check, we also use the expedited plan check
service to check small projects (additions and alterations) on a fast track. Permit applicants for
small projects can request expedited plan check and pay the applicable fee. Plan check
engineers can check small projects after hours without running a risk of burnout.
Usually expedited plan check is done within a week and the service cost an additional 75% of
the regular plan check fee. The number of projects reviewed using this service averaged 100 —
150 per year and the amount of additional fees collected for this service were $23,822; $33,372,
and $36,081 for Fiscal Year 98, 99 and 2000 respectively.
This service has been popular with the rise in construction activity. As a result, we were not
able to accommodate every request.
c) Overtime
In addition to expedited plan review, engineers have been authorized to work overtime on
regular plan checks to keep up with the work load. The number of overtime hours were 691,
579, and 507 for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. (Exhibit III).
2
d) Tenant Improvement Fast Track
• Submittals for tenant improvement projects have been separated from the rest of submittals and
fast tracked to allow tenants to move in quickly into tenant space since the plan check
associated with this type of project does not include reviewing structural design.
e) Early Release of Building Department Corrections
Since the Building Department plan check is done about two weeks before the Planning
Department plan check, we resorted to releasing the Building Department corrections before the
Planning Department is done with theirs so customers can work on resolving these corrections
while the planning plan check is in progress. While this measure helped customers, it created
additional customer service work at the permit counter.
f) Additional Staff
The annexation of Newport Coast, Bay Knolls, and Santa Ana Heights will increase the
building stock of the City by 15 %. Also, because of the sustained high construction activity
and the discontent of our customers with plan check consultants, we proposed during the budget
process and the City Council approved that we substitute and fill the previously cancelled
grading engineer position with a plan check engineer position. This position was to be funded
50% from the consultant account and 50% from the annexation budget. Filling this position has
been delayed due to a delay in the annexation process and assumption of services for the
annexed areas. With City Manager's approval, a new plan check engineer will join our staff on
October 31, 2000. Filling this plan check engineer position and restoring the number of plan
check engineers to four is necessary even when the volume of construction neutralize since the
• Building Department is doing the plan check for fire alarm, fire sprinkler and harbor
construction and the building stock will increase by 15% due to annexation. The increase in
staff and volume of records requires future work space and storage space modifications.
CONCLUSION
By implementing these measures and with continued consultant backup, we will be able to
maintain the target building plan check tum- around time of three to four weeks.
Respectfully submitted by:
JAY ELBETTAR
Building Director
Attachments: Exhibits I through III
• Codeskouncil rep PC sta810 -10-00Q
3
N
C
O
C
C
O
7
i0
Exhibit I •
Construction Valuation
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998` 1999
Valuation boosted by Bonita Village project
Years
•
• Exhibit II
•
Professional Technical Services Expenditures (Consultants)
1995 Isss 1997 1998 Isss
Years
750
600
N
3
O 450
S
d
E
y 300
O
150
0
Exhibit III
•
Overtime Plan Check Hours
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Years
u
0
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
- Memorandum-
October 12, 2000
TO: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
FROM: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director ALT
SUBJECT: Planning Counter/Man Check Workload
As requested, this information has been developed to provide background on workload increases
for the plan check and service counter function of the Planning Department.
The public service counter is the citizen's first source of information for zoning regulations and
project compliance. The activities handled by the counter /plan check personnel include:
• Provide General Plan and Zoning information to property owners, architects, engineers and
others.
• Check all plans submitted for compliance with zoning code requirements.
• Review preliminary plans for Approval in Concept for projects requiring Coastal
Development Permits.
• Preparation of Zoning Compliance Letters.
• Processing changes of address.
• Post public notices related to Planning Commission, Modification Committee and staff
discretionary approvals.
• Preparation of Council Chambers for Planning Commission meetings.
This functional area has been staffed by 3 permanent full time planners since Fiscal Year 1984-
85. Previous to that, the function was handled by 2 full time staff persons. The additional
personnel was necessary at that time because building and plan check activity was rapidly
increasing with the then booming economy. The number of plans checked by the Planning and
Building Departments had risen from 1,539 in FY 1982 -83 to 2,089 in FY 1984 -85, an increase
of 35 %.
When assessing the current staffing needs, some additional factors need to be considered. One is
that plans are more complex than in prior years, and need very close scrutiny. With property
owners increasingly interested in maximizing their projects within zoning limitations, very
precise and detailed calculations to verify compliance are needed on virtually every project. This
increases the time needed for most plan checks. Another is that the number of requirements,
conditions of approval, and environmental mitigation measures attached to discretionary permits
has increased, and they have become more complicated, which also adds to the time needed to
• complete plan review. An additional factor is that small, but significant, additional demands have
been placed on counter personnel. Of note are routine requests from financial institutions for
"Zoning Compliance Letters," to verify zoning requirements and project compliance with
existing regulations. These requests are usually made for older commercial developments, and •
can take from one to two hours each to research and prepare. We receive an average of one
zoning compliance request per week.
Current Workload
As of October 11, 2000, 2,565 plans had been submitted to the Building and Planning
Department for plan check. When projected based on the average number of submittals per
calendar day (9), a total of 3,285 plans may be submitted this year. This compares to prior years,
as follows:
YEAR
NUMBER
2000
3,285 (est)
1999
2,904
1998
2,698
1997
2,354
1996
2,123
1995
2,139
As can be seen, from 1995 to this year, the number of plans checked has increased by more than
50 %. An interesting thing to note in this information is that the workload in 1995 (during the
economic downturn) was still slightly higher than in 1984, when the plan check staff was last
increased.
Current Situation
For most of this year, plan check turn around has been about seven weeks for the Planning
Department. This is slower than the Building Department's turn around time, and there have
been many complaints about the "bottleneck" in Planning. This problem has been the result of a
higher than usual number of personnel changes in the Planning Department, including
resignations and promotions. Unfortunately, these changes have left the plan check/counter
function understaffed by one full time person most of the year. In order to offset this situation,
the Department took the following steps:
• Existing staff has worked an average of 17 hours of overtime per week on plan check.
• A contract plan check planner was retained and works an average of 10 hours per week.
• An Assistant Planner promoted from a counter position remains assigned to this function for
25% of his normal work week (10 hours).
Even with these adjustments, which amount to 37 hours per week, plan check turn around has
remained an unsatisfactory seven weeks. Additionally, the staff has virtually no time to take care •
of necessary filing and records management. This is not acceptable for any significant period of
time, as it will lead to future productivity losses and potential errors, as well as producing an
undesirable work environment.
The plan check/counter function is now fully staffed for the first time this year with the
appointment of an Assistant Planner. With the budgeted three full time personnel, supplemented
by the continuation of the "stop -gap" measures outlined above, Planning has closed its turn
around time to 4 to 5 weeks, which is more consistent with the Building Department.
Conclusion
While down one of our three full time staff persons assigned to the plan check/counter function,
the Planning Department used a combination of overtime, contractors, and reassignment
representing the equivalent of a full time position to maintain an average 7 week turn around
time in plan check. With the current full complement of budgeted personnel in this function, turn
around times consistent with the Building Department of 4 to 5 weeks have only been achieved
and maintained with the continuation of the 37 hours per week gained with the supplemental
staffing measures. Therefore, an additional full time position is required to adequately staff the
plan check/counter function in the Planning Department.
A full time regular position will improve the overall productivity of the plan check function
beyond that achieved with the supplemental staffing measures. This is because a full time
position will allow for better continuity of plan checking for individual projects, and also will
provide for improved staff coverage for vacations, illness and 9/80 work period schedules. An
additional full time plan check position should allow the Planning Department to maintain the
targeted 3 to 4 week turn around time of the Building Department.
Funding
As established by the City Council in Municipal Code Section 3.36.030, the Planning
Department charges 50% of the fully loaded hourly rate of the cost of providing plan check
services. I believe this is a service which is directly related to the applicant's interest in achieving
a building permit, and it is the applicant who benefits from the service. Therefore, it is
recommended that consideration be given to adjusting the recovery rate for this activity to 100 %,
which would offset a significant portion of the cost of an additional plan check position. If the
Council so directs, a Municipal Code amendment will be prepared.
Other Planning Department fees (for Use Permits, Variances, etc.) are on a fixed fee basis, based
on costs estimated for the processing of an "average" case. Most Planning and Community
Development Departments in the region charge an hourly rate for planning services, which
allows them to recover a higher percentage of the cost of providing planning services. It is the
current intention of the Planning Department to bring a further discussion of planning fees to the
City Council in the future.
3.36.040
mum extent practical, the late fees and interest shall
Tentative Map
100%
be uniform for all user fees. (Ord. 97 -8 § 1 (part),
Offs
Appr pro a Parking
val in Concept
100%
100%
1997)
Appeals to Planning Commission
5090
Appeals to City Council
50%
Special Food Permit
25%
3 36.050 Severabili t3
Coastal Residential Development
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
Permit
100%
phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be
Condo Conversion
100%
Counter Plan
100%
invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
Plan Check
50%
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remain-
Am. Kawo Antenna/Sat Dish
ing portions of this chapter. The City Council de-
ermits
Envpmental Documents
0%
50%
clares that it would have passed the ordinance codi-
Traffic Study
100%
fied in this chapter and each section, subsection,
General Plan Amendment, Minor
100%
General Plan Amendment, Major
100%
clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that
P P�
Development Agreement
100% of fully
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
loaded cost of
clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Legal Staff Time.
Christmas Tree Lots
100%
(Ord. 97 -8 § 29 1997)
Temporary Uses
100%
Accessory Outdoor Dining
100%
EXHIBIT A
Planning Director's Approval
100%
Director's Use Permit
100%
The city's cost of providing the following services shall be
recovered through direct feu charged for the services in the
Community Services
percentages indicated.
Arts and Cultural Services
PERCENTAGE OF COST
Newport Beach Juried Art Show
100%
TO BE RECOVERED
Orange County Juried Art Show
100%
SERVICE FROM DIRECT FEES
Adult Sports
•
City Clerk
Volleyball
85%
Muni. Code Suplmnt. Sales;
Tennis Round Robin
85%
Pd. Subscribers 100%
Field/Facility Rentals
85%
Adult Sports Teams (Softball &
Community Development
Basketball)
85%
Aquatics
85%
Building
Plan Check Fees 100%
Youth Sports
an Check Fees - Grading 71%
Youth Sports - Football
85%
Permits and Inspection 100%
Youth Sports - Basketball
85%
Microfilming 98%
Pee Wee Basketball
85%
Preliminary Plan Review 45%
Youth Sports -Track and Feld
85%
Special Inspector Licenses 100%
Special Inspector Tut
Registration and Contract Classes
85%
Administration 100%
Development Review Fee 0%
Special Events
Residential Building Record 79%
Balboa Arts Festival
55%
Surf Contest
85%
Planning
Special Event Permits
36%
Modification Permit 100%
CDM 5K Run
85%
Use Permit 100%
Rose Parade
85%
Variance 100%
Zoning Amendment 100%
Senior Services
Site Plan Review 80%
Transportation
30%
PRD Use Permit 100%
Senior Recreation Classes
85%
PRD UP Amendment 100%
Social Services (Assessment Services) 0%
Planned Community Application 100%
Supportive Counseling
0%
Planned Community Amendment 100%
Information and Referral
0%
Sign Exceptions 100%
Oasis Special Events
0%
Resubdivision 100%
Telephone Reassurance
0%
•
120-1
(Newport Beach I1 -98)
October 24, 1000
Study Session Item \o. SS2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO
FROM: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
DATE: July 17, 2000
RE: RESPONSES FROM CUSTOMER SURVEYS
We make customer survey forms available at our counters in each of our City buildings.
Most of the forms returned come by mail. Customer surveys are one way of attempting
to evaluate the quality of our City services by obtaining customer feedback and to
implement suggestions and enhancements.
The results provided are from January, 1999 to June 30, 2000. As you can see, most of
the feedback was for planning and building services. Planning and Building responses
were combined because many of the customers responded by combining both
departments in their ratings and remarks, since the Planning Department relies on the
Building Department sign -in sheet and the Building Technicians to greet the public. The
Technicians will in turn direct customers to planning based on their needs.
My assessment of the ratings and comments are more positive then negative, but they
do point out a problem we know that we have — frequent long wails to obtain counter
service and frequent long wails for plan checks from both Planning and Building.
The feedback for the "Quality of Service" was good, with a very strong relationship
between those who responded Needs Improvements of having problems obtaining a
timely response. For the most part, staff is seen as being courteous, professional and
desiring to be of help Those who did not perceive staff to have these qualities did so
because of the excessive waits required of them, and this group is a minority.
While it is easy to identify the timeliness problem, it is not a simple one to fix. This is
chiefly because the Building Department counter technicians work on a first come -first
served basis, and on days when there are many customers, waits can get long. Our
counter staff also spends a great deal of time with individual customers, so even having
4 or 5 technicians occupied at the counter does not result in a rapid turnover of
customers. We have no idea when the customer demand will be great, so we staff for
what we think will be a general demand.
City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768
The volume of planning and building permits issued over the past two years is at an all
time high. We keep expecting the economy, and thus permit activity, to slow down but
that has not happened We have not added more staff because we are handling the
workload, but the trade -off is that sometimes long waits are required of customers.
The same is true with plan checkers. We compensate for the high volume of work by
hiring outside contractors to add work capacity leaving the permit processing and the
customer interaction to our staff. We actually receive far more complaints regarding the
quality of work from contract employees than we do of regular employees. Again, we
don't want to hire people we may not need a year from now, but there is a trade -off to
pay for that choice, and the trade -off is a reduction in quality of service.
Our Building and Planning staffs are at work capacity and have been for some time.
They work a lot of overtime in order to keep up
In conclusion, we could improve our Planning and Building customer service by adding
additional staff people, which would reduce waits and provide for an improved plan
check product. We have chosen not to do this, because we don't want to add
permanent staff based on a high volume of work and be stuck with additional staff when
the work volume goes down. As a professional who believes in strong customer service,
it poses a difficult trade -off. But prudent staff and budget management in the long run is
the choice I have made.
Jay Elbettar has been especially imaginative in freeing more staff time for counter work
and plan checking. It is something that Jay. Patty and I speak about with great
regularity, so we are not satisfied with status quo, but we cannot solve the timeliness
issue with our current staff levels.
The customer survey form says that I will share the feedback results with you, so that's
what I am doing Please let me know if you have questions or suggestions.
Thank you.
z
Z
m
_
w
y
y
y
y 3
T
C
O W
E Z
CL
W >
W
m
o
w 0
L
M O
Z K
CL
y
m U
m m
IL
m
U L
a
m
K
0
0
m t
O
U
C
m
O p
F
CL
CL
m
CL
a xx
I rn
2
y >
Z a
>
a m
c
c m
Q
N
h
m
r
LL
a
m
N_
J
y
F
m C
a m
m Y
Q
J
y
L C
I m
' E
N
C
= m
m T
yO"
O
Y
m�
T m
a
O
C
L o
O
~ a E
O
c 0)
o'
- i"
C a
N
f'f
Q
Q
LU
w
O
Y
J C
U O
y
m
m m m
U a E
m 3
J
z
Z
CL
m
w
y
0
0> y
E m a o
J
E
ZUyc
J
CO
N
r
h
W
L O'D -
C E
y y `0
L>
m
a s
U
w = o`
°c O 3 v
0 m
J _
K
c
4))
0 z'm J
y 4) t o
o;
c y
m
W
-
m
C O c L
E g 0)
m
a J c
m
O
J m E y
y m-
4) C 3
y O
W
m
> m 0 a
C c
m L " a
m
O a
LU
E
yya
E c
W
O)
c m
a
m L 0'D L
N
0
O c
m a
m L
W
tOW1
al 0
a L y .?
m m c
E c
Cr
M
'm
U
1
c
z
m Z
c n 0
y
=
W
Q
w
W
U m
O)
0
N
'0 m>
m a 0 y
W
m J C L
co
y
m
N
L
m>-
ao a X
y C; °C
a
Q n_
m
y
O
10
ty/f E
m mX y
LL
F
m U U y C 0 m
>m
y m
O
O `0
N
LU
E U m m m 19 c
m {��pp
C c,f 0 0
W
m m
c
E-
oc<m5wEEa)'>Ii
�cmm
0
m m a 0 c m
O L m
m
{cpmaw
y
y
a�
a
O
w
y�
Y U
v
,>
J
ayitm3yyoma�ya=
CF
00ma)
a
L
c
m
_
y
y
y
y 3
T
C
°; =
E Z
CL
C
m
0
L
M O
CL
y
m U
m m
m
U L
a
m
0
0
m t
0
U
C
m
O p
CL
CL
m
CL
a xx
I rn
2
y >
Z a
>
a m
c
c m
m o
_
m
O J
0 y
E
a
m
J
y
m C
a m
m Y
J
y
L C
I m
' E
C
= m
m T
yO"
c O y
�'c °c
Y
m�
T m
a
v m
C
L o
O
~ a E
O
c 0)
o'
- i"
C a
V
I
O
Y
J C
U O
y
m
m m m
U a E
m 3
J
CL
m
C_
y
0
0> y
E m a o
O) m
E
ZUyc
ma c
Y t
Ln
0
v
m C Y
L-
L O'D -
C E
y y `0
L>
m
a s
w = o`
°c O 3 v
0 m
J _
c
4))
0 z'm J
y 4) t o
o;
c y
m
3
-
m
C O c L
E g 0)
m
a J c
m
L°
J m E y
y m-
4) C 3
y O
m
> m 0 a
C c
m L " a
m
O a
�L
J
m y o
E
yya
E c
O)
c m
a
m L 0'D L
L O)
c
0
O c
m a
m L
E r
al 0
a L y .?
m m c
E c
Cr
M
'm
L -
3
y
C>
m Z
c n 0
y
=
y
c
m
?
c
U m
O)
0
'0 m>
m a 0 y
E E m m
m J C L
co
y
m
m y
L
m>-
ao a X
y C; °C
L J {C
Q n_
m
y
p C
y O a L L T
10
ty/f E
m mX y
J! m
m U U y C 0 m
>m
y m
a a T COl
O `0
.0
Q C
J
E U m m m 19 c
m {��pp
C c,f 0 0
a m a m
m m
c
E-
oc<m5wEEa)'>Ii
�cmm
0
m m a 0 c m
O L m
m
{cpmaw
y
y
O)
C m
m C)o
-
y
y�
Y U
v
,>
ayitm3yyoma�ya=
00ma)
L
V
O -C
a L C J 'c
Z c
a 0 0
O-
E
x Y O J
Y Y E
m
m C
,m
C-
c
y 0 i
o' a 'SO2
L c c;
m �,
n-
E m o
m
L Z o
a J c o
rn y
C
C
Q
�+ m m
J m 0
m L
CL
m m j
c y 3 C
C J y
o c m
L
m=
O T_
y
y y
m .?1 a m 3 m.8
y E 0 0
O L m 0
>, 0 0
a
0
m O
C C y m
L
U j
m T a
°-'
m t C
Y
m
f/1
Q)
Q Y OJ
v a 'E
p a
y aEi 0
ayi y
L 3 y 0 � m v
3 3 > m E o
� L m e
a�i L m