Plan Expediter legislation

[gbhammer]

Our County Council wants to pass legislation to require the swift passage of certain commercial projects. The projects that apply for fast review are to first be analyzed by the EDC (Economic Development Corporation) to determine the economic impact of the project upon the community. If the project meets some un-quantified number of jobs that will be created or retained a recommendation will be forwarded to the County Council and the County Executive for final approval or denial of the project for expedited review. Should a project pass muster against the un-quantified figure, then the County Executive will designate individuals to act as liaisons to coordinate with everyone under the sun to make sure the project goes though all processes as fast as possible.

So…

What I am hoping for is that some of you out there may have access to or know of similar legislation and could maybe supply me a copy of it, and give pro’s & con’s on it.

It seems as though they want to legislate the creation of Permit Expediters that will have authority to run ramshackle through our departments. Of course I may be wrong, and who knows I might like to be one.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

In my experience, a permit expediter, who is not the coordinating design professional, is actually a permit impediter.

"What would you say they do around here...work with g d people so the engineers don't have too?"

 

[Coug Dad]

Just because some pencil pushing bureaucrat ambiguously determines that my project is more important than yours that I should get preferential treatment through the process? No chance for abuse there. Move along, nothing here to see, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Or as the liberals would say the goverment is helping the 1% take advantage of the 99% again

 

[gbhammer]

Yes those our wonderful little bits of imput. I'll just print this off and give it to the boss. Thanks guys.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Yes those our wonderful little bits of imput. I'll just print this off and give it to the boss. Thanks guys.

anytime. We don't subscribe to an expedited review process for several reasons. First, we offer a 10 business day first review cycle with a limited structural construction permit available after first review, if requested. Secondly, our re-review time is 5 business days of resubmittal. Thirdly, we offer a free preliminary review by all departments that clears up 90% of code and regulation related issues. After all that, a plans expediter, is really only a thin layer of political icing on a layer cake that already tastes just fine as it is. In my opinion, it is usually just results in an additional set of fees being applied for a minimal increase in service.

While it may serve as a valuable service in some jurisdictions, we have never considered adopting such a policy, and when one is requested (i.e. fast track/plan expediter/impediter) they are usually asking for a ten day turn around or a limited permit anyway.

Not what you wanted, but it's all we have.

 

[gbhammer]

anytime. We don't subscribe to an expedited review process for several reasons. First, we offer a 10 business day first review cycle with a limited structural construction permit available after first review, if requested.

Does this include civil site development: zoning, storm water, public works? Or just architectural and M.E.P.'s

Secondly, our re-review time is 5 business days of resubmittal. Thirdly, we offer a free preliminary review by all departments that clears up 90% of code and regulation related issues. After all that, a plans expediter, is really only a thin layer of political icing on a layer cake that already tastes just fine as it is. In my opinion, it is usually just results in an additional set of fees being applied for a minimal increase in service.While it may serve as a valuable service in some jurisdictions, we have never considered adopting such a policy, and when one is requested (i.e. fast track/plan expediter/impediter) they are usually asking for a ten day turn around or a limited permit anyway.

Not what you wanted, but it's all we have.

 

[codeworks]

in a "process environement" such as permitting and inspections, preferential treatment to anyone involved should always be discouraged. it comes in many forms, under many guises, and to set up an "unequal playing field" that pits bigger businesses/ "more jobs" against a residential home builder or tenant ift up is insane. submit your plans and your fee, you will be reviewed and proceesed in the order you came in (basically here's your number, you are 2044, you do not go ahead of 2023, that 's just the way it works

 

[Mark K]

The effort would probably be better spent on monitoring the status of all projects and on understanding the reasons why some projects get held up.

 

[Keystone]

IMHO, legislation to expedite goes against every process that has been implemented. The thought of this type of legislation should result in a primary question, why was the original permitting process created (beit land development, storm, public works, building, etc...)?

Once that question is answered then its time to move forward and find the bottleneck (beit redundancy, inadequate staff support, qualified staff, overstaff creating job security lag, excessive plan review timeframes, etc...).

Can a process be eliminated, can two departments be combined, can any departments be relocated to a central location so as to assist departments communication or ease to the permit applicant, etc...

 

[gbhammer]

The main problem is with Site development; the process takes months. Architectual review in the building department takes a two weeks or even a couple of days for comments and or approval.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Does this include civil site development: zoning, storm water, public works? Or just architectural and M.E.P.'s

all of the above. We have a small staff, and our directors/dept heads are make a point to be accessible to inquiring businesses/companies, and our current jurisdiction is only about 43k.

 

[Keystone]

Site development must take into account a many variables, its no suprise if that is the bottleneck. If having a permit expedition can occur so can mandating maximum turn around timeframes (shorter) to eliminate the extra call and visits by the appointed liason, AKA - Pain in the A__.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

The government is picking winners and losers by legislation. An alternative not by legislation but policy are localities that expedite review for projects and compensate by fee the tax payers staff to work overtime or afterhours. Also available to us with state amended codes; AHJ with large staff have offered to provide a comprehensive review on large projects for a fee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

Francis

 

[brudgers]

My opinion: deal with all plans expeditiously.

Florida has/had mandatory review times of 30 days for building plans.

Guess how long it took to review plans once they passed behind the counter.

The new mayor said, "six days for single family."

Once the backlog was whittled down, there was no backlog to speak of.

Waiting 28 days doesn't make the reviewer review faster.

 

[permitguy]

The main problem is with Site development; the process takes months.

I'd say they need a thorough process evaluation. If it's truly inefficiency on the part of these reviewers, another angle they could consider is utilizing third party plan review for larger projects. If public works and the pretty police can't get it together, let someone else do it. If this is legitimately the amount of time it takes to go through the process, there's nothing to be gained by the proposed legislation.

It sounds like they're trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound . . .

 

[gbhammer]

I'd say they need a thorough process evaluation. If it's truly inefficiency on the part of these reviewers, another angle they could consider is utilizing third party plan review for larger projects. If public works and the pretty police can't get it together, let someone else do it. If this is legitimately the amount of time it takes to go through the process, there's nothing to be gained by the proposed legislation.It sounds like they're trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound . . .

The problem is that with the clean water act and the EPA pushing the county to adopted ordinances that require storm water management techniques our new Unified Development Ordinance has the public in a tizzy over all the new requirements.

The engineers never send in plans that can be approved the first time (up to 15 day review period), and the second time after very exact comments they still get it wrong 90% of time (up to another 15 days). Instead of doing it according to the UDO most applicants want to apply for variances, which can take time because they have to get the request in before a certain time frame if they miss a window to approach the Appeals/Variance Board then (15 to 45 days) they have to wait another month.

 

[Frank]

Site development must take into account a many variables, its no suprise if that is the bottleneck. If having a permit expedition can occur so can mandating maximum turn around timeframes (shorter) to eliminate the extra call and visits by the appointed liason, AKA - Pain in the A__.

Zoning changes, Conditional Use Permits and Plans of Development take months due to the public notice and public hearing requirements and getting on the calendar for elected official actions.

The legal due process and citizen input requirements drag it out forever

 

[north star]

= ^ =



Legislation [ for the privileged / connected ] huh, ...really?....Sounds as

though someone wants to move to the front of the line and has the

legislative connections to [ try ] and make it so!.......Our Site Plan

approvals also take months to actually approve.......Our dept.

director spends countless hours facilitating our process with telephone

conversations, ...pre-Site Plan meetings & discussions, ...pre-Site Plan

plans review, ..."back & forth" e-mails and on and on and on......We

typically have not allowed anyone to butt in line ahead of anyone

else, however, we have [ on occasion ] performed a request for

an "Urgent" Site Plan meeting [ NOT approval ] with the various

dept. heads and decision makers, but it did not hold up any other

plans in review.......The requests have always come from the elected

officials.

But to pass legislation... that, IMO, definitely has a bad smell

to it from the "get go"!.......I like the idea of recommending

the 3rd party plans review to "the impatient ones"!

FWIW, ...this sure reminds me of some I have seen in

kindergarden, who just could not wait in line for their turn

and went immediately to the front of the line and whimpered,

whined & lobbied their way in to a more favorable position.

I guess that type of process hasn't changed much!

= ^ =

 

[Alias]

The problem is that with the clean water act and the EPA pushing the county to adopted ordinances that require storm water management techniques our new Unified Development Ordinance has the public in a tizzy over all the new requirements. The engineers never send in plans that can be approved the first time (up to 15 day review period), and the second time after very exact comments they still get it wrong 90% of time (up to another 15 days). Instead of doing it according to the UDO most applicants want to apply for variances, which can take time because they have to get the request in before a certain time frame if they miss a window to approach the Appeals/Variance Board then (15 to 45 days) they have to wait another month.

The public will adapt, it just might take awhile.

Seriously though, I do the backup (admin) for the Planning Director. The City & County are sharing planning duties currently and I am the 'city face'. When it comes to CEQA, EIR, Fish & Game, BIA, BLM, USFS, CalTrans, etc., etc. etc. and all of their rules, it can really slow down a project. Some planning items take two meetings, public comment, and in my jurisdiction if the commercial project is over $500,000, an architectural review plus a trip to City Council for approval before it can be sent on to the Building Department. Planning is about a three month process if all the pieces are in place and the applicant is knowledgeable about the process.

On the Building side, I can usually turn around a project in about 2 weeks and, if they have a stamped set of plans, I urge the builder to drop off the plans in advance of the planning meeting so I can start plan check the day after the meeting. Large commercial I send out to a third party and might take 30 days with corrections.

What really slows a project down here are the *****clowns who think they know it all and don't have to play by the rules. :wstupid

My advice is stick to your guns and dissuade the powers that be from enacting 'special treatment' legislation. Without the proper cooperation of planning and building, your jurisdiction could turn into a really ugly s&(*%$#. I know, we're trying to clean up our city now after many years of the 'good ol' boy network'. :cowboy

Sue, where the west still lives....................

 

[gbhammer]

Sue I get it.

The good ol boys left last year and now we have a whole new government with 7 instead of 3 people, and they hated the good ol boys and the way they did things on a promise and a handshake. So the new ol boys and gals are legislating the wink and nod for a perfectly legal fee of course.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The engineers never send in plans that can be approved the first time (up to 15 day review period), and the second time after very exact comments they still get it wrong 90% of time (up to another 15 days).

Same deal here. We even ask them to call us so we can walk them through what specifically needs to be noted, removed, or revised and how...just short of actually jumping in CAD and doing it for them. Kind of makes you wonder what they are getting paid to do...sometimes.

PCSWMP (Post-Construction Storm Water Management Plans) usually take the longest to process, but we have our first review in by the ten day limit, and then require all revisions and submittals to be approved prior to CO. The best is when an engineering firm that wrote a Mixed Use Agreement comes back with revisions because they made it too restrictive for their clients. That usually costs them two to three months to go back through the Planning Commish and City Council.