How Long is too Long?

This is the third in a series of articles that will look at how the proposed $353.7 million City budget will impact departments and the services they offer.

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

June 2 -- The time it takes to process an application is already “unacceptable” and proposed budget cuts would only lengthen the wait, Planning Department head Suzanne Frick told the City Council at a budget study session last week. Still, next year’s top priority will be to make the system more “user-friendly,” she added.

Despite a 6.4 percent cut in the department’s proposed budget that would reduce the hours staff spends conducting the usual business, the department will still strive to provide “predictability, timeliness, and consistency” in the permitting process, Frick said.

The proposed cuts are part of a mandate that all departments except Police and Fire trim their budgets by 5 percent in an effort to help bridge a $16.1 million budget gap in the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1.

The Planning Department has consistently come under fire for taking too long to process applications and for failing to take action on code enforcement, which, along with the Architectural Review Board and the Landmarks Commission, is under its purview.

Councilman Ken Genser said “not a week goes by without hearing” a “horror story” about the problems people experience with the department, which is in charge of granting construction, demolition and remodeling permits.

“I don’t have an answer, but we really have to look for finding ways to make the processing user-friendly,” Genser said.

The department, Frick said, is aware of the problems and is working to improve its services. “We also hear the complaints, and, as far as I am concerned, in many respects the service we give is unacceptable. Next year we’re going to focus on training all of our staff on customer service.

“Sometimes it’s not the information we’re delivering,” Frick added, “but it’s the way we deliver that information that is problematic, and we know we have to improve in this particular area.”

Genser said that it’s not that staff isn’t friendly, “but people also have a sense that things have gotten so complicated.” Compared to Los Angeles standards, Genser added, “our codes are pretty simple.”

Acknowledging that developers are steadily inundating the department with permits despite the economic downturn, Councilman Kevin McKeown offered to get “an information flow analysis” for the department.

The analysis would let City officials “see where we can get this river flowing a little better, because we have an awful lot of rapids and a fairly small river,” McKeown said.

Frick noted that an analysis had been done, but that it’s up to the council to remove the bureaucratic “impediments” gumming up the work by simplifying “overly complicated regulations.”

The council, she added, also needs to give City staff administrative discretion over minor requests, such as a “three-inch encroachment into (an applicant’s) side yard” to help streamline the permitting process.

Councilman Michael Feinsein welcomed the chance to revisit the criteria for administrative approval, noting that a lack of flexibility has led to “bizarre results” for some applicants.

“That is one of the things that has caused backlogs,” Feinstein said, noting that it might be wise to provide “some flexibility for remodels, when it hinges on a couple of those little inches.”

Council also called for planning to step up code enforcement, especially for illegal signs, which have proliferated across the city.

“A sign violation is not complicated,” Genser said. “It’s either there, or it’s not there. It just seems like there are so many (sign) violations, it just encourages more violations. If we just went after the more obvious ones it would just send a message.”

Frick acknowledged that “enforcement has been limping along this year” due to the loss of a supervisor and because only three of the seven enforcement positions are filled, with one on medical leave.

“We’re not satisfied with the progress we’re making at all, and hope things will dramatically improve next fiscal year,” Frick said.

She added that the department hopes to crack-down on “the egregious” violations to “help send a message that we are getting serious about sign enforcement.” But she cautioned that given the proposed cuts, “proactive” sign enforcement would be challenging.

Frick also cautioned that the proposed cuts would limit the department’s ability to respond to special requests for information or studies and would reduce the number of transportation and neighborhood traffic studies it can conduct.

Under the proposed cuts, staff hours spent on sign, signal, and meter maintenance would also be reduced, while the time it takes to finish policy projects would increase, Frick said, adding that the five-year cycle to update the inventory for the Landmarks Commission would be lengthened.

To increase City revenues, it was suggested that the council follow in LA’s footsteps and consider enforcing parking meters on Sundays, which would garner roughly $400,000 annually.

After the pointed comments from the council, Bloom thanked Frick for her “candor” and hard work.

“It goes without saying (planning is) probably the toughest place to work in the City, and there is a very positive side to what you do for the City,” Bloom said. “While it isn’t perfect, we very much appreciate the job that you do.”