Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Planning Review Backlog D uB I �� 15D r AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: December 13, 1982 SUBJECT : Planning Review Backlog EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Survey QAuthorjze RECOMMENDATION Staff to secure services of contract planning assistance on as needed basis, not to exceed 20 hours per week. 2) Authorize budget transfer of $2 ,000 from contingent reserve to planning contract services account. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Total estimated cost $17,700 for remainder of fiscal year 1982-83. Funds remaining in planning contract services budget $15,700 . DESCRIPTION : On October 11, 1982 the City Council authorized Staff to secure the services of a part-time planning consultant for a period up to 6 weeks. This action was taken in order to reduce a backlog of planning applications which resulted at the time that the City assumed planning review from the County. The planning consultant assisted Staff from October 20, 1982 through November 29, 1982. During that time 29 applications were on file (17 pending on October 11, 1982 and 12 new applications submitted during that period) . The status of the 29 applications is as follows: 18 - Processed to hearing (or action) with an average processing time of 5 - 6 weeks. 2 - Continued at applicant' s request. 1 - Withdrawn 1 - Incomplete and in need of additional information. 7 - To be reviewed by Staff. Between November 29, 1982 and December 8 , 1982 , 1 application was processed and 3 additional applications were submitted. As of December 8, 1982 , a total of 9 planning applications were pending review. Shown below is a summary of the applications. COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 6. .2 AGENDA STATEMENT - Planning Review Backlog Page 2 PENDING APPLICATIONS (December 8 , 1982) * PROCESSING PROJECT APPLICATION SUBMITTED TIME TO DATE Frumenti CUP 7/6/82 22 weeks (Recreational Vehicle and Boat Storage) McClure SDR 9/3/82 13 weeks (Low Profile Sign in C-2-B-40 District) • HMH, Incorporated (Woodhill) Time 10/13/82 8 weeks (Tract Map Time Extension) Extension Armer/Norman SDR 10/18/82 7 weeks (Accessory business sign in Agricul- tural District) Boyles VAR 11/4/82 4 weeks (Carport; side yard setback variance) City of Dublin Env.Rev. 11/8/82 4 weeks (I580/Dougherty Road Traffic Signal) Castle Green P.D. 11/30/82 1 week (128 Unit residential planned developmt) The Gregory Group (Rancho Diablo) ACUP 12/1/82 1 week (Renewal=Sales office & model home) Pet Prevent-A-Care CUP 12/3/82 0 week (Outdoor pet clinic) * CUP = Conditional Use Permit SDR = Site Development Review VAR = Variance P.D. = Planned Development ACUP =Administrative Conditional Use Permit ENV.REV. = Environmental Review As shown on the information above, the 9 applications have been in pro- cessing for an average of approximately 7 weeks to date. The median processing time to date has been 4 weeks. In order to provide some perspective of the planning review backlog, Staff conducted a survey of planning activities in other Bay Area jurisdictions including local cities and cities of similar size or development activity. The findings of the survey are shown on the attached chart. The results are summarized and compared to Dublin as follows: 1. Staff Size: a. Local cities: 3 to 4 planners AGENDA STATEMENT - Planning Review Backlog Page 3 b. Cities of similar size or development activity: 1 to 3 planners c. Dublin: 1 planner 2 . Approximate number of planning applications: a. Local cities - ranges from 1 to 20 routine items per month b. Cities of similar size or development activity - ranges from 2 to 20 routine items per month c. Dublin - 6-7 routine items per month 3 . Processing time to hearing (or action) a. Local cities - minimum of 32-4 weeks for routine items b. Cities of similar size or development activity - ranges from 21-8 weeks for routine items c. Dublin - 5-6 weeks for routine items since July 1, 1982 In addition to the survey, Staff has kept the following workload statistics for the planning department. Dublin Planning Activity Indicators July 1, 1932 to Per Month Average Dec 7, 1982 1. Phone inquiries 675 + 130 ± 2. Counter inquiries 320 - 370 60 - 70 3. Meeting with applicants/developers 55 10 - 11 4 . Council, Commission, Zoning Admin Mtgs 24 4 - 6 5 . Planning applications 35 6 - 7 6 . Completed applications 25 4 - 5 7 . Zoning approvals on bldg permit apps 202 38 8 . Reported code violations 8 1 - 2 In addition to the planning applications and the items identified above, the Planning Director has responsibility for working on the General Plan, ordinance review, and review of development adjacent to the City which could have an impact on Dublin. Improvements have been made or are in progress. These improvements are identified below. 1. Application .Review Process: Staff has established a planning application review process to coordinate input from police, fire, building, engin- eering, flood control, and water and sewer. This process should improve when the City Engineer and building inspection contractors have been hire 2 . Planning Secretary: The Planning Secretary started work on Nov 8, 1982 . She has organized the files inherited from the County. She is currently establishing a filing system for the new files . In addition to her other secretarial duties, the Planning Secretary is becoming familiar with the complexities of the Zoning Ordinance and has begun fielding some of the routine zoning inquiries. C AGENDA STATEMENT - Planning Review Backlog Page 4 3 . Microfische Reader/Printer: Staff has purchased a microfische reader/printer. This equipment has facilitated quicker review of past files and notification of property owners. 4 . Application Forms: Staff has prepared an application form with a checklist of requirements . As indicated from the statistics above, the workload of the planning department has been quite heavy. Although workload and processing time of planning applications is fairly comparable (with. the exception of development of the General Plan) to those cities surveyed, the Dublin Planning Staff size is in most cases smaller. Dublin has been able to maintain an average processing time of 5-6 weeks only with the assistance of a part-time planning consultant. If Staff could be certain that development activity would continue at its present rate, Staff would recommend that the City Council seriously con- sider hiring an additional full-time planner. However, because of the backlog which the City inherited from the County and the rather limited workload data (6 months) which the City has at this time, it is Staff' s opinion that the City should wait until fiscal year 1983-84 in order to ascertain whether or not the level of development activity will be maintained, before hiring an additional planner. In the interim, it is Staff' s recommendation that the City Council authorize Staff to continue to use the services of a part-time planning consultant on an as-needed basis not to exceed 20 hours per week. This will enable the City to provide a better level of service to the public. The estimated cost of such service for the remainder of the fiscal year would not exceed $17 ,700. The funds remaining in the Planning Department' s contract services account is approximately $15,700 . Therefore, it is further recommended that the City Council authorize a budget transfer of $2 ,000 from the contingent reserve to the Planning Department contract services account. AGENDA STATEMENT - Planning Review Backlog ATTACHMENT SURVEY OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES IN OTHER CITIES 12/82 AVERAGE SIZE OF STAFF APPROX # OF PROCESSING CITY POPULATION PLANNERS SUPPORT PLANNING APP TIME TO HEARING LOCAL CITIES Pleasanton 35,160 4 1 14-20 per mo: 32 wks to PC (1 Dir. ) routine items (3 Plan. ) major items 10-12 wks to CC Livermore 48 ,105 3 2 1-2 routine (1 Dir. ) items per mo. 4-6 wks to PC (2 Plan. ) 12-18 growth 16-20 wks mgmt items per year subd w/o EIR 8-12 wks Commer/ind 4 wks site plan CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Pinole 14 , 288 1 1 6-10 routine 4 wks (City Plan) items per mo Albany 15 ,130 1 2-3 routine 22 wks (City Plan) items per mo Morgan Hill 16 ,600 3 80 routine items 8 wks (1 Dir) per year (6-7/mo) (2 Plan) w/Neg Dec (2 HCD) w/EIR 16 wks Martinez 22 ,000 3 20 routine items 3 wks min (1 Dir) per mo (2 Plan) Major items 6-12 mo (2 Intern) (z Graphics) Gilroy 23 ,000 3 2 7 routine items 5 wks (1 Dir) per mo (2 Plan) Major items 7-9 wks Foster City 24 ,600 3 2 4-6 routine 6 wks (1 Dir) items per mo (2 Plan) Major items 6 wks - 6 mos DUBLIN 13 , 496 1 1 6-7 routine items 5-6 wks * (Plan Dir) per mo 7+wks (pending applications) NOTE: 1. Routine items include use permits , variances , site/design reviews . Major items include rezonings , subdivision maps , Planned Developments , EIRS , items that require City Council hearing, items of controversy, items requiring special study, items appealed. 2 . Processing time is calendar weeks (or months) to initial hearing or action; it does not include appeal time. The time indicated is a rough estimate of average processing time . All cities have had excep- tional applications which have far exceeded the average processing time. * 80% of the applications processed since 7/1/82 were processed with the assistance of the planning consultant.