HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.4 Planning Review Backlog (2) L DUBC�& , ro
�� �f2o
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: November 22 , 1982
SUBJECT . Planning Review Backlog - Status Report
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : List of planning applications; Planning Services
Backlog Agenda Statement of October 11, 1982
RECOMMENDATION Consider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION At its meeting of October 11, 1982 , the City Council auth-
orized Staff to secure the part time services of a Planning
Consultant for 4 to 6 weeks .to assist in clearing the
planning application backlog. The City Council directed
Staff to return with a progress report on the Planning
Services backlog after the Planning Consultant had com-
pleted four (4) weeks of work.
Since . the Planning .Consultant began _work. .on .October 20 ,
1982 , ..significant .progress has been made in eliminating
the planning application backlogs.
Of the 17 planning applications pending on October 11, 1982 ,
11 have been heard, applicants have requested continuances
on 2 , additional information is pending on 1, and 3 are
being reviewed.
Since October 11, 1982 , 8 additional planning applications
were submitted: 5 -have been heard and 3 are being reviewed.
During the next two weeks, the Staff and Planning Consul-
tant will continue to process the planning application
backlog. At the completion of the Planning Consultant
contract, Staff will provide a complete report to the City
Council.
The attached list indicates the status of the individual
projects , using the abbreviations as follows : CUP - Condi-
tional Use Permit, SDR - Site Development Review, VAR -
Variance, ACUP - Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:L+
ITEM NO. �•
l
PLANNING REVIEW BACKLOG - STATUS REPORT
Application Type Status
Naugles, Inc.
CUP Heard and continued 9/2/82;
Approved 10/7/82;
Appealed, heard 10/25/82;
Appealed, scheduled for 11/22/82
Y Frumenti
CUP Being reviewed.
Valley Christian
CUP Heard 8/23/82;
Center/Landscaping Letter of Credit 10/7/82
CUP Heard and approved 11/18/82
B&B Rental '
Diamond Signs
CUP Heard and continued 11/4/82 !
Parkway Baptist Church CUP Heard and approved 11/4/82
I
Alcosta Associates SDR Applicant requested continuance
11/4/82
Marra VAR Heard and approved 11/4/82
}McClure SDR Being reviewed
Wong VAR Heard and approved 11/18/82
)( Murco SDR Requested necessary information
11/8/82
Valley Christian CUP Heard and approved 11/4/82
Center/Trailers
I
i
Vintage Development SDR Being reviewed
Hackler CUP Heard and approved 11/4/82
Albertson' s
VAR Applicant requested continuance
11/10/82 i
i
i
Wyatt VAR Heard and continued 11/4/82;
Approved 11/18/82
Valley Christian
Center/Wind Generator CUP Heard and approved 11/18/82
U-Haul VAR Heard and approved 11/4/82
Shamrock Ford ACUP Heard and approved 11/18/82
E
xHMH, Inc. EYten- Being reviewed
tion
Armer/Norman Assn. Sign Being reviewed
Gemco ACUP Approved 11/19/82
Boyles VAR Being reviewed
Application Type Status
Alpine Christmas Tree ACUP Approved 11/19/82
Dunlap ACUP Approved 11/19/82
AGENDA STATEMENT
r
Meeting Date: October 11 , 1982 '
SUBJECT Planning Services Backlog
EXHIBITS ATTACHED = List of .pendi.ng applications
RECOMMENDATION l : Author�ze' Staff- to secure planning consultant services-,on an
J nterim basis
Authori ze purchase of 'a 'mi crofi sche reader/pri nter.'
e 3.' Authorize"a budget transfer from the Contingent, Reserve 'Ac count to
the Planning Department Equipment Account .inthe amount of $2,300.
4 -Authorize.,a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve"•to ,the
Planning Repairs Account in the amount of $350
FINANCIAL=STATEMENT: 1 . Estimated `cost for planning consultant services not'to exceed
:. $4,800; •sufficient funds are budgeted.
2: Estimated cost for purchase ofrmicrofische reader/printer approximate"
W $2;300 and $350 for maintenance agreement.
DESCRIPTION: .:; At its meeting of September 27, 1982,'-the City Council , directed Staff to
., provide it with additional information on' the planning application .:
backlog and the .need for additional planning ass,istance. .- Staff has
reviewed the lannin 'a lication backlog' and determined fol1owin
,. P 9 P P 9 9
1 ;The average processing time '(including 'notification and appeal periods) for:the 3 appli-
;- :4cations, -which have been approved thus 'far, was :19 working days
2 There are a total of .17 pending applications. Half of ,these applications .havebeen in
::processing for:more' than 22 working days. The longest outstanding application is Naugles
Inc. , 'which has ,been in processing for 66 working days and i s pendi ng a continued hearing
Staff. has identified the following to be major problem areas which have contributed to the
.Lengthening of the application review process. Some of these problems ,have .been' dealt with
and resolved.
1 ';.Upon assumption 'of planning service responsibility, aCity coordi ated .planning 'applica-
tion review process had to be. developed,` which involves .City planning,'-'-police, county
engineering, -county building inspection, county flood control , DSRSD public works, and
DSRSD fire. The development of this coordinated application review process was begun
"i n '.July and completed on September 15, 1982.
2.'•. County planning has provided the City with files for all planning actions which have
occurred in the City of Dublin. All actions which occurred prior to 1979 are on
. microfische; those which have occurred subsequently are batch filed. In addition, all
assessors rolls are on microfische. Assessors rolls are used in notification of property ,
owners with respect to planning hearings. The indexing system for both the microfische
and the files is incomplete. The City does not have a microfische reader/printer to
----------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. �� v�
4 review pre-.1979 actions on parcels and to identify property owners from the assessors
rolls :This-results in delays in 'responding to simple zoning inquiries and in research-
ing prior ;actions'on parcels in question as part of the application review process.
3. The planning application forms which were being used by the County were initially used
by the City because the City did not have time in July to develop its own form. The
City has found that the County's form was inadequate from_the standpoint of the
information it required from applicants. ' As a result, the City has had to go back to
developers 'or applicants to obtain the additional information needed, thus requiring
further delays in processing of applications:
4 :. The'City'.s. present zoning ordinance requirements for site specific• computation` on basic• .
regulations such'as' set •back 'requirements and signs ;`_require .individual , review of each
'j:, .parcel fand -any+;condi ti on§"�that` have been placed on that parcel i n 'the past,, i n .order to
make,`a <determi nati on as ,to`what .type of:,development -or' si gn' can "be placed on the parcel .
` +- Thi's�J nvol ves �addi ti onal research and delays 'the ability of Staff_ to process the -
t r Jl'a r f n t a
ppl i cati ons f:
rr °
In 'order{to.'resolve `these problem areas, which the City has,' in essence, inherited from the
County, `Staff has ,taken -several actions and,.proposes„ several .`others which are,.identified
t • ..below M:As indicated above,',wi th :respect to =the 'planning''appl i cati on`revi ew process, Staff
has mplemented 4 a-:coordinated approach with` all other appropriate agencies for the application
review process. Wi th respect..to the .filing problem, the City:,needs to 'secure a microfische '
reader/printer. in order;"�to have the`necessary.:equipment."to Yeview past planning applications,
and. ;also to review'`current„property owners' .of,parcels 'from ,the :assessors. roll . Although the
pri nter;`adds'''cons i de ' bl e'cost ,to the'unit •.i t .ri s Staff's`posi ti on',that-.this.'feature is
i,.necessary especially".when. site plans and conditions from prior planning actions need to be
reproduced: : 'In addition •when the Planning Secretary positionFis filled,: it is anticipated
that the .Planning Secretary`wiII be able to assist the Planning Director .in developing an
adequate indexing system for files that the City has inherited from the County of Alameda.
The' Planning Director has developed a new application form with a check list for all
information that '`is required :_of applicants: -, When the Planning Secretary comes onboard she
will ,be:abl e.;to ;asst st .i n „performi ng the A ni ti al checks. of the application to determine
whether all appropriate materials have' been submitted.
If..the City Council believes ,that'.the present processing time for,.pending applications that
r have .been submitted to `the .City:.i s_.too `long, i t is Staff.'s recommendation that the City
,: Council authorize'Staff.;'to "secure the'part-time services of a';planning consultant to assist
Staff in the performance .of 'technical .review'of-.zoning requirements and providing professiona
ass stance . the review of planning applications that have `already been submitted. It is
anticipa.ted :thatsuch "assistance would be .needed--on 'a .20 hours per week basis .for approximate
4 6 weeks to',',c the present .backlog, at a cost ranging from $3,200 to. $4,800
.. .,
The County Planning Department has indicated that it could :provide planning consultant servic
r The CountY'.P
ersonriel .would be well,,versed ;,in the "technical ~review aspects. .:.However; the
County.`planning input 'on ;planni_ng applications.may contain certain biases that would not be
` 'total ly iconsi stent`wi th';Ci ty.goal s and ob jecti ves :Therefore,J f_the Counci 1, feel s Ghat
'additional ,?assistance:to -Staff. is appropriate; a private planning consultant 'is recommended,
who could not only .render the necessary professional assistance, but also provide unbiased
objective planning input
The last long-term solution for the improvement of the planning application review process :
would be the revision of the zoning ordinance, which must come after the development of the
General Plan.
Based on the information which Staff has prepared for City Council review, it is Staff's
recommendation that the City Council take the following actions:
1 . Authorize Staff to secure planning consultant services on an interim basis.
2. Authorize the purchase of a microfische reader/printer.
3. Authorize budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve to the Planning Department Equipmer
Account in the amount of $2,300_
4. Authorize budget transfer rom the Contingent Reserve to the Planning Department Repair
Account-in the amount of $
. •, .' � 10/6/82
PROCESSING
APPLICATION (Working) STATUS r t
DAYS
' Naugles: drive-in restaurant CUP 66 pending continued hearing
= Frumenti : RV and boat storage = CUP 65 being reviewed
Valley 'Christian Center: landscaping - CUP, 37 pending letter 'of-. cred it
Lemoine' and B&B Rental outdoor. storage-CUP :'33 ` ple ding additional 'information '
- Diamond Signs directional tract sign CUP '29 , bung reviewed
Pair kway,Baptist. Church ,.trailers -CUP 25 being reviewed
1 sti
i
hl I
A1' 'c'' Associates ,;;;directory 'sign' SDR 25 being reviewed
;Marra fence variance ,, 23 b4being reviewed
;a
- McClure. sign - 'SDR y 22 bung reviewed =y
Won room .
{
g: addition. variance 21 _ bung reviewed
- Murco, ''.-sign SDR ~' 21 being 'reviewe d
'.Valley Christian Center trailers ` CUP; 20 . being reviewed t
- -Hemstalk%Vintage,Develop offices SDR 17 being reviewed ;
Hackler ;pet hospital CUP 15 -being reviewed
AThertson's. addition variance a ll.:. . be.ing reviewed
Wyatt: t garage conversion- ' va'riance 8 being 'reviewed
Valley 'Christi an Center -wind generator CUP 1 a be�ng 'rev�ewed
t
}
i
i � i