Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 06041996 - D9
D. 9 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: June 4, 1996 MATTER OF RECORD ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Workshop on Permit Streamlining On this date a workshop on permit streamlining was held and it was noted that there would be further consideration of Board direction on the permit streamlining issues in two to three weeks . THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN I TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: JUNE 4, 1996 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP ON PERMIT STREAMLINING SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to return with ordinance and processing changes for consideration by the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: Initial cost associated with staff time to implement changes. Changes aimed at creating long term savings through improved efficiency. BACKGROUND: The land development and building permit process seeks to fulfill several tasks. It must meet State and local requirements. It provides oversight for development projects, checking compliance with ordinances and conditions. It permits public deliberation of the salient features of a proposal, and it promotes protection of neighbors. But the permit process also incrementally increases costs and duration of obtaining approval. It has reduced those aspects of land use that are the landowners by right. The process has also been mis-used in escalations of neighbor disputes outside of the permit process, and in third party demands by persons who have no direct standing in a project. The Growth Management and Economic Development Agency is concerned with the conflicting desires of those involved in the development entitlement process. Members of the community have expressed a desire for greater participation. Applicants are interested in saving time and having fewer steps in the process. Staff is required to comply with local and State laws dictating how, when, and what the process will be. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX Yes SIGNATURE: i RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE OVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I BY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR, RK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CO Y ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY The goal of permit streamlining is to fulfill the responsibilities of the developer but reduce unwarranted conflict, delay and cost. The application process in Contra Costa County has developed incrementally. The number of steps in the process, and the number of public reviews have expanded over recent years without a comprehensive review and analysis of the need for certainty and timely actions. With the opportunity to use technologies such as Geographic Information Systems, Interactive Voice Response, Mobile Computing and Imaging in an integrated manner, information will be available to increase timely processing and to reduce cost. Staff of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency will present an overview of the current permit process; distinguish between compliance (that which is required by ordinance and State law) and compatibility(that which is desired in a community context); provide a comparison between our process, State requirements, and the process as it is carried out in other jurisdictions; and review with the Board some options and areas for change. The municipal advisory committees, planning commissions, homeowner associations, environmental groups, developer groups, professional groups, city staff and others received a request for input and have been invited to this workshop. Any suggestions or comments received from these groups have been incorporated into the workshop materials. (attachments) ED:nl stream.bo Contact:Eileen Doten (646-1608) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE-IMPLEMENTATION There are several milestones in the course of a development project after it has been approved. These milestones include filing the Final Map, approving the Grading Permit, approving the Improvement Plans, and issuing Building Permits. As each milestone is passed, the County loses some degree of control over the project implementation. To ensure that the conditions of approval for a particular milestone are completed, the County has developed a system of agreements and bonds that developers are required to execute. For example, when a Final Map is brought before the Board for approval, all of the conditions that relate to the approval of the Final Map have been satisfied. A condition is satisfied if the work or item required in the condition has been completed or there is an agreement and bond accompanying the Final Map guaranteeing the required work will be completed. The number of development agreements and bonds the County utilizes in processing development projects has changed over the years. Some agreements and bonds become obsolete with time and are dropped from use. On the other hand, new development requirements are approved as time goes on and new agreements and bonds are developed to meet the new requirements. An example of a relatively new requirement would be tree protection or take out food litter control. Attached is an inventory of the various development agreements and bonds the County requires on an as needed basis for each development project. Some agreements are secured with a bond and some agreements are not secured, depending on the agreement. Secured agreements have a"yes" in the bond column and unsecured agreements have a"no" in the bond column. The inventory is arranged by County Department. The Fire Districts do not normally take any agreements or bonds with development projects. Their requirements are assured by including them on the approved building plans or improvement plans. The attached inventory lists the types of development agreements in the first column and the purpose for the agreement in the last column. The second column describes when the agreement is usually taken(this is usually at the Final Map or Building Permit). The third column indicates who approves the agreement. The fourth column indicates whether a bond is taken or not. The fifth column describes the type of security acceptable for the bonds. There are three types of security normally allowed: 1. CASH 2. SURETY BOND 3. LETTER OF CREDIT The sixth column indicates when the bond is released and the seventh column indicates who approves the release of the bond. The following is a legend of the abbreviations in the attached inventory: BP Building Permit BI Building Inspection CA Completion of Acquisition BS Board of Supervisors CI Completion of Improvements (for CD Community Development Department Landscaping Improvements this is at HD Health Department the time of plant establishment) PW Public Works Department CM Completion of House Move ZA Zoning Administrator CR Completion of Restoration FI Final Inspection FM Final Map GP Grading Permit IP Improvement Plan NR Never Released PI Permit Issuance WP End of Warranty Period RMA:mw g:\engsvc\mitch\purpose2.t5 Revised May 28,1996 ................................ coo �► z z a � d ad ad a o CL co c� c� `< a Cl.CL c Q. o' r. <' CD co cu ° (D crq � 2 _ o x A: CCDCD (D CD f�9 0 a o "� `C b O O UQ O O O ty ' CD 0 < ., ° a CD ° o cCDD Crc°DCD : CD CD a -, ., zz «: CD CD ° v, '+ R° + <z CD CD CD 3 CD CD ° CD �d �d �d �d �d �d ►d �d �d �d �d b `�< td td bd w bd W td bd tz bd td bd C7; ! . cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn 0 0 b JC JC <> r O y H d b �1� trl»>>' 04 b tz td td cn cn cn to 0:< <" CD o o ., ,� CD CD ~cs Uq ,. W v� n rr r+ �n CD O ►. p v� 'Lf rn `O „p v� -s C (D G O G C n CD V3 CD _ CD CD CD CD CD CD C CD rn v� cn v� rn �n v� ,, CD v� w' 0 CD =r CL CD CD (7 CD f7 CD CD CD (7 ° O CD O CD CD CD CD CD rn CD p 'O rn rn CD CD CD CD '+ � p, CD �. cD `t7 -, CD �. � � r�y CD �. CD G. CD CD O �• N C O CD Oq O n O n A� O p CD O N ° �. O .� O 0 0 CD CDCD p CI. =3CD Cl. `C3 'h � CD r„ CL C �< a CD p, < O c C CD b �zs �. o -o ° �c �s ° o �, 0 -, CD o w 0 o' o •a �n CD CD _ a CD O CDC CD n CL O En O CY w O N Cl. CD aq Cy _ O CL CD n ■h CD `t3 ►h �. Q- OC O CD CD o w A� CD `r7 < CD 't Uq N f1 CD .y �+ "h CD d _ CD 'o w p- a, _ O ° d + n Uq 'o CL �_' CD cD o p a ° ,� 3 cv c� CD CD ►+) C ... o L7 CD CD O p , `O ... O CD ° ^� .r CD -s v, `O ° O O < `J CD O CD < CD r► `C3 CD C r e� CD �< CD p, CD CD CD CD 4 A� a v> O !y dq O O () CD wCD :n0n O C a CD td o o `< ``s o ;Otn o CD 0 CD a. bd c w CD r. cro' b w CD z ►� 3>`' b b b b b b b b b �d x b ' . C <; ! ' r r r r r r r r r r r r r .< � " n ; r � r W � O t� y �7 d... .:::: H H tz z � H r� H y H C) C) CrJ m m �d 7y 7d 7y a tr1 O CD O. O vOi tOn vOi O 'C CD `3 3 CD A� C vOi CD 0 CD O O G C C C C UOQ UOQ CD CD CD n. -y a. ,C) vii CDD CSD CCD CD CD CD CD (� 0 El A co CDCD UOQ O w O P) tlQ UQ ` 2 CD O O n CD CD CD CD CL CD O CD C CD CD n O z Z O O "Oti 'C3 ,Oti CD n Q. C1 a. "h v O O `C3 O O O p r 'C3 O O O O n ' h OCL -h `O (D CD `� CD CD CD CD V O2. C (D CD CD O nO O O O Q. CD An cD � UQ `G O C7 A� -* O CD CD O t3. Cs. Cl- CD Ep �- L?7 •a UQ a CL UQ CD O C UOQ C(D NCD aOQ ., o a o o aCD -, Q' CD o 0 o CD CD o CD o. � t i GMEDA '"TOP 10 PERMITS" BY CATEGORY July '95 - March '96 L Transportation (PW) 25216 2. Re-roof (BI) 151252 3. Single Family Residence (BI) 839 4. Termite Repair (BI) 606 5. Encroachment (PW) 596 6. Decks/Sheds/Docks/Retaining Walls (BI) 522 7. Mechanical (BI) 516 8. Plumbing (BI) 311 9. Tenant Improvement, Commercial (BI) 224 10. Pool (BI) 175 MOST REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Number of Applications Apps catIau Type` July ' 5 �'95 Jan '9fi.-March96 'Juhy '9S M46 '96 Major Subdivision 3 1 4 Minor Subdivision 8 6 14 Variance 26 13 39 Land Use Permit 48 31 79 Development Plan 40 11 51 Rezoning 7 2 9 Small Lot 21 41 62 Total 153 1(5> 258 MOST REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS Number of Permits Perrmtt TyC July'95 Dec '95 Jan 96 March '96 July '95 March '96 Public Works 397 195 592 Encroachment Road Closure 10 5 15 Flood Control 29 15 44 District Encroachment Drainage 8 1 9 Flood Plain 26 8 34 Transportation 1,920 296 2,216 Total 2,390 520: 2,910 ; BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT d, MOST REQUESTED BUDDING PERMITS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYBUW_,DING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT MSCAL YFAR 9f-96 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 9S HMUAlARCH 96. CODE PERMIT TYPE NO. RR REROOF RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL 1252 R SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 839 RP RESIDENTIAL REPAIR/TERMITE 606 MI DECKS/SHEDS/DOCKS/RET WALUETC j 522_ M MECHANICAL PERMIT MISC 516 PL PLUMBING PERMIT MISC 311 T COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT 224 P POOL __ 175_ FD FOUNDATION REPAIR L109 EC _ MISC ELECT COMMERCIAL 1_09_— G GRADING-SUPERVISED ! _ 75 RS RESTORATION OF SERVICE —+ 53 _ MU' ELECT/MECH/PLUMB COMBO PERMIT 51 MA MOBILEHOME ACCESSORYPEMIT 25 MH MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION PERMIT 21 _ IN INDUSTRIAL PERMIT_ MR _ _MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20 _ RH REHABILITATON PERMIT 20 GA GRADING/SUBDIVISION-SUPERVISED 19 SO -- - SOLAR -;-----17 -- --- MOST REQUESTED BUILDING PERMITS OF TBE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYBUDDING INSPECWONDEPARIAIFNT FOR THE PER10D OFJANUARY 96 THRUAfARCH 96. CODE PERMIT TYPE NO. R SINGLE FAMILY 250 _ ALj _ ALTERATION/RESIDENTIAL 242__ _ RR REROOF/RESIDENTIAUCOM _234 AD ADDITION RESIDENTIAL 156 RP RESIDENTIAL REPAIR/TERMITE 156 MI DEC KS/SH EDS/DOCKS/RET.WALL,ETC 120 _ M _ MECHANICAL PERMIT MISC _ _ 111 E ELECTRICAL PERMIT MISC 1b6 PL PLUMBING PERMIT MISC 75 T COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT 69 EC MISC ELECT. COMMERCIAL 47 CC CODE COMPLIANCE _ 36 FD FOUNDATION REPAIR 33 P POOL-RESIDENTIAL 24 RS j RESTORATION OF SERVICE 17 MU ( _ELECT/MECH/PLUMB COMBO PERMIT 15 i MH 1 MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION PERMIT 10 { I ## MISCELLANEIOUS RECEIPTS 428 i TIIE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYBUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT CON72AEES TO DEVELOP AND IMP T PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE. THESE EFFORTS INCLUDE: 1. Automated Inspection scheduling allowing the public to schedule same day inspections. 2 over the counter plan review for most residential projects. Timely plan review for non-residential projects. 3 . Permit by FAX and records research by FAX which enables the public to obtain miscellaneous permits without having to visit our office. (VISA and MasterCard accepted) 4 . Competent personnel available to respond to customer engineering and building inspection inquiries. Building Permit by FAX Or Mail (This is an application only,the official Building Permit will be sent later in the mail) Contra Costa County 651 PineSt.3rd Floor,North Wing (510)646-2300 Building Inspection Department Martinez,CA 94553 FAX(510)646-1219 Conditions: I)The project location must be within the unincorporated County or the cities of Clayton, Moraga,or Orinda. 2)The Permit must be taken out by either the owner of record or by a licensed contractor. 3)If the owner is going to do the construction,they must also sign and fax an Owner/Builder Declaration. 4)No special conditions or encumberances to the building process may be on the project location. 5)Only the permits listed below may be applied for by FAX or mail. Permits requiring plan check or special planning department or other agency approvals must be applied for in person at our Martinez location. 6)The credit card listed must be valid and have the appropriate amount of credit_ The"Building Permit by FAX or Mail'program is an optional enhancement to customer service. Any applicant may be required to appear in Martinez to apply for a permit. ....:............:... . ...:::::..... ' <`>> > ate...:. e > ''> :::.:.::..::::. .:..... :.::::::: Smote`<> .. oa >< > Fax: Fax: PrQ�et �ccanv>� Stx�et& +� Clty Clayton Mora Orinda ^Unincorporated County: (Town) Gross:Street _..... . ...._. If Known Select one type of Permit .. -- . Check ._ .::::. Permit'T c esdentxai::U.n :: :>::>:: ::::< :::::>::: :::.-,:::. One p ::a:: :::>::: a ::z::.:::>;::::.: . : 1. - or] ens ect�on 'ee<<>>. <»:>> >: ::.: 11-111-� - I :�:`:1ace :.titer at >< ` :`<`> > `> <> << <': : <: >::: % e._ `. il. a :.:._... :_.-..._.._:..._.::...:-. : ..:.::.- x::.::..:.::.:::::..:.:::::.:::.:..:_:::::::.:...:....:...:.......:::::::::.::::.....::...: .:. .... % ...::::.:::::.::::...::::::: :::::::::::. _:::::::::.:::.:::..:::.-::::.::._._::.::::..:::...-::.....::...:..:..........---.:::..:.:::::.:.........:..-.._-.. ..-:: ::::.:::: :._.....:..::: ::..- Re a; zr Gay , e >>`.:::::1:>:;::;::;:::::>_=::« :::::<::;><:>::><:;>:. <:::<; 1. _:. :.. - "...-...-- 'M '.Fe a``' .:::::.:::.:::.:::;:.;..:::.::.::. zr:Vater:<Lr .:: :... :::: ............ .......:.....::::::.::.:. ....::...::::::....: ::::.. z3ze::::::: ::::::>::<: :: ; � - <:it :' tt- `:ii< < jj> ``_ ? :Y `�z : > > ::%<sL: <' << _! >< `>> :`a sS `' `2 <'_'% �: : : e : :.: F'!; i <>+-�<"'"-., `'?> ?'' <£ r 2:'_'_<? '`:` < <?'' ?''=??: '-` Y'`` iii '' ? '< xx' a :.::.::::.>::::.::.::::.:>:::..:..:::.:::.::.: ,rvi ..:.:.....::::::.:.......:::..:. :: :: . . . .::...:..... . ..::::::: ,11 e lace ::<:r:::::;::>::>:;::::::::>:>:;<:::::>:::::::::<:» >:::::>_:::>:;::> ;:::: ::>::;.>::>::::::. :.: affl������� vzrz.:: :::.:.::::::::.....:...:::........::....: I. Reraofczn fete fcz batl�ts page azd a4reej ate .. ,::"�:...��_-�%.!.r.��]""..:�.,'"�.L"�.:-I...,-.�.���,�,..."''..,,Ir...::"��L:,�".'�..,,,9.���.�,,,�;--�_�9r1,r%�..:,""'*:',:LL,99�-1r:Ir�,.,,�9.r'r',.'_::].-��::.,L.��-.'.�..-:.L.1�,..'�::��,..:..q%.�.':.�M%-:..LrL."9�.:�-%.,::..:%:'��I�.��,�...,..-:�..�..,'..�%.,r-,.�2�,�'.,�.:_��-�.�,�:1L�,.,.���:'"..�:i',_-:,.::9L�.��.'.I�-..:,..9,:.-L�I:,:-�:',�-�-*.::.,::..�:.�-r::-.:���:.r.-.r.L,.,L_::.,�-,.:.��q:'.:L:...:.,'L.,';::'���:.:%r'9':L:9.:9'Lr...'�:�:].,.:r�:..::M�.:9'L'.:�.i.���:�,,"Lr�-�L��.�.�,,.�-�,.L�:�,:,L�..., to ec e e .. ... :.......... a n.F :....::. ::::...:...:::.:.:::::..: Permit No. Permit Description. (replace l0' sewer line from street) Check FQr all Oamzts lzsted except reroof and: one . reznspectzon fee i : Urzico orated Area $5 25 ;; City ofWton $ 8.75> Toufn of lUloraga : 78.75 City Of: f( zncih $ 4.3 ."::..,,L...1.LL..j:.,.- �L:,, L:�:. L:" 99L,;r;g.,:.,r I . Lr.'.'.L.....9 r r r.9 .....r L L r . L" 2d Rez`oof Call 646-1600 for fec calcu: atiozz > $ . I { Check Reinsp'ectzori Fee {Select orie of:the two, only if you already have a one De rmit<and are paying far a;re inspection) Resential plumbing, electxacalec , mhanic idal $25.00 o valuation {$5Q00 N:oriresdental plumbiag, electrical, $60.00 mechanical orauatitin >$5,000 Payment MethodAmount Check Mail Only) No. $ Maxie Order ailOnl $ . Y) Credit hard{pa `Qr Mair Visa _ Mastercard $ am on Card.; Account # Expiration Date: Signature. {must match X F name on card) LTCE SXA NTRACTOR nFCI.ARAT N: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencingwith Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and effect. License Class License Number: Date: Contractor: O-W-NFR_ WMDE-RDfJ,RATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason(Sec: Any city or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve,demolish,or repair any structure, prior to its issuance,also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he or she is licensed pursuant to the proivisons of the Contractors License Lahr(Chapter 9(commencingwith Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code)or that he or she is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption: [ ] I,as owner of the property,or my employees'witlt wages as their sole compensation,will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale(Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon,and who does such work himself or herself or through his or her own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended for or offered for sale. If however,the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion,the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he or she did not build or improve for the purpose of safe.) [ 11, as owner of the property,am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code:'Fhe Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractors License Law.) I am exempt under Sec. ---- —' 13.&P_C. for this reason --- Date: O�vncr: I rn 70 . ' iciC� D D x < �n,� m O rn -o r R w : r r ter_° C� 10,onC1d�"' m t/ D 90 age _„ r m .� m z y z � �f �, � — m On CO, t7 �a � r z O JE 4 of 'B-�3`k v — qL4 Al a n C/) n Z 'Y d �' tr a ?e 2 z"� { �5z I D 4a 1 1 _000C� vY m g ;o a {7m 00 cn � o5 � � N � to z y n ic z s -- mw ta'V^r i f �f 'add`4sry Me b1 a'bCj Z e. oo �$ 0 n D -0 m r m mD m —i > Z =0 a E � I'; z .. , o a 7.77 ws n.K ,n: v 0 > Olk D rt7 z\n s rn r -gy12 m --� y m, Cas F m n'oo ,- z z n900-� - --� y. .�� . R ' z r -n Zj lXH n o0 -n' rn KT 6 j �, � Z ;Vr rn i`<�r 'C'' •_.r`ss a .��a .::?�,em, r._ Iry � $'+ —n Z M T O - 14, C Q° k ' �� � 0 0 LTJ, O 'R D z�zm ,.s <pr Z Nffi -�W _. Z. G7 w D,p Z =mcn kis D 0DZX fiw Cl) CS Ze " rn [ u' m -v Z f .11 o D Za .� -� ■ C s 1 CnA o m �Qm m rnrn �'v • n ` ��� fay O ,y /A D O F, 'j �, "� r•'� �'ryya�C�C R s!J b`� �' Z �• P R'b +73 �'FaAF.� '1F M a�e YPA Zoning and Development Streamlining Issues in CONTRA COSTA COUNTY In order to present options to streamline the development review process, staff has reviewed the County Zoning Ordinance (Title 8) to differentiate between those review steps which are required by State Statute and those which are the result of the adoption of local ordinances. The following is a summary of that review. Following the discussion of each section is a recommendation to retain, modify, or eliminate the requirement. It should be clearly understood that these recommendations are based upon a perceived desire to streamline the process to reduce costs and time spent in process. It is essential that the reader understand the critical difference between "ministerial" and "discretionary" approvals. A ministerial approval is one in which the staff verifies that the proposal meets all applicable requirements. If an application passes the test, the permit must be issued: there is no discretion excercised. A discretionary approval is one in which some judgement must be applied to the request to determine if appropriate findings for approval can be made, based upon the record before the decision making body. Generally, ministerial approvals are granted administratively; discretionary approvals follow a hearing process. A building permit for a house on residentially zoned property which me required development standards would be ministerial; a variance to build closer than the standard to the front property line would be an example of a discretionary permit. The reason it is important to understand the difference, in the context of streamlining review, is that ministerial approvals are generally exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Putting aside the issue of the efficacy and desirability of CEQA, there is little debate that CEQA requirements add substantially to the review period for discretionary approvals. Much time and cost would be saved from the relevant review process for projects which were changed from discretionary reviews to a ministerial review. Substantial participation by the public would also be eliminmated. t Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County In presenting the options for sreamlining the review process which follows, staff has intentionally disregarded the issue of whether and how CEQA review would affect the quality of the outcome (e.g., the project design and land use compatibility aspects which are usually associated with CEQA review) and has instead focused on the discretionary review process as practiced in Contra Costa County. Another reason that ministerial approvals are substantially quicker in reaching a decision is that the County is very accomodating to official and unofficial local groups who wish to have a say in projects proposed in the community. There are currently 11 Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC'S) and about a half-dozen "unofficial" citizen advisory groups (Alamo Improvement Association, Diablo Property Owners Association, Blackhawk Homeowners Association, Crockett Improvement Association, etc.) which are routinely advised of project applications and from which comments are routinely requested. Depending on the date the project is submitted in relation to the date of the group's meeting, there may be 4-6 weeks delay in getting comments, even if it turns out that there are no comments. Finally, it should be noted that generally speaking, discretionary review of project proposals allows for the county to attach exactions from developers which may not be obtainable through ministerial review. Such exactions, or conditions of approval include such things as dedications of rights-of-way, designation of scenic easements, or dedications of development rights, or improvements of road and drainage systems needed to support the approved project and mitigates their impacts. Throughout the following streamlining review, chapters, articles and sections of Title 8 of the Contra Costa County Code are referenced in parenthesis following the text name of the subject. DIVISION 82 Small Lot Review (82-10.002) 2 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County This section requires that where a lot which does not conform to average width or area requirements for the zoning district in which it is situated, but otherwise qualifies for occupancy by a single family dwelling, the Zoning Administrator (hereafter, ZA) may require that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a hearing must be held to review the proposed location, size height and design of the dwelling to provide relative compatibility and minimize impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood. If the ZA does not so find, then a mailed notice of the opportunity to request such a hearing must be sent to each property owner within 300 feet of the subject property, allowing them at least ten days to request a hearing. If no request is received, the permit may be issued by staff, without a hearing. Type of Project Affected: Single family residence or modification/addition Added Process Time: 2-3 weeks if no hearing requested; 5-6 weeeks with hearing. (No appeals included in estimated times) Added costs: Varies from minor costs for noticing/hearing (approx. $125) to major redesign costs, appeal costs and added financing costs, where applicable. This could run into several thousands of dollars. Recommendation: Elimination of this requirement would produce substantial streamlining benefits. Off Street Parking (82-16) The dimensional standards for off-street parking spaces and driveway areas were developed in the 1960's when the average dimensions of automobiles were considerably larger than is currently the case. Import competition and fuel economy changes are significant factors in this evolution to smaller vehicles in the fleet. Additionally, the use of wider turning radii and the almost universal use of "power" or "assisted" steering designs have also contributed to the currently adopted parking standards becoming somewhat archaic. In response, the builders/developers have routinely sought variances to the strict application of the parking standards for some time. This adds both cost and time delays to projects, particularly .commercial, office, multiple family residential and light industrial projects. On the other hand, 3 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County the meager landscaping provisions of the chapter contribute to solar heat buildup in parking lots, which in turn increases demands for air conditioning in adjacent buildings, in addition to providing less than optimal aesthetic conditions. Added processing time: 3-5 weeks for a variance if no hearing is requested; 4 months if so. Added Cost: $500-1000 in fees, potentially a few thousand dollars for added engineering/ architectural costs. Recommendation: Modification of the parking ordinance standards could produce substantial streamlining benefits. Child Care Facilities: (82-22) In response to local needs, the County includes mandatory requirements in child care facilities in discretionary project approvals. Generally these relate to larger residential, commercial and office projects which are determined to contribute to the need for child care. For projects over 30 units, or for commercial or office projects, a reports addressing childcare needs and including recommended mitigations must be submitted, reviewed and approved. This may be required as a condition of project approval. Added processing time: Post project approval compliance with conditions could require several months for preparation and review/approval. Added cost: For 29 or less units, fee is $400/unit; $200/townhouse/condo; $100 for Apartments of 2 or more Bedrooms. (Studio, 1 BR Apt. Exempt.) Major Subs/Development Plans of 30 or more units $970 application review fee and childcare mitigation report. This may lead to fees of somewhat less than $400 per unit. Recommendation: Retain the Childcare ordinance requirements; modify the administration of the ordinance so that C; 4 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County it is identified as a requirement earlier in the process. In that case, it will not delay approval or implementation of the project, as it would be addressed during the review, rather than after approval. Water Conservation in New Developments (82-26) This chapter requires a number of measures leading to the minimization of water use in the landscaping for development projects. Standards for landscape planting types, and irrigation system specifications are required for certain types of development projects. Applicants must prepare and submit landscape plans designed to conform to these requirements. Added processing time: 2-3 weeks for review of required plans, and inspections as may be required. Added cost: Somewhat increased costs for plan preparation and review varies substantially by type and size of project. No dollar amounts given; variance too great. Recommendation: Retention of this ordinance does not unduly delay development projects; elimination would not substantially improve streamlining. Transportation Demand Management This chapter requires preparation of and participation in a TDM prgram to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by development projects. Due to changes in State Statute, County Counsel has suggested the repeal of this ordinance. Therefore, no further analysis is presented. Recommendation: The Board should coordinate elimination of this ordinance with the other jurisdictions in the County through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 5 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County Cabarets (82-34) This ordinance requires the issuance of a land use permit prior to commencing operation of a cabaret with more than 49 seats. Cabarets must have additional specified findings made prior to the issuance of a land use permit. In addition, a permitee-initiated annual review by the Zoning Administrator is required. Special non-conforming use provisions are included in the section, requiring a land use permit for any increase, enlargement or expansion of the use for cabarets that were in existence at the time of adoption of the ordinance. Added processing time: 4-6 months for staff/hearing ; unknown period for development of application materials by applicant. Added Cost: approximately $2,000 to $5,000, depending upon whether a development plan is also required. Unknown cost to applicant for preparation of application. Recommendation: Retention of this ordinance will not affect a large number of projects. Since adoption, no new applications have been received. Substatial streamlining benefits do not appear to be attendant to the elimination of this Chapter. DIVISION 84 Land Use Districts In general, each Land Use District contains uses which are allowed as a matter of right (allowed uses) and uses which have been found acceptable as approved or conditionally approved by a conditional' use permit, or land use permit. Many of the land use permit provisions of the various districts are either duplicated, or incorporated by reference from district to district in the interest of efficient codification. Where provisions apply to more than one district, they are treated here only in the first such district in which they appear. R-6 Single Family Residential District (84-4) 6 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County (1) Home Occupation A home occupation may be authorized if the use meets the criteria specified in article 82-4.240. The theory behind this provision is that a home occupation properly conditioned to the definitional criteria will not have any impact on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. With the advent of the telecommunication revolution of the 1980's and 1990's, the potential for home occupations, telecommuting and otherwise acting as a business from a residential structure has become immense. While staff has administratively determined for the purpose of code compliance that telecommuting does not constitute a home occupation, there is a fine line of differentiation where the same activities take place not once or twice a week, but every day. Changing home occupation to an allowed use, where the criteria are met, and limiting land use permits for the more marginal cases which really require conditioning would substatially aid small business development and technological development, without unduly impacting the character of the surrounding areas. Added processing time: 4-6 months. Added cost: $300-$500 plus cost of condition compliance. Recommendation: This provision should be modified to allow for administrative approval of the use where specified criteria are met. Where such criteria are not met, allowance for consideration of land use permits should be retained. Clear criteria for allowance, conditional approval, or denial would streamline the process for affected landowners. A notification and appeal process could be considered, as well. Land use permit required: (12) Commercial radio and television receiving and transmitting facilities other than broadcasting studios and business offices. 7 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County The recent revolution in telecommunications technology has called into question whether such a broadly worded classification is appropriate today. Many aspects of telecommunications which could be proposed today have little resemblance to the traditional radio and TV transmitting facilities, or the need for extensive review and conditioning. Added Processing time: 4-6 months Added cost: $2700-350Oplus unknown submittal preparation costs ($500?). In addition, the applicant would pay for compliance with any conditions of approval. Recommendation: Modification of the requirements where certain characteristics are present (Size, shape, height, etc) to allow this use would result in substantial streamlining benefits to the industry and property owners. Retention of Land Use Permit requirements for other transmitting and receiving facilities is desireable to avoid negetive effects of siting. M-29 Multiple Family Residential District (84-26) No development is lawful in this district until a development plan has been submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator (ZA). The code sets forth in some detail the standards for development and submittal requirements in this district. Changes in an approved development plan may be approved by the ZA, for which s/he may schedule a public hearing. Where an application for development plan approval is accompanied by a request for rezoning to this district, the initial hearing is held by the planning commission, which provides a recommendation to the Board, whose decision on the rezoning and development plan is final. Approval of a development plan under this ordinance section requires the same findings required for a land use permit. In addition, specific findings are required for modification to a development plan. Unlike the Planned Unit Development District (P-1), applications for changes to an approved development plan must be considered in a public hearing, subject to notification. Added Processing time: 4-6 months, assuming no significant environmental impacts are found 8 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County in the conduct of the initial study. About 6 weeks added if Board review/approval required. Added costs: $6,020 + $195/unit + Time and Materials after 120% of initial fee plus unknown submittal preparation costs. $6475 +T&M after 120%.for rezoning costs, if applicable. Due to the substantial number of development criteria contained in this code section, simply eliminating development plan review and approval would not avoid the staff costs of reviewing proposals for compliance. Even limited staff review for compliance with development standards would require a fairly detailed administrative review; it could not be accomplished "over the counter". All of the Mutiple Family Residential Districts (M-6 through M-17) are administered conformably with the M-29 District, with minor exceptions. In general, the same review requirements apply in all of these districts, and the comments listed above for the M-29 apply in the other districts as well. Recommendation: Retain Development Plan Review in the Multiple Family Residential Districts. FR Forestry Recreation District (84-32) The County General Plan identifies this as an antiquated zoning district which should be eliminated. The overly broad list of allowed activities (all uses in the single and agricultural districts, together with uses in those zoning districts allowed with a use permit) provides for a range of allowed uses far outside the scope of the activities listed in the definition of the conforming General Plan land Use Designations. There are few properties in the County bearing this Zoning. The General Plan suggests rezoning those properties to general plan-conforming zoning districts and deletion of this chapter from Title 8. Recommendation: Rezone the properties in this category to conformable zoning and eliminate the district. 9 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County F-1 Water Recreational District (84-34) In general, this district is the same as the R-6 Single Family Residential District, with added criteria related to reflect it's location adjacent to water. Uses allowed with a land use permit are the same as the R-6, but in addition, Commercial Boat Harbors are included, as are special restrictions on the placement of mobile homes. In terms of streamlining, the R-6 Comments are applicable here. Recommendation: Same as R-6 Single Family Residential District. A-1 Light Agricultural District (84-36) This district contains very few parcels, and regulates land mainly through incorporation by reference into the A-2 General Agricultural District. A-2 General Agricultural District (84-38) This zoning district applies to much of the agricultural and open space land in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Parcel sizes range from non-conforming lots less than five acres to whole sections (640 acres) of a range and township. While the uses allowed in this district and the uses allowed by land use permit reflect a broad range of agricultural and related uses, the inclusion of recycling operations intended to sort and/or process materials for reuse (excluding junkyards) with approval of a land use permit may have had unitended consequences in the Heavy Industrial District. That district, which allows any manufacturing use as a matter of right (with the exception of land use permit requirements for specified users of hazardous wate and hazardous materials), also allows for the establishment with approval of a land use permit of those uses allowed in (among others) the agricultural districts. For this reason, recycling operations are required to obtain a land use permit in the Heavy Industrial District. It should be noted that this procedural requirement was tested on appeal to the Board of Supervisers in the Bauman Landscaping Appeal in the North Richmond Area. After that hearing, the.Board upheld 10 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County Staff's determination that a use permit was required in the Heavy Industrial District for recycling operations. Added Processing Time: Approximately 4-5 months assuming no EIR is required. If EIR required, add 6-8 months. Added Costs: $2,700 plus 1/2. of 1% of the project cost, plus time and materials after 120%; approximately $20,000 to 30,000 for EIR costs, depending upon areas of potential significant impacts. Unknown costs for application submittal and noticing,-preparation and compliance with conditions of approval. The A-2, General Agriculture District requires that a land use permit is to be granted prior to establishment of living accomodations for agricultural workers to be used primarily for temporary housing of agricultural workers while performing seasonal agricultural work on the owner's property. (84-38.404(7)) This requirement appears to conflict with Chapter 376, Statutes of 1995, which amended section 17021.6 of the State Health and Safety Code related to Housing. In summary, that section preempts local land use controls for housing for 12 or fewer agricultural workers. The workers are not required to work on the site upon which the housing is located. A procedure should be developed to streamline the review for conformity of such requests with the provisions of the Health and Safety Code. The discussion of the Home Occupation provisions within the R-6 District is also applicable in the A-2, A-3, A-20, A-40, and A-80 Agriculture Districts. Recommendation: Modify the A-2 District to clarify the provisions for farmworker housing, consistent with the Health and Safety Code. Modify the H-I Heavy Industry to clarify whether recycling operations require issuance of a land use permit. Staff recommends that it be clarified that such permits are required; very few applications would be expected; little streamlining benefit would be expected from elimination of this requirement. A-3 Heavy Agriculture District (84-40) 11 i I Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County The discussion of the A-2 district is applicable to the A-3 District. In addition, the A-3 District provides for issuance of a land use permit for the construction of single family or two family dwellings for members of the family within the third degree of consanguinity. This provision is not entirely consistent with applicable case law and should be eliminated. Other provisions would still allow consideration of land use permits for construction of more than one residence on a lot or parcel of land, but would not be limited to members of the family. Recommendation: Modify the ordinance to ensure conformance with applicable case law by elimination of the references to members of the family within the third degree of consanguinity. (Change for clarity rather than purely streamlining purposes.) 0-1 Limited Office District (84-44) While there are few, if any undeveloped properties zoned O-1, the chapter makes references to the site plan and elevation approval requirements of the M-4 district, which has long since been incorporated into the M-12 District, which is administered conformably with the M-29 District. While such cross references provide for efficient codification, they are not clear to the public, and should be reworked to provide clear requirements and administrative direction to applicants. References to the Board of Adjustment should be changed to the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. Recommendation: Modify for clarity. A-O Administrative Office District (84-46) Staff is not aware of any unincorporated land designated A-O. Properties in this designation were 12 . Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County incorporated into the City of San Ramon. Interchange Transitional District (84-48) Comments for the 0-1 District apply to this district as well. Few properties are, or will be zoned in this classification. Due to the unique nature of properties included, only clarifying changes referred to in the 0-1 District are appropriate in this district, for streamlining purposes, which is the limited scope of this inquiry. C-B Community Business District (84-49) The same issues for the requirements of a Development Plan exist here as in the M-29 District above. It should be noted that this district, unlike the M-29, does not contain provisions for changes following the approval of a development plan. It should also be noted that in a number of districts including the C-B District, some projects require approval of both a Development Plan and Land Use Permit. While these entitlements do cover different subject matter, it would be beneficial to consider combining the requirements of both into a single permit, and to carefully review the combined cost of such application. A tremendous variability exists between matters covered by these permits, and the unitary fee structure for combined LUP/DP applications is not always appropriate for them. As an example, a land use permit for an auto garage which includes body repair and painting seems a reasonable candidate for conditioning not only the "how" of development, but also the "how" of use, in order to minimize potential conflicts with surrounding properties. In this case a fairly detailed review is required. Provision is also made in this district for an LUP for one or more residential units. If a single family house is in fact a reasonable use in this district, it is difficult to justify the same level of review, conditioning and cost as the auto garage with body work and painting, or especially, the level of cost for the review and hearing of such a proposal. Putting aside the question of the appropriateness of the use in a commercial district, it is extremely unlikey that the two uses would require anywhere near the same level of review, but the submittal requirements, fees and time periods required for review are currently identical. Again limiting the inquiry to the area of 13 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County streamlining, it appears that there is some room for improvement for less complex or less potentially impacting uses and structures in this and other districts which also have multiple permitting requirements. Allowing for some degree of administrative flexibility in tailoring the requirements to the specific situation on a case-by case basis could provide significant savings in time and cost to at least some applicants for less complex proposals. These comments apply equally to the N-B Neighborhood Business District (84-50) , the P-N-B Planned Neighborhood Business District (84-50), the R-B Retail Business District (84-52), and the C General Commercial District (84-52) Recommendations: Modify the structure of regulation in these districts to better reflect the range of types and complexities of involved projects. Consider combined and simplified review of Development Plan and Land Use Permit for less complex projects. Provide discretion to administratively tailor application requirements appropriate to the use/design under consideration. C-M Controlled Manufacturing District (84-56) No comments on this district, as there are very few parcels in this district, and the applicable requirements are straightforward and appropriate. L-I Light Industrial District (84-58) The section on permitted uses is confusing, as it includes provisions for certain uses to be allowed upon the issuance oof a land use permit, such as hot mix or asphalt plants. These uses are not listed in the section allowing for uses to be established with land use permits (84-58.404). Since the H-I Heavy Industry District requires an LUP for the uses listed for the H-I district at 84-58.404, it is unclear what the intent is for the uses that are required to obtain an LUP in the permitted uses section of the L-I District. These provisions should be clarified, rather than relying on administrative interpretation. 14 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County In addition, the L-I district does not contain any provisions for the placement of signs other than those accessory or non accessory signs allowed by land use permit. The "default" provisions for signs allow for a type V sign on any lot identifying the premises, and a logo or business identification. A type V sign may be no larger than 6 square feet in area (see section 88-6.808 and 88-6.610) If a light industrial building occupant wishes to place a sign on the building larger that 6 square feet, a land use permit must be obtained. The standard fee for a land use permit is approximately $2,700. Either code provisions for a reasonably sized sign could be included in this district, or a special land use permit pricing structure to charge actual cost could be adopted. Currently, this type of situation is handled through administrative interpretation, but the chance that some staff members in the future may not be familiar with the interpretation raises the possibility of error in advising applicants. Recommendation: Modify the provisions of the LI District to provide clarity on land use permit requirements, particularly as the requirements are incorporated by reference in other district code provisions (HI). Allow consideration of identification sign in the neighborhood of fifty square feet in area without issuance of a land use permit. Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving hazardous Waste or hazardous Materials (84-63) The replacement of this chapter is currently the subject of a public hearing before the County Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance is submitted for consideration by the Hazardous Materials Commission. Streamlining considerations of this subject area are deferred to that forum. U Unrestricted District (84-64) This district allows for land to be used for any lawful purpose. It is as streamlined as it gets. It has also been identified by the General Plan as an outmoded, antiquated district which should be 15 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County repealed. No privately owned dry land properties are so zoned. Staff discussions have been initiated as to the process to convert the one large area zoned U to be rezoned; Buchannan Field, which is owned and operated by the County. (Incidently, the East County Airport should also be rezoned to facilitate Airport and related uses). In streamlining terms, it is critical that the County Airports be zoned in such a manner that the Airport Manager can quickly respond to economic development proposals in order to maximize use of these two "engines" of subregional economic development potential in the future, consistent with the overall policies an goals for the airports as stipulated in the County General Plan. Recommendation: Devise and apply appropriate airport Zoning Districts for both County Airports. P-1 Planned Unit District (84-66) Originally intended for large scale unified project proposals where flexibility from standard development criteria are desireable, or for General Plan areas of special concern, this district has become a means for streamlining the overall development review process. Following joint adoption of the North Richmond Shoreline General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan with the City of Richmond, the County Board of Supervisors rezoned the entire North Richmond Area as a Planned Unit Development with a preliminary development plan based upon the General Plan for the area. The Conditions of Approval for the development plan constitute the development criteria and procedures for development for the area. This process allowed for a streamlined administrative review of certain kinds of applications which under traditional zoning could have required land use permit or development plan aprovals. While there has not been sufficient time or investment in the community since the rezoning to allow a complete analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of this approach, staff feels it holds promise in comparison to standard zoning practice. At the very least, this approach obviates the need to rezone property for the designated use, so long as the denstiy and type of use are consistent with the property General Plan land use designation. This factor alone is worth several thousand dollars and four to six months to prospective applicants. 16 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County Recommendations: Pursue further area-wide rezonings to this district, concentrating on the areas in need of economic development assistance, as evidenced by existence of adopted redevelopment plans. T-1 Mobile/Manufactured Home Park District (84-68) This district establishes standards for Mobile Home Parks as well as occupancy of mobile homes, travel trailers and camp cars on lands in the unincorporated jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. Because of the unique nature, issues and concerns related to the placement, occupancy and removal of mobile homes, this report does not evaluate potentials for streamlining this specific use. Some of the observations generally applied to land use permit processing otherwise could apply to such permits granted pursuant to this Chapter. A-20, A-40 and A-80 Exclusive Agriculture Districts (84-80, 84-82 and 84-84, respectively) Please see the discussion of Agriculture districts under A-2 General Agriculture District. The County rezoned lands in the Agricultural Core Designation in order to provide consistency between the 40 Acre minimum lot size mandated by the Agricultural Core designation. Recommendation: In order to provide consistent regulatory contexts with the less productive soils zoned for general agricultural use, and to provide additional economically viable uses, the Board of Supervisors should consider modifying the regulations in the A-40 district to include provision for some of the more agriculturally related uses provided by land use permit in the A-20 district. In addition, The County recently amended the A-2 district to allow cold storage plants on A-2 properties not less than ten acres in size as a permitted use. This is a use which requires issuance of a Land Use Permit in the A-40 district. Consideration could also be given to making this an allowed use in the A-20 district. 17 Streamlining Issues Contra Costa County Airport Establishment (86-2) and Airport Zoning (88-4) Division 88 Special Land Uses: Cemeteries;Wind Energy Conversion Systems; Junkyards; Outdoor Advertising; Sign Control Combining District; Quarries and Crushing Plants;Adult Entertainment Businesses;Oil and Gas Drilling and Production; Take Out Food Establishments;Cabarets; Land Use Permits for Gun and ammunition Dealers; Tree Protection; Heritage Trees. These sections are highly specialized and do not lend themselves to creation of significant efficiencies from streamlining. Therefore, they are not discussed further. Concluding Observations - The foregoing discussion and recommendations concerning the potential to effect streamlining of the regulatory framework of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance was undertaken to identify the various places where the current ordinance hinders applicants from developing their property in the most expeditious way possible, without abandoning the underlying purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. As ususal, there are costs associated with the modifications discussed. In most cases, the identified changes would result not only in a speedier process, but would eliminate substantial opportunities for public participation in the development and regulation of private property. Additionally, there would be substantial costs associated with undertaking the changes included herein. It is the staff's conclusion, therefore, that should the Board be inclined to delve further into the subject of streamlining, staff should prepare a prioritization of the elements of such a work program based upon the Board's identified objectives in this area, and return to the Board with a follow up report and recommendations. If The Board is satisfied that the current policies and process embodied in the Zoning Ordinanace are appropriate to the needs of the county, appropriate direction could be given to address only those aspects considered in need of modification or elimination. 18 i z Growth Management and Contra Economic Development Agency Costa Valentin Alexeeff, Director County May 14, 1996 n. S 0�. srAcoisi+`� Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The Growth Management and Economic Development Agency plans to conduct a permit streamlining workshop for the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 4, at 2:00 p.m.. The workshop is expected to last about 45 minutes. Some applicants have told us that they desire fewer steps, more predictability and expedited processing. Some members of the community have expressed a desire for more opportunities to influence outcomes. It would be helpful to have your input as we prepare for the workshop. ♦ Are there changes you would like to see in the entitlement application process? ♦ What do you believe can be done to make the process more efficient? ♦ Are there glitches, duplicate steps or duplicate actions that can be omitted? If you have any thoughts or ideas you care to share, we would greatly appreciate hearing from you. .Please FAX or mail your comments to me at the address or FAX number below. A response by May 30, 1996 would be very helpful. Thank you for any time you are able to spend on this. My number is 646-1608. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Eileen Doten Customer Services Manager dotenlworkshop.ltr 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, Second Floor, Martinez, California 94553-1213 TnInnhnno• lr,1n1 FdF_1r7n • FOX• /F1M rAr,-1rQQ LO O o '� t° m y Q c x o C t0 Ln c -o '0 O O N O) v ca o >N � d 10 � aNi m6 : < C �' a) N7j @ � a) U N b rn o In o U aci @ n (D E O@ •Z 5 4) ` U n E as n `'.} c d U3 o a Qc c V NZ @ m o O a) '. c x(7 o C M @ U � E roU[C � -,•vm= � coy`' @ � �O •U o NUO •ui mQ ca m Q>co o —0i'7„• r 7 � No a� amQO NU-U m N U O c0 r LU Co 4tCN cn U co LOO LO ity O C� �� c mc') d O C V 000 a1 V OCR 0 U) Ud d N chi n 7tD �c N C1 � crn d oU c a> cd m =a�U a)� u� o ° 0 z 0 n- .. CO mo cam -) ujx°' E u °y�' N E SE cCO y Qn O U C O � v U @ � O N �otSW � � a? � L � fn m cU 3 N 1 U c (Y > Q C ' U7 U nUa C� d30 C c cN4 i0 U @ < @ omom Ca CQ n (D oxo@ 0 u` � -' m o U) co -� �cn N 0 m rn 0 c aci . E a N cn dCL TCl) Cl) U O o ro co -CL OD0 > N N '� 0> OV C > N O Ur X V LO N V E cod C co �p u CO p ?^�O• O Ln Q 0) a ? C <E N m'n y,°-o U O 0 0 0 -x : t3 c am - m r m U- d=CD Ir 0 m 4) c c .6 '.o o a) Co is c a'i E E sO o U � u c o o c a� U c EU @ Z E o 0 0 d Nc v u °c ", @hyo o U) c @ @ < u) @ o v ma tr 0 o _.d a:':U5 b v moc za� � Q=O mN d� � zU m N U O U ba G G Q 00 ° U 7 � � o °�°v ° C7, c CLQ o d o > a u � Q ZC Q U °�' Q o o -5 oU o > 'o o o �, H U o U E a U y o o �✓ a aoi x G c Ga Q ro Ga ° S o � � o s F. O ro G C-1 rx 0 a � a E 0 U G on a G •� M E p O 00 O 00 ^ ,G ti G, co 00 M � co � CO cGa it{} d U Q �. y GU :z Q Q00 o UF; v [SDQ T rt yU w Gyro w ro ° N x cdU > Ga c U yU .. •'� G G G N y C, ro ca G c�a of CLl y� G ca 00 0U h o 'E 0 � xU o y o ocns� a'i �U G cp o Z' G roco m > � G se ydz � �°n � r° o � ro yO Ua. � HWS o �U �y ° m m0, om0O � - me GGo o ro � `� G � aNa CO M p� � M U cr y <r OWU7, in �crn i W N a H K ra 1 a' � N G yomot"� v' U', 5Nu: U =. 39 > 00 U U N X40 u �o g tS h iU 4 o' pQ yo/o� 7 W 9U 4 �-.N a"� �C P � N N a Q G41 Jj a O tc+/ry1 f- �Nt+. m W UNN �„ UN i� w UN4Cv Ugpre W UN {l.p�.b USJ c7iN W A C7 a a N 7 m. u 4 us >> a a kn A a Q a a o u v m � oQ m > ,a � aq reU �ayNoQ °U m aU ` a UA x.� o V W QN °,q c r W �ppnv V UON V N .. ptj ,^;o ro4 Oto a� � 4W�,,,,,b p co omo wMN w > t4 aN c+ .�, m O O y O '' 3 a WL�`�oo y•� �.0 Qa noNOfA O O Q U c O a ` C a) N ro N c co 3 It O 3 A ro C V O ro yLoo co E E ¢ 0) E 0) o m N N co O m c v ° T'V' N of ¢ 0) 0) _ p m 0 15 M O Cl) 0) = m O) ¢ m ¢ U U It o) to v E;v > v U o E W, -U m U _ G) o rn c �c QQS�U y:¢ ¢¢ ate¢ m� a't H >d =N Q) my m C.- o EMU 2 mU E.-U pN E meg) °) rov E ymm �m y .2 C13 o y a' aa) d ° a)) °j > -2 5 oU L t L L U c 03 c m e m c0 cc m c mQ y a I C S2 m co (j'e >Om aom o0m mam xn:x 0 C) wr-� a� cna� m.-j a3: v� Ci N a) N c E m0 LL Q) a U � 2 m M E m m E2m - c m m 'S M o v U �' ¢ Q¢N a) 7N U N U m`n O m¢ O N LO �° N �cn 7 ° U acv Emrn {{// rn cJrn UoL) oma o�mv cm 0) fav o E o0) ocn _ �= >� .5U)N� NNQ CmN@ Um = a)U NoU 00O V) �— a) C¢ a x¢ � x U m e ¢ m r Z a H o m M m U o x n _ m E ¢ m m U v Co v `�co m- U d U V y o N v L ° U m > ai C C p ° 4)N m a)� ai E C Cmw C m j a) [O cc C O- ° Np ° pa £aopw 'P-0) roM of cLa ci C� m �� c T T C C Q)C) m O T L^ m mO m mN m O O M m m am ¢aQ mMam U U Qm CL(02 ava UNa c� p 0 0 O O QN n c p ¢_ m 3 E o c O y- ro m m ` N N N N oU 0 rn U ,v o mvMi E Um) c LO ° ¢ 3 Q)03 c a E Tv U c rn U m y > v Y v E U o �¢ Tm mN 3 Q m rn °) m0) ro 0) � coY 00 'o co mr�m CN C H�U mom¢ ro ¢ N¢ :.Om a) E tn._ �a) aroU yxN dxm L) r- Vin °xni UxU w �_ 'o=� c dm m mo 42 E E c E c° c tim c mm atm y y .ao ° LpY mp.4) Cr'� ro�� y 'E C ° m CA T m m c c m O ro L N m C O m O O, D� -m mam xax UN2 ¢C, U- Ua� LL c E c o E o Mn o o` .52 U 0 _ 0y o 0 U O .L. O N N L m to ¢ C ''C O R ro d a)m m E o N. c E m ¢ N Y E c aT O`U¢ m O N U LO N E oa- w f` N > N N >N m N E 0U ' mrn 3 Q -aa)m aa)) Z N E mrn m v m cv m ov y v o ° > o U m cp m ob NN°) > a)0) > E0) ov°) c E U o)U mm C d m0)¢ L)U) mm o¢U o�U a2)vU N x N �x c� N xU tj O x E E c In x c m m o0o c o p� 0� romoi m ai oai bCJ �� UmU a°) E aa))m aa)) m acini �= S fYin'S cm'5 mvm o,d o 00 0 0° 0 0Q o 00 m a0 m mN m mo m o� m r- a-aaa xUU baa uwMO Zap tnN0 cnco0 Uap C j O c CD 0 C U U C O f0 ON m (3p ro 0 U W y aA O O ro m ¢ m v ¢ v v a Z Y a) 3 w m 0 In o¢ C ¢ 0 N m N 3 N 1✓ m N p co E >ofU x U v E r ¢ cr` am `n N o ¢ o mai avi oi amity ai �t E Q o o rn `i°) w S rr)i 10,0) m v¢ n oNo �rU U xU mxcn ESU U)NxtiU li m xU yMi U o xU 5 x E > o o 2 3 o a m m ° o p ° 0 m 0 o O m a Z c cmc �mm U a)M: y c m w 0 ci m o �m.S ocn o cmc aNm mom Ci 'D000 0000 Om mom mom 0Ci. M 25 co� ACL -�aMU awa Ua.-K ¢ a¢ f-n.0 Dao Uacn N_ p c O c C a m U N v c ° o N¢ p ¢ C oco N'o coC) Z c o E ro mL ° 0 N a) ¢ L m Q E N Q) C N 0 7 N a) N F y m m 0) .o U �mU > v E °a)v^i acu^i oN Om -0 m¢ m` ¢ dN�e x>y 2Nrn F-Ov p;rn 0 > o mrn N> dV NNU �mU aN ESU c�Q Ems¢ N �d LA0- L o.�0 m we U)(D0 0 oU U �U 1r o>r o o U �aU �xU m mU � E o E c C o xo E co Em c �� �m Nm a) am)!- ao) Qa v 0LL m° m cu��ow BUJ N 2mcr �Om mom opo a)O c '°m'° rn- o cm,CD o m c0 c r.. m Np c O ap 0 C O m0) O c M O m N m m N— m m wad ,m UaU baa aMa C)-X Dcn,-a iL0Vco >�a Uaco \ .( \ u \ § 7 k // \U < ] / u ad / \ \ \ d \ / § \ � \ \ � ® \ w \ ¥ G r 2 S U u G . @U \ e .§ 7 3sa ao4 u u / gam g= o U } / C-- / \ f k \ o r = u r % k0 UQ = { ! \ } %\ /} /) 00 \\ 8 \2 $eo� a k LO �\CN t e.0ae *5)\ E\\ � \ � \ \< E ` / «\ =L2 /G)�S <g 8 ) nf( )R 59 ƒ) )\ a)(D )) . - � § « G / \ k O \$ �� \ _§ 0 r E2 : < >a \fm r\ 2 2 3a \ �/ / 22 « 2 \ 7 «\ Q2 = « o< 0<< ( « Lo j\\ )j)§ \)\/ /\\ \/\ \\\ \Iq � \�\ J§7 2525 3U) Gm ! \/7 _ 2E L) e§ / )}k \(§\ j)kj \)) j\} \\} \jj \)) E \ k § § 3 ° _ + \ j / - j / { $® \ ) £ A I fo - ) ,§ � ® \ @§ ° *~ ) ) m 00 §k7 a 7 E/\ t7)/ ƒ/) a>} _]< < f}< < =7 i� . £oo /aa c�< ,_e « \ ) S ƒ 7\ §) $ =s § ! £ co §( I cm {6/ \\ § \// eco \k/ ©C { «_ § ,02 /§3 $-5 c : [§o -o j/j (n (n })\ gee e)E «§) ewe )// �. MAY 14 '96 03:20PM ADRIS & EROADWELL 415-589-5062 P.212 ADAMS A BKOADWELL THOMAS R.ADAMS A napc[9910RAL COAPOAATIOH ANN ©nOAOWELL A-r rORN EY5 AT LAW a�GDUNSCL 4ANIEL l-CAROOZO CARL L_MeCONNEL.L MARC p_JOSEPH 651 GATEWAY S0ULCvAR D.9U/TE 9O0 PACNARD,MELLBERG LIZANNE QEVNOLOS 6oUTH N FRANCISCO.CA 94660 & McCONNELL 'rE LEPMQNE � FACSIMILE J-5) Sgy-166O (415) SA§-5062 May 14, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE Eileen Doten Contra Costa County Growth Management and Economic Development Agency 651 pine Street, No. Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1213 Re: Input for Board of Supervisors Workshop on Permit streamlining Process Dear Ms. Doten: We are providing this input on behalf of our clients, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union, Local 342. Local 342 represents members who live and/or work in Costa Contra County and who are directly affected, both professionally and personally, by the County's permitting processes. Local 342 has an interest in ensuring that proposed development projects provide a net economic/employment and environmental benefit to the community, and that all development projects be carefully planned and environmentally responsible. While Local 342 generally supports the county's efforts toward streamlining the permit process, it urges the County not to implement any new procedures that would lessen the public's ability to comment on or otherwise participate in the permitting process_ Local 342 strongly believes that the county can make the permit process less burdensome on businesses without sacrificing public participation. Thank you for soliciting our input on this process. very truly yours, / Lizanne Reynolds LR:bh cc: Doyle Williams A0735.009 armrcamroc,c+.�A.na Ala 05/20/1996 21:56 510-838-7530 RALPH A PEED PAGE 01 [7 ow 19 MY X21 W6 DIABLO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION P .O. BOX 215 DIABLO, CA 94528 May 19, 1996 'Eileen Doten, Customer Services Manager Growth management and Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street , No. Wing, Second Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Doten:: Thank you for ,your letter of May 1, 1996 requesting input for the June 4th Board of Supervisors ' meeting. We .strongly oppose any reduction of community input or notification to surrounding property owners . We are partic- ularly concerned regarding requests -for building permits on substandard lots or where a variance is required. Diablo is toned a minimum of R20, but because some lots predate zoning codes, we are finding the unique character of Diablo being destroyed by inadequate setbacks and the building of homes on less than one half acre lots. Sin-.erely, James S. Adams, President Diablo Property owners Association Fax : 838-2592 1,9ay 26 '96 10:24 P01 Growth Management and Contra Economic Development Agency Costa Valentin Alexeeff, Director County fp _�O &Zj j--J5 149 May 14, 1996 (A Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, The Growth Management and Economic Development Agency plans to conduct a permit streamlining workshop for the Board of Supervisors of Tuesday,Jw,e 4,at 2.:00 p.m.. Tile werkshop is expected �L to last about 45 minutes. Some applicants have told els that they desire fewer steps, more predictability and expedited processing. Some members of the community have expressed a desire for more opportunities to influence outcomes- It would be helpful to have your input as we prepare for the workshop. 4 ' Are there changes you would like to we in the entitlement application process? 6 What do you believe can be done to make the process more efficient? 4 Are there glitches, duplicate steps or duplicate actions that can be omitted? If you have any thoughts or ideas you care to share, we would greatly appreciate hearing from you. Please FAX or mail your comments to me at the address or FAX number below. A response by May 30, 1996 would be very helpful. Thank you for any time you are able to spend on this. My number is 646-1608. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Eileen Doter Customer Services Manager 651 Pine Street, No.Wing,Second Floor, Wrtinez,California 94553-1213 Telephone: (510)646-1620 - FAX: (510)646-1599 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING REPORT Prepared by: PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS Formerly the Willdan Associates Planning Group,Northern California May, 1996 ' r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLININ(T REPORT Prepared bv: PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10411 Old Placerville Road, Suite 210 Sacramento, California 95827 916.361.8384 916.361.1574 fax Contacts: Jeffrey Pemstein Mary Ann Ulik May 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3.0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1 Zone Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 Conditional Use Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.5 Variance . . . . . . . .... ... . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6 Building Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.7 CEQA Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.8 Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.0 PRIVATIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.0 SAMPLE DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.0 The Growth Management and Economic Development Agency(GMEDA) Process Streamlining Report is an effort formulated by County staff to identify strategies to streamline the review and approval process for land development applications. The intent of this streamlining effort is to: • reduce staff time in application review; • improve communication with customers and between departments; • improve the quality of applications submitted; • improve the relationship and information flow with community groups; • enhance responsiveness to development related inquiries; and • ultimately achieve a cost savings to the County and applicants in terms of overall time savings. Documentation for this report includes a comparative analysis of the GMEDA's land development process currently implemented,with basic procedural requirements established through State statues, including but not limited to the California Government Code, CEQA Guidelines, Subdivision Map Act, and Uniform Building Code. In addition, the basic-elements of typical development review processes are outlined to enable a direct comparison with three other jurisdictions; City of Tracy, City of Livermore, and Sutter County. This side-by-side comparison of Contra Costa County's review and approval process with the State statute and other jurisdictions, provides an evaluation of the intricate details and stages involved in land development application processing. Additional documentation for this report was acquired by experiencing first hand, the County's development process, by means of a "mock" walk-through of the development review process with staff. Actual applications, hand-outs, and staff reports were an added resource in preparation of this report. The development review processes evaluated within this document include the following: • Major Land Development Applications(Zone Change and Specific Plan); • Medium Land Development Applications (Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit); • Minor Land Development Applications(Variance); • Building Permit Process; and • California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Analysis. Based upon this comparative analysis,a subsequent section was developed, focusing on potential strategies for improving the GMEDA's review and approval process. When implemented,these strategies can enhance responsiveness and result in a time and cost savings to both the County and future applicants. Recommendations provided within this section are primarily minor, low cost system modifications intended to streamline and improve efficiency. This document concludes with the provision of sample documents effectively utilized by the City of Tracy, City of Livermore, or Sutter County. ! j I GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants i 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION e PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.0 The GMEDA, an organization composed of the Application and Permit Center, Building Inspection Department,Community Development and Public Works Department, is comprised of approximately 350 employees. The scale of this organization together with State streamlining efforts,and focused efforts in customer service,have culminated in a desire by the GMEDA to investigate its own internal process,in order to produce a more efficient organization. The Development Process Streamlining Report,developed on behalf of the GMEDA, identifies the existence of duplicative efforts throughout the GMEDA; those activities which can effectively be carried out by designated individuals or by individual departments;the internal lines of communication; and those items under control of staff versus the project applicant. As a result of the information gathered, recommendations for system modifications have been identified. These recommendations for modification have been divided into Compliance, Compatibility, and Compliance process headings. The initial Compliance subset involves application intake and ensuring the applications comply with State and County regulations. Compatibility, refers to the compatibility of the various community links of the Contra Costa County approval process chain: These links include Municipal Advisory Committees and other community groups,Regional and County-wide Planning Commissions and the Board of Supervisors. The final Compliance subset deals with final departmental process approvals and compliance of project construction with approvals granted. Included within this document are suggestions for possible privatization of components of the land development application process. GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE R• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.0 The following is an outline of Contra Costa County GMEDA review and approval process requirements for the following application types: Major Land Development Applications(Zone Change and Specific Plan); Medium Land Development Applications (Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit); Minor Land Development Applications(Variance);Building Permit Process;and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Analysis. For each application type, an outline of the State of California's process timeline requirements, as well as an outline of the City of Tracy, City of Livermore, and Sutter County review and approval process requirements are identified. A comparison of the numerous components involved in a process system provides the means for a subsequent chapter,Chapter 4.0, Recommendations for Process Streamlining. GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.1 Zone Change (Major Land Development Application) Contra Costa County State Regulations (Streamlining) • Pre-application meeting held,if applied for Each local agency shall compile lists which shall • Application and fee submitted specify in detail the information that will be required • Project file made from any applicant (Sec.65940) Project planner assigned Project completeness is determined in writing, within • Project referral sent out to affected County 30 days of application,else automatically deemed departments,responsible agencies,MAC's,and complete(upon any application resubmittal a new 30 TAC's requesting response within 30 days day review period will begin)(Sec.65943) • Site check conducted and field check forms If determined incomplete more than twice,the completed agency shall provide for an appeal(Sec. 65943) • Project completeness determined and If appealed,a decision is rendered within 60 days of acknowledgement letter sent within 30 days of determination(Sec. 65943) application New information may not be requested by.an agency • Referral comments received and assembled within after application determined complete(Sec. 65944) preliminary staff report At time of filing an application,the agency will • CEQA analysis carried out(refer to CEQA Analysis) inform the applicant that upon written request,the • PC staff report and COA prepared(engineering COA applicant will receive notice of any type of action provided) reasonably related to the applicant's application(Sec. • Final staff report reviewed and hearing date 65945) scheduled If a project public notice is required but not provided • Hearing notice prepared within 60 days of the expiration time limits,the court • Identify properties hearing notice and environmental will compel the provision of such notice or hold the document are mailed to public hearing or both(Sec. 65956), or the applicant • PC meeting noticed shall provide the agency 7 days advance notice of • Meeting agenda prepared intent to provide public notice within 60 days of • Agenda and report sent to PC and interested expiration time limit expiration and shall state the individuals and agencies project is deemed approved if not acted upon within • PC public hearing held 60 days(Sec.65956 b) • Annotated agenda prepared Any project deemed categorically exempt shall be • BOS meeting noticed acted upon within 3 months of determining project • BOS staff report prepared exempt(Sec.65950) • Meeting agenda prepared Any project involving a Negative Declaration shall • BOS public hearing held be acted upon within 3 months of adopting negative Resolution, findings and summary of preceding declaration(Sec. 65950) prepared Any project involving an EIR shall be acted upon Modified COA prepared, if approved within 6 months of EIR certification(Sec. 65950) NOD filed and Fish and Game fee paid, if applicable Time limits established by Sections 65950,65950.1 Building and engineering notified of approval and 65959.2 may be extended for a period of 90 Permit issued with approved COA for development days upon mutual consent of agency and applicant plan(PUD) (Sec. 65957) • Refer to Building Permit Process Statute of limitations for court action is within 120 days of local action(Sec. 65009) Total processing time: 17 weeks(118 days for Negative Declaration) 66 weeks(465 days for EIR) CMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.1 Zone Change (Major Land Development Application) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Pre-application meeting held • Pie-application meeting held • Pre-application meeting held • Application submitted to • Application and fee submitted Application and fee submitted Environmental Health for • Project file made • Project planner assigned and sign-off of"SAW" form • Project referral sent out to SAW" form signed appropriate departments and meeting date assigned Application and fee submitted • Project completeness is agencies • Project file made determined within 30 days of • Determine need for added • Project planner assigned application sewer allocation . project referral sent Project referral sent out to out to • • Sewer application submitted appropriate departments and • Project file made appropriate departments and agencies agencies • Project planner assigned Project completeness is • Project completeness Acceptance letter sent out Hearing notice prepared determined within 30 days of • determined within 30 days of application application • Properties to receive hearing pp PC meeting for project set • DRC meeting scheduled notice and environmental document determined Referral comments received • Site check conducted Site review conducted • Referral comments received DRC hearing noticed Site check conducted Land use map prepared • • DRC meeting held,within 3-4 Hearing notice prepared • Referral comments received weeks of application deadline . CEQA analysis prepared Properties to receive hearing date (refer to CEQA Analysis) notice and environmental • CEQA analysis prepared document determined refer to CE analysis) • DRC staff report prepared ( QA • DRC agenda prepared CEQA analysis prepared • CARB meeting scheduled . Agenda and report sent to (refer to CEQA Analysis) • CARB staff report prepared • PC staff report prepared • CARB public meeting held, commissioners and interested . PC agenda prepared individuals and agencies within 4-6 weeks of • DRC hearinghwithin • Agenda and report sent to PC application held, n 4-6 and interested individuals and application• Hearing notice prepared weeks of appagencies • Properties to receive hearing • Agenda summary letter sent p g out PC public hearing held,within notice and environmental 8-12 weeks of application document determined • Meeting minutes prepared . Meeting follow-up letter sent • PC meeting noticed • PC meeting noticed to applicant morning after • PC staff report and COA meeting prepared(engineering COA . Meeting minutes prepared provided) GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 5 f � DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Zone Change (Continued) City of Tracy City_of Livermore Sutter County • Meeting agenda prepared . PC staff report and COA • BOS meeting noticed • Agenda and report sent to PC prepared(engineering COA • BOS staff report prepared and interested individuals and provided) • Agenda and report sent to agencies . Meeting agenda prepared BOS and interested • PC public hearing held,within . Agenda and report sent to PC individuals and agencies 7-8 weeks of application and interested individuals and • BOS public hearing held, deadline date agencies within 13-15 weeks of • Meeting minutes prepared . PC public hearing held,within application • CC meeting noticed 8-11 weeks of a lication • CC staff report prepared pp BOS adopt ordinance and • CC agenda prepared • Agenda summary letter sent map at next regular meeting out • Zoning becomes effective • Agenda and report sent to CC . Meeting minutes prepared within 30 days and interested individuals and . CC meeting noticed • NOD filed and Fish and Game agencies • CC staff report prepared fee paid, if applicable • CC public hearing held, . CC agenda prepared • Refer to Building Permit within 12-14 weeks of . Agenda and report sent to CC Process application deadline and interested individuals and • CC adopt ordinance at next agencies Total Processing Time: regular meeting . CC public hearing held, 18 weeks • Zoning becomes effective within 12-15 weeks of within 30 days application • Meeting minutes prepared . Meeting minutes prepared • Modified COA prepared . Modified COA prepared • NOD filed and Fish and Game . CC adopt ordinance at next fee paid, if applicable regular meeting • Refer to Building Permit . Zoning becomes effective Process within 30 days T • Final planning action Total Processing Time: resolution sent out 17 weeks • NOD filed and Fish and Game fee paid, if applicable • Refer to Building Permit Process Total Processing Time: 18 weeks GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.2 Specific Plan (Major Land Development Application) Contra Costa County State Government Regulations • Request to Prepare a Specific Plan filed(if developer Regulations identified for zoning change are initiated),or Resolution of Intent prepared for BOS applicable,except for the following approval(if County initiated) Statute of limitations for court action is within 90 • BOS meeting scheduled days of local action(Sec.65009) • BOS staff report prepared recommending disposition of petition • BOS meeting held • Staff determines form of environmental review • Consultant selected to prepare Specific Plan • Consultant selected to prepare EIR • Consultant contracts approved by BOS • Citizen advisory committee selected(optional) • Specific Plan is prepared • Admin draft Specific Plan submitted for staff review • Staff review of Plan carried out • Refer to CEQA Analysis for EIR preparation • EIR hearing held by ZA for certification recommendation • FEIR prepared • ZA recommendation of EIR submitted to PC • PC staff report prepared • PC hearing scheduled and noticed • PC staff report • PC forwards recommendation to BOS • BOS hearing noticed • BOS staff report prepared • BOS public hearing held • Decision rendered by BOS on EIR certification,and then Specific Plan Total Processing Time: Approximately 12-15 months GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.2 Specific Plan (Major Land Development Application) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Request to Prepare a Specific • City determines need for • County determine need for Plan filed(if developer Specific Plan(or developer Specific Plan initiated), or Resolution of requests same) • Pre-application meeting held Intent prepared for CC • AC established(optional) • CDD to determine form of approval(if City initiated) • AC meeting notice prepared environmental review • Pre-initiation conference held • Properties to receive meeting • Consultant selected to prepare • CDD to determine form of notice determined Specific Plan and EIR environmental review AC meeting noticed • Consultant contract approved • CC meeting scheduled AC meetings held to, define by BOS at next available • CC staff report prepared basic objectives and area meeting recommending disposition of Hearing notice written • Specific Plan is prepared petition PC staff report prepared • Admin draft Specific Plan • Meeting agenda prepared analyzing objectives and areas prepared for staff review • CC meeting held PC agenda prepared • Staff review of Plan carried • Meeting minutes prepared Agenda and report sent to PC out • Consultant selected to prepare and interested individuals and • EIR prepared(refer to CEQA Specific Plan and EIR(if City agencies Analysis) initiated) • PC public hearing held • PC hearing noticed utilizing • Consultant selected to prepare • Meeting minutes prepared EIR notice list EIR(if developer initiated) • CC meeting noticed • PC staff report and COA • Consultant contract approved • CC staff report prepared prepared(engineering COA) by CC at next available • Meeting agenda prepared provided meeting • Agenda and report sent to CC • Meeting agenda prepared • Specific Plan is prepared and interested individuals and • Agenda and report sent to PC • Admin draft Specific Plan agencies : and interested individuals and prepared for staff review • CC public hearing held agencies • Staff review of Plan carried • Meeting minutes prepared • PC public hearing held,for out • Consultant selected to prepare Specific Plan and EIR review • EIR prepared(refer to CEQA Specific Plan(if City • Meeting minutes prepared Analysis) initiated) • BOS hearing noticed • Hearing notice prepared • Consultant selected to prepare • BOS staff report prepared Specific Plan and EIR(if • Agenda and report sent to developer initiated) BOS and interested- individuals and agencies • BOS public hearing held ---- GMEDA De—v—e7op�roeess Streamlining 8 Pacific Municipal Consultants DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Specific Plan (Continued) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Properties to receive hearing notice and environmental • Consultant contract approved • Meeting minutes prepared document determined based by CC at next available • NOD filed and Fish and Game an EIR notice listing meeting fee paid • PC meeting noticed • Specific Plan preferred • Refer to Tentative • PC staff report and COA alternatives prepared with Subdivision Map prepared(engineering COA staff and AC input provided) . EIR prepared(refer to CEQA Total Processing Time: • Meeting agenda prepared Analysis) Approximately 8 months • Agenda and report sent to PC • PC staff report and COA and interested individuals and prepared(engineering COA agencies provided) • PC public hearing held, for • Meeting agenda prepared Specific Plan and EIR review • Agenda and report sent to PC • Meeting minutes prepared and interested individuals and • CC hearing noticed agencies • PC public hearing held for • CC staff report prepared Specific Plan preferred • CC agenda prepared alternatives and EIR • Agenda and report sent to CC • Agenda summary letter sent and interested individuals and out agencies • Meeting minutes prepared• CC public hearing held, CC meeting noticed • Meeting minutes prepared CC staff report prepared • Refer to Tentative Meeting agenda prepared Subdivision Map Agenda and report sent to CC and interested individuals and Total Processing Time: agencies Approximately 12 months CC public hearing held - Meeting minutes prepared • CC approve resolution at next regular meeting • Final planning action resolution sent out • NOD filed and Fish and Game fee paid • Refer to Tentative Tract Map Total Processing Time: Approximately 18 months GMEDA Development Process Streamlining 9 Pacific Municipal Consultants i i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision SECTION 3.3 (Medium Land Development Application) Contra Costa County State Regulations(Subdivision Map Act) Tentative Subdivision Map Tentative Subdivision Map Pre-application meeting held, if applied for Project referral shall be sent to local impacted school • • Application and fee submitted districts,within 5 days of determining application • Project file is made complete(Sec. 66455.7) Project planner assigned School district may respond within 15 days, failure to • Project referral sent out to affected County respond designates approval(Sec.66455.7) departments,responsible agencies,MAC'S,and If an agency determines it is unable to meet specified TAC's,within 5 days of determining application time limits,upon request of subdivider,the agency complete shall employ a private entity to perform such tasks • Site check conducted and field check forms (Sec. 66451.1) completed Public notices shall be made, pursuant to Sec. 65090 Project completeness determined and and.65091 (Sec. 66451.3) acknowledgement letter sent within 30 days of Advisory agency shall take action within 50 days application after application filing,and shall report its action to Project referral comments received assembled within the applicant(Sec. 66452.1) • a preliminary staff report Lack of action by local agency within specified time CEQA analysis carried out(refer to CEQA Analysis) limits shall be deemed approved(Sec. 66452.4) PC staff report and COA prepared(engineering COA Tentative map shall expire within 24 months,with provided) possibility of one 12 month extension, further 36 Final staff report reviewed and hearing date month extension(not to exceed 10 years)may be • scheduled granted if the applicant is required to expend Hearing notice prepared S 125,000 or more, in improvements outside the Identify properties hearing notice and environmental property boundaries(Sec. 66452.6 and 66452.11) • document are mailed to Tentative map expiration extension provisions in Sec. PC meeting noticed 66452.6 may be extended by 24 months, in addition Meeting agenda prepared to provision in Sec.66463.6 (Sec. 66452.11) Agenda and report sent to PC and interested Tentative maps which have not expired on or before individuals and agencies May 15, 1996 are extended by 12 months(Sec. PC public hearing held,within 18 weeks of 66452.13) • application Unexpired tentative maps may be extended for a total Annotated agenda prepared after hearing of 5 years(Sec. 66463.5) Ten day appeal period begins after hearing completed Statute of limitations for court action of subdivision Letter describing appeal rights sent out if project approval is within 90 days of local action(Sec. denied 66499.37) NOE or NOD filed, and Fish&Game fee paid if applicable Building and engineering notified of approval Permit with approved COA sent out if no appeal filed Approval lapses within 36 months if final map not filed,with possibility of 3 year extension Total processing time: 18 weeks(125 days for negative declaration) 66 weeks(465 days for EIR) GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 10 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (Continued) Contra Costa County State Regulations (Subdivision Map Act Final Subdivision Map Final Subdivision Map • Subdivision improvement plans,map,and checking The County Recorder shall examine and fees submitted accept/reject,within 10 days of any final map • CE to review submitted for completeness submittal(Sec.66466a) • Additional information submitted as needed If the final map is rejected for filing,the County • Application submittal determined satisfactory Recorder shall,within 10 days,notify the subdivider, • CE reviews and signs map within 3 weeks of CE,and Clerk of BOS,and schedule review thereof approved submittal at the next BS meeting(Sec.66466b) • CE reviews and approves subdivision improvement The BOS shall accept or rescind their earlier plans,agreements and documents decision,within 15 days of meeting(Sec. 66466b) • All fees paid • Improvement security and bond guaranteeing payment of taxes submitted • BOS meeting set usually within 10 working days after satisfactory submittal • BOS board order prepared • Meeting agenda prepared • BOS meeting held(consent item) • Map and agreement filed with County Recorder within 1 week • Map and documents taken from Clerk of Board to Recorders by title company Total processing time: Dependent upon action by applicant GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (Continued) Contra Costa County State Regulations (Subdivision Map Act) Improvement Construction Improvement Construction • Encroachment permit application,or improvement 'Improvement plans shall be acted upon within 60 plans submitted for review working days of its submittal except that at least 15 • Plan checking fees paid working days shall be provided for processing any • Meeting between applicant and Engineering may be resubmitted improvement plans,with possibility of held to clarify COA extension by mutual consent(Sec. 66456.2a&b) • Improvement plans reviewed,first check within 6 If an agency determines it is unable to meet specified weeks,second check within 2 weeks time limits at time of improvement plan submittal or • Plans returned to applicant for corrections resubmittal,and upon request of the applicant,the • Improvement plans signed by CE agency shall employ a private entity to perform such • Inspection fees paid tasks(Sec. 66456.2c) • Improvement security submitted, as needed • Permits issued • Construction commences Regular inspections carried out • Complete improvements within 12 months of recording final map unless extension granted • Preliminary inspection made and punchlist sent to developer Punchlist items corrected and final inspection made • BOS meeting scheduled for improvement acceptance • BOS board order prepared • BOS meeting held(consent agenda),starts 1 year warranty period • Material and labor security released within 6 months of acceptance • Public Works completes warranty inspection within 1 year of acceptance • BOS meeting scheduled after warranty work is complete • BOS board order prepared BOS meeting held(consent agenda) • Security released to subdivider • Refer to Building Permit Process Total Processing Time: Dependent upon action by applicant GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision SECTION 3.3 (Medium Land Development Application) City of Tracy City-of Livermore Sutter County Tentative Subdivision Map Housing Implementation Tentative Subdivision Map • Pre-application meeting held Process(Annual competitive • Application submitted to • Application and fee submitted process) Environmental Health for • Project referral sent out to • Letter of Intent submitted for sign-off of"SAW"form appropriate departments and annual deadline • "SAW" form signed agencies • Number of permits reviewed, • Application and fee submitted • Application for sewer if number of lots greater than • Project file made allocation submitted 347 lots then competitive • Project planner assigned • Project file made process required. If less than Project referral sent out to • Project planner assigned 347 lots the applicant appropriate departments and • Project completeness proceeds to tentative tract map agencies determined within 30 days of process • Project completeness is application • Pre-application meeting held determined within 30 days of • DRC meeting scheduled. • Application and fee submitted application • Site check conducted • Project file made • SAC meeting held prior to • Referral comments received • Project planner and meeting end of 30 day completeness • Meeting agenda prepared date assigned determination period • DRC meeting held within 3-4 . • Project completeness • PC meeting for project set weeks of application determined.within 30 days of • Referral comments received • CEQA analysis carried out application • Site review conducted (refer to CEQA Analysis) • Project referral sent out to Land use map prepared • CARB meeting scheduled appropriate departments and Hearing notice prepared • CARB staff report prepared agencies Properties to receive hearing •..CARB meeting held,within • Hearing notice prepared notice and environmental 4-6 weeks of application • Properties to receive hearing document determined • Hearing notice prepared notice and environmental CEQA analysis prepared • Properties to receive hearing document determined (refer to CEQA Analysis) notice and environmental • DRC meeting noticed PC staff report prepared document determined • Site check conducted PC agenda prepared • PC meeting noticed • Referral comments received Agenda and report sent to PC • P C staff report and COA • CEQA analysis carried out and interested individuals and prepared(engineering COA (refer to CEQA Analysis) agencies provided) • DRC staff report prepared PC public hearing held, within • PC agenda prepared • DRC agenda prepared 8-12 weeks of application • Agenda and report sent to Begins 10 day appeal period DRC and interested individuals and agencies GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 13 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (continued) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Agenda and report sent to PC • DRC public hearing held, • Meeting follow-up letter sent and interested individuals and within 4-6 weeks of to applicant morning after agencies application meeting • PC public hearing held, within • Meeting minutes prepared • Meeting minutes prepared 7-8 weeks of application • (Optional DRC meeting may • Fish and Game fee paid, if • Begins 15 day appeal period be held for HIP project applicable • Meeting minutes prepared ranking) • Approval lapses within 3 • Modified COA prepared • PC hearing noticed years of approval,unless • NOD filed and Fish and Game • PC staff report prepared extensions granted fee paid, if applicable • Meeting agenda prepared • Approval lapses within 2 • PC public hearing held,within Final Subdivision Map years of approval unless 8-11 weeks of (Map approval and extensions granted) application improvement construction occur • Meeting minutes prepared simultaneously) Growth Allocation Process • CC hearing,noticed Application, improvement (Semi-annual process CC staff report prepared plans,plan checking fees and completed before or after Meeting agenda prepared calculations submitted tentative map) CC public hearing held, Map and improvement plan • Application submitted for within 12-15 weeks of revised as needed January or July deadline application Subdivision improvement • GMB meeting scheduled • Meeting minutes prepared agreement prepared by staff • GMB public meeting held • Modified COA prepared • Improvement plans reviewed, within 15 days of deadline • NOD filed and Fish and Game first check within 3 weeks, • GMB staff report prepared fee paid, if applicable second check within 5 days • Meeting agenda prepared. • CC approve resolution at next Map and improvement plans • GMB public hearing held regular meeting signed by CS within 4 weeks to award Map circulated to Planning allocations Tentative Tract Map for approval and signature • Begins 5 day appeal period • Application and fee submitted Improvement security a Meeting minutes prepared • Project referral sent out to submitted • Award letter sent out appropriate departments and BOS staff report prepared • Secure allocations with 33% agencies BOS meeting held(consent of capital in-lieu fees, within • Project completeness item) 30 days determined within 30 days of Map and agreement filed with application County Recorder • DRC hearing noticed Applicant provides recorded • Referral comments received map GMEDA Development Process Streamlining 14 Pacific Municipal Consultants DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (Continued) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County Final Subdivision Map • CEQA analysis carried out Improvement Construction • Application submitted (refer to CEQA Analysis) • Inspection fees paid including subdivision • PC meeting noticed • Permits issued agreement • PC staff report and COA • Construction commences • Map circulated to Planning prepared(engineering COA • Regular inspections carried and County Surveyor for prepared) out approval • Meeting agenda prepared • Complete improvements • Map reviewed and revised as • PC public hearing held,within within 24 months of recording needed 8-11 weeks of application final map unless extension • CE reviews and signs map • Meeting minutes prepared granted • CA reviews and approves • Agenda summary letter sent • Final inspection made subdivision agreement out • Public Works Director • Improvement security • CC meeting noticed accepts improvements submitted • CC staff report prepared unofficially(BOS officially • CC meeting noticed • Meeting agenda prepared accept streets to system each • CC staff report prepared • CC public hearing held, January),starts 1 year • Meeting agenda prepared within 12-15 weeks of warranty period • CC meeting held(consent application Faithful performance bond item) • Meeting minutes prepared released upon acceptance • Map and agreement filed with • Modified COA prepared Notice of Completion County Recorder • CC approve resolution at next recorded when improvements • Applicant provides recorded regular meeting completed and no liens exist map original • Final planning action or provide unconditional lien resolution sent out release Improvement Construction • NOD filed and Fish& Game Labor and materials bond • Improvement plans and plan fee paid released within 30 days of checking and inspection fees • Map revised as needed and recording Notice of paid stamped by Planning as Completion • Plans reviewed within 30 days Exhibit B-1 Public Works Director of application • Approval lapses within 2 approves release of security •. Improvement plans signed by years unless extensions Refer to Building Permit CE granted Process • Permits issued • Construction commences Final Tract Map Total Processing Time: • Regular inspections carried • CA prepares subdivision Dependent upon action by out agreement applicant • Complete improvements • Application submitted within 12 months of recording including signed subdivision final map unless extension agreement granted Improvement security and • Final inspection made insurance certificates submitted GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 15 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (Continued) City of Tracy City of Livermore • CC meeting scheduled for • Map submitted to Planning improvement acceptance for approval • CC staff report prepared • Map reviewed and revised as • CC meeting held(consent needed agenda) • CE reviews and signs within • Performance,and Materials& 20 days of approved submittal Labor security released upon • Hearing notice prepared acceptance of improvements • CC meeting noticed • Security for Repairs released • CC staff report prepared within 12 months of • CC meeting held acceptance • CC resolution approved at next regular meeting Total Processing Time: • Final action letter sent out Dependent upon action by • Map and agreement filed with applicant County Recorder • Applicant provides.recorded map copy Improvement Construction • Improvement plans submitted • Plan checking fees paid • First plan check within 6 weeks(generally 3 checks are needed) • Balance of plan checking fees and inspection fees paid • Construction commences • Periodic inspections made • Complete improvements within 12 months of recording final map unless extension granted • CC meeting scheduled for improvement acceptance • CC staff report prepared • CC meeting held(consent agenda) • Notice of dedication filed with County Recorder GMEDA Development Process Streamlining 16 Pacific Municipal Consultants DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Subdivision (Continued) City of Livermore • Faithful performance security released upon acceptance of improvements • Labor and material security released within 6 months of acceptance • Contract bond security released within 12 months of acceptance • Offers of dedication which have been rejected are acceptance when improvements are accepted for maintenance by CC Total Processing Time: Dependent upon action by applicant I I i GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 17 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Conditional Use Permit SECTION 3.4 (Medium Land Development Application) Contra Costa County Government Code Regulations Pre-application meeting held, if applied for Regulations identified for zoning change are • Application and fee submitted applicable,except for the following • Project file is made Statute of limitations for court action is within 90 • Project planner assigned days of local action(Sec.65907a) • Project referral sent out to affected County departments,responsible agencies,MAC's,and TAC's,requesting response within 30 days • Site check conducted and field check forms completed • Project completeness determined and acknowledgement letter sent within 30 days of application • Project referral comments received and assembled in preliminary staff report • CEQA analysis carried out(refer to CEQA Analysis) • ZA staff report and COA prepared(engineering COA provided) • Final staff report reviewed and hearing date . scheduled Hearing notice prepared • Identify properties hearing notice and environmental document are sent to • ZA meeting noticed • Meeting agenda prepared • Agenda and report circulated to ZA and interested individuals and agencies • ZA public hearing held,within 8 weeks of application • Annotated agenda prepared -Ten day appeal period begins after hearing completed Letter describing appeal rights sent out if project denied • NOE or NOD filed, and Fish&Game fee paid if applicable • Permit with approved COA sent out if no appeal filed • Building and engineering notified of approval • Refer to Building Permit Process • Permit lapses within 1 year if not exercised Total processing time: 12 weeks(83 days for categorical exemption) 17 weeks(I 18 days for negative declaration) 66 weeks (465 days for EIR) GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 18 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.4 Conditional Use Permit (Medium Land Development Application) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Pre-application meeting held . Pre-application meeting held • Application submitted to • Application and fee submitted . Application and fee submitted Environmental Health for • Project file made • Project file made sign-off on "SAW" form • Project referral sent out to • Project planner and meeting • "SAW"form signed appropriate departments and date assigned • Application and fee submitted agencies • Project completeness • Determine need for added � Project file made determined within 30 days of • Project planner assigned sewer allocation application • Sewer allocation application pp Project referral sent out to • Project referral sent out to appropriate departments and submitted appropriate departments and agencies • Project file made agencies • Project completeness is • Project planner assigned • Acceptance letter sent out determined within 30 days of • Project completeness . Hearing notice prepared application determined within 30 days of . Properties to receive hearing PC meeting for project set application notice and environmental • Referral comments received • DRC meeting scheduled document determined • Site review conducted • Site check conducted • DRC hearing noticed • Land use map prepared • Referral comments received • Site check conducted • Hearing notice prepared • Meeting agenda prepared • Referral comments received • Properties to receive hearing • DRC public meeting held, • CEQA analysis carried out notice and environmental within weeks of (refer to CEQA Analysis) document determined applicatidoo n deadline date . DRC staff report prepared • CEQA analysis prepared • CEQA analysis carried out . DRC agendaared re (refer to CEQA Analysis) p p (refer to CEQA Analysis) • Agenda and report sent to • PC staff report prepared • CARB staff report prepared DRC and interested PC agenda prepared • CARB public meeting,held individuals and agencies g Agenda and report sent to PC within weeks of • DRC public hearing held, and interested individuals and applicatidoo n within 4-6 weeks of agencies • Hearing notice prepared application • Properties to receive hearing pp PC public hearing held,within • Meeting minutes prepared 8-12 weeks of application notice and environmental . Agenda summary letter sent • Begins 10 day appeal period document determined out • PC meeting noticed . PC meeting noticed GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 19 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE 7Conditional Use r errnit(Continued) City of Tracy Cijy of Livermore Sutter County • PC staff report and COA • Meeting follow-up letter sent • PC staff report and C:OA s p prepared(engineering COA prepared(engineering COA to applicant morning after provided) provided) meeting • PC agenda prepared . Meeting agenda prepared • Meeting minutes prepared • Agenda and report sent to PC PC public hearing held,within • NOD filed and Fish and Game and interested individuals and g_11 weeks of application fee paid. if applicable agencies • Refer to Building Permit • Begins 14 day appeal period o • PC public hearing held,within Meeting minutes prepared Process 7-8 weeks of application • Approval lapses within 1 year deadline date Modified COA prepared • Final planning action if not exercised • Begins 15 day appeal period Total Processing Time: • Meeting minutes prepared. resolution sent out 14 weeks • Report of actions sent out • Modified COA prepared NOE or NOD filed,,and Fish . • NOE or NOD filed, and Fish &Game fees paid if &Game fee paid if applicable applicable • Refer to Building Permit . Refer to Building Permit Process Process • Approval lapses within 6 Approval lapses within 2 years if not exercised months if not exercised Total Processing Time: Total Processing Time: 13 weeks 10 weeks G,tIEDA Development Process Streamlining 20 Pacific Municipal Consultants DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Variance SECTION 3.5 (Minor Land Development Application) Contra Costa Countv State Government Regulations • Pre-application meeting held, if applied for Regulations identified for zoning change are • Application and fee submitted applicable,except for the following • Project file made Statute of limitations for court action is within 90 • Project planner assigned days of local action(Sec.65907a) • Project referral sent out to affected County departments,responsible agencies,MAC's,and TAC's,requesting response within 30 days • Site check conducted and field check forms completed • Project completeness determined and acknowledgement letter sent within 30 days of application • Project referral comments received and assembled in preliminary staff report • CEQA analysis carried out(refer to CEQA Analysis) • ZA staff report and COA prepared(engineering COA provided) . • Final staff report reviewed and hearing date scheduled • Hearing notice prepared • Identify properties hearing notice and'environmental document are mailed to • ZA meeting noticed • Meeting agenda prepared • Agenda and report circulated to ZA and interested individuals and agencies • ZA public hearing held,within 8-12 weeks of application • After close of hearing,decision rendered within 30 days • Meeting minutes prepared • Ten day appeal period begins after hearing completed • Letter describing appeal rights sent if project denied • Modified COA are prepared, if approved • Permit with approved COA is sent out if no appeal filed • Building and engineering notified of approval • NOE or NOD filed, and Fish&Game fee paid if applicable • Refer to Building Permit Process • Permit lapses within 1 year if not exercised Total processing time: 12 weeks(87 days for categorical exemption) 14 weeks(101 days for negative declaration) GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 21 + I i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.5 Variance (Minor Land Development Application) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter Countv • Pre-application meeting held • Pre-application meeting held • Pre-application meeting held PP g Application and fee submitted • Application submitted to • Application and fee submitted PP Environmental Health for • Project referral sent out to • Project file made sign-off e"SAW"form appropriate departments and • Project planner and meeting . "SAW" form signed date assigned agencies g • Application and fee submitted • Determine need for added • Project completeness Project file made sewer allocation determined within 30 days of Project planner assigned • Project file made application J • Project referral sent out to • planner Project Proj P assigned ned • Project referral sent out to appropriate departments and. • Project completeness appropriate departments and agencies determined within 30 da s of agencies b Y b Project completeness is application • Hearing notice prepared determined within 30 days of • DRC meeting scheduled. • Properties to receive hearing application • Site check conducted notice and environmental PC meeting for project set • Referral comments received document determined Referral comments received • DRC meeting held,within 3-4 • ZA meeting noticed Site review conducted weeks of application deadline • Site check conducted Hearing notice prepared date • Referral comments received Properties to receive hearing • Hearing notice prepared • CEQA analysis carried out notice and environmental • Properties to receive hearing (refer to CEQA Analysis) document determined notice and environmental • ZA staff report and COA CEQA analysis prepared document determined prepared(engineering COA provided (refer to CEQA Analysis) • CDD meeting noticed P ) PC staff report prepared • CEQA analysis carried out • Agenda and report given to . PC agenda prepared (refer to CEQA Analysis) ZA and sent to interested . Agenda and report sent to PC • CDD staff report and COA individuals and agencies and interested individuals and prepared(engineering COA • ZA public hearing held, agencies provided) within 6-7 weeks of . PC public hearing held,within applicationAgenda and report given to 8-12 weeks of application CDD and sent to interested • Begins 14 day appeal period Begins 10 day appeal period individuals and agencies • Meeting minutes prepared Meeting follow-up letter sent • CDDublic hearing held • Final planning action letter P g , to applicant morning after within 7-8 weeks of sent out meeting application deadline date GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 22 w DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE Variance(continued) City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Meeting follow-up letter sent . NOE or NOD filed,and Fish • Meeting minutes prepared • Begins 15 day appeal period &Game fee paid if applicable • NOD filed and Fish and Game • Meeting minutes prepared • Refer to Building Permit fee paid, if applicable • Modified COA prepared Process • Refer to Building Permit • NOE or NOD filed,and Fish • Approval lapses within 2 Process &Game fee paid if applicable years if not exercised • Approval lapses within 1 year • Refer to Building Permit if not exercised Process Total Processing Time: -8 weeks Total Processing Time: Total Processing Time: 13 weeks 10 weeks GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 23 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.6 Building Permit Process Contra Costa County State Regulations (Building Regulations) • Grading permit application submitted to Building An agency shall complete their structural building • Grading plans reviewed plan check,within 30 days of EIR certification, • Plans returned to applicant for corrections, if needed Negative Declaration adoption or determining a • Grading permit issued project exempt(Sec. 17960.1 of the Health&Safety • Grading actives commences Code) • Building plans referred to Planning,Health, Sanitary If an agency determines it is unable to meet specified District, Fire and Public Works for approval subject time limits,upon request of the applicant,the agency to project COA and adopted regulations . shall employ a private entity to perform such tasks • Landscaping plans referred to Planning,Public (Sec. 17960.1 of the Health&Safety Code) Works, & General Services for approval, if Every permit issued by the Building Official under applicable provision of the UBC shall expire within 180 days of • Plans returned to applicant for corrections, if needed permit if not exercised,with possibility of 180 day • Building permit application submitted to Building extension if approved by the Building Official(Sec. • Building permits for small or uncomplicated projects 303A of the Uniform Building Code) plan checked at Building Counter • Building permits for large and complicated projects are plan checked,within 2-3 weeks • Plans returned to applicant for corrections, if needed' • Permit and in-lieu fees calculated Fees paid (including school district fees) • Building permit issued generally within 45 days of application Approval lapses within 180 days of application if construction not commenced,with possibility of 180 day extension if approved by Building Official • Construction commences • Regular inspections made • Building conduct final inspection • Upon clearance from required agencies,certificate of occupancy issued Total Processing Time: Dependent upon action by applicant GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 24 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.6 Building Permit Process City of Tracy City of Livermore Sutter County • Building permit application • Building permit application Building plan and site plan submitted submitted submitted and reviewed by • Building plan,site plan,and • Building plan,site plan,and Planning,Public Works, and landscape plan reviewed by landscape plan reviewed by Environmental Health Planning Planning,Fire, Police and (approved at counter) • Landscape bond submitted Public Works • Approved building plan and • Building plans for small _ Building plans for small site plan submitted to projects check in-house project sent out for plan Building for plan check • Building plans for large checking to consultant • Plan check deposit paid projects sent out for plan Building plans for large • Building pians for small checking to consultant projects check in-house projects checked in-house • Plans returned to applicant for • Plans returned to applicant • Building plans for large corrections, if needed for corrections, if needed project sent out for plan • Permit and in-lieu fees • Permit and in-lieu fees checking to consultant calculated(school fees paid at calculated(school fees paid at • Permit fees calculated school district) school district) • Plans returned to applicant for • Permit fees paid and permit • Permit fees paid and permit corrections, if needed issued issued • Permit fees paid and permit • Construction commences • Construction commences issued • Regular inspections made • Regular inspections made • Construction commences • Building final inspection • Building final inspection • Regular inspections made made made • Building final inspection • Planning final inspection • Planning final inspection made made made • Planning final inspection • Certificate of occupancy • Certificate of occupancy made, if landscaping required issued issued with project • Approval lapses within 6 • Approval lapses within 6 • Certificate of occupancy months if not exercised with months if not exercised,with issued possibility for 6 month possibility for 6 month • Approval lapses within 6 extension if approved by extension if approved by months if not exercised, with Building Official Building Official possibility for 6 month • Landscape bond released after extension if approved by 2 years Total Processing Time: Chief Building Inspector Dependent upon action by Total Processing Time: applicant Total Processing Time: Dependent upon action by Dependent upon action by applicant applicant GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 25 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE SECTION 3.7 CEQA Analysis Contra Costa County State Government Regulations (CEQA) Categorically Exempt Categorically Exempt • NOE prepared and filed NOE prepared and filed within 5 days of project approval • If a NOE is filed,begins 35 day period for CEQA challenges If NOE not filed,begins 180 day period for CEQA challenges Negative Declaration Negative Declaration • Initial study prepared,within 2 weeks of determining Initial study prepared,within 30 days of determining project complete project complete,if possibility of 15 day extension • Negative Declaration and project description by mutual consent prepared and circulated for 21 day review period(30 Negative Declaration prepared and circulated to days for state agencies) Responsible and Trustee Agencies for 20 day review Public comments on Negative Declaration are period(30 days for state agencies) submitted to hearing body Notice of Negative Declaration filed,20 days prior CEQA notices mailed to meeting Negative Declaration is acted upon within 6 months Negative Declaration is acted upon by hearing body, of application within 105 days of application • NOD filed and Fish&Game fee paid,within 5 days NOD filed and Fish&Game fee paid,within 5 days of project approval(if state agency involved NOD of project approval(if state agency involved NOD filed with OPR) filed with OPR) Begins 30 day period for challenges Begins 30 day period for CEQA challenges GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 26 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OUTLINE CEQA Analysis(Continued) Contra Costa County State Government Regulations (CEQA) EIR EIR • Application submitted to County as lead agency Application submitted to City as lead agency Application completeness determined within 30 days Application completeness determined within 30 days • Initial study prepared within 2 weeks of determining Initial study prepared within 30 days of determining project complete project complete,with possibility of 15 day extension • Decision to prepare EIR within 30 days of by mutual consent determining project complete Decision to prepare EIR within 30 days after • NOP is prepared and circulated for a 30 review completeness determined period NOP is prepared and circulated for a 30 review • NOP comments received period • EIR RFP developed and circulated Upon request by Lead Agency,Responsible Agency, • EIR fees collected Trustee Agency,or applicant,a public scoping • EIR contract award approved by BOS at next regular meeting shall be noticed and held,within 30 days of meeting(consent agenda) receiving a meeting request • ADEIR prepared Admin. DEIR prepared • ADEIR reviewed by staff Admin. DEIR reviewed by staff • DEIR is developed based upon staff comments DEIR is developed • DEIR circulated to interested agencies for 30 review DEIR circulated to interested agencies for 30 review period(45 days if state agency) 90 day maximum period(45 days if state agency)90 day maximum • PC hearing noticed for project and EIR review, DEIR acted upon by County through public hearing including interested agencies process • PC staff report and COA prepared(engineering If significant new information is presented,the DEIR COA)provided and new information.are recirculated • Meeting agenda prepared NOC prepared and filed with State Clearinghouse • PC public hearing held, for project and EIR review Comments received are assembled and responded to Meeting minutes prepared within the FEIR • BOS hearing noticed FEIR certified by County through public hearing • BOS staff report prepared process • Meeting agenda prepared Adopted FEIR sent to Responsible Agencies • BOS public hearing held City makes decision on project • Meeting minutes prepared Statement of Overriding Consideration developed • If significant new information is presented,the DEIR and adopted by the agency and new information are recirculated Mitigation reporting and monitoring program NOC prepared and filed with State Clearinghouse adopted • Comments received are assembled and responded to FEIR is certified within 1 year,with possibility of within the FEIR one-90 day extension • FEIR certified by County through PC and BOS NOD filed within 5 days of project approval public hearing processBegins 30 day period for CEQA challenges • County makes decision on project • Findings written and adopted by BOS • Mitigation reporting and monitoring program (CEQA Analysis carried out by City of Tracy, City of adopted Livermore and Sutter County have not been included as they • FEIR is certified within 1 year,with possibility of are functionally identical to State statute) two-90 day extensions by mutual consent • NOD filed GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 27 SECTION 3.8 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADEIR Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report AA Advisory Agency BOS Board of Supervisors CA County Attorney CARB Capacity Allocation Review Board CDD Community Development Director CE County Engineer CEQA California Environmental Quality Act COA Conditions of Approval DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DRC Design Review Committee(City of Livermore) DRC Development Review Committee(City of Tracy) EIR Environmental Impact Report FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report GMRB Growth Management Review Board MAC Municipal Advisory Committee NOC Notice of Completion NOD Notice of Determination NOE Notice of Exemption NOP Notice of Preparation OPR Office of Planning and Research PC Planning Commission RFP Request for Proposal SAC Subdivision Advisory Committee TAC Technical Advisory Committee UBC Uniform Building Code ZA Zoning Administrator GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 28 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - STREAMLINING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING SECTION 4.0 The information gained from the side-by-side comparisons contained within the preceding sections,together with review of handouts and staff reports, as well as aspects identified from walking through a "mock" development review process with County staff, form the basis for the process streamlining recommendations contained within this section. In comparison with.State regulations, and with other jurisdictions identified, the County functions comparatively well despite varying levels of community involvement. These differences include use of Municipal Advisory Committees by the County versus use of a Design Review Committee by the City of Livermore,and use of an in-house Development Review Committee by the City of Tracy. Certain aspects of the County processes operate with great efficiency while other areas may require minor system modifications to improve efficiency. For example,the Building Inspection Department ranked exceedingly well in relation to other jurisdictions,primarily with regards to over-the-counter plan checking of building permit applications. In addition, use of a permit counter is seen as an effective means of conveying and processing information. Minor adjustments are, however, recommended to streamline this department. Suggested modifications are primarily minor in scope, as there is seemingly no need for major process modifications. Because the suggested changes are minor in scope,they are more easily obtainable,relatively less expensive, and tend to have a cumulative effect upon County processes thereby increasing overall system efficiency. The following is a listing of recommended system modifications. These recommendations are divided into the following process headings: Compliance(application intake and ensuring application compliance with County and State regulations); Compatibility(compatibility,of the various links of the Contra Costa County approval process chain); and Compliance (final departmental process approval and compliance of project construction with approval granted). COMPLIANCE 1. Develop mission statements and service level goals/measures. The purpose of mission statements — - is the definition of each department's role in the entire County process. However, of greater importance is the identification of service level goals or measures,thereby producing a measure of accountability for each department.These goals should be established by each department to create a"buy-in" from staff, and utilized to assess effectiveness and make appropriate adjustments. 2. Provide customer evaluation forms. Involvement of the customer in the evaluation process is in keeping with the goal of customer service, but also provides the County with direct feedback from the customer's perspective on how inquiries and applications are handled. This type of feedback creates an on-going process for continual improvement. 3. Provide sample conditions of approval,sample plans, and process checklist. By providing the customer a listing of sample conditions of approval,sample plans,and content checklist forms prior to application, the customer has a better understanding of what is expected. This generally results in improved project quality and fewer project revisions. .(Sample has been provided within Section 6.0) GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 29 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING 4. Photograph project area during site check. Project sites can be memorialized by use of a camera. Photographing a site can eliminate return site visits if certain site characteristics are not initially observed,and if made available during public hearings, photographs can effectively answer many questions. 5. Limit design review of construction on substandard lots. Design review is a process generally utilized by jurisdictions for all development projects, excluding individual home construction on an existing lot. It is recommended that the design review of these lots by the County be limited to staff review of the proposal. County regulations are the criteria for staff review and thus would enable approval to take place over the counter. By facilitating counter approval,notification of property owners within 300 feet would correspondingly be eliminated. As these applications are known to represent a significant portion of projects under review, a modification to counter review would greatly reduce staff work load. 6. Computerize project logs. Presently,project applications are logged within a hand written ledger. By computerizing these project logs, reference to precise applications can be obtained quickly by project number, applicant, or address, thereby reducing time spent researching applications. 7. Promote small project approvals at the permit counter. Small projects requiring minimal review, including but not limited to sign permits,home occupation permits, business licenses, single family home construction on a substandard lot,and liquor licenses, can be effectively reviewed and approved over the counter, thereby reducing staff time in project review. 8. Reduce length and complexity of staff reports. Overall page length and complexity of planning staff reports should be reduced. For example,by eliminating divider pages between each attachment and in its place simply affixing a label to each page reduces paper usage. Also, the number of attachments in most cases, should be limited to primarily include the site plan, vicinity map, and building elevations. Attached referral comment letters could be eliminated by adding a brief description within the staff report. In addition, project history could be limited to that which occurred within the last year or which is of singular importance to the project. Agency comments should be limited to only those which have commented, and should not include those which have not yet commented or those which do not wish to comment. Overall report length, not including attachments,is ideally limited to two pages for minor projects,approximately four pages for medium complexity projects, and approximately seven pages for complex projects. 9. Reduce length of time for receiving departmental response to referrals. Presently 30 days are allocated for receiving departmental and agency response to referrals. Although certain aspects of project review may take place during this time, this 30 day period greatly slows down overall application review and report preparation. A maximum response time for in-house review of 10 days is recommended. 10. Utilize standard document format. Documents routinely produced as a part of project review should be standardized requiring only minor modifications to be tailored to specific projects. For example, initial studies, resolutions, conditions of approval, negative declarations, and notices of exemption can be developed as master documents. In doing so, a document format would be made consistent among the staff. More importantly,a standard document format could greatly reduce time GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 30 I RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING. spent producing these documents, as the documents need not be reproduced for each application. (Samples have been included within Section 6.0) 11. Utilize formal application process schedule. A formal application process schedule, outlining application deadline dates, staff report completion dates, as well as public hearing dates is recommended. This schedule, primarily intended to convey required timelines to the project applicant, also puts the applicant on notice that complete information is needed in order to meet identified public hearing dates. The schedule also provides guidance to staff by prioritizing applications and instilling a level of accountability for adhering to the process schedule. Use of a formal application process schedule produces a consistent level of expectation for both applicant and staff. (A sample has been included within Section 6.0) 12. Utilize development review process in place of the pre-application review process. A development review process can be established as in informal project review by one representative from each affected department, with the project applicant also in attendance. The development review process is a forum in which the project deficiencies can be identified, areas of conflict ironed out, and preliminary conditions of approval are stated. This process takes place prior to developing staff reports and finalizing conditions of approval, thereby minimizing the need for amendments at a later date. Although similar to the pre-application process,development review enables review of multiple projects in a short period of time. Development review can be routinely scheduled perhaps one morning twice a month, without requiring notice of property owners within 300 feet. At such time.each project is allocated approximately 20 minutes for review, with larger projects taking more time. The key to this process is preparedness by the staff before attending the meetings, thereby reducing meeting time and ensuring a effective program. 13. Develop and circulate an application listing. A listing identifying new and old applications, as well as their process requirements and relative hearing timelines could be developed. This listing could be developed by the Planning Department and circulated to the Building and Public Works Departments. This listing will assist other departments in prioritizing work loads. In addition, if the development review process is utilized as discussed above, items scheduled for review could be listed,thereby assisting in staff preparedness. (A sample has been included within Section 6.0) 14. Circulate permit center employees. Circulating employees for permit counter duty on a half day or full day basis will, after an initial learning period, educate the staff of the entire development process from application intake to project review. In addition,by circulating employees the negative impacts of physical and social separation between departments will be reduced by fostering added communication within departments and between departments. 15. Cross train employees. The overlap of knowledge and specific skills within and between departments can effectively reduce bottlenecks resulting from temporary vacancies due to illness in departments which are already understaffed. For example, Environmental Health staff could be trained to assist the permit counter in times of short staffing. 16. Minimize physical separation between departments. In an effort to foster increased communication between departments,physical separation should be minimized wherever feasible. For example,the current planning division could be relocated to an area currently occupied by file GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 31 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING storage. Despite minor tenant improvements which may be required, interaction between the staff would be improved. This would also assist in counter staff circulation. 17. Install an automated phone system. The vast amount of phone calls intercepted at the permit center may be more effectively processed if an automated phone system is utilized for all incoming calls. Inquiries may be directed using a number of prompts, for example, press one for zoning questions. This system would free up considerable time for the counter receptionist and would efficiently relay inquiries to the appropriate staff member. 18. Provide self-service facilities. The GMEDA presently maintains a variety of data base systems, for example the Land Information System (LIS). These data resources, if made available to the customer, can reduce time spent answering inquires regarding parcel zoning, building permit status, etc. With installation of a work stations within each waiting room,and with a minimal amount of training,the GMEDA receives the benefit from increased customer service as well as a considerable time savings. 19. Provide zoning maps and zoning indexes. In conjunction with the self-service facilities, small scale zoning maps and indexes identifying parcel zoning and other auxiliary information can be provided. Provision of this information at the waiting room work stations would enable self service by the customer and represents another means of reducing time spent in answering zoning inquiries. (Samples have been provided within Section 6.0) 20. Develop computerized library of documents. In conjunction with making data base resources available to the consumer, a computerized library of documents can also be made available. This library may include but not be limited to, the County General Plan, Municipal Code, and adopted regulations and standards. Benefits received from this service,similar to making data base resources available, is increased customer service and vast time savings. 21. Update and regularly review all planning documents and tools. The regular review of all planning documents including but not limited to, the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, Development Standards, is an effective means of actively promoting public participation, -- being responsive to changing needs in the community, and reflecting values and aspirations of County residents and businesses. 22. Utilize Specific Plans. Specific Plans are detailed plans for the development of specific areas in order to implement the adopted General Plan. This is accomplished by the Specific Plan creating a bridge between General Plan policies and individual development proposals. The initial processing and adoption of Specific Plans involve considerable time; however,their adoption and environmental assessment can, by State statute, obviate the need for further environmental review for projects proposed within the Specific Plan area. The result in the long run is a streamlined process with a reduction in total approvals and paperwork. COMPATIBILITY 23.. Adopt regulations clarifying the roles of advisory committees. The roles of Municipal Advisory Committees(MAC'S)and Technical Advisory Committees(TAC's) should be clarified with regard GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 32 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING to their precise duties and powers. It is recommended that their role in the approval process chain be as a community sounding-board, and thus limited to receiving public input and rendering a recommendation on discretionary projects. This recommendation should be submitted to the Community Development Department within the first 30 day period following application submittal, for transmittal to the respective approval body. In this regard the Community Development Department should act as a courier of the Committee's recommendation. Advisory committee recommendations should be limited to aspects of the County General Plan, Municipal Code and other pertinent adopted regulations. The County may wish to consider designating a staff person to each MAC and TAC,to serve as staff at their public meetings as well as acting as liaison between Committees and County staff, Planning Commissions and Board of Supervisors. COMPLIANCE -- _ 24. Consolidate inspections departmentally. Certain inspections carried out by Building, Planning and Public Works Departments may be consolidated. For example, while conducting their final building inspection, the Building Department could inspect the site for completion of Planning Department conditions of approval. A small amount of training would be required to accommodate consolidations of inspections. 25. Fast track high priority items. Certain projects, for a wide range of reasons, may need to be processed faster than other projects not having a similar urgency component. The projects that qualify can be processed on a fast track,which may involve project review and building plan review carried out simultaneously, or may involve overtime hours or hiring added personnel. In order to accommodate fast track projects,criteria or guidelines need to be developed. For example,projects having a direct impact upon public health,safety or welfare,or in cases where a developer is willing to pay a significantly higher fee to fund the fast trach,are possible criteria for fast tracking projects. Fast track projects do,however,carry an inherent amount of risk with review and approval occurring simultaneously. 26. Eliminate requirement for Board of Supervisor approval of release of improvement security. Following construction of public improvements,the Board of Supervisors acts to accept constructed -public improvements based upon a report by the Public Works Department. Acceptance also initiates the start of a one year period in which a warranty bond is intended to pay for any construction deficiencies. The County requires an additional approval step, an additional action by the Board, and the release of any remaining security. This additional step is not required by-the Subdivision Map Act and nor is it utilized by other jurisdictions polled. Thus it is recommended that this added step be eliminated and the release of the security be approved by the Public Works Department rather than necessitating Board approval. 27. Relocate grading functions to the Public Works Department. Presently, grading functions are placed under the Building Inspection Department. Individual lot grading plan review and approval generally takes place at time of building permit application, however, a greater segment of review and inspection occurs with initial site preparation when public improvements are constructed. It is recommended grading functions be relocated to the Public Works Department to improve continuity in site inspections. GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 33 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STREAMLINING 28. Establish computer linkage between Permit Center and' on-site inspectors. Hand held computers utilized by Building and Public Works inspectors while working in the field can be produce significant time savings,as information is instantaneously transmitted to one of the County's data base systems. Delays, as a result of distance, can be eliminated. In addition, this instant information can be readily accessed by interested parties at the self service work station identified above. 29. Color code plans. A color sticker may be added to plans,signifying the priority or level of urgency a particular set of plans may have. Red, could understandably signify top priority,whereas a blue color code is less urgent or lower priority. GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 34 PRIVATIZATION SECTION 5.0 Increasingly,jurisdictions are turning to private enterprise for assistance in performing functions which have been historically carried out by the jurisdiction. Privatization of governmental functions is increasing as the potential for cost savings is realized. For example,jurisdictions which are unable to financially support full- time staff can hire (contract) staff, as the need for their services arises. Other jurisdictions may find that` private enterprise can meet their temporary staffing needs without having to undergo a lengthy interviewing process or permanently hire staff. Some of the many reasons local agencies are looking to privatize certain functions through contract staff assistance are as follows: 1. In this time period of diminishing revenues,contracting for staff support can enable a local agency to function,normally without the burden of in-house staff fluctuations. 2. Contract staff is demand responsive, and can readily adjust to meet changing workloads. 3. Contract staff can be structured so that they are largely self-supported,and minimize the use of general fund monies. 4. Depending upon whether an individual or a firm which specializes in contract staff is utilized,the agency can have access to a wider range of technical capabilities and resources well beyond that which the agency may be able to afford in-house. 5. Certain types of activities,such as large or technically complex projects may require special expertise not available through in-house staff. 6. Contract staff can also fill in for temporary or interim vacancies due to illness, increased workload, resignations or budget constraints. 7. As a support function. contract staff can supplement existing staff during fluctuations in workload. Privatization of functions is also increasing as the broad informational base and responsive nature of the industry is realized. As a result of increased exposure to local and state agencies, through project contracts, inter jurisdictional informational resources are considerably increased. Privatization is facilitated by standardization of function. For example,processing plans that follow specific standards and routine can be privatized fairly easily because the amount of discretion is limited. Privatization may offer the benefits of lower wage rates and less distraction otherwise faced by staff during a normal, multifunction day. The key advantage to privatization is segregation of function, which allows the County to choose which tasks are better suited for outside staff assistance. If a task is privatized,then the burden of performance is on the contractor. Contract staff services are used by local governments throughout California as a means of adding technical expertise(on a project specific basis), increasing project processing speed, meeting fluctuations in workload GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 35 i i PRIVATIZATION without the burden of adding "short-term" professional staff, and as a management tool to match staff resources with changing priorities. The following is an outline of governmental processes which may be effectively carried out by private enterprise. In addition,the following outline identifies several Northern California jurisdictions which utilize contract staff services: • Advanced planning including General Plan updates; Specific Plan preparation, grant program administration, and feasibility study preparation (utilized by Cities of Tracy, Livermore, Healdsburg, San Pablo,Atwater, as well.as Colusa County,Monterey County,Alameda County and Sutter County) • Current planning including development and architectural design review, Municipal Code amendments, tentative and final map review, current application processing, as well as building plan,and landscape plan review .(utilized by Cities Tracy, Orinda,Menlo Park,Livermorejolsom, Sand City, and Biggs) • CEQA analysis (utilized by Cities of Tracy, West Sacramento, Livermore, Merced, Oroville, Vallejo, as well as Nevada County, Calaveras County, and Sutter County) • Advisory committee liaison(utilized by Cities of Biggs and Oakdale and Sutter County) • Building plan checking(utilized by Cities Tracy, Livermore, West Sacramento, and San Jose) • Improvement plan checking(utilized by Cities Brentwood, Los Gatos, Tracy and Morgan Hill) • Planning, building, or public works inspections (utilized by Cities Roseville, Ione, Woodland, Oakland, Pleasanton, Santa Cruz County and San Jose) Where a distinct operation is particularly efficient and insulated it may provide privatization opportunity for other jurisdictions Contra Costa County provides privatized services for several cities and districts. For example, the Building Inspection Department performs structural and grading plan review and inspection for the Cities of Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, and Clayton; and Public Works real property agents often contract to perform appraisal and related work for other jurisdictions.. Privatizing functions may take place by a variety of means. For example,private consultant resources could serve as in-house contract staff,working within the framework of the agency. These contracted resources perform duties and provide a level of professionalism similar to full-time agency staff; however, contract staff responds to the supervision and management of both the agency and the private company's managers. One of the benefits of this system is realized in quality control, considering that the work product (and employee performance)will undergo additional review and scrutiny by the private company manger. Alternatively, the contract staff may function almost entirely outside the realm of the jurisdiction. Contact with the staff is primarily via phone, fax or telephone with regular or occasional meetings scheduled depending upon the type of work contract. In this example, planning staff may be contracted to review development applications, which would include application plan review and CEQA analysis (prepared outside the department), attendance at Development Review Committee meetings, staff report and ancillary document preparation (prepared outside the department), as well as attendance at public hearings. In addition, when functioning in this manner,contact with the customer may be through the on-site staff or by direct communication with the applicant. In any case the resulting work product is reviewed in-house by the company before being sent to the jurisdiction for review and release. Another approach to utilizing contract staff may be with the processing of fast track applications,which may require added personnel and/or extended work hours. In this example, contract staff'may be set up in an GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 36 independent office, processing all aspects of development review for a certain project simultaneously. This approach may be handled as in-house contract staff or by staff functioning outside the department. The actual method for utilization of contract staff depends upon the agency and its available space and equipment resources, as well as the specific demands of the project. To evaluate each activity as to the benefits of privatization the following questions need to be asked: 1. What is the current work flow? 2. Is this task exclusive,primary or one of several tasks facing the person responsible? 3. How many distractions in a day does the person have in performance of their task? 4. Is the person knowledgeable in the field? 5. How much discretion is the individual given in performance of their task? Does anyone know? 6. Is the function subject to outside influence - phone calls, political requests, applicant (neighborhood)advocates who are allowed to challenge staff? 7. How great a role is the public given in participation of this task? 8. How much time is required within the process for this task? 9. Does it matter if no one knows who is performing the task despite the fact it is well done? 10. Are specific tasks on-going or subject to fluctuations in workload? 11. Is a special skill, expertise, registration or license needed to complete the task? The utilization of contract staff may be funded by several means. The company may, based upon an agreed upon hourly rate, bill the jurisdiction directly for the number of work hours. The jurisdiction would in turn recover costs through application fees or by directly billing the applicant. The jurisdiction may, however, wish to implement a cost recovery system. This system involves the establishment of program of deposits by the applicant based upon an estimated cost of services. The account would be billed directly for the actual number of work hours involved in the project. If at the end of the project a balance remains, the applicant is sent the remaining moneys. If,however,the account is nearing depletion, a letter is sent to the applicant informing him of the balance and specifying that an additional amount be provided within a given time frame. In any case,the jurisdiction and the applicant are mailed monthly accounting statements identifying charges based upon hours worked and the remaining balance. The cost recovery system has been effectively utilized in other jurisdictions, as it ensures accountability by the staff, based upon a reasonable work effort. The-County may determine that specific accounting and administrative costs are associated with any method of financing contract services. In response,agencies often include a processing charge to recover these extra costs which is built into the overall funding approach. In order to ensure that indirect accounting and administrative costs are adequately identified and recovered, it is recommended that the contracting agency regularly review the adequacy of development processing fees to cover all direct and indirect costs. GMEDA Development Process Streamlining Pacific Municipal Consultants 37 SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Standard Conditions of Approval Industrial and Commercial Development Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution #16-93 April 6, 1993 Adopted by City Council Resolution #93-116 May 10, 1993 In order to provide industrial and commercial developers with the most current and complete information on the City's "site development standards", the following STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL provide reference to specific regulatory standards, as well as the required operational policies and standards for the application of these regulations. 1. Development shall- conform to --the map designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. The applicant shall submit for Planning Department review and approval the proposed Exhibit B-1 which shall reflect any changes indicated in the Project Specific Conditions or otherwise required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit the proposed Exhibit B-1 to the Planning Department within 90 days of project approval . Failure to submit the amended map will result in a delay in issuance of the building permit. 2 . Minor amendments to the approved permit may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator provided the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original permit approval . 3 . Landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Design Review Committee, but shall meet the following minimum requirements (Reference Zoning Ordinance Section 22 .80 Design Review) : a. Parking lot shade trees shall be located in landscaped areas within the parking lot at a rate of 16 trees per parking lot acre. Such shade trees shall consist of a least 20% being a 24 inch box size having 'a height of at least 10 feet and a caliper of at least 2 inches and the remainder being a 15 gallon size having a height of at least 6 feet and a caliper of at least 1 inch. (Reference Section 21.46.H Parking) b. Landscaping areas shall be serviced by an automatic sprinkler head or drip irrigation system and shall be bordered by a concrete curb at least 6 inches high. Those portions of landscaped areas adjoining undeveloped property may be retained by a 2 by 6 inch redwood or similar header board. Planter areas shall have a width of not less than 5 feet. (Reference Section 21.46.H.2 Parking) C. All landscaped areas shall include ground cover plant materials, and include bark or mulch covering except in the case of turf or similar planted ground cover. d. Landscaping shall be installed in all areas not utilized for either building or paving. SAMPLE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for the structure, a report prepared by a licensed landscape architect or contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval indicating any specialized soil preparations required to successfully install landscaping in all planting areas that have been previously paved or compacted. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the licensed landscape architect or contractor shall certify that all soil preparations required were included in the landscaping installation. (Reference Municipal Code Section ' 13.25 Water Efficient Landscape) 5. Roof mounted air conditioning, production equipment or vents, microwave dishes or antennas, and similar devices shall be screened from public view by restricting the maximum height to that of the surrounding building parapet. The Design Review Committee may authorize screening by opaque walls or similar features consistent with the overall building architectural style, materials, and color scheme to a height equal to such equipment in order to provide equivalent screening from public view. 6. Electrical transformers and other above ground utility junction boxes and similar devices shall be screened from public view to the approval of the Design Review Committee by walls or similar, painting to match the building or immediate surroundings, and/or sufficient landscaping to form the equivalent of a 100 percent opaque screen; at the time of installation to minimize their adverse visual impact. 7 . Backflow prevention devices for commercial and industrial buildings shall be located a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the public right-of-way. The mounting height (bottom of the device) shall be as near the minimum 12-inches above street curb elevation as practical, but in no event shall the mounting height exceed 24- inches above curb elevation. All connections between the curb line and the device shall be wrapped with tape stating "DO NOT CONNECT" . Backflow prevention devices shall be screened from view to the approval. of the. Design Review Committee by a combination of landscaped berms and/or masonry walls blending with the overall landscaping theme which forms a 100% opaque screen at the time of installation to the normal field of view from passing vehicular traffic to minimize their adverse visual impact (see Illustration "A" , attached) . 8 . The project site shall be maintained in a weed free, dust free, and litter free condition. (Reference Section 21. 46.H. 4 Parking) 9 . Lighting used to illuminate the parking lot shall be directed and shielded to prevent illumination of any surrounding residential zoning district. (Reference Section 21.46.F Parking) 10. Site specific details are subject -to the approval of the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit. (Reference Zoning ordinance Section 22 .80 Design Review) 2 (Optional; applicable only when specified in the Project specific Conditions) 11. Prior to application for a building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation and restoration plan. The tree preservation and restoration plan shall include the following components: a. Locate all trees on site (horizontally and vertically) by a field survey. Plot both trunk locations and driplines of all trees on a site plan that also includes proposed building locations (if known) , property lines, and proposed utility locations. b. All trees on site shall be assigned and tagged with a number and shall be identified on the plan by that number. C. The tree information for the site shall be summarized in a table that includes the following information: tree number, botanical name, common name, trunk size at 4 feet above grade (for each trunk if more than one) , whether the tree will be preserved, and an area for comments. d. Significant information about the trees shall be noted in the comments section. This includes the reason for the tree removal (poor health, utility placement, conflict with roads or building pads, etc. ) , any diseases or injuries the tree has, and any unique features of the trees. e. The table shall appear either on the site plan, or on attached 8 . 5" x 11" sheets. f. No tree removal or pruning shall take place prior to the approval of a tree preservation and restoration plan. g. Trees approved for removal shall be replaced at a ratio to be determined based on the size and species of the tree, its health and location. The replacement ratio (specified in the Project Specific Conditions) shall generally range from one to five 24"-box trees per removed tree. Removal of significant or particularly desirable trees may not be permitted. The replacement species shall be specified by the Planning Department. dre#42\wpfiles\standard.con 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL #4 Prepared: Approved by PROJECT AUTHORIZATION 1. The project shall be in conformance: with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed. 2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Use: of property shall be limited to those permitted by the Zoning Ordinance as it exists now or may be amended in the future. 3 . The permit shall expire unless all building permits required for construction of the buildings are issued within 2 years from the date of approval specified above unless a request for extension is received and approved by the City. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. ZONING 1. Development shall conform to the map designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 shall. consist of the submitted map amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit any required amended maps to the Planning Department within 90 days of project approval. Failure to submit the amended map will result in a delay in approval of the final map. 2 . The development impact fees (traffic impact, housing in-lieu, park dedication in-lieu, ♦) and project processing fees due in connection with this permit shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid. 3 . Minor amendment to the permit may be approved by the Planning Department, provided that the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval. 4. Development shall inrinAc +-ho rrnvicinn of A off street parking SAMPLE CONDITIONS OF 1 APPROVAL stalls. The off street parking and vehicular . access areas shall be paved with an asphaltic or portland cement binder pavement. 5. A total of ♦ bicycle stalls shall be installed on the site. Bicycle stalls shall be located adjacent to any bicycle paths and within 50 feet of the public entrances to each building. 6. The project shall be subject to the additional conditions of approval .which are contained in the City of Livermore Standard Zoning Conditions. ♦. Prior to filing any grading, building or improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a vegetation preservation and restora- tion plan for approval by the Planning Department. This report must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or contrac- tor, and it must establish that the requirements contained - within the City of Livermore Vegetation Preservation Conditions have been completed. This report must be approved prior to issuance of any permits authorizing construction activity. The following comments are neither detailed nor necessarily complete. For further information or assistance, contact the appropriate City Department. ' B. ENGINEERING Development shall conform to the attached Engineering Consider- ations dated C. FIRE Development shall conform to the attached Fire Department Memo dated D. BUILDING This Site Plan Approval Permit is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior ap- proval of the Building Department through issuance of any required permits. E. POLICE The project shall be required to conform to the provisions of the security section of the Livermore City Code. F. GENERAL Occupancy or use to be subject to issuance of a business license. . sitexon PC Attachment No. Page No. 2 INITIAL STUDY PROJECT Title/#: Location: Description: Applicant: City's Contact: Telephone: (510) 373-5200 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Additional Project Information Area Description The project is located in the City of Livermore which is approxi- mately 45 miles southeast of San Francisco. With a population of approximately 60, 000, the City has an annual residential growth rate of between 1.5 and 3 .5 percent. Neighborhood Description The. project is adjacent to the following land uses: North: East: South: West: Site Description GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING General Plan Designation: The project is ♦ consistent with the General Plan designation. Zoning District: The project is ♦ consistent with the Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result :in: a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substruc- tures? No. b. disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ♦No. *The development of the project site will result in compaction of the soils. The ♦ currently being considered will result in soil compaction and displacement primarily in areas that will be covered by impervious materi- al where no plants will be grown. ♦ significant impact is anticipated because the compaction will ♦ have an impact on the ♦ use of the -site-. SAMPLE STANDARD INITIAL STUDY c. change in topography or ground surface relief features? ♦No. ♦The development of the project site will result in the topography being modified. The significance of the changes in the topography is dependent upon the design of the devel- opment project. Upon submittal of the development project for the individual parcels an additional environmental deter- mination will be required. The impact of this ♦ on the environment will ♦ be significant since the project site is flat and the topography modifications will ♦ be slight. d. the destruction, covering or modifications of any unique geologic or physical features? No. e. any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ♦No. ♦During the development of the project, there may be a temporary increase in wind or water erosion of the soils on the site. These impacts are reduced to an acceptable level by watering the construction site during the dry months and by revegetation of disturbed soils prior to the wet months. These development requirements are imposed on all projects. Upon submittal of the development project an additional environmental determination will be required. The impact of the construction of this ♦ on the environment will ♦ have a significant impact on soil erosion. f. changes in deposits or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition of erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? No. g. exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ♦No. ♦The project is located in an active seismic region and would be subject to ground shaking during the lifetime of the buildings. The project buildings will be constructed in accordance with local building codes which include provisions for structural stability during periods of severe ground shaking. 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ♦No. ♦The development of ♦ properties has the potential of having an impact on the air quality. The City has implemented several measures to reduce potential air quality impacts. The first is the establishment of a local bus service. The bus system has been designed to reduce the dependence upon the automobile for local transportation needs. It has been expanded to include all three of the communities within the Livermore/Amador Valley. This bus system has been designed to reduce the dependence upon the automobile for local transportation needs. The second is the implementation of a growth management plan that limits resi- dential growth to between 1. 5 and 3 . 5 percent per year. 2 a 3 4 4 4 4 'l y h] 4 4 Cl t7 z z 0 0 w m y y 4 y G0 G G w w ro ro w a m m w w m m o O a n m m G G Gro :� G '� n hi hi hi Cr tr G G n n C C (t rt 'b ro W to `C (D o m C 'C m w w n n ti h{ G G m m m m O O (t ct G G mm N J F- ::rG G w w tr tr m m N (n m a N N N .P F-+ w w h1 FS tr tr tr m m rt rt N 0. a W N N W N m ti N L--4 L--4 m m m m hi hi V CA s o �' o hi ht ht K m m N tD rt M X N W N .A hS hj W (D F'• x N v .A• N m N N U7 O £ N O N N D1 m m O � x x - a ro 7a CL n x 0 m O rt r m 4 4 4 4 ,'! Y > MI 4 4 C7 C7 L' z O O Cn W G G G G G w a ro ro a w m m w w m m O O n n (D (D G G ,. ►-' h' :� z '•C h ht tt ht tr tr• G G n n C C rt rt to ro to to n G WC L-4 (D (D F'• h'• n n 1-1 H G G m m m m O O & rt G G 10 trN N F- G :3G G a w �5 tr tr m m m Cn x 0. rt N N N F+ J W w w 11 ht tr & � � m m rt rt (D N .A O N co N F-` tj hj 6< 6'S m m m m hi hi (D w rr• ~ N U7 N ti hj hi hS m (D N i-' rt N N N N kD hj h3 00 .b. t... 4 M N N' N N F-• N H W' r m. Dt N co H -7 W N N r a Ut 1 . tr O m : m H m :r r e W M < a H P rU m e n 0. t m cn '� :r' 4 4 4 4 y rr1 hi 4 4 d z 'z' 0 0 0 Cn Cn 0 m G G G G G G w w ro ro w a m m w w m 0 0 0 n n m m rt m 10 w w F- F- p � LC ht Fi h ht tr tr ::s p n `i C (t rt rt ro ro N kD rt G G k m m Fl- Fl- n n hi hi G G m m m O O O rt rt iD y m En N F- r F F G G G a w tr tr tr m m rt Ln r rt rt r E- 1-' (n (n a w N tt tr m m (D O 1 " x lD x F� w N rn hl h( L�4 m m m h ht ti r a (D v O hl hS m m n lD P hj F- N W N N eA ti hi N co UI co (D CY) w t� W w N a% ti x O w y n r� w z F-' H y H ro m y Ft hi 4 4 n U t7 z z O O Cn COG C) y 4 4 4 4 (D G G G G G G w a ro td a w m m w w m m O O n n (D (D to ro w w F F✓ G p L4 ht ti hi ht Cr tr G G n n C C rt rt ro to 0 b Cn rt G G uC '< m m N• F'• n n H h G G m m m m O O rt rt m n Cn m rt rt N 1-- N' F Nt1i Y N .T a w F( ti (D (D m m 9 (D f � tr P O rn N N FJ N N ti ti k. m m m m hi ht (D N I--� .A O --] W 44 4'C h h( h{ 1„( tj N .P N N N N N H t'• rt to N F-� .P O N Dl N F- Ln N z F'• n F-' co .A O U7 N F� w G - x F.. —1 W rt Lo t-j N•\ 0 O C � r c7l O In Cn �r >' 4 4 4 4 :3: Y ✓ :3� 'I '%J 4 4 U t7 z z 0 0 0 n m m G G G G G G a w ro ro a w (D m . a a m m O O n n G rt ro ro LQ 4 F✓ F- G G C �C ti ht n ht tr tr' G G n n C C rt & n a O rt (t G G 'C 'C m N• F'• n n h ti G G m m m m O O H. Cr m m m m Fr N r F- r ::r G G a w 5 5 tr tr rt Ft Cr tn W NA O v W N co N m m mt:r h h n w Ln hS ti n --7 hj ti m N N co W lO N FJ tp N 1--' N F— O m ro N LO N �I W tj rt W X (n O O (n Cn �o > 4 4 4 4 'T1 " 4 4 C7 C7 z z O n n n m m G G G G G G w a ro 'd w a m m a w m m O O n n rt rt ro ro w wF� FJ G �C �C ti ht n n tr Cr G n n C C rt O o rt rF r r T Z m m m m 0 t7 t:r m m m ti Fir r fr r m m rt hi SAMPLE FORMAL PROCESS �C m m m m n rt tmi SCHEDULE N e In - FJ w N J J in F--• l0 F✓ v PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE May 13 - 17, 1996 NEW PROJECTS LH Tentative Tract Map #6812 , Lawrence K. Sampson for Associated Professions, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, to subdivide a 5 acre site into 18 s.f. detached residential lots ranging in size from 6,800 sq. ft. to 8, 350 sq. ft. for property located between Central Ave. on the west and Vasco Rd. on the east and `. between Lobelia Way on the south and Woodrose Way on the north for approved HIP #58-95; P.C. : 7/2/96. KC Planned Unit Development #121, Richard C. Sinclair for Western Investment Network III, establish development standards necessary to permit conversion of 46 apartments and 4 detached units into a 50-unit condominium housing project; P.C. : 7/2/96. Pending Immediate Receipt of Tract Map. PENDING ITEMS AND FOLLOW UP LH INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. S.P.A. #125-95, Triad Systems Corporation, to construct the first phase of project consisting of 176 townhouse units located north of North Canyons Pkway, West of Collier Canyon Rd. expansion; Pending Legal Determination re: City Boundaries/Annexation. DC (Continued from 1/16/95) ; Nod Required. T.T.M. #6783 & Development Agreement #79-95, J.J. Dancien & Co. , Inc. to subdivide a 185 acre site into 24, industrial lots in an I-3 District for property located on National Drive, South of Brisa; Readvertise when ready. FO/MU Z.O. Text Amendment #T-261, City-initiated, to amend the provisions of Section 20. 22 (Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings & Structures) to provide greater definition of when and under _what circumstances a non-conforming bldg. , use, or structure may be modified or revised and to establish standards for achieving substantial conformance of the structure or use with the standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Target: August 1996 FO (Continued indefinitely from 12/19/95) . P.U.D. #26-94 , Gordon Talaska, Certification of E. I.R. for residential use of property at N.E. Corner of Dalton & Ames. DC C.U.P. Amendment #3-96, Safety Compliance Mgmt. for Seaway Semiconductor, 5937 Graham Ct. , amend existing CUP #1-94 to allow for additional hazardous materials; Pending. SAMPLE PROCESS SCHEDULE SF Z.O. Text Amendment #T-272, City-initiated, amend Zoning Ordinance in I-3 District to be consistent with Alameda Co. Hazard. -Waste Management general plan amendment. KC C.U.P. 12-96, Seaway Semiconductor, Inc. , authorize the use of Hazardous Materials in the manufacture of semiconductors as required by Section 21.61 of the Z.O. to include: 1) flammable, toxic, and oxidizer gases; 2) flammable liquids; and 3) corrosive liquids. The proposed activity .is approx. 6, 000 to 10, 000 sq. ft. of an existing 132, 000 sq. ft. administration and manufacturing facility previously used for semiconductor fabrication at 250 North Mines Rd. C.C. MEETING OF JUNE 24 , 1996 DC T.T.M. #6807, Geoffrey Mann for 824 Trust (Ryder Homes) , S. of Portola Ave. & First St. KC P.U.D. Amendment #119 , Pulte Home Corp. , Alden Lane Area. P.C. MEETING OF JULY 2 , 1996 KC . Nod Required. Tentative Tract Map Extension #6220, request by Balwant Denhoy, to extend .approval of the map. for the third and final one year for a 10 unit s.f. residential subdivision located at 1605 Lomitas Ave. MR Nod Required. Tentative Tract Map Extension #6237, request by George Kumparak, to extend approval of the map for the third and final one year for a 5 unit s.f. residential subdivision located at Concannon Blvd. FO Nod Required. Conditional Use Permit #42-96, Barney Stocking for Franklin D. Atkins, authorize automotive service station with 12 fueling -dispensers, convenience mart, and car wash for property located E. side of No. Vasco Rd. opposite 1, 000 No. Vasco Rd. LH Referral Due Date: 5/31/96; Nod Required. Tentative Tract Map #6812 , Lawrence K. Sampson for Associated Professions, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, to subdivide a 5 acre site into 18 s.f. detached residential lots ranging in size from 6, 800 sq. ft. to 8,350 sq. ft.. for property located between Central Ave. on the west and Vasco Rd. on the east and between Lobelia Way on the south and Woodrose Way on the north for approved HIP #58-95. C.C. MEETING OF JULY 8 , 1996 2nd General Plan Amendment: SF G.P.A. #33-96, Alameda Co. Hazard Waste Management. 5 SF Z.O. Text Amendment #T-272 , amend Zon. Ord. in I-3 District to be concistent with Alam. Co. Hazard Waste Mngmt. P.C. MEETING OF JULY 16 , 1996 KC Tentative Tract Map Extension 16219, request by William Sheehan, to extend approval of the map for the third and final one year for a 10 unit s.f. residential subdivision located at 1978 Murdell Lane. KC Tentative Tract Map Extension #6387, Richard Corbett, authorize a 3rd and final one year map extension at N.W. Corner of Alden Ln. and Murdell; STAFF LEVEL DETERMINATIONS LH Staff Due Date: 4/25/96. L.L.A. #17-96, Signature Properties, revise lot lines for Lots #4 & #5 of Tentative Tract Map #5650 to reflect the agreed upon location by the present owners on Snowball Ct. LH Staff Due Date: 4/25/96 L.L.A. #19-96, Don Babbitt for Springtown Investors II, to adjust the lot lines between Lots 9 , 10 , 11 of Tract #6742 reducing the size of Lot 11 and increasing the size of Lot 9 by approx. 937 sq. ft. for property located .on Goldenrod Dr. , E. of Arrowhead Ave. KC Staff Due Date: 5/01/96. Lot Line Adjustment #11-96, K-Mart Corporation, authorize a lot line adjustment between Parcel "A" & the remainder parcel of P.M. #5812 , for property at E. side of North Livermore Ave. , N. of Las Positas Rd. adjacent to Arroyo Las Positas. The staff shall determine conformance to zoning standards as specified in P.U.D. #164-88 . DC Staff Due Date: 5/1/96. Z.U.P. #30-96, 20/20 Recycle Center for Pell Development, authorize a temp recycle center for Safeway Store in Arroyo Park at 4495 First St. LH Staff Due Date: 5/3/96. Tentative Tract Map Amendment #6686, Joseph Head for Ruby Hill Jt. Venture, authorize amendment to phasing of public improvements as agreed upon by Engineering Dept. for site bounded by Vineyard, Arroyo, Isabel, & Vallecitos; MR Staff Due Date: 5/3/96. T.T.M. Amendment#6751, Hal Barnett for Livermore Equity Group, minor amendment to revise right-of-way widths for Altamont Creek Dr. and Edgewater Lane. 6 T 1 A r A m N r � rt w � A to n A Ol N O 01 7f 3 r O' rt r A-t G N 7 O A N � A 3^9 '74 p N Q � � O � Z 'O Q V cl t3 cl Y� 3 n n � C') Q d K' c+ =o .d c+ c 4' n �N cl n 0 v -o �o , �o w �o Z�DgX SAM��'� SSE r"t ' PLAIPMING DEPARTMENT Address - Zoning Index Printed: 2/15/95 Pape: 69 No STREET Unit ZONING Permit Dev GenPUan FLOOD Use Bldg Size Map No Lot Lot Size Final Base 1841 Creek Road PO PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 16 8,050 3/12/79 6-E 1857 Creek Road PD PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 15 8,904 3/12/79 6-E 1864 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 69 7,433 3/12/79 6-E 1864 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 ' 110 0 T 4138 69 2,869 3/12/79 6-E 1873 Creek Road PD PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 14 8,909 3/12/79 6-E 1898 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 70 7,266 3/12/79 6-E 1898 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 110 0 T 4138 70 3,486 3/12/79 6-E 1919 Creek Road PD PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 13 8,049 3/12/79 6-E 1927 Creek Road PO PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 12 8,050 3/12/79 6-E 1951 Crede Road PO PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 11 8,117 3/12/79 6-E 1976 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 8 6,384 3/12/79 6-E 1976 Creek Road PO PUD 25 RE ULM X/5 110 0 T 4138 8 3,388 3/12179 6-E 1995 Creek Road PO PUD 25 R ULM X/5 110 1 T 4138 10 15,209 3/12/79 6-E ............................................................................................................................. 2619 Crescent Court RS-2 H UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 1 19,183 5/10/93 7-F 2622 Crescent Court RS-2 N UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 6 17,768 5/10/93 7-F 2651 Crescent Court RS-2 H UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 2 17,442 5/10/93 ' 7-E 2664 Crescent Court RS-2 H UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 5 14,999 5/10/93 7-E 2673 Crescent Court RS-2 H UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 3 18,419 5/10/93 7-E 2686 Crescent Court RS-2 H UL-2 X/10 110 1 T 6583 4 20,389 5/10/93 7-E ............................................................................................................................. 5514 Crestnont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 . 110 1 T 2459 72 6,750 8/24/64 2-G 5522 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 71 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5525 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 43 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5536 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 70 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5537 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 44 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5540 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UN X/10 110 1 T 2459 69 5,250 8/24/64 2-G 5541 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 45 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5548 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 68 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5549 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 46 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5553 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 47 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5554 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 67 6,300 8124/64 2-G 5565 .Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 48 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5566 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 LIN X/10 110 1 T 2459 66 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5603 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 49 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5604 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 65 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5611 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 50 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5612 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 64 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5615 Crestaront Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 51 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5616 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 63 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5627 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 52 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5628 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UK X/10 110 1 T 2459- 62 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5639 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 53 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5642 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 61 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5645 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 54 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5646 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 60 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5653 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 Lim X/10 110 1 T 2459 55 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5654 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 59 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5665 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 56 7,290 8/24/64 2-G 5672 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 58 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5688 Crestmont-Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 57 7,560 8/24/64 ' 2-G 5705 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 173 7,200 8/24/64 2-G 5721 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 174 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5733 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 175 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5805 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UK X/10 110 1 T 2459 176 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5827 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 177 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5828 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 200 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5839 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 178 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5840 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 199 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5851 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 LM X/10 110 1 T 2459 179 6,750 8/24/64 2-G 5852 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 LM X/10 110 1 T 2459 198 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5863 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X110 110 1 T 2459 180 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5864 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 197 6,300 8/24/64 .2-G 5875 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 181 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5876 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 196 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5903 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 182 6,300 .8/24/64 2-G 5904 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 195 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5917 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 183 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5918 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X110 110 1 T 2459 194 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5925 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 184 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5926 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 193 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5933 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UK X/10 110 1 T 2459 185 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5934 Crestmont Avenue RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 192 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5941 Crestmont Avenue _ RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 -T 2459 186 6,300 8/24/64 2=G--- 5942 Crestmont Avenue ' RL-6 UM X/10 110 1 T 2459 191 6,300 8/24/64 2-G 5949 Crestnont Avenue RL-6 187 6,300 8124/64 2-G SAMPLE ZONING INDEX .4• aWL , �f`7 r t ^ y i I{���� 1�,�Ky`.C4yE� St • � � � � � IC9WY4FN{ I J(:n {R419YO41f 1_1t • � � I � o iY[.. a ,�� I I i t 9 ♦Y' �N F r _ co CD -71 \ weRa,[R { y su:rtaw[—��.sYj e.Us.rt�[r M i i y+M'F S I 4Q�/ R wt Y'.4FAiL9 it• MAT Da N + 4 •l04EllA I CT 1� {g . R4NiCOW EM. DX c[NrRt,_ Ln n to C7 € � � t M z a c SAMPLE ZONING MAP to I {