88-037 Final Report for AgreementA Management and Operations Analysis
of the Planning Division
CITY OF CUPERTINO,
CAL I FORN I A
November 14, 1988 Hughes, Heiss $ Associates
675 Mariners Island Boulevard
Suite 108
San Mateo, CA 94404
415) 570-6111
t
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Letter of Transmittal
I . PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION 1
II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS UTILIZED FOR
REVIEW OF CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS 9
III. ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERNS OF THE
PLANNING DIVISION 59
b
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Page Number
I . ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2
I I . AUTHORIZED BUDGET AND STAFFING
TRENDS 6
III .TIME REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION TO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS 10
IV.SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING CURRENT
PLANNING APPLICATIONS 14
V. CHECKLIST UTILIZED FOR CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL 16
VI. CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL/SITE
APPROVAL COMMITTEE 39
VII. CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 45
VIII. CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REVIEWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 50(a)
IX.1988-1989 MID AND LONG-RANGE WORK
PROGRAM 52
X. TENTATIVE MID AND LONG-RANGE 55
WORK PROGRAM
Xi . ALLOCATION OF TIME BY PROFESSIONAL
STAFF 62
XII .WORK DISTRIBUTION OF CLERICAL STAFF 70
HUGHES • HEISS & ASSOCIATES
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
675 Mariners Island Blvd. / Suite 108
San Mateo, California 94404 November 14, 1988
415/570-6111
Mr. Robert K. Quinlan
City Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Quinlan:
We have completed our analysis of the organization and operation of the
Planning Division of the City of Cupertino. The report which follows
contains detailed descriptions of our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. This letter provided a brief summary of the highlights of
the report.
The Planning Division is characterized by a number of positive
features. Representative of these features are the following:
The use of a "case manager" for each current planning application
enhances accountability in the timeliness and effectiveness in
processing those applications.
A written schedule has been developed for processing of current
applications from the time of receipt of the application to
approval by the City Council . The use of the schedule lets the
applicant know of the timing for processing of his/her
application and enables the Assistant Planning Director to
control the timing of work completed by subordinates.
A number of application instructions and handouts have been
prepared to provide information to applicants to increase the
likelihood of a "complete" application
The time required to process applications by the Planning
Division is prompt and responsive in comparison to a number of
other communities.
The Planning Division was found to be a consistently professional
operation delivering a high quality service.
A major focus of this report was a detailed evaluation of the operation
and services delivered by the Planning Division. Chapter II analyzes the
processes utilized for review of current planning applications. Principal
conclusions and recommendations contained in the chapter include the
following:
Procedures related to obtaining comments and conditions for
current planning applications should be revised. These revisions
include the development of a standard checklist for conditions of
approval , preparation of a preliminary staff report outline
identifying conditions of approval to be uti l ized for discussion
purposes by the Development Review Committee (B. U. R.P. S. ) , and
refocusing the Development Review Committee from one of
familiarizing the other departments with the application to one
in which feedback is promptly obtained by the Planning Division
regarding conditions of approval .
The planning framework -- the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
need to be streamlined and updated. More specifically, the
General Plan needs to be streamlined and the elements which have
been updated since 1979 need to be integrated within the plan.
The Zoning Ordinance needs to be codified and updated.
The process uti l ized for review of current planning applications
should be streamlined with limited approval authority delegated
to staff and to a Zoning Administrator. Other Cities, including
Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Mateo, and Walnut Creek,
which have -- by and large -- a similar quality consciousness as
Cupertino, utilize a Zoning Administrator. While the amount of
authority delegated varies for each of these cities, each has
delegated some authority to increase the efficiency of the
current planning process without reducing the control of
substantive applications by the Planning Commission and City
Council . There appear to be a number of reasons for the City of
Cupertino to consider streamlining the process and delegating
authority to staff and to a Zoning Administrator. These reasons
include the following:
The amount of time available on the part of the professional
staff of the Planning Division for long-range planning is
limited.
The Planning Commission and the City Council will be able
to allocate more time for long-range planning policy
issues.
The responsiveness of the process would be improved for
applicants.
ii-
Some of the current planning applications are of minor
impact and do not require the attention of the Planning
Commission and City Council .
Two alternatives are proposed for consideration: (1 ) delegating
limited architectural/ site approval authority to staff; and (2)
designating the Director of Community Development as the Zoning
Administrator. Limited decision-making authority should be
delegated to the Administrator to approve or disapprove minor
applications including the following:
Variances from interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Parcel maps.
Modifications of previously approved applications provided
that these modifications do not require alteration of any
conditions previously imposed by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council .
Annual review of use permits and extensions of these
permits.
A limited extent of use permits focusing only on those
which are categorically exempt from CEQA including parking
lots, operational changes in permits, establishing a use in
an existing building which does not require substantial
remodeling of the existing building, and additions to
existing buildings or construction of new buildings which
do not exceed 7,500 square feet.
Exceptions to the fence ordinance.
Conceptual development plan review in the R-3 Zone.
Delegation of this authority to the Zoning Administrator would
reduce the workload of the Planning Commission and the City
Council by approximately one-third.However, the Zoning
Administrator should operate under very specific guidelines and
parameters including the following:
The Administrator must follow the same public notice
requirements as required for the Planning Commission.
The applications must be approved in a public hearing in
the same manner as hearings held by the Planning
Commission.
At the hearing, the Administrator shall hear evidence for
and against each application, and shall make findings
iii-
as required by ordinance for granting or denying any
application. All decisions by the Administrator shall be
subject to appeal by the applicant or any interested party
to the Planning Commission within ten calendar days of the
decision by f i l i ng a written notice on a form provided by
the City Clerk to the City Clerk' s office.
The Planning Commission and the City Council shall be
provided with minutes of the meeting of the Zoning
Administrator.
The Planning Division should revise its mid long-range work
program. Staff resources for this work program need to be
allocated to resolution of higher priority issues within
the 1988-1989 work program. These issues include updating and
streamlining the General Plan, codifying and updating the Zoning
Ordinance, development of a design standard manual to serve as a
guideline for staff of the Planning Division, development and
maintenance of a long-range data base to enable monitoring and
calibration of a General Plan, and the like. In addition, it is
recommended that an additional 0.5 FTE Intern be allocated for
the long-range work program to perform much of the "grunt" work
associated with the program.
Fees charged by the City recover only one-quarter of its costs
for providing current planning services. This appears to result
from the lack of fees for certain services such as environmental
review, building permit plan review, and the like. Fees for
these services are commonly charged by surrounding cities.
Further, some of the fees the City does charge may not be
competitive. The net impact is revenue recovery of the City of
Cupertino for current planning services is approximately
one-third lower than revenue recovery for surrounding cities. To
resolve this issue, user fees charged by the City of Cupertino
for current planning applications should be compared to
surrounding cities to assess their competitiveness; the City
should consider adopting additional user fees as specified within
the report to reflect the pattern of surrounding communities; and
the City should consider utilizing both building inspection fees
as well as current planning fees to cover the cost of providing
both of these development review services. This approach is
suggested because it is unlikely the City will ever be able to
recoup all of its cost for providing current planning services.
Chapter III focuses on analysis of the staffing patterns of the
Planning Division and its records management system. Principal conclusions and
recommendations include the following:
The records management system of the Planning Division should be
revised to an address-based system. This system is currently
based on applicational numbers. This results in a very laborious
and difficult process to retrieve data from the files as
information regarding specific properties could be located in
a number of different files in a number of different locations.
Other cities utilize address-based systems; in fact, this is
the same system uti l ized by the Building Inspection Division
of the City of Cupertino.
iv-
Better use should be made of the extensive network of personal
computers within the Planning Division. These personal computers
as well as the mini-computer - should be utilized for a land
use data base ( like Novato) and for zoning mapping ( like Mountain
View) , and not used for word processing by professional staff.
Opportunities exist to improve the utilization of professional
staff. These opportunities include the following:
Establish a planning and scheduling system for processing
current applications to establish a process whereby
specific staff time and calendar date targets are set for
each application assigned to a "case manager" and
sufficient data is generated to assess the performance of
both individual "case managers" as well as the Planning
Division in comparison to those targets.
Install a dictation system to be used by professional staff
of the Planning Division.
The Intern should not be used as the "Planner of the Day".
The "Planner of the Day" serves as the primary public
contact for the entire day either at the counter or the
phone. Planners are seasoned professionals and should be
utilized for this function, not an Intern still attending
college.
Professional planning staff should batch their calls reduce
the amount of interruptions of staff while they are in
the process of preparing staff reports.
All responsibility for C. D. B.G. should be transferred to
the Housing and Services Coordinator.
The Assistant Director of Planning should be reclassified
to City Planner to denote his role as the Chief Planner of
the City. The Director of Planning/Community Development
should be reclassified to Director of Community
Development.
Opportunities exist for improving the efficient utilization of
clerical staff. These opportunities include the following:
The second receptionist position -- shared between the
Community Development Department and the Public Works
Department -- should be eliminated. This will require a
number of actions on the part of the City including
training of the receptionist stationed in the main lobby,
provision to the receptionist in the main lobby with the
Planner of the Day" schedule on a weekly basis, and
development of an alternative system for receiving the
public by the Public Works and Community Development
Departments.
v-
t
f
The work methods uti I ized by the clerical staff of the
Planning Division need to be stream I i ned. The PI ann i ng
Division has a very high ratio of clerical support to
professional staff . . . a ratio approaching one-to-one.
Most other Planning Divisions have a ratio of one clerical
employee for every four to f ive professionals. The high
level of clerical support within the Planning Division
results from a number of I abori ous and inefficient work
methods. A number of revisions in these work methods are
proposed within the report.Implementation of these
methods should enable the elimination of a clerical
position.
The clerical support staff of the Building Inspection
Division and the Planning Division should be consolidated.
We would like to highlight the excellence of the professional and
clerical staff of the Planning Division. In my career, I have rarely
encountered a group of staff as hardworking.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this
assignment. We look forward to presenting the report and discussing its
contents with the City Council .
Sincerely yours,
Iv
Gary Goelitz S, HE IS & ASSOCIATES
Associate
vi-
I. PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION
I. PROFILE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION
This chapter provides a profile of the Planning Division including the
following:
The organizational structure of the Planning Division as well as
the roles and responsibilities of staff within the Division.
Staffing and budgetary trends of the Planning Division over the
previous five years.
The workload encountered by the Planning Division over the past
five years.
These data provide the analytical framework for assessment of
opportunities for improving the operations and services of the Planning
Division.
1 . A TOTAL OF 8.5 PROFESSIONAL AND CLERICAL STAFF ARE ALLOCATED TO
PLANNING SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
The exhibit following this page presents the organizational structure
for the Community Development Department. Important points to note regarding
the structure are as follows:
This analysis focused on the 4.5 staff allocated to current and
long-range planning and the 4.0 staff allocated to clerical
support.
All of the professional staff allocated to current and long-range
planning, with the exception of the Intern, function as "case
managers". The "case manager" has total responsibility for pro-
cessing current applications ( i.e. , use permit, variance, tenta-
tive map, etc. ) . The "case manager" is responsible for meeting
with the applicant, checking the application to assure it meets
all applicable ordinances, writing the staff report and reso-
lution for the Planning Commission and City Council , conducting
the environmental assessment, identifying the conditions for
issurance of the permit, presenting the case to the Environ-
mental Review Committee, and the like.
1-
EXHIBIT I
City of Cupertino
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Community Development
Department (17.5)
Director of Planning/
Community Development
Community Current and Building
Development Clerical Long-Range Inspection (7)
Block Support (4) Planning (4.5)
Grant (1 .5)
Administrative Assistant Chief Bldg.
Housing Clerk ( 1 ) Dir, of Inspector (1 )
Services Senior Clerk Planning (1 ) Bldg.
Coordinator Typist (1 ) Associate Insp. II (3)
1 ) Clerk Planner (1 ) Electrical
Typists (2) Planner II (1 ) Inspector (1 )
Intern (0.5) Planner I (1 ) Secretary ( 1 )
Intern (0.5) Sr. Clerk
Typist (1 )
2-
The current and long-range planning staff also function as the
planner of the day", providing coverage of the counter and
phones on a rotating basis to answer questions developers have
regarding allowed uses, conceptual plan requirements, height and
set-back allowances, and the like. This "post" is covered nine
hours a day, Monday through Friday. At the time of the study,
this coverage was allocated as indicated in the table below:
Table 1
Coverage of the Front Counter by Position
Hours of Percentage
Coverage of
Classification Title Per Week Total
Intern 24 53%
Planner II 9 20
Associate Planner 5 11
Assistant Planning Director 4 9
Director of Community
Development 3 7
45 100%
As the table indicates, at the time of the study, the Intern
provided more than half of the coverage of this "post" on a weekly
basis. The total full-time equivalent staff required to provide
this coverage of this "post" equals 1 .2 staff years.
At the time of the study, a Planner I position was vacant. This
impacted the allocation of time by the professional staff.
However, the professional staff estimated their allocation for
time to be as follows:
The Assistant Director of Planning estimated he expended
60% of his time processing current applications as a case
manager; 20% of his time solving problems and dealing with
special issues such as providing interpretations of
ordinances for staff or the public; and 20% of his time
managing the processing of current applications by
subordinate staff and reviewing staff reports before their
submittal to the Planning Commission and City Council .
The Associate Planner estimated he expended 95% of his time
processing current applications as a case manager, and 5%
of his time managing the loans to non-profit housing
corporations for low/moderate income housing.
The Planner II estimated he expended one-half of his time
processing applications as a case manager; 35% of his time at
the counter or on the phone serving as the primary back-up to
the Intern; 15% of his time checking building permit plans
for zoning; and 10% of his time for staff report for the
Architectural/Site Approval Committee (ASAC) .
3-
The Intern estimated he expended 95% of his time at the
counter or on the phone as the primary public contact
person for the Division, and 5% of his time checking
building permit plans for proper zoning. At the time of
this study, the Intern was working 32 hours a week.
The four clerical support staff provide support services for the
Planning Division staff, the Community Development block grant
staff, and the Director of Planner/Community Development. These
four staff do not provide support services for Building
Inspection; the clerical staff allocated to that division
provides support. Of these four positions, three are full-time.
The fourth position is structured as follows: (1 ) half of the
position represents a full-time position shared between the
Public Works Department and the Community Development Department
and is assigned responsibility for answering phones; and (2) the
other half of the position is a part-time (0.5) FTE position.
The allocation of time by these four clerical staff was estimated
by these staff as follows:
The Administrative Clerk indicated she expended the
majority of her time on four tasks: typing staff reports
for the Planning Commission and City Council ; taking
applications at the counter; typing letters and memorandum
or the Director of Community Development; and filing.
The Senior Clerk Typist estimated she expended most of her
time on four tasks including typing staff reports for the
Planning Commission and City Council ; assembling packets
for the Planning Commission and ASAC; accepting
applications and handing out materials at the counter; and
filing.
The Clerk Typist estimated she expended most of her time on
three tasks: preparation and assembly of packets for the
Planning Commission and City Council ; preparation of exhibits
for staff reports; and preparation of notices of public
hearings for the public and for public agencies.
The part-time Clerk Typist estimated she expended the
majority of her time on four tasks including xeroxing,
tying of staff reports and correspondence, code
enforcement, clerical support; and assisting the other
clerical staff during peak workloads.
The Clerk Typist shared between the Public Works
Department and the Community Development Department
answers the phones for the Departments. While the position
will provide some counter coverage, it is done so only on a
limited basis. Primary counter coverage is provided by the
professional and technical staff of the two departments.
4-
As the data indicates on the preceding page, the majority of
staff resources allocated for current and long-range planning services
within the Community Development Department are dedicated to processing
of current applications either in the form of a case manager,
responding to questions at the counter or on the phone, typing staff
reports for the City Council or Planning Commission, and the like.
Little time was allocated towards long-range planning by the staff at
that time. This again, however, results to some extent from the
vacancy of the Planner I position.
2. STAFFING FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT INCREASED OVER THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, WHILE THE AUTHORIZED BUDGET HAS INCREASED BY 6% ANNUALLY.
The exhibit, which follows this page, presents the staffing and
expenditure trends for the Planning Division since fiscal year 1984-1985.
Conclusions developed from this data are presented below:
Staffing for the Division has remained unchanged over the last
five years. The Division has the same number and mix of staff
currently as in 1984-1985.
The authorized budget for the Division has increased by a total
of 23.5% over the five years since 1984-1985 or approximately 6%
annually. This results primarily from increases in expenditures
for salaries and benefits.
As the table below indicates, there were increases and
expenditures for all programs within the Planning Division with
the exception of the long-range planning program.
Table 2
Increase in Authorized Budget for
the Planning Division by Program
Percent
Increase/
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 (Decrease)
ASAC 850 $ 910 $ 785 $ 965 $ 1 ,100 +29.4%
Administration 59,535 57,115 64,490 96,975 95,485 60.4
Current 213,110 235,825 286,295 329,245 335,020 57.2
Long-Range 116,405 100,340 79,175 70,745 49,930 (57.1 )
Total 389,900 $394,190 $430,930 $497,930 $481 ,535 23.5%
5-
EXHIBIT II (1 )
City of Cupertino
AUTHORIZED BUDGET AND
STAFFING TRENDS
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Percent
Salaries Full- $240,965 $262,625 $268,865 $298,850 $325,130 34.93%
Time
Wages Part-Time 7,600 8,000 6,760 7,300 6,000 -21 .05
Management Comp. 4,735 4,805 3,635 3,280 0 -100.00
Overtime 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 0.00
Retirement Sys. 46,985 34,115 43,715 48,195 46,985 0.00
Group Health
Insurance 29,290 31 ,115 $31 ,545 36,455 36,865 25.86
Sub-Total 334,575 $345,660 $360,520 $397,080 $419,980 25.53%
Materials & 2,425 $ 3,275 $5,360 $6,230 6,280 158.97%
Supplies
Maps, Blueprints,
and Supplies 1 ,500 1 ,800 1 ,800 1 ,800 1 ,800 20.00
Postage 575 500 2,025 2,025 2,630 357.39
Printing and
Duplicating 15,130 9,525 13,525 13,125 11 ,425 -24.49
Telephone Serv. 4,565 7,230 5,940 5,940 3,600 -21 .14
Confernce and
Meeting Exp. 4,020 4,225 4,370 4,785 5,065 26.00
Membership and
Dues 525 600 635 660 1 ,090 107.62
Maintenance of
Equipment 1 ,935 2,600 2,420 2,425 2,420 25.06
Prof. Services 14,500 11 ,500 24,600 56,000 10,330 -28.76
Special Depart-
mental Exp. 5,500 3,325 0 0 0 -100.00
Training 250 250 500 500 2,250 800.00
Vehicle Reimb. 1 ,000 1 ,000 1 ,000 1 ,040 1 ,040 4.00
Mileage Reimb. 2,400 2,300 2,300 1 ,970 1 ,970 -17.92
Sub-Total 54,325 $48,130 $64,475 $94,500 $49,900 -8.15%
Fixed Asset
Acquisition 1 ,000 400 $5,750 $ 4,350 $11 ,655 1065.50%
Sub-Total 1 ,000 400 $5,750 $ 4,350 $11 ,655 1065.50%
ACTIVITY TOTAL $389,900 $394,190 $430,745 $497,930 $481 ,535 23.50%
Percentage Increase 0.00% 1 .10% 9.27% 15.60% -3.29% -
6-
EXHIBIT II (2)
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89
Director of Planning/
Community Development 1 1 1 1 1
Assistant Planning
Director 1 1 1 1 1
Associate Planner 1 1 1 1 1
Planner I/II 2 2 2 2 2
Intern 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Administrative Clerk 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Clerk Typist 1 1 1 1 1
Clerk Typist 2 2 2 2 2
Total 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
7-
The long-range planning program decreased to the same extent that
the current planning program increased.
As the preceding data indicates, staffing levels have not increased
since 1984-85 while the authorized budget for the Planning Division reflects
cost-of- living increases.
3. WORKLOAD HAS FLUCTUATED WIDELY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
The table below presents the workload trends for the Planning Divi-
sion since calendar year 1983.
Table 3
Workload Trends for the Planning Division
Type of Application 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Use Permit 42 31 59 39 55
Tentative Map 21 15 30 21 27
Rezoning Application 14 10 28 9 10
General Plan
Amendment 2 2 1 1 2
Variance 2 2 3 3 4
Total 81 60 121 73 98
Conclusions developed from the table are presented below:
The total number of applications processed by the Division have
varied widely over this five-year period from a low of 60 in 1984
to a high of 111 in 1985.
The greatest proportion of applications processed by the Planning
Division consist of use permits and tentative maps. These two
types of applications comprise 83% of the total applications in
1987.
The high proportion of use permits processed by the Division
reflects the use of the planned development within the commercial
general zone. The use of this approach has increased the number of
use permits and decreased the number of rezoning applications
in comparison to the experience of the Division ten years ago.
While the number of applications processed in 1987 is higher than
three of the four preceding years, there is no clear consistent
trend in the direction workload is taking for the Planning
Division.
8-
The complexity of processing each case, however, has increased due to
changes in development ordinances and regulations ( i .e. , use of Planning
Division zone) .
The next chapter will present an analysis of the process utilized by
the Planning Division for review of current applications.
8a-
II . ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS UTILIZED FOR REVIEW OF
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS UTILIZED FOR REVIEW OF
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
This chapter presents an analysis of the process utilized to review
current applications. The analysis focuses on the following issues:
The time required to process current planning applications by the
Planning Division.
The process utilized to process current planning applications and
its relative efficiency.
The adequacy of the framework utilized by staff to review the
current planning applications including the zoning ordinance,
specific plans, general plan, and the like.
The focus of this evaluation is not only to identify methods of
reducing staff time required during the process applications, but also steps
that appear to be needed to improve the planning framework available to
guide staff in reviewing its applications.
1 . THE PLANNING DIVISION PROCESS REVIEWS APPLICATIONS PROMPTLY.
Exhibit Ill, which follows this page, presents the time required by the
Planning Division to process a number of different applications. These
applications include use permits, tentative maps, rezoning, as well as ASAC
applications. Key conclusions drawn from the exhibit are as follows:
The processing time for 19 use permit applications was
documented. This represents approximately one-third of the
number of use permits processed by the Planning Division in 1987.
The time required to process these applications by the Planning
Division was 64.2 calendar days or nine weeks with a range from a
low of 27 days to a high of 126 days.
The time required to process 13 tentative maps was documented.
This represents approximately half of the number of tentative
maps processed by the Planning Division in 1987. The average
number of calendar days required to process these 13 tentative
maps was 42.5 calendar days or six weeks with a range from a
low of 26 days to a high of 53 days.
9-
EXHIBIT III
City of Cupetino
TIME REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION TO PROCESS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Calendar Dates Calendar
Submittal ERC ASAC PC CC Days
Use permit Renovation of existing bank. 7-09 7-09 7-28 8-04 27
Use permit Operation of a church. 7-03 8-25 8-25(c) 9-15 75
Use permit Convert sales area to snack shop area. 7-25 9-03 9-22 10-06 74
Use permit Operate a tanning salon In a
shopping center. 7-31 9-08 9-15 47
Use permit Operate a parking lot (36 stalls). 8-01 9-03 8-25 9-22(c) 10-06 46
Use permit Operate a sit-down restaurant.9-11 10-08 10-13 10-27 47
Use permit Convert existing service station
Into a gas station and convenience 9-17 12-3(c) 1-12 1-20 126
market.
Use permit Operate a 149-roam, 3-story hotel
O with 46-seat restaurant, outdoor
I pool, and enclosed spa. 10-6 11-19 11-24(c) 12-11 12-15 71
Use permit Operate a public library In a school. 10-24 11-5 12-8(c) 46
Use permit Operate an office within an existing
building In a PD zone.10-1 12-8(c) 69
Use permit Operate a new one-story 41290
retell center and expand commercial
use of the existing center. 12-1 12-17 1-12 1-20 51
Tentative Map Mixed use office/retail center
30,000) and consolidate seven
parcels into three parcels. 1-22 2-24 34
Tentative Map Two-story office/retail center and
combine three parcels Into one. 2-4 3-10 35
Tentative Map Subdivide three parcels Into one
for the 149-room, 3-story hotel. 2-6 3-10(c) 35
EXHIBIT III (2)
Calendar Dates Calendar
Submittal ERC ASAC PC CC Days
Tentative Map Consolidate three parcels Into two. 2-21 4-14 5-19(a) 53
Tentative Map Consolidate two lots. 2-24 4-10 46
Tentative Map Consolidate two lots. 3-27 4-22 27
Tentative Map Subdivide 11.3 acres Into nine
parcels.4-22 6-9 6-16 49
Tentative Map Combine four parcels Into two
parcels.6-03 7-14 42
Tentative Map Spilt one-half acre Into two
parcels. 10-29 12-11 44
Tentative Map Divide one lot into four lots.9-18 10-13 26
Tentative Map Merge lot lines. 9-09 10-13 35
Tentative Map Subdivide property Into three
parcels.6-30 8-11 43
I Use permit Construct and operate a 10,000
square foot office building. 3-03 3-05 3-14 4-14 4-21 50
I
Use permit Operate a delicatessen.4-15 5-12 5-19 35
Use permit Operate a pizza restaurant. 3-21 5-12 5-19 60
Use permit Remodel nursery enclosing 2,400
square feet 4-09 4-28 7-14 7-21 104
Use permit Operate a yogurt retail store.4-30 6-09 6-16 48
Use permit Temporary use permit to operate a
smog test facility. 4-29 6-23 8-4(a) 98
Use permit Operate a 75-seat restaurant. 5-5 7-14(post) 7-21 78
Use permit Enclose existing cocktail terrace
roan with flat roof and awning. 5-01 6-23(c) 7-07 68
EXHIBIT III (3)
Calendar Dates Calendar
Submittal ERC ASAC PC CC Days
Rezone Rezone from R-1 to P. 2-04 2-05 3-10 4-7 77
4-21
Rezone Rezone from P (CG) to P 7-2 7-9 9-08 10-6 118
10-27
Rezone Rezone from RI-10 and RI-t0 AG to
R1-7.5. 7-2 7-9 8-25(c) 10-6(c) 118
Rezone 7-25 9-8 10-6 95
10-27
ASAC Remodel an existing entry facia and
enclosed 2,400 square feet of existing
nursery.4-03 4-28 25
ASAC Logo on a wall. 4-02 4-14 12
I ASAC Signage package.4-03 4-14 11
N ASAC Building sign/trash enclosure.3-06 3-24 4.07 18
1
ASAC Site and architectural approach
for single family residence. 1-27 2-10 14
ASAC Additional building slgnage. 2-10 3-10 3-17(a) 28
ASAC Modification to existing sign
program.8-10 8-24 14
ASAC Monument sign for an existing
service station. 12-17 1-13 27
ASAC Addendum to existing sign for
auto dealership.1-6 1-27 21
ASAC Exterior deck addition to existing
single family residence. 1-07 1-27 22
ASAC Monument sign for an office building.1-15 1027 12
A total of four rezoning applications were reviewed and the time
required to process these applications documented.This
represents approximately 40% of the rezoning applications '
processed by the Planning Division in 1987. The average time
required to process these applications was 102 calendar days
or 14.6 weeks with a range from a low of 77 calendar days to
a high of 118 calendar days.
A total of 11 ASAC applications were reviewed and the time required
to process these applications documented. The average number of
calendar days required to process these applications was 18, or
2.6 weeks with a range from a low of 11 calendar days to a high
of 28 calendar days.
The time required by the P anning Division to process these current
applications is prompt, particularly in comparison to other cities. This
results from a number of techniques utilized by the Planning Division to
effectively and promptly process applications without reducing the quality
of the review. These techniques include the following:
The use of a case manager for each application. The Assistant
Planning Director assigns development applications to a specific
professional within the Division ranging from a Planner I to the
Assistant Director himself.The case manager is totally
responsible for processing the application, including preparing
the environmental assessment, checking the application to assure
it is complete and adheres to the zoning ordinance and general
plan, preparing the staff report, and the like. The use of a
case manager concept by the Planning Division is a progressive
technique designed to assure that the Assistant Director can hold
the staff accountable for the quantity as well as the quality of
their work.
A schedule has been developed for processing current applications.
Exhibit IV, which follows this page, presents the current
schedule utilized by the Planning Division for processing current
applications from pre-application meetings to presentation of the
application to the City Council . The use of this written
schedule has two benefits. First, it lets the applicant know of
the timing for processing his/her application. Providing this
information to the applicant is more Likely to increase their
satisfaction with the services provided by the Division. Secondly,
it enables the Assistant Planning Director to actively control
the application process by setting a schedule in which the case
manager must process the applications.
The use of application instructions and handouts. The Planning
Division has developed a number of handouts and instruction
13-
EXHIBIT IV
City of Cupertino
SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING
CURRENT PL AN!N I NG
APPLICATIONS
CITY OFCUPERTINO
JULY/AUGUST/SFPTFMBFR APPLICATIO-N SCHEDULE
CHECK
OFF STEP DESCRIPTION JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER NOTES
1 PRE-APPUCATION MEETINGS
Planning Mark Caughey
Budding Joe Antonucci
Public Works Bruce Donoghue
Cupertino Sanitary District Bill McBee
Central Fire District Ted Gaub
S.C.Valley Water District Bill Carlson
2 APPLICATION DEADUNE 6/29/88 7/27/88 8/31/88
3 PREPARE TENTATIVE AGENDA 7/1/88 7/29/88 9/2/88
4 ASSIGN CASE MANAGER 7/5/88 8/1/88 9/6/88 Your case
manager is:
5 PREPARE ENV.WORKSHEET 7/6/88 8/2/88 9/7/88 .
6 PREPARE LEGAL NOTICE 7/7/88 8/3/88 9/8/88
7 REFERRAL TO AGENCIES 7/8/88 8/5/88 9/9/88
8 ENVIRON. REVIEW COMMITTEE 7/13/88 8/10/88 9/14/88
9 SEND OUT 300 FOOT UST 7/19/88 8/22/88 9/20/88
10 LEGAL NOTICE TO PAPER 7/22/88 8/23/88 9/23/88
11 ARCHITECTURAL&SITE COMM. 7/25/88 8/29/88 9/26/88
12 PREPARE FINAL AGENDA 7/26/88 8/30/88 9/27/88
13 LEGAL PUBUCATION DATE 7/27/88 8/31/88 9/28/88
14 PLANNING COMMISSION 8/8/88 9/12/88 10/10/88
15 REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL 8/9/88 9/13/88 10/11/88
16 CITY COUNCIL
Use Permit,Tent. Map,Variance 8/15/88 9/19/88 10/17/88
Zoning Application
1st reading 9/6/88 10/3/88 11/7/88
2nd reading 9/19/88 10/17/88 11/21/88
Environ. challenge period 10/19/88 11/16/88 12/21/88
17 USE PERMIT EXPIRATION 8/15/90 9/19/90 10/17/90
18 TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRATION 8/15/91 9/19/91 10/17/91
JAS APP DATES(RD4)
J
14-
guides for development applicants. The use of these instructions
assures that applicants have a better understanding of the
requirements of the Planning Division as well as assuring that
the staff of the Division spend less time referring incomplete
applications back to the applicant.
These techniques, as well as a number of other techniques that have been
developed by the Planning Division, have resulted in the prompt processing
time noted above.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (B.U.R.P.S.) SHOULD BE UTILIZED TO
DEFINE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
The City has establ ished a Development Review Committee (BURPS) . This
committee is utilized by the Planning Division to obtain input on current
planning applications from the Central Fire Protection District, Building
Inspection Division, and Public Works Department. However, one of the
problems defined by almost all professional staff of the Planning Division
was the difficulty in obtaining feedback from these other departments
regarding conditions of approval for applications. The professional staff
indicated that in many instances, these other departments had to be coaxed to
obtain their input, sometimes on the same day the staff report was to be
distributed to the Planning Commission.
To resolve this problem, two steps should be taken. First, a standard
checklist for conditions of approval should be utilized by the Division for
distribution to the departments. This checklist would include those
conditions most frequently utilized by these departments. An example of a
checkl ist utilized by the City of Sunnyvale follows this page. This should
facilitate input from operating departments regarding conditions of approval .
The second step is to refocus the Development Review Committee from one of
15-
4U4, CITY OF SUNNYVALE
V y _
1,
1'```` Flls
Project Review Committee
Date
Due
TO: Building Division Parks& Rec. Hetch-Hetchy PT&T 0 Mt View
Engineering/Traffic 0 City Attorney 0 Cal-Water County 0 Other.
Crime Prevention 0 Mgmt Serv. SCVWD 0 Cupertino
Fire Prevention 0 Library PG&E 0 Santa Clara
Name & Address of Applicant
Location of Use:
Purpose:
Fire Prevention Division
Comply with the Sunnyvale Fire prevention Code(MC- Provide approved fire extinguishers(minimum size 2A.
Ord 2017-81;Title 19 of Calif.Admin.Code Sec.1.12(1); 10BC) in accordance with the Sunnyvale Fire Pre-
UFC 1979 Edition).vention Code (MC 16.52.040).
Provide a fully automatic fire sprinkler system through- Obtain required permits from the Sunnyvale Fire Pre
out the structures(s) (MC 16.52.140; NFPA Standard vention Bureau (MC16.52.060; UFC 79.221).
13, 1978 Edition).
Remove all underground flammable liquids, storage
Provide approved( )wet( )combination standpipes tanks and associated piping in an approved manner
MC 16.52.160). under permit from the Sunnyvale Prevention Bureau
Provide an approved range hood protection system MC 16.52.020; UFC 79.221).
MC 16.52.180). Prior to occupancy of the trailer(s) the applicant shall
Provide approved on site Rich ( )#74 ( )#75 or obtain clearance from the Fire Prevention Division.
equivalent hydrant(s) (MC 16.52.020; UFC 10.301). Comply with the Sunnyvale Fire Prevention Code
which may entail one or more of the following:2A-10BCThewatersupplyforfireprotectionandfirefightingratedfireextinguisher, illuminated exit signs, emer-
shall be approved by the Department of Public Safety gency interior lighting and panic door hardware(pushMC-16.52.020; UFC 10.301(c)).bars).
Fire access drives and on-site fire protection systems Provide panic hardware on all exit doors from theshallbeinstalledandoperationalpriortoanycom- Section 3316(a) UBC).
bustible construction on the site(MC 16.52.020; UFC
10 301(d)). Provide illuminated exit signs and emergency lighting
in accordance with Sunnyvale Municipal Code (Sec-Fire access drives shall have a minimum width of 24 tion 16.52.210 MC).
feet inside turn radius on all corners (MC 16.52.110;
UFC 10.207).Provide approved key box(es) (Knox Box system) and
locate in accordance with Fire Prevention Division
Post approved signs at the entry way to all fire access requirements.
drives. Paint all non-parking curb areas traffic red(MC
16.52.110(f)3; UFC 10.27).Other.
Install a California State Fire Marshall Approved fire
alarm system on the premises (MC 16.52.130; UFC
10.307).
Install approved smoke detectors in accordance with
the Sunnyvale Smoke Detector Ordinance (MC
16.52.235).
General Comments
Date:
BY
16-
EXHIBIT V
CITY OF SUNNYVALE City of Cupertino
CHECKLIST FOR CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL
8 Flle
Project Review Committee
Date
Due
TO: Building Division 0 Parks& Rec. 0 Hetch-Hetchy 0 PT&T 0 Mt View
0 Engineering/Traffic 0 City Attorney 0 Cal-Water 0 County 0 Other.
0 Crime Prevention 0 Mgmt Serv. 0 SCVWD Cupertino
Fire Prevention 0 Library 0 PG&E 0 Santa Clara
Name & Address of Applicant
Location of Use:
Purpose: _
Building Safety Division
Comply with all requirements of the Building Division State on plans actual use, classification of building,
Codes(MC Title 16).Submit detailed plans for approval type of construction, allowable and actual areas per-
and complete necessary alterations to conform to mitted as per Chapter Five(5) of the Uniform Building
adopted regulations. Code.
Plans submitted shall bear stamps of approval by the Provide a soils report prepared by a licensed soils
State of California relative to energy conservation laboratory(Resolution 193-76).The report shall address
California Administrative Code, Title 24). slope stabilization ( )soil percolation capacity
Obtain ( )Building ( )Electrical ( )Mechanical pavement design for driveways and areas used by
Grading ( )Paving Permits as required (MCS heavy trucks.
16.12.010). Provide grease traps or obtain approval of an alternative
Obtain a Demolition Permit to remove all existing
oil disposal system from the Building Division (Sec.
buildings, structures and debris from premises except 711, Uniform Plumbing Code, 1979 Edition, adopted
as specifically allowed, prior to commencement of 12/23/80).
construction (MCS 16.12.010). Prior to occupancy of the trailer(s) the applicant shall
Obtain an inspection permit for structures to be moved obtain Electrical Permits from the Building Safety
into or within the City(MCS 16.36.020).
Divisions(MCS 16.12.010). All electrical connections
to the trailer(s) shall be placed in a conduit on the
Comply with handicap regulations as directed by the ground or underground.
State of California Mobility and Communication Barriers
Section.Other.
All buildings shall be insulated or otherwise protected
by noise suppressing materials so as to provide for
interior noise levels in compliance with State Title 25
guidelines.
All on-site or ground or landscape lighting shall be
controlled separately from the building circuitry(Article
210, National Electrical Code, 1981 Edition, adopted
12/3/80).
Comply with swimming pool and bodies of water
enclosure regulations (MCS 15.44).
General Comments
Date:
By.
17—
4131e
s M, CITY OF SUNNYVALE
ir Flle
Project Review Committee
Date
Due
TO: 0 Building Division 0 Parks& Rec. Hetch-Hetchy PT&T Mt View
Engineering/Traffic 0 City Attorney 0 Cal-Water 0 County 0 Other.
Crime Prevention 0 Mgmt Serv. 0 SCVWD 0 Cupertino
O Fire Prevention 0 Library 0 PG&E 0 Santa Clara
Name & Address of Applicant
Location of Use:
Purpose:
Public Works And Traffic Division
Obtain approval of and record a Parcel Map prior to( )occupancy per MCS 19.24.030. The Developer shall deposit with the Director of Finance( (required fees for Utility con-
Obtain approval of a tentative map and record a finalnection&off-site improvement&inspections( la cash deposit or acceptable securitytractmap( )parcel map The
instrument,guaranteeing maintenance of all utilities and landscaping by the yet to betentativemapshalllocateandprovideforpublicstreetdrainage,utilities(including tneir
created non-profit corporation as specified in the Conditions.Covenants and Restrictions.undergrounding), fire protection. street lighting and street tree& with all apropnate
easements including such special easements as may be needed to assure proper access to Developer shall pay all 1915 Bond Act assessments poor to map recordation.
individual parcels by persona and utility lines(Subdivision Map Act MCS 18.08 and MCS
18.20). Comply with insurance requirements( (prior to commencing work in the public right-of-
way )Prior to action on Final Ma0.
Obtain an encroachment permit from I (State of California Santa Clara County( (Santa
Clara Valley Water District I Apply tor an assessment split or payoff 1915 Bond Act assessments prior to approval of
Final or Parcel Map.
Maintain a 40 foot clear sight triangle at the intersection of MCS 19.44.040).
D_ Dedicate private streets as emergency vehicle ingress-egress easements.
Curbs,gutter&sidewalks,streets,utilities,traffic control signs,electroliers(underground
wiring)shall be designed constructed and/or installed in accordance with City standard& 0_ Dedicate easement at
Plans shall be be approved by the Department of Public Works.
D_ Obtain a quitclaim deed for
Obtain a Street Cut Permit for proposed changes to existing sidewalk&dnveways,and/or
curb approaches and connections to City utilities(MCS 13.04.030). D_ Apply for and Obtain abandonment of street easement at
Replace unused driveway approaches with standard curb,gutters and sidewalk(MCS D_ Apply for and obtain abondonment of easement at
13.04.110).
Connect to all City utilities or private utilities operating under a City franchise which provide D_ Relinquish access toadequatelevelsofservice.
Obtain Public Works approval of plans for utility lin&.extensions,utility connections,meter
D__ Install chain link fence at
locations,driveways,sidewalks,etc- D__ Construct curb,gutter and sidewalks along present alignment of
The on-site drainage and sanitary sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained 0__ Contribute towards cost of( (new( )modified traffic signal at asThetireanddomesticwatersystemsshallbeprivatelyownedandmaintainedbeyondthe
determined by the Director of Public Works.meter.
Individual water services and meters shall be provided to each 1 (building( (lot.D_ Provide acceleration and deceleration lanes at
Install an approved backflow prevention device on the customers side of the meter. Cr_ Construct a bus turn-out of a design and location approved by the Director of Public Works.
Provide the Public Works Department with a detailed estimate of( )water consumption 0_ Provide separate water meters for domestic and irrigation systems.
in gallons per day( land peak water demand in gallons per minute.
shall be dedicated in accordance with( (Official Plan Line
A public utility easement shall be indicated on the final tract map for the maintenance,re- standard street widths.( )Approval of detailed Street improvements plans Shall be
pair and replacement of all public utilities on the common lot The easement snail exclude obtained from the Department of Public Works and bonds posted prior to issuance Of a
areas designated for structures or swimming pools.Building Permit. Install improvements 1 (prior to occupancy ( )at Such time as
Construct all public improvements prior to occupancy.
required by the Directdr of Public Works.( (Make cash payment to City for estimated
cost of improvements in lieu of bonding and construction.
Complete annexation to City prior to action on final/parcel map.
D_.. Dedicate _ channel to.the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Install an approved backflow prevention device on the discharge side of the( (irrigation,
I (domestic,1 (fire service meters- D Dedicate I (storm drain I )sanitary sewer( (water main easements.( (Install
these facilities per Department of Public Works requirements.
Installation of the water system shall conform to City standards and shall be part of the City
or franchised utility)system up to the master water meter serving the protect.The water Cl_ Provide street electrolierl3)( (street signs on
system shall be privately owned and maintained beyond the meter. as required.The I (street lighting system I (traffic signs shall conform to City design.
specifications and construction standards.
Existing and proposed on-site and street frontage electrical,telephone and cab,TV
services shall be placed underground or removed prior-to Occupancy(MCS 19.46.06b. 0_- Obtain a Development Permit from the Department of Public Works for all proposed otf-
ProProperty shall be annexed to theofSunnyvaleLAFCO street improvements(MCS 12.08.010).
p yCity yv policy November1967,
page 19(
D OtherPost( (labor/material bond( (faithful performance bond for the full cost of all off-site
public improvements(MCS 12.08.020).
Developer shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement and post bonds for all off-site work prior
to action on Final Map.
General Comments
Date:
18—By:
C.-
4. CITY OF SUNNYVALE
kf•4.
IP File
Project Review Committee
Date
Du.
TO: Building Division 0 Parks& Rec. 0 Hetch-Hetchy • 0 PT&T 0 Mt View
0 Engineering/Traffic 0 City Attorney 0 Cal-Water 0 County 0 Other.
0 Crime Prevention 0 Mgmt Serv. 0 SCVWD 0 Cupertino
0 Fire Prevention Library 0 PG&E 0 Santa Clara
Name & Address of Applicant
Location of Use:
Purpose:
Crime Prevention:
Other City Divisions:
Outside Agencies:
Other Jurisdictions:
General Comments:
Date:
BY19-
familiarizing the other departments with the application to one in which
feedback is obtained by the Division regarding conditions of approval .
Currently, the Development Review Committee meets monthly. This schedule
should be increased to meeting once every two weeks. In addition, the
responsibilities of the Development Review Committee need to be clearly
spelled out, perhaps within the Zoning Ordinance. A potential definition of
the responsibilities of the Development Review Committee is presented below.
Purpose:The purpose of the review of current planning
applications by the Development Review Committee are to:
Familiarize department representatives with proposed
projects and provide an opportunity for exchange of views
on project characteristics that are of mutual concern.
Enable the Director of Community Development to discuss
project impacts with representatives of other departments
prior to preparation of staff reports for the Planning
Commission and City Council .
Allow Departmental representatives to discuss potentially
significant impacts, the nature of mitigation measures and
conditions of approval , and the need for background
studies.
Development Review Committee: A Development Review Committee is
hereby established. The Development Review Committee shall be
composed of the following persons or their representatives:
The Director of Community Development, who shall act as
Chair.
The Public Works Director/City Engineer.
The Chief Building Inspector.
The Fire Marshal of the Central Fire Protection District.
The Development Review Committee may include the representatives
of other city departments or other public agencies, at the
invitation of the Chair or any other member of the Development
Review Committee. Meetings of the Development Review Committee
shall be scheduled during business hours at the time and place
convenient to the Committee. Attendance by the applicant and
authorized agent is encouraged but not required.
Duties of the Development Review Committee: At the Development
Review Committee meeting, the Director of Community Development
shall describe the requirements of the review process.
Department represen- tatives shall :
20-
State concerns based on a preliminary review of project
plans and materials.
Ask questions of the Director to clarify their understanding
of the project.
Discuss the preliminary determinations of the Director,
including potentially significant impacts, the nature of
any mitigation measures and conditions of approval , and any
background studies that may be required. Within five
working days of the meeting, all Development Review
Committee members shall transmit written preliminary
conditions of approval on the project to the Planning
Director. The Planning Director shall distribute the plans
for the project no less than three working days prior to
the meeting.
Initially, a representative of the City Manager' s office should
participate in these meetings to assure prompt response by operating
departments to requests for conditions of approval .
3. THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK -- THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE --
NEED TO BE STREAMLINED AND UPDATED.
The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance represent policies adopted by
the City Council to guide the staff of the Planning Division in reviewing
current planning applications to assure these applications meet the vision
the of the community' s future. These documents are designed to serve as the
basis of daily as well as long-range decisions that will influence the
physical development of the community and the quality of the urban
environment that its residents might enjoy. In many ways, these two
documents are the beginning of a decision-making process with regard to the
physical nature of the community. However, the documents utilized by the
City of Cupertino are cumbersome to administer, and result in a less
efficient process. For example, staff frequently have to seek the guidance
and interpretation of the Assistant Planning Director in. determining the
intent of the particular ordinances within the Zoning Ordinance. A number of
actions are recommended to deal with this problem area. These actions are
defined within the sections which follow.
21-
1 ) The General Plan Should Be Streamlined, And The Elements Which
Have Been Updated Since Its Original Development Integrated
Within The Plan.
The General Plan of the City of Cupertino was adopted by the City
in July 1979. Since then, a number of elements have been revised
either in a minor or major fashion. These revisions include the
following:
In 1983, the land use/community character element and the housing
element were revised.
In 1984, the housing element was again revised.
In 1985, the demographics portion of the housing element was
revised.
In 1987, the residential design guidelines within the land
use/community character element were revised.
While the General Plan has been updated since its original
adoption in 1979, none of these updates have been integrated within
the General Plan. Thus, if a member of the Planning Division needs to
utilize the General Plan to guide a decision, the staff must refer to
several documents besides the General Plan.
The General Plan also includes an extensive level of unnecessary
detail not normally included within a General Plan. These consist
primarily of design guidelines, which is normally adopted by City
Councils as a separate document. Examples of unnecessary detail
included within the City's General Plan include the following:
Within the land use/community character element, the General Plan
indicates that trees planted adjacent to a major street shall be a
minimum of 15-gallon container size; shrubs shall be a minimum of
five-gallon container initial size.
The public health and safety element includes the ISO rating
schedule for fire services.
22-
The public health and safety element includes a page providing a
comparison between earthquake magnitude and the earthquake
effects due to ground shaking. It also includes descriptions of
how the Richter Magnitude and the Modified Mercali Intensity
Scale work.
This level of detail has resulted in a document too lengthy to be
utilized on a day-to-day basis to guide short and long-term decisions.
A number of actions are recommended to resolve this issue: (1 ) design
guidelines within the General Plan should be pulled out of that
document and integrated within a separate design guideline document
adopted by the City Council ; (2) those elements of the General Plan
which have been updated should be integrated within the Plan so that
the Plan is a unified and updated document; and (3) the General Plan
should be placed within a three-ring binder to enable easier updating
of the document. The updating of the General Plan should be part of
the mid and long-range work program of the Planning Division within its
1989/1990 budget.
An "editorial rewrite" of the General Plan is underway. However,
only two of the seven elements are being revised at present.
2) The Zoning Ordinance Needs To Be Codified And Updated.
The City of Cupertino does not have a Zoning Ordinance. Rather, it
has a collection of approximately 35 ordinances which have been
assembled into one binder. While the Planning Division has been
attempting to codify the Zoning Ordinance, this effort has not yet been
completed and is, in fact, "in limbo". There are a number of problems
with this collection of ordinances:
The lack of a codified Zoning Ordinance has resulted in a
lengthy, unw i el dl y document. Definitions, for example, are
scattered through the 35 ordinances rather than in a single
section as would be the case with a codified ordinance. This
makes it difficult for the staff of the Planning Division to
utilize the Zoning Ordinance as a reference document for making
decisions on a day-to-day basis.
23-
The historical landmarks resolution (#414) had a one-year sunset
clause, which resulted in this resolution expiring in April
1977.
There are a number of ordinances which are both complicated and
difficult to administer including the home occupation ordinance
321 ) and the Height (#220-G) . For example, the height
ordinance contains confusing and lengthy regulations regarding
television and radio aerials.
An ordinance regarding easements (#1375) does not belong within a
Zoning Ordinance.
There are a number of ordinances which are not included which
should be included within the Zoning Ordinance including the fence
ordinance (#686) , the trailer ordinance (#1345) and the sign
ordinance.
There is outdated information within the ordinances which have
been assembled ranging from minor items ( i. e. , the minimum lot
size of a property in the zoning map as required by the a zone is
not indicated) to major problems ( i.e. , the performance standards
in the ML zone are based on studies from the 1950's to early
1960's) .
Ordinances conflict with each other in a number of instances.
For example, the ordinance governing OP and MP zones (#002-X)
has a number of regulations governing off-street parking which
conflict with the regulations established by the parking
ordinance (#1277) .
it is clear that not only does the collection of 35 ordinances
need to be codified into a single zoning ordinance for ease of
administration and use by staff, but also efforts are needed to
clarify and streamline the ordinance.
These two documents -- the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
are designed to serve as guides to the staff of the Planning
Division to quality control current planning applications for the
coordinated and harmonious development of the City, in accordance with
its present and future needs. Problems with these documents, however,
present serious roadblocks to their utilization by staff and result in
a number of inefficiencies.
24-
4. THE PROCESS UTILIZED FOR REVIEW OF CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS SHOULD
BE STREAMLINED WITH LIMITED APPROVAL AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO A ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.
In analyzing the process utilized for reviewing current planning
applications, effort was focused on opportunities to reduce staff time
required to process these applications without reducing the quality of the
review. The analytical steps involved in this process included: (1 )
documenting the process utilized by the City to review current applications
including the review of the Division' s Operations Manual , General Plan, and
the Zoning Ordinance; and (2) a review of the process utilized by other
cities to review current planning applications to identify alternative
approaches to both simplifying as well as upgrading the effectiveness of
management process. The sections which follow present our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
1 ) A Number Of Other Cities Utilize A Zoning Administrator For
Review And Approval Of Current Planning Applications.
To gain a sense of how other cities approach the current
planning process, five other Bay Area cities were contacted. These
five cities included Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Mateo,
and Walnut Creek. These cities have -- by and large -- a similar
quality consciousness as Cupertino. In contacting these cities, a
number of data were gathered including:
The development philosophy of the City.
The budget and staff authorized for the planning function.
The current planning workload (e.g. , number of use permits,
etc. ) .
The process utilized by the City for review of applications for
use permits, variances, etc.
25-
The information gathered from these contacts were utilized to
compare and contrast the process utilized of the City of Cupertino,
focusing in particular on the process utilized for review of
applications for use permits, variances, etc.
The City Of Palo Alto Authorizes A Zoning Administrator To Grant
Variance, Use Permit, And Parcel Map Applications. The City of
Palo Alto is largely built-out, with much of its development
actively focusing on in-fill and remodeling. The Planning
Division processes approximately 170 permits a year as the table
below indicates.
Table 4
Current Planning Workload of the
City of Palo Alto
Type of Permit Number of Total
Zone Change 30 17.9%
Use 70 41 .7
Variance 45 26.8
Major Subdivision 3 1 .8
Minor Subdivision 20 11 .8
Total 168 100.0%
As the table demonstrates, the major portion of this workload
consists of use permits, variances, and zone charges. The
Planning Division is authorized a staff of 14.25 FTE and an
annual budget of $1 .054 million. The allocation of the staff by
function is presented below.
Table 5
Allocation of Staff by Function
Section Number of Staff % of Total
Administration 3.50 24.6%
Housing 1 .00 7.0
Current Planning 6.50 45.6
Long-Range Planning 3.25 22.8
Total 14.25 100.0%
26-
The City has an active long-range work program as the following
examples indicate:
A downtown study completed in 1986 to address increasing
parking and traffic problems in the downtown core and
adjacent residential areas.
City-wide land use and transportation study was started in
1986 and will be completed this year including EIR and
General Plan and zone charges.
The Zoning Ordinance was revised in 1988 as it regards
multiple-family dwellings.
Major revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance were
recently completed.
A downtown urban design plan and foothills design
guidelines were recently prepared.
The process utilized by the City for review of applications for
use permits, variances, etc. , is one which has delegated res-
ponsibility for review and approval of some permits to a
Zoning Administrator. The head of the Current Planning Section
serves as the Zoning Administrator. The Administrator is
authorized to grant applications for variances, conditional use
permits, and parcel maps subject to the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Administrator must:
Conduct a pub l is hearing to hear evidence for and against
these types of applications.
Within ten days of the hearing, make findings and render a
decision on the application including conditions for
issuance of the permit.
Issue a monthly report to the City Manager, Planning
Commission, and City Council of the action taken in all
applications.
Appeals may be made of the Administrator' s decision to the
Planning Commission and to the City Council if filed within 10
days after the mailing of the notice of the decision by the
Administrator. The appeal must state the grounds for the appeal ,
and there is a fee of $100.
The City does not have an Environmental Review Committee, but
does have an Architectural Review Board.
27-
The City of Sunnyvale authorizes the Director of Community
Development to grant Minor Use Permits, Minor Special Development
Permits and various other minor applications. The City of
Sunnyvale is also largely built-out, with much of the development
activity focusing on in-fill and remodeling. The Planning
Division processes approximately 260 permits a year as the table
below indicates.
Table 6
Current Planning Workload of the City of Sunnyvale
Type of Permit Number of Total
Minor 140 53.9%
Major 95 36.5
Rezone and General Plan
Amendment 25 9.6
Total 260 100.0
As the table indicates, the greatest portion of the workload
consists of minor permits ( i.e. , use permits which are
categorically exempt, variances, etc. ) . The Planning Division is
authorized a staff of 10 FTE and an annual budget of $740,000.
The allocation of this staff by function is presented in the table
below:
Table 7
Allocation of Staff by Function
for the City of Sunnyvale
Section Number of Staff of Total
Administration 4 40.0%
Current Planning 4 40.0
Long-Range 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0%
The City has recently developed a specific plan for its downtown
and is currently developing plans for rezoning land to resi-
dential to cope with the Job/housing balance.
The process utilized by the City for review of use permits,
variances, etc. , is one which has partially delegated
responsibility for review and approval to the Director of
Community Development. The Director is authorized to grant
miscellaneous plan" applications, with or without conditions,
including landscaping/irrigation plans, exterior area lighting
plans, exterior colors, parking lot configurations and paving
28-
standards/materials, adoption of or modifications to master sign
programs, etc. These approvals do not require a public hearing.
The Director also is authorized to grant applications for minor
use permits and variances. A "minor use permit" is defined as
those uses which post no significant land use consequences,
including those uses determined to be categorically exempt. The
Director must conduct a public hearing to hear evidence for and
against the application.
Appeals may be made of the Director' s decision to the Planning
Commission and the City Council if filed within 15 days after
the decision by the Director. The appeal must state the
grounds; there is no fee for the appeal .
The City does not have an Architectural Review Board nor an
Environmental Review Commission.
The City has developed a process to assure the City Council is
not surprised by "politically sensitive" decisions made by the
Director regarding minor use permits and variances. This process
advance notice of appeal -- may be exercised by a majority
vote of the Council when the Council makes a determination that
the action of the Director or the Planning Commission poses a
special potential for land use consequences affecting the public
safety or welfare or the objectives of the General Plan.
The following types of land use permits are automatically
referred to Council (after a hearing by the Planning Commission) :
Any new industrial development preparing a floor area ratio
of over 40% .
Any new residential development proposing construction of
over 50 units.
Any new commercial development proposing a floor area of
over 50,000 square feet.
Any new hotel or hotel development.
Any new mixed use which includes a residential use.
Any category B bingo games.
The advance appeal by Council suspends any previous action by the
Director or the Planning Commission pending a final determination
of the appeal . The City Council , while involved in the develop-
ment review process more so than the Council of Palo Alto,
focuses primarily on the large-scale development applications.
29-
The City of Mountain View Authorizes the Zoning Administrator to
Grant a Broad Range of Development Applications. The City of
Mountain View is largely built-out; only 4% of the total area
with the City is undeveloped. Development is largely in-fill and
remodeling. The Planning Division processes approximately 280
permits a year.
The Planning Department is authorized a staff of 22 FTE and an
annual budget of $2.8 million. The allocation of this staff by
function is presented in Table 8 below:
Table 8
Allocation of Staff and Budget by Function
for the City of Mountain View
Authorized % of Number of
Function Budget Total of Staff Total
Administration 339,754 12.1% 5.5 25.0%
Advanced Planning 442,009 15.8 5.0 22.7
Current Planning 291 ,994 10.4 4.0 18.2
Housing 293,212 10.4 3.0 13.6
CDBG 747,275 26.6 1 .0 4.5
Economic Development 280,303 10.0 1 .5 6.8
Downtown Revitalization 411 ,675 14.7 2.0 9.2
Total 2,806,222 7775T 22.0 100.0%
As the table indicates, the Department provides a much broader
range of services than is the case with Cupertino. The staffing
for Current and Advanced Planning amounts to 9.0 and the budget
to $734,003.
The City has an extensive long-range planning program with 21
specific plans. It is currently updating its General Plan,
developing standards for R-1 ( in-fill and redevelopment of
existing neighborhoods) , and developing a specific plan for the
North Bayshore area.
The process utilized by the City of Mountain View for the current
planning application process has delegated broad authority to a
Zoning Administrator. The Administrator is empowered to hear and
decide the following matters:
Variance applications.
Conditional use permit applications.
Applications for site plan and architectural approval .
30-
Applications for planned unit developments.
Applications for interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
The Zoning Administrator must hold a public hearing to hear
evidence for or against the application.
Appeals may be made of the Administrator' s decision to the City
Council if filed in writing within ten days after the decision.
The fee for the appeal is the same as the original application
fee with a not-to-exceed cost of $250.
The City does have an architectural review board, but not an
Environmental Review Commission. The Planning Commission is not
involved in review and approval of development applications.
Rather, its role is focused on policy decisions regarding
long-range planning.
The City of San Mateo uti l izes a Zoning Administrator to grant a
limited range of development applications. The City of San
Mateo, like the cities of Pa l o Alto, Mountain View, and
Sunnyvale, is largely built-out with development focusing on
in-fill and remodeling. The Planning Division processes
approximately 140 applications a year, but these applications may
consist of multiple permits ( i. e. , a rezoning application as well
as a tentative map) . The Division is authorized a staff of 14
full-time equivalent staff and an annual budget of approximately
990,000. The allocation of the staff by function is presented
below:
Table 9
Allocation of Staff by Function
for the City of San Mateo
Percentage of
Function Authorized Staff Total
Advanced Planning 4 29%
Current Planning 5.5 36
Administration 4.5 32
Total 14.0 100
The City currently has an extensive long-range planning program
including rewriting its General Plan utilizing internal staff
and developing a specific plan for Hillsdale Meadows.
The process utilized by the City of San Mateo for review of its
current planning applications has delegated authority on a
limited basis to a Zoning Administrator. The Administrator is
empowered to hear and decide the following types of applications,
provided that the applications are categorically exempt from the
State CEQA guidelines:
31-
Site plan and architectural review, variances, and site
development permits for additions to existing structures
provided that the additions will not result in an increase
of more than 10,000 square feet.
Non-high rise sign permits that exceed the sign area
limitations by no more than 25% of the maximum square
footage permitted and sign permits that vary from the
locational standard, if the Building Official recommends
approval of the permit.
Site development permits for removal of major vegetation
required for the construction of single-family or duplex
dwel l i ngs.
Variances to allow set-back reduction, floor area increase
and parking reduction for single-family or duplex
dwellings.
Site plan and architetural review, variances, and site
development permits for minor site improvements including,
but not limited to, parking lots, landscaping, recreational
facilities, accessory structures, and temporary uses.
Site plan and architectural review for fences when located
within the required front yard or within 35 feet of street
intersection line.
Temporary use permits.
Modifications of previously approved planning applications
involving minor site improvements provided that the modi-
fications will not require modification of any condition
previously imposed by the Planning Commission and/or City
Council .
The Zoning Ordinance also indicates that if the Zoning
Administrator finds that any planning application involves an
unresolved City policy issue or that there is public controversy
regarding the application, the Administrator may refer the
application to the Development Review Board.
Appeal may be made of the Administrator' s decision to the
Development Review Board. An appeal must be filed in writing
within ten days after the decision. There is not a fee for the
appeal ; however, the applicant is charged for actual staff costs
for processing the appeal .
32-
As was the case with the City of Sunnyvale, the Council can
appeal decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. However, the
decision to appeal does not require a majority approval by the
City Council . Rather, such appeals can be made by an individual
Council member. No fees were required when a Council member
requested a review of an application.
The City had neither an Environmental Review Commission, nor
Architectural Review Board.
The City of Walnut Creek authorizes the Zoning Administrator to
grant minor use permits as wel I as variances. The City of
Walnut Creek is largely built-out, with much of its development
actively focused on in-fill and remodeling. The Planning Divi-
sion is authorized a staff of ten positions and an annual budget
of $611 ,650. Of these ten staff, 6.5 are allocated for current
planning, while 3.5 are allocated for long-range planning. The
City has an active long-range work program and is currently in
the process of updating its General Plan and updating its
Zoning Ordinance.
The process utilized by the City for review of current planning
applications is one which has delegated responsibility for
review and approval of some permits to a Zoning Administrator.
The head of the Current Planning Division serves as the Zoning
Administrator.The Administrator is authorized to grant
applications for variances, and minor use permits. Minor use
permits are defined as those uses which are similar or
compatible to other uses within the same zoning district, as
well as permits for fence heights, large family day care
applications, second dwelling units ( in- law) , and the like.
The City does have a Design Review Committee, but not an
Environmental Review Committee.
These five cities indicated a number of common reasons for utilizing a
Zoning Administrator. These include the following:
It reduced the workload of the Planning Commission and City
Council and allowed these decision-making bodies to focus on
longer-range policy decisions regarding the community.
It reduced the current planning workload of the Planning Division
staff and, as a consequence, increased the efficiency with
which current planning applications are processed.
33-
It increased the amount of time available for staff to
perform long-range planning for the community.
It reduced the amount of time for applicants to obtain a decision
on their application.
The cities indicated that use of a Zoning Administrator increased the
efficiency of the current planning process, without reducing the
quality of review. However, each of the cities pointed out the
necessity of developing clear design criteria for processing
applications which have been approved by the City Council . Such
criteria are critical to provide guidance to the Zoning Administrator.
These criteria are designed to assure that Council is able to maintain
clear policy direction for processing of development applications.
Equally as well , many of these cities developed appeal processes to
enable Council to appeal decisions made by the Zoning Administrator to
the Council level primarily for those applications which had a high
public concern or controversy.
2) There Appear To Be A Number Of Reasons For The City Of Cupertino
To Consider Streamlining Of The Process For Reviewing Current
Planning Applications.
While there are a number of motivators for the City to consider
streamlining the current planning process, the primary motivator is
that it will enable the staff of the Planning Division, as well as the
Planning Commission, to allocate more time to long-range planning and
improve the quality of the urban environment that the City's residents
might enjoy. The advantages of streamlining the process are presented
below.
It would increase the amount of time available on the part of
professional staff of the Planning Division for long-range
planning.The table on the following page presents the
allocation of time of the professional staff of the Planning
Division for mid and long-range planning activities from July 8,
1987 to March 15, 1988. This period of time represents 70% of
fiscal year 1987-1988.
34-
Table 10
Allocation of Time Per Week for Mid and
Long-Range Planning:
July 8, 1987 to March 15, 1988
Mid-Range General Plan
Planning General Plan Implementation
Weekly Weekly Weekly
Position Hours % Hours % Hours %
Assistant Planning
Director 2.56 6.8% 4.94 13.2% 0.00 0.0%
Associate Planner 3.78 10.4 0.88 2.4 2.08 5.8
Planner II 1 .50 4.8 0.00 0.0 0.01 0.4
Planner II 85 2.4 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.2
Total 8.69 6.2% 5.90 4.2% 2.17 1.5%
Important points to note in the data are as follows:
A total of 8.69 hours per week were allocated to mid-range
planning activities by the staff or 6.2% of the total
available work time. Mid-range planning activities were
special studies of an ad-hoc nature made by the City
Manager and/or City Council such as the Post Office
Committee, Flood Ordinance revision, housing program RFP' s,
the apartment vacancy study, and the like. These ad-hoc
assignments do not represent long-range planning
activities.
An average of 5.9 hours per week or 4.2% of the available
time was allocated to General Plan activities. This is
long-range planning. The bulk of this time, however, was
allocated by the Assistant Planning Director on the
revision of residential design guidelines for the Zoning
Ordinance. Little time was allocated to long-range planning
by the Associate Planner or the Planner II ' s.
A total of 2.17 hours were allocated per week to General
Plan implementation or a total of 1 .5% of the available
work time. The bulk of this time was allocated by the
Associate Planner and represents efforts to update and
develop the mineral resources element.
Overall , a total of eight hours per week were allocated to
long-range planning activities by the staff of the Planning
Division during this time period. During this time period, the
major long-range planning activities involved updating the
residential design guidelines for the Zoning Ordinance as well
35-
as updationg the mineral resources element. The allocation of
this amount of time - eight hours per week for the entire
Division -- will not enable the Division to update and streamline
the planning framework -- the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
as noted in previous sections.
The Planning Commission will be able to allocate time for
long-range planning policy issues.It is not unusual for
site-specific zoning and subdivision activities to overshadow the
long-range planning process. One consequence is that Planning
Commissions frequently are unable to fulfill their long-range
planning advisory role, focusing rather on the more visible site
specific zoning and subdivision decisions. A review of Planning
Commission agendas for a three-month period indicates that this
is the case in the City of Cupertino. Streamlining the current
planning application process, however, would enable the
commission to allocate more of its effort to long-range planning
policy issues without surrendering its important responsibility
for quality controlling substantive current planning
applications.
The responsiveness of the process would be improved for
applicants. Streamlining of the process through delegation of
limited decision-making authority to staff and/or Zoning
Administrator would remove minor applications from the agenda
of the Planning Commission. This would enable minor applications
to be approved more promptly as they would not need to be
agendized for the Planning Commission.
Some of the current planning applications are of minor impact and
do not require the attention of the Planning Commission. A
review of the agenda for the Planning Commission, Architectural/
Site Approval Commission and City Council indicates that there
are a number of applications which have a minor impact on the
community and do not appear to require the attention of these
policy-making bodies.
These reasons, as well as a number of others, would indicate that
the delegation of limited decision-making authority regarding current
planning applications would enable the City to make a number of
improvements.
3) Limited Decision-Making Authority For Granting Current Planning
Applications Should Be Delegated To Staff And A Zoning
Administrator.
In April , 1988, the Director of Community Development presented a
staff report to the City Council regarding streamlining of the
development review process. The report indicated the primary objective
36-
of the effort was to determine thresholds by which applications can be
approved by staff, Architectural/Site Approval Committee, Planning
Commission, and City Council . The thresholds would be related to the
degree of new construction activity and change of use. The goal was to
determine a "comfort level " for Council Commission and ASAC relative
to the delegation of review authority. The report contained two
recommendations: (1 ) current practices not contained within ordinances
should be formalized within existing ordinances; (2) modifications
should be made on the levels of review of land use and construction
applications terminating some of these reviews at the Architectural/
Site Approval Committee and/or the Planning Commission. The report
recommended that significant new construction and major use changes
would continue to be approved by the City Council . The C1ty Council
would also have the opportunity to review other cases on appeal .
Planning Commission minutes could be forwarded to Council during the
appeal period to give Council members an opportunity to appeal . The
report concluded that hearings should be be scheduled to consider
amendments to the subject ordinances to incorporate current streamlining
practices and new practices that were outlined within the agenda item.
The City should consider streamlining of the current planning
process. As noted in the previous sections, it is a common practice to
utilize a Zoning Administrator even in cities with high levels of
community concern and scrutiny, high levels of development activity,
extensive advanced planning programs, and design review as part of the
planning process. In addition to a Zoning Administrator, the City
should consider delegating limited architectural/site approval
authority to staff. These alternatives and their workload impact are
more fully explored in the following sections.
37-
A limited amount of the decision-making authority of the
Architectural/Site Approval Committee should be delegated to
staff of the Planning Division. Enabling legislation for the
Architectural/Site Approval Committee was adopted by the Council
in September, 1970. The Committee is authorized to review
architectural and site design, landscaping, lighting and signs in
zones where such review is required in conformance with the
zoning or other pertinent ordinances of the City of Cupertino or
were required by condition to a use permit or a variance. The
enabling legislation delegates no authority to staff for any
architectural and site approval decisions. However, the sign
ordinance does enable staff to approve signs as long as those
signs conform with master sign programs already adopted by the
Architectural and Site Approval Committee. The number of cases
reviewed by ASAC has grown significantly over the last four years
from 66 in 1984 to 153 in 1987 or more than a doubling of the
workload.
The exhibit on the following page presents the current planning
applications reviewed by the Architectural/Site Approval
Committee for a period of three months from May 23 to August 8,
1988. During that three-month period, the Committee reviewed 49
applications. The table below presents a summary of the
distribution of these applications by type.
Table 11
Distribution of Applications Reviewed by
ASAC for a Three-Month Period
Type of Application Number Percent
New construction/major 10 20.4%
New construction/minor 3 6.1
Modifications to existing
buildings/commercial 7 14.3
Modifications to existing
buildings/residential 2 4.1
Exception from Urgency Ordinance 6 12.2
Signs 13 26.5
Color palette 2 4.1
Modifications to previously
approved plans 1 2.0
Removal of vegetation 1 2.0
Landscape plans 4 8.3
49 100.0%
Important points to note regarding the data contained in the
table are presented on page 43:
38-
EXHIBIT VI (1)
City of Cupertino
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS REVIEWED
BY THE ARCHITECTURAL/SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE
On ASAC
Meeting Application Consent Decision ASAC
Date Number Applicant Description of Applicant Calendar Final Decision
August 8 17-U-88 R. Scott Construct a 2,600 s.f. retail/office No No informal;
building.no decision
51,802.1 Bob's Big Boy Architectural modifications to existing No No Approved
restaurant building.
51,805.1 M. Otani Second story addition for a single family No No Approved
home.
4-0-82 De Anza Grouting for exterior walls for two exist-No No Approved
Ing office buildings.
1 51,807.1 Wells Fargo Bank Architectural and landscape modifications to No No Approved
LA existing bank building.40
1
13-EXC-88 Parkside Lane Ltd. Exception from the provision of the No Yes Approved
urgency ordinance.
23-U-87 8 Bryon/Watkins & Final landscape plans for two new commer- No No Approved
40-U-87 J. Jish cial/office/residential buildings.
July 25 8-U-88 J. Beilomo Complete exterior improvements to existing No No Informal;
8,600 s.f. building; demolish existing no decision
6,500 s.f. commercial center; and con-
struct 29,000 s.f. retail/office
building.
21-U-88 Marlani Construct 688 apartment unit complex. No No Informal;
no decision
24-0-88 YMCA Alio ,hosed expansion of existing private No No Informal;
cc ilty recreation center. no dec:sion
22-U-88 Deice Hunter 1,301. s.f. addition to existing single story No No Informal;
office building,no decision
EXHIBIT VI (2)
On ASAC
Meeting Application Consent Decision ASAC
Date Number Applicant Description of Applicant Calendar Final Decision
July 25 12-EXC-88 P. Pushipher Exception to second story setback of No Yes Approved
Urgency Ordinance.
51,800.1 Apple Exception from sign ordinance to allow No Yes Approved
ground sign.
51,803.1 Apple Amendment to sign program for an existing No Yes Continued
office/commercial center to allow after dis-
second ground sign. cussion
51,804.1 Apple Exception from sign ordinance to allow No Yes Approved
ground sign.
2-U-87 Church of Jesus Landscaping plan for existing church. No No Informal
Christ of Latter review; no
Day Saints decision
July 11 51,791.1 Tandem Approval of two ground signs for office Yes Yes Approved
building.
1
A 51,799.1 Westfield Approval of amended signpppg program for Yes Yes Approved
1 Vallco Fashion Park.
51,797.1 De Anza Amendment to existing sign program to Yes Yes Approved
expand allowable color palette and
approve a tenant sign.
51,798.1 Stoneson Removal and replacement of ash trees. Yes Yes Approved
33-U-87 Bethel Lutheran Approval of siting/architecture for No No Approved
Church storage shed.
51,796.1 M. Weber Monument ground sign for existing No Yes Approved
building.
8-EXC-88 Itzhak Exception to setback and for under No Yes Approved
Urgency Ordinance to permit construc-
tion of second story addition.
51,795.1 Cupertino National Directional sign for bank parking lot. No Yes Approved
Bank
51,794.1 BAS Homes Add canvas signage awnings to e+:isting No No Approved
building.
EXHIBIT VI (3)
On ASAC
Meeting Application Consent Decision ASAC
Date Number Applicant Description of Applicant Calendar Final Decision
July 11 40-U-87 J. Sisk Awning and color selection for office No Yes Approved
building.
June 27 16-U-88 E. Call Construct 5,500 s.f. one story office No No informal
building.review; no
decision
17-U-88 R. Scott Construct a 2,600 s.f. office/warehouse No No informal
building.review; no
decision
19-U-88 Klnst 6 Company Demolish existing dwelling and replace with No No informal
four unit residential townhouse, review; no
decision
20-11-88 6 Prometheus Dev. Construct a 130 unit three and four story No No Informal
4-2-88 residential complex. review; no
decision
1
A 51,712.12 R. Fratarcangeli Modification to previously approved plans No No Approved
for addition to duplex.1
51,775.1 M. Bedri Approval of a sign program for existing No Yes Approved
commercial building.
9-EXC-88 H. Jackson Exception to Urgency Ordinance to permit No Yes Approved
second story for single family dwelling
with reductions In setback.
10-EXC-88 T. Brown Exception to Urgency Ordinance for a single No Yes Approved
family home with reductions in setbacks.
51,778.1 De Anza Properties New ground sign for previously approved No Yes Approved
retail/office center.
51,792.1 Orthopedic and Second sign for an existing building. No Yes Approved
Sports Therapy
49-0-87 A. Tsang Landscape plan for office/retail No Yes Informal
building,review; no
decision
51,789.1 C. Gabriel Materials and color palette for new No Yes Informal
single family home within PD zone, review; no
decision .
EXHIBIT VI (4)
On ASAC
Meeting Application Consent Decision ASAC
Date Number Applicant Description of Applicant Calendar Final Decision
33-U-87 Bethel Lutheran Site, architecture and landscaping for No Yes Informal
Church storage building. review; no
decision
5-U-88 Cal Worthington Final lighting and landscaping plan. No Yes Informal
review; no
decision
June 13 51,788.1 J. Murphy Single story addition to existing duplex. Yes No Approved
7-EXC-88 F. Reinell Exception to Urgency Ordinance to permit No No Approved
reduced front yard setback requirements.
51,790.1 H. Hoover Architectural and site modifications to No No Approved
1I
existing industrial building.
N
1 May 23 13-U-88 Tandem Construct eight story office building. No No informal
review; no
decision
9-U-88 T. Brown Construct two single family dwellings. No No Informal
review; no
decision
10-U-88 T. Brown/J. Construct a 2,600 s.f. office/commercial/ No No Informal
Hemphill residential addition to existing office review; no
building.decision
12-U-88 A. Gunther Expand existing restaurant. No No Informal
review; no
decision
51,782.1 Measurex Development plan for 40,000 s.f. expan- No No Approved
sion to existing industrial office
complex.
51,786.1 H. Khev Modification to existing sign program to No Yes Approved
allow second tenant wall sign at
Bellinger Plaza Shopping Center
The greatest proportion of applications reviewed by the
Committee were signs, which represented over a quarter of
the applications.
New construction, either of a minor or major nature,
represented another quarter of the applications.
The third most numerous type of applications considered by
the Committee were modifications to existing buildings,
either commercial or residential . These types of
applications represented 18% of the total applications
considered by the Committee during this three-month period.
All together, these three types of applications -- signs, new
construction, and modifications to existing buildings --
represented approximately 70% of the total applications
considered by the Committee during this three-month period.
Most other cities contacted during this study allow staff to
approve some limited amount of architectural and site approval
applications. For example, the City of Sunnyvale empowers the
Director of Community Development to approve the design of those
projects, structures, and other activities determined to pose no
significant land use consequences, including those activities
determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA, as long as
these applications conform with design criteria contained within
the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is empowered to appeal
those applications approved by the Director. The City of San
Ramon empowers its staff to approve the design of appurtenances
and accessory improvements, additions or repairs to detached
single-family residences, additions or repairs to any existing
improvement of the exterior thereon is not to be altered, and
individual signs conforming to a master sign plan.
The authority currently vested in the Architectural/Site Approval
Committee should not be delegated to staff, however, until design
guidelines have been developed and adopted by the Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council . Once the guidelines
have been adopted, consideration should be given to delegating to
staff authority for approval of minor architectural/site approval
for the following types of applications:
Landscape plans.
Minor amendments to previously approved plans if the
changes requested are minor, do not involve substantial
alterations or additions to the originally approved plan
or the conditions of approval , and are consistent with the
intent of the original approval .
43-
Signs which conform to the guidelines of the sign
ordinance.
Appurtenances and accessory improvements, and additions and
repairs to detached single-family residences.
Additions or repairs to any existing improvement to the
exterior thereon is not to be altered.
Applications for removal of vegetation.
Lighting plans.
The delegation of these types of architectural/site approval
authorities to the staff of the Planning Division would reduce
the workload of the Architectural/Site Approval Committee by
approximately 30% .
Limited decision-making authority should be delegated to a Zoning
Administrator. The exhibit, which follows this page, presents
the current planning applications reviewed by the Planning
Commission for a three-month period from April 11 to June 27 , 1 988.
The table below summarizes the distribution of these applications
by type.
Table 12
Distribution of Applications Reviewed by
the Planning Commission for
a Three-Month Period
Type of Application Number Percentage
New industrial construction/major 1 3.1%
New residential construction 3 9.5
New office construction/major 2 6.2
Parcel maps 3 9.5
Major modification of use permit 2 6.2%
Minor modification of use permit 4 12.4
Modifications of zoning ordinance 3 9.5
Operation of a restaurant 2 6.2
Minor modification to existing
building/commercial 2 6.2
Minor modification to existing
building/residential 1 3.1
Setback variance 1 3.1
New office construction/minor 3 9.5
Parking lot (630 spaces) 1 3.1
Hazmat Plan 1 3.1
Capital Improvement Plan (widening
of two streets) 1 3.1
Fence encroachment 1 3.1
General Plan Amendment 1 3.1
32 100.0%
44-
EXHIBIT VII (3)
Planning
Meeting Application Environmental Staff Commission Planning Commission
Date Number Description of Application Determination Recommendation Decision Decision Final?
April 25 5-11-88 Modifying use permit for auto deal- Negative Approve Approve No
ership to allow expansion.
81,004.18 (R1); Amendment of residential zoning No action Continue for Continued to No
81,004.121 ordinance. taken at this one month to May 23
A, Al); time allow redraft-
81,004.8 (RHS) ing of ordin-
ances after
public hearing
April 11 2.2-88, 3-TM-88 Rezoning to smaller lot size and Negative Approve Aprove Yes
subdivide Into two parcels.
2-11-88 Construct a 5,100 s.f. second Exempt Approval Approve YesA
l71 story addition to an existing
church.
1-0-88 Remodel 2,600 s.f. building to Negative Continue to Continued No
permit office/retail activities. 4-25. Direct
applicant to
meet with
adjoining pro-
perty owners
for cost
sharing.
5-EXC-88 Permit various fence encroach- Exempt Approval Approved No
ments into side yard and front
yard.
36-11-86 Amend use permit to delete 110 Negative Continue to Denied No
unit apartment complex and allow devel-
add 51 units of senior citizen oper
housing.
2-GPA-88 Amend GP to allow Increase of Not appl I- Request to GP Amendment No
residential dwellings in City cable consider GPA not required
Center. consistent
with GP amend-
ment policy
EXHIBIT VII (2)
Planning
Meeting Application Environmental Staff Commission Planning Commission
Date Number Description of Application Determination Recommendation Decision Decision Final?
May 31 81,003.618 5-year CIP to widen Stevens Creek Negative Approve nega- Approve No
Boulevard 6 Northwest corner of tive
Stelling Road/Route 280.
May 24 42-U-87 Add a kitchen to existing church. Not appli- Approve Approve Yes
cable
1-CDPRR3-88 8 Construct a triplex. Exempt Denial Denied No
3-V-88
3-1i-88 6 Modify use permit 6 construct Negative Approve Approve No
7-U-88 a 40,000 s.f. industrial
building.
81,004.18 (R1); Amendment of residential zoning Negative Approve Continued to No
81,004.121 (A, ordinances. May 31
Al); 81,004.8
RHS)
Cis
1-14-88 Minor amendment of use permit Not appli- Approve Approve Yes
including relocation of home 6 cable
architectural drawings.
May 9 5-TM-88 Consolidate four parcels into Exempt Approve Approve Yes
one parcel.
1-V-87 Reduce required second story Exempt Denial Denied No
setback.
6-U-88 Operate a bakery with 10 seats.Exempt Approve Approve No
45-U-87 Remodel existing 2,700 s.f. Negative Approval Approval No
restaurants to Include drive
p service window.
April 25 3-0-87 Minor amendment to use permit to Exempt Approve Approve Yes
allow architectural modifica-
tions.
3-U-88 Refine master use permit including Negative Approve Approve Yes
transfer of dev. credit, establish
parking allocations among build-
ings, establishing street and open
space/landscaping standards, etc.
EXHIBIT VII (I)
City of Cupertino
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Application PlanningDateNumberEnvironmentalStaffCommission Planning CommissionDescriptionofApplicationDeterminationRecommendationDecisionDecisionFinal?June 27 8-TM-88 & Subdivide one Into two parcels and Negative A3-Z-88 rezone. pprove Continue as No
a result of
hearing.
1-CDPR3-88 & Construct & triplex and allow a Exempt3-V-88 smaller setback.
P Approve Approve No
June 16 13-U-88 Construct an 8-story office Negative
building (300,000 s.f.).g Approve Approve No
9-U-B8 &
v 9-
U-
888
Construct two & expand two rest- Exempt Approve Approve Yesdentialunitsdsubdividefour1lots.
10-U-88 Construct a 2,600 s.f. office/ Negative Approve Approvecommercial/residential addition. No
11-U-88 Operate a 92-seat restaurant.Negative Approve Approve No12-U-88 Add 900 s.f. to existing cocktail Negative Approve A rovelounge/restaurant of 5,500 s.f. pp No
June 13 14-11-88 Construct d operate a temporaryPy Negative Approve Approve Yes630-space parking lot.
13-U-88 Construct d operate an 8-story Negative
office building (300,000 s.f.).
g Continue for Conceptual No
two reeks approval; con-
tinue to June
16
80,002.44 Request for comment on county Not appll- Approve plan Approved Nohazmatplan & siting map, cable as consistent
with GP
May 31 81,004.18(R1); Amendment of residential zoning Negative Approve Approve81,004.121 (Am); ordinances No
81,004.8 (RHS)
28-U-88 Minor modification of use permit Not appli- Approve Approve(6-foot roof parapet extentlon). cable Yes
Important points to note about the table are as follows:
New construction, either industrial , residential , or
office, represent 28% of the applications reviewed by the
Commission.
Modifications of use permits, either minor or major,
represented almost 19% of the applications reviewed by the
Commission.
Parcel maps represented almost 10% of the applications.
Modifications of the residential zoning ordinance
represented almost 10% of the applications reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Minor modifications to existing buildings represented 9% of
the applications considered by the Commission.
These five types of applications represented three-quarters of the
total applications considered by the Planning Commission during
this three-month period. During this three-month period, the
Planning Commission met eight times or twice more than would have
normally been expected to occur. One of these two extra meetings
resulted from significant number of appl ications on the Planning
Commission agenda; the second extra meeting resulted from a
meeting scheduled to consider the amendment of residential zoning
ordinances.
A limited amount of authority should be delegated to a Zoning
Administrator when design guidelines are developed and approved
by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council . There are a number of
alternatives for the extent of authority to be delegated to the
Zoning Administrator which could be considered by the City
Council . These alternatives include the following:
Delegation of broad authority to a Zoning Administrator as
is the case in the City of Mountain View. Within the City
of Mountain View, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to
decide a broad range of applications including variances,
conditional use permits, site plan and architectural
approval , plan unit developments, and the I ike.
Delegation of more limited authority for approving current
planning applications, but with this authority defined very
generally. This is the approach utilized by the City of
Sunnyvale.For example, the Director of Community
Development is empowered to approve those applications
which are determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Zoning ordinance provides general guidelines for the
Director in approving these permits including conformity
with the General Plan and applicable zoning, surrounding
land uses and structures, the likelihood of development
consistent with existing land use, and the data sub-
mitted by the applicant.
48-
The other alternative is to delegate limited authority to
the Zoning Administrator with very specific and
quantitative guidelines for those authorities. This is the
approach which the City of San Mateo has utilized. For
example, it has delegated authority to the Zoning
Administrator to make such decisions as site plan and
architectural review, variances, and site development
permits for additions to existing structures provided that
te additions will not result in an increase of more than
i ,000 square feet.
The extent of authority and the manner in which the authority is
delegated to a Zoning Administrator depends upon the "comfort
level " of the City Council . Given the level of public scrutiny
and discussion of current planning applications within Cupertino,
the approach utilized by Mountain View does not appear
appropriate. Delegation of a broad range of authority for review
and approval of applications to a Zoning Administrator would not
work in Cupertino. Rather, it appears more appropriate to con-
sider delegation of limited authority to a Zoning Administrator.
The City Council should consider delegating the following types
of minor applications to the Zoning Administrator:
Variances from the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Preliminary parcel maps.
Modifications of previously approved applications provided
that these modifications do not require alteration of any
conditions previously imposed by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council .
Annual review of use permits and extensions of use permits.
A limited extent of use permits focusing only on those
which are categorically exempt from CEQ A including parking
lots, operational changes in permits (e.g. , allowing a
service station to extend its hours of operation) ,
establishing a use (e.g. , opening a restaurant) in an
existing building which does not require substantial
remodeling to the existing building, and additions to
existing buildings or construction of new buildings which
do not exceed 7,500 square feet.
Exceptions to fence ordinance.
Conceptual development plan review in the R-3 zone.
49-
By delegating such authority to the Zoning Administrator, the
Planning Commission will free up its time and effort from the
more routine planning applications in order to focus on more
substantive applications and issues. The workload of the
Planning Commission would be reduced by approximately 34% if the
authority to grant these applications was delegated to a Zoning
Administrator.
The delegation of authority can also be expected to reduce
the workload of the City Council . The exhibit following this
page presents the current planning applications reviewed by the
City Council for a six-month period from January 4 to June 6,
1988. Key points to note regarding this data include the
following:
During this six-month period, the Council reviewed 34
applications or approximately 3 .4 applications per meeting.
7 of these 34 applications or 21% were approved by the City
Council as part of their consent agenda.
The delegation of authority to a Zoning Administrator, under the
parameters noted above, would reduce the application workload of
the City Council by one-third.
The Zoning Administrator, however, should operate under very
specific guidelines including the following:
The Administrator must follow the same public notice
requirements as required for the Planning Commission.
The applications must be approved in a public hearing in
the same manner as hearings held by the Planning
Commission.
At the hearing, the Administrator shall hear evidence for
and against each application, and shall make findings as
required by ordinance for granting or denying any
application.
All decisions by the Administrator shall be subject to
appeal by the applicant or any interested party to the
Planning Commission within ten calendar days of the decision
by filing a written notice on a form provided by the City
Clerk to the City Clerk' s Office.
The Planning Commission and the City Council shall be
provided with minutes of the meetings of the Zoning
Administrator.
50-
EXHIBIT VIII (1)
City of Cupertino
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATION
REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL
Application On Consent
Date Number Applicant Description of Application Calendar City Council Action
June 6 81,003.618 5-year CIP Widen Stevens Creek Boulevard. Yes Approved
81,003.618 5-year CIP Widen Stelling Road. Yes Approved
51,782.1 Measurex Corp. 40,000 s.f. expans;,n of industrial office No Discussed; continued
complex.
3-U-88 & Tandem Refine previously approved master use permit & No Approved
7-U-88 construct 40,000 s.f. industrial building
May 2 9-U-83 Seven Springs Approval of architectural plans and landscape No Approved
plans.
km2-Z-88 S. Saraydpour Rezone from R1-10 to R1-7.5. No Approved
pOY April 18 1-Z-88 Monte Vista Bible Church Rezone from BQ to R1-7.5.No Approved
36-U-86 De Anza Properties Amend previously approved use permit to delete No Referred back to
110-unit apartment complex and add 51-unit Planning Commission
senior citizen complex.
2-GPA-88 Prometheus Development Request for interpretation of General Plan No Expressed support for
regarding increase of residential units In Planning Commission
City Center. recommendations; no
GPA was required
April 4 51,774.1 Good Samaritan Church Addition of a roof screen for mechanical Yes A oved
equipment.
2-EXC-88 E. Sung Appeal from ASAC denial to build a second No Denied
story for single family residence.
46-U-87 Watkins Commercial Approval of a use permit to construct a No Approved
Properties 13,000 s.f. retail center, etc.
4-U-88 J. Sisk & T. Brown Approval of a use permit to allow construc- No Approved
tion of five single family dwellings.
EXHIBIT VIII (2)
Application On Consent
Date Number Applicant Description of Application Calendar City Council Action
March 15 1-TM-88 Kelly Gordon Developers Appeal of Planning Commission decision to No Granted the appeal;
require undergrounding of utilities. In-lieu fee required
March 7 36-0-86 Chateau Cupertino Modification of previously approved paving Yes Approved
treatment of fire access lane.
46-U-87 West Valley Shopping Approval of landscaping and lighting plans Yes Approved
Center as required by conditions of use permit.
1-GPA-87 City of Cupertino Clarification of FAR bonus policy d No Approved
policies on res dTntlaldesignstandards.
1
km
February 16 52-U-87 Franzelia's Appeal of Planning Commission conditions of No Approved per Plan-
o
Q approval. ning Commission
1 resolution
51,771.1 California State Auto- Allow a third group sign. No Referred back to
mobile Association ASAC for revision
55-U-87 Chevron Extend operating hours by two hours. No Approved
February 1 10-Z-87 & BAS Homes Rezone from A1-43 to RHS. No Approved
25-TM-87
54-U-87 Ell McFly's Remodel existing restaurant. No Approved
January 19 9-Z-87 I. F. Relnell Rezone from R1-10 to R1-6. No Approved
21-TM-87
8-Z-87 & West Valley Shopping Traffic signal at Homestead/Franco. No Approved signal.
48-U-87 Center City Council suggested
signal as condition of
development at Its
meeting of January 4.
53-U-87 ARCO Operate a snack shop in existing service No Approved
station.
26-TM-87 Dividend development Subdivide 1 Into 15 parcels No Approved
51,762.1 Shell OII Site and architectural modifications No Approved
relocate tanks)
EXHIBIT VIII (3)
Application On Consent
Date Number Applicant Description of Application Calendar City Council Action
Jaunary 4 4-U-86 Prometheus Development Final landscape plan. Yes Approved
51,762.1 Tandem Exception to sign ordinance to permit off-site Yes Approved
directional monument sign.
16-T14-87 B. Fagundes Appeal of 3 lot subdivision approval by No Denied
Planning Commission.
8-Z-87 & West Valley Shopping Rezone from CG to P- construct and operate No Approved
48-U-87 Center 37,000 s.f. expansion of existing retail
center.
9-Z-87 & F. Relnell Rezone from R1-10 to R1-6; subdivide into 7 No Discussed; continued121-TM-87vi parcels.
O
0 2-GPA-87 Salazar General Plan amendment for duplexes and single No Denied1
family dwellings.
26-U-87 Mobil Oil Six-month review of use permit. No Approved
While the use of a Zoning Administrator would reduce the workload
of the staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council , it should not be at the expense of public
notice, discussion, and scrutiny of these applications nor at
the expense of Commission and Council oversight of the
substantive applications and development issues.
The reductions of workload of the staff of the Planning Division
would enable the staff to allocate more time and effort to the
long-range planning work program. As the next section notes, this
program is rather significant.
4. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD REVISE ITS MID AND LONG-RANGE WORK
PROGRAM.
A work program for mid to long-range program is developed essentially
for two reasons:
It gives staff direction and purpose, particularly in processing
current planning applications on a day-to-day basis.
It assures effective utilization of discretionary time -- time
not required by the professional planning staff to process
current planning applications.
A review of the program proposed by the Planning Division as part of
its 1988-1989 budget indicates a need to focus on higher priority tasks.
Specific findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented below.
1 ) The Mid And Long-Range Program Contained Within The 1988-1989
Budget Proposed 940 Hours For Mid And Long-Range Planning.
The exhibit following this page presents the mid and long-range
work program as contained in the 1988-1989 budget. A number of key
points are worth noting regarding the program, and are presented below:
The program proposed 940 hours to be expended on mid and
long-range planning in 1988-1989 or 18 hours per week. This is
equivalent to one-half staff year.
The significant projects proposed as part of this work program
include the following:
51 -
EXHIBIT IX
City of Cupertino
1988-1989 MID AND LONG-
RANGE WORK PROGRAM
of
Project Description of Project Hours Total
1 . Streamline Public Counter training 20 2.3%
Information Function
I• nformation retrieval 200 22.7
file accessibility
computer accessibility
microfilm records
Level of service adjustment 20 2.3
Improve quality of base/
zoning map 20 2.3
Sub-Total 260 29.6%
2. Implement MLS 50 5.7
3. Operations Manuals HCD 50 5.7
Public Information 50 5.7
Sub-Total 100 11 .4%
4. Implement Stream- Sign ordinance 20 2.3
line Program Tree ordinance 20 2.3
C• ode enforcement coor-
dination 30 3 .4
Sub-Total 70 8.0%
5. Hane Occupation
Ordinance 40 4.5
6. Review of Open
Space Element 100 11 .4
7. Traffic Reduction Study 80 9.0
8. Census Preparation 40 4.5
9 . BMR Resale 100 11 .4
10. State Legislature 40 4.3
TOTAL 880 100.0%
52-
Streamlining the public information function was the
largest project with 260 hours proposed for its completion
or almost 28% of the total staff hours proposed for mid and
long-range planning in 1988-1989.
A review of the open space element was the second largest
project in terms of staff hours proposed by the program in
1989. A total of 100 hours was proposed or almost 11% of
the total staff hours proposed for the work program.
An analysis of be l ow market rate resale was also proposed
at 100 hours for the 1988-1989 work program or 11% of the
total staff hours proposed for the program.
Development of operations manuals for housing and community
development and public information was also proposed in the
1988-1989 work program at 100 staff hours or 11% of the
total staff hours.
These four projects comprise 60% of the total staff hours
proposed for the 1988-1989 mid and long-range program.
2) Staff Resources For The Mid And Long-Range Work Program Need To
Be Allocated To Resolution Of Higher Priority Issues.
Previous sections of this report have identified a number of
issues impacting the ability of the Planning Division to function
efficiently in processing current planning applications. These issues
include the following:
Updating and streamlining the General Plan. This is not to
suggest that the General Plan must be rewritten in its entirety;
rather, the focus should be on integrating updated elements of
the General Plan, streamlining the General Plan to eliminate
unnecessary text, and on developing a more usable and readable
General Plan. The General Plan is being "editorially rewritten"
at present; only two elements are being rewritten, however.
Codifying and updating the Zoning Ordinance.
Development of a design standards manual to serve as a guideline
for staff of the Planning Division.
Development and maintenance of a long-range planning data base to
enable monitoring and periodic calibration of the implementation
of the General Plan.
Updating of the specific plans to include specific design and site
guidelines. It would include landscape guidelines for all con-
ceptual plan areas, detailed site planning guidelines, and the
i i ke.
53-
These seem to be the more critical mid and long-range planning
elements which the Planning Division needs to focus on in the short
term.
The work program for accomplishing these projects should be
developed for the 1989-1990 budgetary process. The program should
identify a number of elements:
The work task.
The description of what the task involves.
The priority of the task relative to other tasks in the program.
The number of staff hours required to complete the task.
The staff who would be assigned responsibility for completing the
task.
The schedule for completion of the task.
The exhibit which follows this page presents a tentative work
program. It focuses purely on the task to be accomplished and the
amount of staff hours to accomplish these tasks. This program should
be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and "fleshed out".
Once this is accomplished, the program needs to be reviewed by the City
Manager, the Director of Community Development, as well as the Planning
Commission and City Council . This work program would function as a
contract" between the Director of Community Development and City
Manager. The effective implementation of this program depends on a
number of techniques which should be utilized by the Planning Division:
The program should specify a minimum number of hours per week of
long-range planning. The Division should strive to set aside 20
hours per week for long-range planning. These 20 hours should
be above and beyond "special studies" requested by the City
Manager, Planning Commission or City Council .
Responsibility for managing the accomplishment of the long-
range program should be assigned to the Assistant Planning
Director. The Assistant Planning Director would function as a
team leader" responsible for assigning tasks related to the work
program and monitoring the efforts of other Planning staff in
accomplishing these tasks.
54-
EXHIBIT X
City of Cupertino
TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM
Amount of
Staff Hrs.
Task Description of Task Priority Required
1 . Update and Integrate updated elements 2 260 to 400
streamline the into the General Plan.
General Plan
Streamline the General Plan
eliminating unnecessary text.
Focus on developing a usable
and readable General Plan
including clear graphics,
undatable format (3-ring
binder), and the like.
2. Codify and update . Codify the Zoning Ordinance 1 240 to 320
the Zoning into a single document
Ordinance with index.
Eliminate conflicting and
confusing text.
3. Develop Design Develop design guidelines 3 320 to 480
Standards Manual for staff of the Planning
Division to enable their
effective administration
of delegated authority.
4. Develop more Adopt landscape guidelines 4 160 to 320
specificity in for all conceptual plan-
Conceptual Zoning ning areas.
Plans
Establish detailed site
planning guidelines ( i. e. ,
where to place the building,
height relative to other
buildings, etc. ) .
5. Develop and main- . Evaluate whether PLANTECN 5 12/Month
Lain a long-range can meet the needs of the
planning data base Division.
If yes, update the APN data
within the module and enter
other data ( i.e. , acreage,
FARS, TRIPS, etc. ) .
If not, acquire other data
base software.
55-
A task force approach should be utilized to accomplish these
tasks. A task force approach has a number of benefits including
boosting of morale by enabling Planners to "plan" and not Just
process current applications; cross-fertilization of ideas; and
it enables building of a team of professionals from within the
Division.
The time allocated for long-range planning should be specifically
planned and scheduled by the Assistant Planning Director on a
weekly basis. As noted in the following chapter, a planning and
scheduling system is proposed for processing current planning
applications. As part of this scheduling effort, the Assistant
Planning Director should also schedule time for long-range
planning on a week-to-week basis.
Training should be provided to the professional staff of the
Planning Division in the techniques utilized for long-range
planning. Given the turnover that has occurred recently in the
Planner I/11, training will be required in these techniques.
The risk of long-range planning is that it has little connection to the
real world, particularly in processing current planning applications and in
guiding staff and policy-makers in quality controlling those applications.
However, the types of tasks which are proposed for the and long-range
program for the Planning Division -- ranging from updating and streamlining
the General Plan to codifying and updating the Zoning Ordinance -- have real
meaning to the City in terms of providing that guidance to staff in its
day-to-day work and in quality controlling the current planning applications.
5. THE FEES CHARGED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION RECOVER ONLY ONE-QUARTER OF
ITS COST FOR PROCESSING CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS.
Budget cuts, high interest costs, reductions in inter-governmental
transfers . . . more and more, large and small governments face fiscal problems
Iike these. In this environment, municipal officials seek to improve
government output, develop alternative revenue sources, and shrink budgets.
Local governments are also turning to user fees and charges in efforts to
diversify their revenue basis.
56-
In 1985-1986, the City of Cupertino revised its user fees for
processing current planning applications. However, as the table below
indicates, the revenue recovery for providing current planning services
approximates one-quarter of the costs of these services.
Table 13
Cost of Providing Current Planning Services
Versus Revenue Recovery for these Services
Authorized Budget Revenue Recovered
for Current for Current
Fiscal Year Planning Planning Services Percent
1986-1987 286,295 S72,157 25.2%
1987-1988 329,245 80,632 24.5
1988-1989 335,245 70,000 (est. ) 20.9
Important points to note about this table are as follows:
In fiscal year 1986-1987, the City recovered approximately 25.2% of
its cost for providing current planning services in user fees.
In 1987-1988, the City recovered approximately 24.5% of its costs
for providing current planning services in user fees.
In 1988-1989, the City is estimated to recover approximately
20.9% of its cost for providing current planning services via
user fees.
The City is recovering approximately one-quarter of its cost for
providing current planning services via user fees for such services. The
General Fund is subsidizing approximately three-quarters of the cost for
providing these services. In late 1986, the consulting team reviewed planning
and inspection fees for a local Bay Area city. In conducting this analysis,
the consulting team gathered data regarding the fees charged by the cities of
Belmont, Campbell , Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Millbrae, and
San Carlos. A number of conclusions are evident from the review of this data:
The City of Cupertino does not levy a fee for the provision of a
number of current planning services that these other cities did,
in fact, charge for. This includes fees for appeals, extensions,
and environmental review, and building permit plan review.
57-
The fees the City charges may not be competitive with these
other cities.
The revenue recovery of the City of Cupertino was approximately
one-third lower than the revenue recovery of these other cities
for current planning services. Contacts with a number of other
cities during the process of the study also indicated that these
cities frequently update their current planning fee schedule,
often on an annual basis. In contrast, the current planning fees
levied by the City of Cupertino have not been updated since
1984-1985.
A number of actions are recommended to resolve this issue as follows:
The user fees charged for current planning services should be
reviewed in comparison to other surrounding cities to determine
whether the fees charged by the City of Cupertino are lower than
these other surrounding cities. If, in fact, the user fees
charged by the City of Cupertino are lower than these other
surrounding cities, the City should consider adopting a new fee
schedule.
The City should consider adopting additional user fees to reflect
the pattern in surrounding communities including fees for build-
ing permit plan review by the Planning Division, environmental
review, appeals, etc.
The City should consider utilizing both building inspection fees
as well as current planning fees to cover the cost of providing
both these development review services. This approach is
suggested because it is unlikely the City will ever be able to
recover all of its costs for providing current planning services.
The City would have to levy approximately $3,400 per current
planning application to recover all of its costs. However,
utilizing these two user fees to recover its costs for providing
building inspection as well as current planning services would
give the City a more likely alternative for recouping its costs.
The Director of Finance should be charged with accomplishing these
tasks in time for Council review of the 1989-1990 budget.
The next chapter provides an analysis of staff utilization of the
Planning Division.
58-
III. ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERNS OF THE PLANNING DIVISION
III. ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERNS OF THE PLANNING DIVISION
This chapter provides an analysis of a number of factors including the
following:
The level of professional staffing within the Planning Division
and opportunities to improve their productivity.
Level of clerical support provided for the Division.
A proposed work planning and scheduling system for processing
current planning applications and setting expectations for
professional planning staff within the Division.
The records management system utilized by the Planning Division.
The sections which follow contain our findings, conclusions and
recommendations regarding these factors.
1 . THE RECORD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD BE REVISED
TO AN ADDRESS-BASED SYSTEM.
The Planning Division has approximately 64 linear feet of hard copy
records. These records consist of applications processed by the Planning
Division over the past five years. In addition, the Division has microfilmed
all of the applications processed by the Division prior to 1983. These
records are critical to the Division for a number of reasons including:
Processing the applications for properties which have previously
submitted applications. Reviewing the case files for this
property provides the "case manager" with a history of conditions
imposed on the property, problems encountered previously, and a
number of other data which are critical to processing the
application.
Responding to inquiries received over the counter.The
Planning Division receives a number of inquiries each day
regarding the development history of a particular property.
Application files are utilized by professional planning staff in
conducting special studies and for long-range planning
efforts.
59-
Basically, these application files are used on a daily basis by the
professional planning staff of the Division. As a consequence, it is
essential that these files be based on a system which enables easy access to
the data contained within the file. The system currently utilized by the
Planning Division files applications by case number. This creates a number
of obstacles to accessing information readily. The first problem with this
system is the ability to determine the case numbers for the particular
property in question. The system utilized at present records the application
case numbers for each address in a "frog" book. This book consists of
assessors parcel maps in which the case numbers are written for each address.
However, this book is not always up-to-date nor complete. The second problem
is that data concerning the history of the property could be contained within
a number of separate files reflecting the eparate applications for that
particular property. As a consequence, it is difficult to access data
concerning the development history of a particular property. The current
system is very cumbersome and requires significant effort and time to
retrieve data.
A new record management system should be developed for current planning
applications. This system should be based upon the address of each property.
This is the most common system utilized by other cities. In fact, it is the
system utilized by the Building Inspection Division of the City of Cupertino.
Development of this system for the Planning Division will require a number of
steps:
The hard copy application folders will need to be accessed to
determine the assessor' s parcel number for a particular property.
The assessor' s parcel number microfiche will then need to be
accessed to determine the correct address for the property.
60-
A new file folder will then need to be developed for that
particular address.
Properties with multiple application files will need to be
assembled in historical order, perhaps in multiple files.
A four by six card should be stapled on the opposite side of the
file and a brief history of the applications for the particular
property written onto the card (e.g. , use permit approved on
August 2, 1988) .
The microfiche also need to be refiled on an address-based
system. This will require relabeling the microfiche.
It is important that the conversion to an address-based system not be a
lengthy process which the two different systems overlap. The existing system
is confusing, but the existence of two different systems would be even more
so.
2. OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO IMPROVE THE UTILIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF
FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION.
The exhibit following this page presents the allocation of time by the
professional staff of the Planning Division for a nine-month period from July
8, 1987 to March 15, 1988. This includes the Assistant Planning Director,
Associate Planner, and the two Planner II ' s. Key findings generated by the
data contained within the exhibit include the following:
Current planning services consume 70.6% of the actual hours
worked on a weekly basis by these four professional staff. These
activities include public contact, writing and presentation of
staff reports to the Architectural/Site Approval Committee and
the Planning Commission, and checking the building permit plans.
Mid-range planning consumed 6.2% of the actual work hours per
week.
Long-range planning -- consisting of General Plan tasks as well
as General Plan maintenance -- consumed 5.7% of the actual work
hours per week.
Code enforcement consumed 3.4% of the actual work hours per week.
A collection of four activities -- housing, CDBG, block grants,
and redevelopment -- consumed 9.3% of the actual work hours per
week.
61-
EXHIBIT XI
City of Cupertino
ALLOCATION OF TIME BY
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Allocation of Actual Work
Hours Per Week
Asst. Planner Planner
Planning Assoc.I/Ii I/II
Task Area Director Planner (SONIA) (RANDY) Total Percent
Administration - Dept. 4.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 3.3%
Building Inspection 1 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 .00 0.7
Administration
Public Contact -
Planning 8.58 2.53 8.49 14.35 33.95 24.0
Planning Commission/
ASAC 12.58 24.39 12.03 10.15 59.15 41 .9
Code Enforcement 2.14 0.00 0.28 2.44 4.86 3.4
General Plan 4.94 0.88 0.00 0.08 5.90 4.2
General Plan Main-
tenance 0.00 2.08 0.01 0.08 2.17 1 .5
Mid-Range Planning 2.56 3.78 1 .50 0.85 8.69 6.2
Building Permit Plan
Checking 0.00 0.33 0.00 6.31 6.64 4.7
Housing 0.00 2.24 1 .63 1 .21 5.08 3.6
CDBG 0.00 0.00 6.93 0.00 6.93 4.9
Block Grants 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.1
Redevelopment 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.7
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 1 .25 0.00 1 .25 0.8
Total Weekly Hours 37.44 36.23 32.15 35.47 141 .29 100.0
62-
Miscellaneous work activities consumed 0.8% of the actual work
hours per week.
As the data indicates, the bulk of the efforts of the professional staff
of the Planning Division are allocated towards current planning services.
The time allocated to long-range planning -- represented by the General Plan
and General Plan maintenance work tasks -- is minimal at 5 .7% of the actual
work hours per week or a total of eight hours per week for the entire
division. However, a number of steps have been taken recently to expand the
available time for long-range planning. This includes increasing the
time budgeted for the Housing Rehabilitation Counselor from three-quarters
time to full-time. As a result of this action, the time allocated for CDBG
has been transferred from the professional planning staff of the division to
the Housing Rehabilitation Counselor. This will result in an increase in the
available time for long-range planning. However, a number of other
opportunities exist for improving the efficient utilization of the
professional staff of the Planning Division. These opportunities are more
fully explored below.
1 ) Establish A Planning And Scheduling System For Processing Current
Planning Applications.
The purpose of the work planning and scheduling system is to make
visible the amount of staff time and calendar time required to analyze
and reach an approval or disapproval decision on the following types
of applications:
Tentative maps.
Rezones.
Use permits.
Variances.
General Plan amendments.
63-
The specific objectives related to the design and development of
this system are as follows:
To establish a process whereby specific staff time and calendar
date targets are set for each application assigned to a "case
manager".
To generate data sufficient to- assess the performance of both
individual "case managers" as well as the Planning Division in
comparison to those targets.
To provide a data base from which staffing requirements can be
analyzed and budget requests can be justified during the annual
budget process.
Overall , data provided by the system should be sufficient to:
Indicate when caseload exceeds the time requirements and
commitments of individual professional staff.
Show the impact of overload on calendar times required to resolve
cases and on the amount of time staff have available to devote to
long—range planning.
Major elements of the system are as follows:
The Assistant Planning Director would review all incoming
applications and analyze application characteristics, focusing
in particular on potential processing difficulties.Once
difficulties are identified, the Assistant Planning Director sets
targets as follows: (1 ) overall staff time allocated to process
the applications; and (2) calendar targets for completing the
analysis of the applications. Based on the target data, the
Assistant Planning Director reviews the most recent open case
inventory report and notes the workload of staff members; cases
are then assigned as appropriate. The Assistant Planning Director
then enters the target data and the "case manager' s" name on a
project control sheet.
When projects are first assigned, the "case manager" reviews
targets (calendar targets and staff time allocations) established
for the case. If the "case manager" feels the targets are
unreasonable, the "case manager" should discuss them with the
Assistant Planning Director and negotiate appropriate changes.
The "case manager" would then report actual time allocated to the
case utilizing his/her payroll card.
64—
Effective implementation of the system will require modification
of the payroll codes utilized by the Planning Division. Under th i s
system, planners would be expected to charge their time to specific
cases or to other non-case related activities. Utilization of the
payroll system is the most effective approach to identifying actual
hours required to process each case and develop a reporting system based
on that case data. The Assistant Planning Director would then utilize
that data to compare actual hours required to complete a case versus
target hours.
Listed below are the suggested average processing times ( in
person hours) plus high and low ranges which experience shows to be
characteristic of cases most commonly processed by Planning Divisions.
Table 14
Target Processing Times for
Current Planning Applications
Type of
Application Average High Low
Tentative Map 18 32 8
Use Permit 18 32 8
Rezones 18 32 8
These target processing times should be utilized to each case.
The average value should be utilized unless the case is clearly
significantly easier or more difficult than the average. If either
situation applies, the Assistant Planning Director would decrease or
increase the time allocation in 10% increments based on Judgment.
65-
2) Install A Dictation System For Use By Professional Staff Of The
Planning Division.
Currently, many of the professional staff of the Planning
Division type reports for the Planning Commission and City Council
using a personal computer. There are a number of factors which
indicate the typing of reports by professional staff is inappropriate:
Clerical staff can type at a higher rate of words per minute than
professional staff; this is one of the prime considerations in
their recruitment. On the other hand, the professional staff are
not recruited for their typing ability.
During work sampling observations, professional staff who typed
their own reports appeared at times to expend a significant
amount of time "q ua l i ty controlling" the report. This is not a
cost-effective use of their time.
Professional staff can dictate staff reports more quickly than
they can type.
The rudiments of a dictation system would be as follows:
Individual dictation devices should be provided for each Planner.
All staff reports should be dictated. Professional planning
staff should not type them. This includes the use of personal
computers for outlining of staff reports.
A strict "first in-first out" policy should be established for
typing priority.
The uti l ization of professional staff for typing of staff reports
is not a productive utilization of their time. Staff reports should be
dictated for typing by clerical staff.
3) The Intern Should Not Be Utilized As The "Planner Of The Day".
The Planning Division utilizes a "Planner of the Day" to provide
public contact for the entire day either at the counter or to handle
phone contacts. Currently, the Planning Division utilizes a 0.5 FTE
66-
Intern as the "Planner of the Day" more than half the time. This has
resulted in problems in the past in terms of the accuracy of the advice
given to the public. While the use of the Intern relieves professional
planning staff of routine repetitive contacts with the public and
enables them to respond promptly to current planning workload, it
generates a number of other problems including interruptions by the
Intern to obtain interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and other
ordinances as well as problems with the accuracy of advice given by the
Intern. For these reasons, the Intern should not be utilized as the
Planner of the Day". Rather, the four professional staff of the
Planning Division should be utilized on a rotating basis as the
Planner of the Day". All four professional staff should equally share
this burden. While this can be expected to increase their workload,
the use of an Intern is not an effective approach to providing advice
and counsel to the public.
4) Professional Planning Staff Should Batch Their Calls.
The telephone can be a big time-saver when properly used or a big
time-waster if not well managed. Currently, it appears to be a big
time-waster. Calls are routed to professional planning staff as they
are received. This results in a significant amount of interruption and
disruption of staff while they are in the process of preparing staff
reports. It would be more efficient for the professional staff to
return a group of calls at one sitting, rather than have these calls as
constant interruptions to their work. The professional planning staff
should block out certain hours in which phone calls will not be
received; this would require the notification of the receptionist for
City Hall or the utilization of the Voice Message Center.
67-
5) All Responsibility For CDBG Should Be Transferred To The Housing
Rehabilitation Counselor.
Recently, the Housing Rehabilitation Counselor was increased from
0.75 FTE to full-time. However, there still appears to be some
confusion regarding what duties have been transferred to the Housing
Rehabilitation Counselor. It should be clarified that all of the CDBG
duties are to be transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Counselor
including those handled by the Associate Planner. Responsibility in
handling below market rate loans should not be performed by the
professional planning staff, but rather by the Housing Rehabilitation
Counselor.
Approximately 70% of the time of the professional planning staff is
allocated to processing current planning applications. As a consequence, the
utilization of the work planning and scheduling system is critical to assure
the efficient utilization of the staff in processing these applications.
Only through the use of this planning and scheduling system can time be made
available for the long-range work program.
3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IiPROVING THE EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF CLERICAL STAFF.
The exhibit following this page presents the work distribution chart
for clerical staff. This chart is based on time logs completed by clerical
staff -- including the Administrative Clerk, Senior Clerk Typist,
Clerk-Typist, and part-time staff -- for a two-week period. The Clerk-Typist
who functions as the receptionist for both the Public Works and the Community
Development Departments did not complete the time log; this Clerk-Typist
answers phones and receives the public, but few other tasks. Important
findings from the data contained in the exhibit is presented on the following
page.
68-
Typing of staff reports, correspondence, and memorandums
consumed the greatest proportion of time of the clerical support
staff at 36.8 hours per week.
Preparation of exhibits for Planning Commission and City Council
staff reports submitted by the Planning Division consumed the
second greatest proportion of time at 12.8 hours of time per
week.
Training of clerical staff consumed the third greatest proportion
of time at 11 .2 hours per week. During the two-week period of
time during which clerical staff completed the time logs, a new
Clerk-Typist was hired which impacted the training requirements.
Packet preparation for the Planning Commission consumed the
fourth greatest proportion of time at 10.5 hours per week.
Filing consumed the fifth greatest proportion of time at 10.3
hours per week.
These five activities consumed almost 60% of the time of the clerical
staff. A number of recommendations have been made to improve the efficient
utilization of clerical staff. These recommendations are presented in the
sections which follow.
1 ) The Second Receptionist Position Should Be Eliminated.
Two receptionist positions are authorized within the City Hall .
One position, stationed in the main lobby, answers all of the phone
calls for all departments (with the exception of the Public Works and
the Community Development Departments) and receives visitors. The
second receptionist position, stationed on the ground floor, answers
phone calls for the Public Works and the Community Development
Departments, as well as receives visitors to those two departments.
The utilization of two receptionists apparently is a recent development
which occurred when the Public Works and Community Development
Departments moved to the temporary City Hall . Prior to that time, only
one receptionist position was utilized for the entire City Hall .
69-
EXHIBIT XII
City of Cupertino
WORK DISTRIBUTION OF
CLERICAL STAFF
Percentage Allocation of Time
Part- Total
Admin. Sr. Clerk Clerk Time Weekly
Task Clerk Typist Typist Staff Hours
Typing 36.1% 4.4% 3.6% 21 .1% 36.8
Filing 8.3 1 .0 12.2 8.1 10.3
Meetings 6.9 5.7 0.8 1 .2 5.1
Training of Staff 13.2 11 .0 6.9 0.9 11 .2
Answer phones 7.8 2.7 0.0 0.2 3.7
Exhibit preparation 0.6 2.8 30.1 3.0 12.8
Packet preparation 0.0 1 .5 23.5 5.2 10.5
Looking for files 4.4 1 .3 0.0 0.0 2.0
Meeting set-up/agendizing 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2
Counter coverage 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.4 1 .8
ERC meeting preparation,
minute taking & clean-up 0.0 3.2 4.5 0.0 2.7
ASAC meeting preparation,
minute taking, & clean-up 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 5.3
Type notices to other
agencies 0.0 2.3 11 .4 0.0 4.8
Xeroxing 2.6 1 .3 4.6 9.4 6.3
Place microfiche in order 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 3.1
Relieve receptionist 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 5.5
Other 13.8 5.1 2.4 18.5 13.9
Code enforcement f i l ing/
support 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 2.0
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 140.0
70-
There is insufficient workload to ,Justify both these positions.
The second receptionist position, budgeted within the Public Works and
Community Development Departments, should be eliminated. This would
require a number of actions on the part of the city:
The receptionist stationed in the main lobby will need to be
trained and/or provided written instructions on proper routing of
calls for questions or services frequently requested by the
public (e.g. , engineering permits) .
The Planning Division will need to provide the receptionist with
their "Planner of the Day" schedule on a weekly basis. All calls
regarding current planning questions in which the public does not
ask for a specific planner would be routed to this "Planner of the
Day".
An alternative system will need to be developed for receiving
the public in the ground floor.Currently, the second
receptionist positions notifies the Public Works and the Community
Development Departments when a member of the public needs their
assistance. Other cities, which do not have this second
receptionist position have, in fact, developed such alternative
systems. The City of San Mateo, for example, has a buzzer that
the public rings when staff assistance is required. A large
sign notifies the public of the need to ring the buzzer when
assistance is needed. The other alternative would be to remodel
the reception area so that staff can visually determine when
assistance is needed by the public. Currently, the reception
area is walled off from the office area utilized by staff.
Work sampling observations indicated that the productivity of
this second receptionist position did not meet reasonable standards.
The elimination of this position would enable the reduction of a
Clerk-Typist position as well as eliminating the need for relief, which
amounted to 5.5 hours per week during this time logging.
2) Streamline The Work Methods Utilized By The Clerical Staff Of The
Planning Division.
Currently, the Planning Division has a very high ratio of
clerical support for their professional staff. The level of support
approaches one-to-one. Most other Planning Divisions have a ratio
71-
approaching one clerical person for every four to five professionals.
The high level of clerical support within the Planning Division results
from some very laborious and inefficient work methods. Simplification
of these methods should enable a reduction in clerical staff. Work
methods which can be simplified include the following:
Discontinue labeling of exhibits. Currently, the clerical staff
label each and every map which is attached to Planning Commission
and City Council staff reports submitted by the Planning Division.
These labels indicate the application number, the exhibit number,
and the date the application was received. None of the other
Planning Divisions contacted as part of this analysis labeled
their maps. Rather, staff referred to the particular map within
the text (e.g. , sheet A-1 of the Landscape Plan) . These numbers
are placed on the maps by the applicant and the placement of a
second exhibit number is not an effective utilization of the
time of clerical staff. The City Clerk' s office already labels
each map attached to Council Agenda items with an agenda
number. This should be sufficient to clarify which time is
associated with which agenda item. The elimination of exhibit
labeling should reduce clerical workload by approximately 13
hours per week.
Preparation of the packet for the Planning Commission should be
reallocated to the City Clerk' s office. Currently, the Planning
Division xeroxes, collates, staples, and assembles 20 packets for
the Planning Commission meetings.This same activity is
performed by the City Clerk' s office for the packet for the City
Council . It is an uncommon situation. Most other cities
allocate responsibility for packet preparation for the Planning
Commission to the City Clerk' s office. This is an appropriate
approach for the City of Cupertino. The City Clerk has agreed to
this allocation of responsibility. The reallocation of this
responsibility to the City Clerk' s office should reduce clerical
workload by approximately 11 hours per week.
Clerical staff should not attend the weekly meetings of the
Community Development Director. Every Tuesday morning, all staff
of the Community Development Department meet with the Community
Development Director. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss
actions on the part of the City Council and Planning Commission
which might affect staff. Rather than have clerical staff attend
this meeting, the Community Development Director should instead
provide a xerox copy of the agenda for both Planning Commission
and City Council indicating the actions taken by the Commission
or Council . The elimination of this meeting time would reduce
clerical workload by approximately five hours per week.
72-
Clerical staff should not attend meetings of the Environmental
Review Committee to take minutes. The staff person assigned to
ASAC takes the minutes for this committee meeting, not clerical
staff. However, clerical staff attend meetings of the
Environmental Review Committee to prepare the meeting, including
bringing donuts and making coffee, as well as taking notes. This
responsibility should be assigned to the professional staff
person who provides staff support to the Environmental Review
Committee. The elimination of this duty would reduce clerical
workload by approximately 1 .5 work hours per week.
Simplify the process for mailing of legal notices. The current
process requires the clerical staff to stuff envelopes with the
notices. The envelopes are pre-stamped and pre-addressed by the
applicant. This process should be revised and simplified. The
notice should be sent via a postcard, which would be generated
by computer. This postcard would be pre-addressed and pre-
stamped by the applicants.
The simplification and streamlining of the work methods uti l ized
by the clerical staff of the Planning Division should enable the
elimination -- through attrition -- of a clerical position.
3) The Clerical Support Staff Of The Building Inspection Division
And Planning Division Should Be Consolidated Under A Single
Supervisor.
Currently, clerical support for the Planning Division and the
Building Inspection Division are separated organizationally. The Chief
Building Inspector supervises the clerical support staff for the
Building Inspection Division while the Community Development Director
supervises the clerical support staff fr- the Planning Division. The
clerical support supervisor for the Building Inspection Division -- a
Secretary -- wi l l be retiring in December, 1988. Upon the retirement
of this individual , the clerical support staff for both the Building
73-
A
4
Inspection Division and Planning Division should be consolidated under
a single supervisor. The Secretary position within the Building
Inspection Division should be replaced with a Clerk-Typist. A single
supervisor should be responsible for planning and scheduling the work
of all clerical staff in the Community Development Department.
support services required by either the Planning Division or
Building Inspection Division should be scheduled through this single
supervisory position. Further, telephone back-up for the Building
Inspection Division would be provided by the entire clerical pool , not
Just the Senior Clerk-Typist within the Building Inspection Division.
A number of problems were noted during the analysis of lengthy ringing
of phone calls into the Building Inspection Division. This occurred
due to the lack of telephone back-up. Consolidation of these clerical
staff should resolve this issue.
These comments should not be taken as a criticism of the clerical staff
of the Planning Division. The dedication and professionalism of these staff
is what -- in large measure -- enables the Division to provide prompt and
responsive service to the public. Rather, the work methods utilized by the
Division need to be simplified.
74-