The URL can be used to link to this page

101-Staff Report.pdf COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 10300TORREAVENUE•CUPERTINO,CA95014-3255 TELEPHONE:(408)777-3308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subject DevelopmentPermitProcessReview RecommendedAction 1.Providedirectiontostaffonthelistofrecommendedchangesandanyadditional modifications/enhancementstothepermitprocessandpublicengagementpolicy(see AttachmentA);and 2.AuthorizeStafftoworkonmodificationstotheZoningOrdinancesasrequiredbytheabove changes. Description ReviewoftheManagementStudyofthepermitprocessandopportunitiestoenhancethequality oftheCity’s development permit servicesandorganizationalefficiency. Background AspartoftheCouncil’s2008-2009workprogram,theCouncildirectedacomprehensivereview oftheCity's developmentreview process. In2009,theMatrixConsultingGroupwashiredtoconductacomprehensiveorganizationand managementanalysisoftheCity’sdevelopmentpermitprocessandoperations.Matrixbegan theirresearchinMarch2009andcompletedthestudyonNovember5,2009(seeAttachmentB for Matrix’s ManagementStudyofthePermitProcessReport). Thestudyusedavarietyofsourcesforitsanalysisincluding:customerfocusgroups,asurveyof Citystaff,andareviewofthedevelopmentprocess,permitdataandtheCity’swebsite.Matrix comparedCupertino’spermitprocessesandorganizationalframeworkwithothercomparable citiesandbestmanagementpracticesintheindustryandmadealistofrecommendationsto improvetheCity’s permit processand organizationalefficiency. The MatrixReportrecommendationsfallinthefollowingcategories: ·About 35 percent oftherecommendations havealready beenimplemented. ·About 22 percent oftherecommendationsare beingcurrently beingimplementedby staff. ·About35percentoftherecommendationsneedPlanningCommissionreview/CityCouncil actionintheform ofOrdinance/Policyamendments orfunding. ·Aboutfourpercentoftherecommendationsshouldnotbeconsideredeitherdueto inconsistencieswithCitypolicies/departmentfunctionsand/orpotentialliabilityconcerns; and ·Aboutfourpercentoftherecommendationswerebasedonincorrectassumptionsbythe Consultant. AttachmentCisa summarytable ofrecommendationsinthe Matrixreportwith staffcomments. CityCouncil Review ThePlanningCommissionreviewedtheMatrixreportonApril13,April27andMay11,2010 andprovidedrecommendationsfortheCounciltoconsider(seeAttachmentDforCouncilstaff reportdatedMay18,2010).TheCityCouncilreviewedthereportonMay18,2010(see Attachment E forminutes). TheCouncilreviewedtherecommendationsofthePlanningCommissionandnotedthatthey wouldspecificallyliketoincludeinputfromsingle-familyhomeownerswhohavehad experiencewiththepermittingprocessandmembersofthepublic.TheCouncilthendirected staffto: 1.Conductadditionalgroupworkshopsforthecommunitytocollectfeedbackregardingthe permit process; 2.Sendnoticestoallapplicants,propertyowners,anddeveloperswhogotpermitsfromthe Cityinthelastfiveyears.Inaddition, placeappropriate noticesin newspapers. CommunityOutreach Efforts Approximately5,300noticesweremailedtoinvitepermitteesandpropertyownerstocomment onthedevelopmentpermitprocess.Inaddition,noticeswereplacedintheCupertinoCourier, CupertinoSceneandtheCity’swebsite. Twogroupworkshops(July28,2010andSeptember8,2010)werefacilitatedbyMr.Ken Rodriguez.Thefirstmeetingwasfocusedoncollectingcommentsonthemainthemesofthe MatrixReport(SeeAttachmentF).SeeAttachmentGforcommentsfromthefirstgroup meeting. Atthesecondmeeting,workshopattendeesweregivenanopportunitytoprovidetheiropinion aboutthelevelsofapprovalforprojects.Participantswereprovidedahandouttoindicatetheir opiniononwhatlevelapprovalsfordifferenttypesofprojectsshouldbegiven(SeeAttachment H). Theresults ofthisexercisehavebeencompiledinAttachmentI.Generalcommentsfromthis meetinghavebeencompiledinAttachmentJ.Staffhasreviewedthegroupworkshopinputand has notedwhererecommendationscreate potential discrepanciesand/orlegalconsiderations. Thediscussioninthecommunityworkshopsrevolvedaroundthefollowingthemes(See AttachmentsGandJfordetails): ·The development process needsto be simplified. ·Acomprehensive onlinepermittingsystemis keyto simplifying both processingandtracking projects. ·Whilesimplifyingapprovalprocessesisdesirable,thecurrentlevelofpublicengagement should not bereduced. A detailed discussion oftheseissuesis providedlaterinthereport. PlanningCommission Review OnNovember9,2010,thePlanningCommissionreviewedtheinputfromthegroupworkshops (SeeAttachmentKforminutesfromthePlanningCommission’sNovember9,2010meeting). Theygenerallyagreedwithallthechangesrecommendedinthereport(SeeAttachmentLfor StaffReport).IndividualCommissionersalsomadeadditionalrecommendationsnotedlaterin thestaffreport.ThePlanningCommissionagreedtoforwardtherecommendationstothe Councilforconsiderationand direction. ThePlanningCommissionappointedasubcommittee(composedofCommissionerMillerand Lee)toprovidestaffwithideasforadditionalimprovementstointernaladministrativeprocesses. ThesubcommitteemetwithstaffonNovember23,2010(seeAttachmentMforcommentsfrom thesubcommittee).Staffisalsoworkingonadraftprocessworkflowchartfortheplanning processfordiscussionwiththesubcommittee(seeAttachmentN).Staffwillberefiningthe chartandprovidingitwiththeapplicationformsontheCity’swebsite.Asecondmeetingwith thesubcommitteeis scheduledforFebruary9,2011.SubcommitteecommentsfromtheFebruary 9, 2011 meetingwill beforwardedtotheCouncilasa deskitem. PlanningCommission Recommendations ThefollowingoutlinesrecommendationsfromthePlanningCommissionafterreviewinginput fromthegroupworkshops.Incaseswherestaffhasmadeanalternativeoradditional recommendation,aspecificnotationhasbeenprovided.Specificcommentsprovidedbythe publicarealso noted. 1.O RDINANCE/POLICYAMENDMENTS A.SimplifyingApprovalAuthority: ThePlanningCommission supports simplificationofapprovalauthorityasnoted below: i.TheCityCouncil shouldreviewall projectsthatare“outsidethe box” ofregulations – i.e.thosethatrequireachangetotheGeneralPlan,Zoning,andOrdinanceand/or involvethepreparationofanEnvironmentImpactReport(EIR).Suchprojectsand Tentative Mapsarerequiredto bereviewedbytheCityCouncil perStatelaw. ii.Projectsthatfit“withinthe“box”ofexistingGeneralPlan,zoningandotherCity regulations should beapprovedatthePlanningCommissionlevel. iii.Projectsthataresmall,donotcauseimpacts,areexemptunderCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andwouldhavenoenvironmentalimpacts shouldbereviewedbystaff.ProjectsthattypicallyareexemptunderCEQAinclude newconstructionwithsixunitsorlessand10,000squarefeetorlessofnewnon- residentialdevelopmentoradditions,façadeimprovements,siteimprovements includinglandscaping,replacement orreconstruction of non-residential buildings,etc. Ø ProjectApproval ThresholdAlternativeforCouncilConsideration: o ThecurrentrecommendationistoallownewconstructionexemptunderCEQAto beapprovedatstafflevel.Analternaterecommendationcouldbetoallownew constructionexemptunderCEQAtobeapprovedbytheDRC.Single-family homesandotherminorpermitscouldstillbeapprovedatstafflevelperthe currentordinance.AttachmentA.1showsthecurrentandrecommendedlevels fortheprojectsandAttachmentOprovidesalistofpastprojectsandthelevelat whichtheywould beapproved undertherecommended process. o Underthecurrentrecommendations,theCouncilwillreviewallprojectswhich requireGeneralPlanorZoningAmendmentsandanyprojectforwhichanEIRis prepared.AnalternativeforCouncilreviewwouldbeprojectsthatpropose>50 residentialunitsand/or50,000squarefeetofcommercialspaceand/or100,000 squarefeet ofindustrialspace. Commentsfrom residents: Anumberofresidentsexpressedconcernaboutreducingthresholdsofprojectapproval andrecommendedenhancing public noticingincasethethresholdsarereduced. Afewresidentscommentedifthresholdsofapprovalwerereduced,appealfeesshould alsobeloweredoreliminatedtoremovedeterrentstotheirrighttoappealalowerlevel decision. Thecurrentappealfeeis setat $162 andisrefundediftheappealis upheld. B.OrdinanceAmendments i.SingleFamily(R1)Ordinance–afewworkshopattendeesbroughtupthefollowing issuesrelatedtotheR1ordinance. a.DesignReviewfortwo-story homesis onerous. b.StoryPolesareexpensiveand noteffectiveinconveyingthe shape ofa house. c.Noticingisfinanciallyburdensomeandintrusivesinceentireplansetswithfloor plans haveto bemailed. AttheNovember9,2010meeting,thePlanningCommissiondiscussedthe requirementsofthetwostorypermitprocessandprivacyplantingrequirementsat lengthbutdidnotmakeanyrecommendations.APlanningCommissionernotedthat theserequirementsareonerous.SomeCommissionersexpressedconcernabout makingchangestotheR1ordinance.StaffrecommendsthatanychangestotheR1 Ordinanceshouldbepartofaseparateprojecttoensurethatstakeholdersinterested specificallyintheR1Ordinanceareincluded. Commentsfrom residents: SomecommunitymembersalsoexpressedconcernwithchangingtheR1 ordinance. ii.ProtectedTreeOrdinance–AttheNovember9,2010meeting,therequirementsof theProtectedTreeordinancewerealsodiscussed.APlanningCommissionernoted thatcurrentrequirementsforrestrictingremovalsandrequiringreplacementswere onerous. C.Communication: Thegroupworkshopattendeesdiscussedtheissueofnoticingatlength.Somemembers ofthecommunitywhohavepreviouslyobtainedpermitsfromtheCityandsome PlanningCommissionersfeltthattherequirementswereonerous.Othercommunity membersfeltthattheyliketheimprovementsmade bytheCityovertheyearstoincrease noticingandwantedtoretainthem.Theyadditionallycommentedthatanyprocess streamlining should notresultinreduction of public noticingandinput. Baseduponareviewofpastprojectswherenotificationwasenhanced,thePlanning Commissionrecommendsaconsistentpolicyforprojectswhereexpectationsforthe applicantaswellasneighbors/residentswouldbeclearfromthestart.Adraftconceptof thisnewpublicengagementprocesspolicy–Advise,Collaborate,Teamup(ACT)is showninAttachmentA. TherecommendedACTPublicEngagementProcesshasthefollowingthreelevelsof engagement: i.AdviseLevel–Enhancednoticingshallbeprovidedforallprojectsthroughon-site signage,andprojectlinksontheCity’swebsite.Thespecificrecommendationsare providedinAttachmentA.Additionally,tomakeprojectsignsonthesiteproviding noticeofdevelopmentproposalseasilyrecognizable,staffisproposingadraftsign andstandardsbasedonareviewofsignsandstandardsinSanJoseandMountain View(seeAttachmentP). ii.CollaborateLevel–Thislevelincorporatesrequirementsforthe“AdviseLevel” notedaboveaswellasadditionalnotificationforprojectsthathavethepotentialto createneighborhood-levelimpacts.ThePlanningCommissionrecommendsa thresholdof15residentialunits,25,000squarefeetofretail/commercialuseand 50,000 squarefeet ofoffice/industrial useforthislevel. Projectsatthislevelwouldberequiredtoexpandnoticingto1,000feetandhavea neighborhoodmeeting.Thepublicengagementprocessatthislevelallowsfor dialoguebetweenallpartiesandhelpstodiscusssolutionsthatcouldbebroughtto decision-makersfortheirconsideration. iii.TeamUpLevel–Thisisthehighestlevelofpublicengagementforprojectswith city-wideimplications.Staffrecommendsthislevelforlargeprojectssuchasmajor GeneralPlanamendmentsandzoningandPlannedDevelopment/Usepermitsthat requirean EIR.Projectsatthislevelwouldrequirewillrequiresitesignage,enhanced notificationattheneighborhoodorCity-wideleveldependingonthetypeofproject, andcommunityworkshopstoallowfordialoguebetweeninterestedparties. ExamplesofwheretheCityhasusedthisprocessincludetheSouthVallcoMaster PlanandtheNorthVallco MasterPlan. D.ImprovingReadabilityandConsistency ThePlanningCommissionagreedwithstaff’srecommendationtoworkonthefollowing changestoimproveconsistencybetween variousCity documentsandtheirreadability: i.Reviewexistingconceptualplansandareaplanstomakeolderdocumentsconsistent withtheGeneralPlanandupdatethemwithnewgraphics.Noamendmentstothe plansareproposedaspartofthisreview.Anadministrativeupdatewithnew graphicsisexpectedtocostabout $5,000-7,500 per document. ii.ReviewtheZoningOrdinanceforconsistencyandtheuseoftablestoreduce repetitionandoptimizereadability.TheSignOrdinanceisanexampleofwherethis was done. StaffnotesthatwearecurrentlyworkingonanumberofCouncilworkprogramitems andthatthesetaskswill be done on along-termbasisastime permits. 2.I NFRASTRUCTURE/T ECHNOLOGY I MPROVEMENTS: Manyworkshopattendeesindicatedstrongsupportforacomprehensiveonlinepermitting system(seeAttachmentG).Sevenofthe15attendeesatthefirstworkshopindicatedsupport fortheacquisitionandimplementationofanonlinepermitsystemwheretheycouldsubmit applications,tracktheprogressonlineandobtainpermitsonlinewithouthavingtosubmit paperplans.Basedonthepreliminarydiscussion,theyalsosupportedtheideaofinstitutinga technologyfeeofroughly4%inordertocoversomeofthecostsofacquiringanew permittingsystem. On January18,2011,theCouncilpreliminarilyapproved$350,000tomoveforwardwiththe acquisitionofthefirstphaseofanonlinepermitsystem.Thesystemisexpectedtocosta totalof$500,000.Staffiscurrentlycoordinatingwiththedepartmentsexpectedtousethis systemtocreateanRFP,whichwillallowustosolicitbidsforPhase1bySummer2011. TheCouncilwillreviewarequestfortheremaining$150,000fortheonlinepermitting systemaspart ofthe budgetforFY 2011-12andFY 2012-13. 3.I NTERNAL P ROCESS C HANGES: Staffisworking on makingimprovementstointer-departmentalcommunicationby: A.Continuallyreviewingandevaluatingchangesandenhancementstointernalprocesseson an ongoingbasis. B.Preparingcustomizedmanualsandhow-toguidestohelphomeowners,contractorsand developersgetthebestinformationpossibleonpreparationofapplicationsubmittal materialsandrequirements/processes. C.ImplementingsuggestionsfromthePlanningCommissionsubcommittee,applicantsand staff. NEXTSTEPS: OncetheCouncilprovidesdirectiononthegeneralrecommendationfromthePlanning Commission,staffwillbringspecificordinanceamendmentstothePlanningCommissionfor reviewand,uponrecommendationforapproval,totheCityCouncil.Asnotedearlier,staff recommendsthatareviewofspecificordinancessuchastheR1ordinanceandProtectedTree ordinance should bedesignatedasaseparate project. _____________________________________ Preparedby:PiuGhosh,AssociatePlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlannerandAartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopment Director ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager Attachments: A:Public EngagementProcessandRecommendedApprovalAuthority B:MatrixConsultingGroup’sreporttitled,“ManagementStudyofthePermitProcess,” datedNovember 17, 2009 C:Summarytableofrecommendationsinthe Matrixreportwith staffcomments D:CityCouncilStaffReport dated May 18, 2010 E:CityCouncilminutesfrom May 18, 2010 meeting F:HandoutstoJuly 28, 2010groupworkshopattendees G:Transcribed notesfromJuly 28, 2010groupworkshop H:HandoutstoSeptember8, 2010 groupworkshopattendees I:Tally ofApprovalAuthorityfromSeptember 8, 2010groupworkshop J:Transcribed notesfromSeptember 8, 2010groupworkshop K:PlanningCommissionminutesfromNovember 9,2010meeting L:PlanningCommissionStaffReportdatedNovember 9, 2010 M:CommentsfromSubcommittee on administrative processes N:DraftProcessWorkflowChart ofthePlanningPermitProcess O:Comparisonofcurrentandrecommendedapprovalauthoritiesforprojectsapproved between 2007and 2009 P:Draft standardsandexamplefor on-site signagerelatedto development proposals