105-D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010.pdfATTACHMENT D
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY BALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 -'planrdng@cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. a Agenda Date:
Application Summary:
Review the Matrix management study of the permit process. Consider authorizing
staff to move forward with recommended process enhancements and ordinance
amendments, Application No. CP-2010-01, City of Cupertino, Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that City Council authorize staff to proceed
with the following recommended policy zoning amendments. More specifically, the
Council should:
• Provide additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process
enhancements
• Comment upon and prioritize the list of changes recommended by the Planning
Commission
• Direct staff to initiate public review process for the ordinance/policy
amendments
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive
organization and management analysis of the development permit process and
operations. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing
the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency.
Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5,
2009 (see Attachment A).
The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus
groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data
and the City's website. They then compared Cupertino's permit processes and
organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management
practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City's
permit process and organizational efficiency. Attachment B is a summary table of
recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments.
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010
PaLye 2
The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13 (see Attachments C & D
for staff report and draft minutes), April 27 (see Attachments E & F for staff report
and draft minutes) and May 11, 2010 (see Attachment G for staff report). Specific
recommendations of the Planning Commission are included in this report.
DISCUSSION:
Recommendation Categories
Matrix's recommendations may be divided into three major categories:
1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments
2. Infrastructure/Technology Improvements
3. Fee Amendments/Cost Recovery
1. ORDINANCE/POLICY AMENDMENTS
A substantial amount of Matrix's recommendations focus on streamlining the
City's development Review process. Matrix suggested that the City's ordinance
be reviewed to allow a wider range of projects to be approved administratively
(subject to codified performance standards) and at the Planning Commission
level. Finally, there are opportunities to enhance and revise the City's Municipal
code and various Specific/Conceptual Plans to improve the readability and
consistency. These are discussed later in this report.
(a) Streamlining the Permit Process
(i) Adjusting the review authority for projects
Matrix identified that Cupertino has additional layers of approval when
compared to cities of comparable size and recommends that the permit process
should be streamlined. Staff conducted a high level comparison of approval
authorities of comparable local cities with a reputation for efficiency such as
Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment H). The Planning
Commission reviewed the comparative review authority study and provided
their recommendations (see Attachment H, recommendation column).
The entire list of specific Planning Commission recommendations is provided in
Attachment I.
(ii) Reducing noticing requirements
Matrix noted that the City's notification requirements often exceed the State's
requirements for noticing. Occasionally, the cost of notification for a project far
exceeds the cost of the application. Examples include:
■ R1 notification: The original Matrix recommendation was to stop sending out
plan sets and only send out the mailed notice. However, staff and the
Planning Commission note that these recommendations have to be balanced
with community concerns regarding adequate noticing. The Commission
also noted that any reduction in noticing plan sets should only be considered
after a new online permitting and information system is implemented.
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010
Page 3
■ Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to
the City's website for more information, updates, etc.
(b) Improving Readability and Consistency
The recommendation is to conduct a comprehensive review of the Zoning
Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize
readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Specific
staff recommendations include:
■ Codify the Planned Industrial and Office (MP/OP) zones in the Zoning
Ordinance. This section is currently used but not codified.
■ Incorporate the West Valley industrial Park Zoning area (ML-rc) into the
Light Industrial (ML) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance.
■ Create a new Commercial ordinance to include all commercial zones
including General Commercial (CG) ordinance and Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) uses and standards.
■ Clarify and cleanup definitions, permitted uses, parking ratios, daycare
policies, etc.
(c) Specif lConceptual Plans
Many of the city's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 1970's and
1980's. Since then, the General Plan has been updated three times. Planning
Commission recommends updating the following Specific Plans as time permits
to be consistent with the new General Plan with updated formats and graphics.
■ North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan
■ South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan
■ Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines
■ South Sunnyvale -Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan
The estimated cost of updating each plan on a limited scale is between $15,000
and $25,000 depending on the scope of the project and outreach.
2. INFRASTRUCTURpff ECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
(a) Online Permit System
One of the high -priority recommendations in the Matrix report is the
implementation of a new automated permit software system. The Planning
Commission supports staffs efforts to implement a comprehensive upgrade to
the permitting technology and recommends the following:
■ Implement a new permit system that will help improve information
efficiency and provide benefit to permit system users
■ Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is
necessary
■ Fees increases are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable
savings in copying/printing/transportation costs
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010
Page 4
(b) Infrastructure Improvements
The Matrix Study recommends redesigning the permit counter area to improve
customer service. The Planning Commission recommends remodeling the permit
center to add a meeting place where staff can sit down with customers to discuss
ideas/plans.
3. FEE AMENDMENTS/COST RECOVERY
The Matrix study recommended a fee study to provide for , cost -recovery for
projects. The Planning Commission recommends evaluating the fee structure of
the permit process to ensure that fees:
■ Are competitive with comparable markets,
■ Show a nexus in charging the fees associated with a particular application
■ Are not cost -prohibitive.
■ Are reduced to support affordable housing and green building projects, but
in a revenue neutral manner.
4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
There are other miscellaneous recommendations made by Matrix relating to
Planning Commission and City Council bylaws and communication.
The Planning Commission made the following recommendations:
■ Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off -site
retreat/workshop
■ Consider Planning Commission & City Council off -site retreat/workshop
when new members are elected/ appointed.
NEXT STEPS
Based on City Council direction to proceed with policy/ordinance/specific plan
amendments/updates, staff will bring back a schedule of the amendments/updates
based on the City Council's prioritization. These projects will then be incorporated
into the Planning Commission's and City Council's Work Programs.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planneid!!�- c-
Reviewed by:
a rivastava
Community Development Director
Approved by:
avi W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachment A Matrix Consutling Group's report titled, "Management
Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009
Attachment B
Summary Table of recommendations in the Matrix report
with staff comments
Attachment C
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010
Attachment D
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 13, 2010
Attachment E
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 2010
Attachment F
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 27, 2010
Attachment G
Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010
Attachment H
Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities
and Staff's recommendations
Attachment I
Summary of the Planning Commission comments and
input
G \ Planning \ PDREPORT \ CC \ 2010 \ CP-2010-01 CC. doc