Loading...
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