Loading...
113-L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010.pdfATTACHMENT L CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVEN'JE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning2cupertino.or8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. .5 Agenda Date: November 9, 2010 Application: CP-2010-01 Applicant: City of Cupertinc Property Location: Citywide Application Summary: Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's development permit services and organizational efficiency. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide: • Comments on the list of recommended changes, to the permit process and public engagement policy (see Attachments 1.1A and 15); and • Provide any additional modifications and/or recommendations related to permit process enhancements. 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 2). The study used a variety of sources for it:, analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City's website. Matrix then compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry. A list of recommendations was presentE d to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. The recommendations fall in the following; categories: 0 About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented. CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 2 • About 22 percent of the recommendati ins are being currently being implemented by staff. • About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission review/City Council action in the form of Ordinance/Policy amendments or funding. • About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to inconsistencies with City policies/ department functions and/or potential liability concerns; and • About four percent of the recommend.-Ltions were based on incorrect assumptions by the Consultant. Attachment 3 is a summary table of reccmmendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010 (see Attachments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 for staff reports and minutes). The City Council reviewed the item on May 18, 2010 (sea Attachments 10 & 11 for staff report and minutes). The Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and directed staff to: 1. Conduct additional workshops for the community to collect feedback regarding the permit process; 2. Send notices to all applicants, property owners, and developers who got permits from the City in the last five years. I -i addition, place appropriate notices in local newspapers. Approximately 5,300 notices were mailer to invite perm ittees and property owners to participate in workshops on the development permit process. In addition, notices were placed in the Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene and the City's website. Two group workshops were held - one on July 28, 2010 and another on September 8, 2010. The first meeting was focused on collecting comments on the main themes of the Matrix Report. At the second meeting, workshop attendees were given an opportunity to provide their opinion about the levels of approval for different types of projects. Group Workshop #1 Nineteen residents and property owners (including four Planning Commissioners) attended the group workshop on July 23, 2010. At the first meeting, the group was asked to comment on three main categories indentified from the Matrix Report, streamlining, technology and communication. The attendees were provided with six key recommendations made by Matrix in each category for discussion (see Attachment 12). Participants were also given an opportunity at the end of the meeting to have an open discussion on all items that were not covered by the three main categories. Comments from the group are summarized in Attachment 13. CP-2010-01 Matrix Project (recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 3 Group Workshop #2 Twenty eight community members z.nd developers (including two Planning Commissioners and one Councilmember) attended the September 8th group workshop. The attendees were provided with haniouts that compared Cupertino's approval authority with three neighboring cities: Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment 14). Each category was discus3ed and following the discussion participants were asked to indicate on the handout what their opinion was. The results of this exercise have been tallied and are summarized in Attachment 15 and the comments from the group have been summarized in .attachment 16. The main points brought up by the groups at the workshops were: • The majority of the group agreed chat the development process needs to be streamlined. • A comprehensive online permitting system is key to streamlining both processing and tracking projects. • An overwhelming majority of the grcup members agreed that while streamlining approval processes is desirable, they did not want a reduction in the level of public engagement that the current processes allow. Also, staff has reviewed the input to see if there are discrepancies or legal requirements that would require changes to the recommendations provided in the group workshops. In cases where changes have been proposed, staff has noted the change. A chart is attached that shows projects approved between 2006 and 2009 (see Attachment 17). It compares how the project would have been reviewed per the workshop attendees' recommendation, staff's recommendations, and the current ordinance requirements. Following the two group workshops, staff has compiled the input received at the group workshops into the following categories: 1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments 2. Infrastructure/Technology ImprovemEnts DISCUSSION The following is a compilation of input received at the group workshops. In cases where staff has made a different recommendation or where staff has provided additional recommendations, they are specifically noted in each section. 1. ORDINANCF/POLICY AMENDMENTS Based on the results of the group workshops, staff has attached its recommendations in Attachment 1. A. Streamlining Approval Authgnih . The comments from the first group workshop and the results of the tally of the responses from the second group workshop indicates support for reducing the CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 4 thresholds of the approval level for prc jects that are smaller and do not have far reaching impacts. The majority of the group discussion included the following concepts: • The City Council should review all prcjects that are "outside the box' of regulations - i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan or Zoning. Staff notes that these projects, Ordinance amendments, and Te;itative Maps are required to be reviewed by the City Council per State law. Staff would like to add a recommendation that any project that requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should also be reviewed by Council. • Projects that fit "within the "box" of the existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations should be approved at the Planning Commission level. • Projects that are small and do not cause impacts should be reviewed by staff. Staff notes that such projects could include those that are exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would not have an environmental impact. Projects that typically are exempt under CEQA include new con::truction with six units or less and 10,000 square feet or less of new non-residential development or additions, facade improvements, site improvements including landscaping, replacement or reconstruction of non-residential buildings, etc. Staff would additionally like to recommend that any project that uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) infill exemption (Section 15332 of Categorical Exemptions of CEQA) require Planning Commission approval., • A number of residents expressed concern about reducing thresholds of project approval and recommended enhancing public noticing in case the thresholds are reduced. • A few residents commented if thresholds of approval were reduced, appeal fees should also be lowered or eliminated to remove deterrents to their right to appeal a lower level decision. The current appeal fee is set at $162 and is refunded if the appeal is upheld. Single Family (R1) Ordinance - While the Planning Commission had indicated at their meeting on April 27, 2010, that they d:.d not want to review amendments to the R1 Ordinance, it is important to note thz.t some workshop attendees brought up the issue that R1 requirements were onero as. The two story permit application involves the following three steps: o Design Review o Story Poles - expensive and not always effective if not properly installed o Noticing -financially burdensome and could cause potential security issues since entire plan sets with floor plans have to be mailed While staff does not have specific recommendations, the Planning Commission may have comments or recommendations they wish the Council to consider. 1 The In -fill Development Exemption under CEQA, is used typically for larger developments that are on urbanized sites of up to 5 acres in size. Since , uch projects may be larger than what other CEQA exemptions allow, staff recommends that they be reviewed by the Planning Commission. CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 5 B. Communication: The group workshop attendees discussed -:he issue of noticing at length. Some members of the community who have previously obtained permits from the City felt that the requirements were onerous. Other community members liked the improvements made by the City over the years to increase noticing and wanted to retain them. The participants additionally commented that any process streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input. In response to the comments received in :he group workshops, staff is recommending an enhanced public engagement process based on the following key principles: • A participation process must ensure that a participant's time is well spent. • A participation process must be focused and participants' needs should be fully aired and considered. • Project and participation expectations must be clear from the start. Staff has reviewed past projects where r otification was enhanced and would like to recommend a consistent policy for projects where expectations for the applicant as well as neighbors/residents would be clear from the start. A draft concept of this new public engagement process policy - Advise, Collaborate, Team up (ACT) is shown in Attachment 1, with further details of current policy and proposed changes in Attachment 1A. The recommended ACT Public Engagement Process has the following levels of engagement: • Advise - Staff is recommending enhar cing noticing for all projects by requiring on - site signage, and providing link; on the City's website. The specific recommendations are provided in Attachment 1A. Additionally, to make project signs on the site providing notice of development proposals easily recognizable, staff is proposing a draft sign and standards based on a review of signs and standards in San Jose and Mountain View (see Attachment 18). • Collaborate - This level incorporates enhanced notification for projects that have the potential to create neighborhood impacts. Staff is suggesting a threshold of 25 residential units, 25,000 square feet of retail/commercial use and 50,000 square feet of office/industrial use since project; at this level have the potential to create neighborhood level impacts. ProjectE at this level would be required to expand noticing to 500 feet and have a neighborhood meeting. The public engagement process at this level allows for dialogue between all parties and helps to discuss solutions that could be brought to decision -makers for their consideration. • Team Up - This is the highest level of public engagement for projects with city-wide implications. Staff recommends this level for large projects such as major General Plan amendments and zoning and Planned Development/Use permits that require an EIR. Projects at this level .would require expanded or city-wide noticing and focus groups/workshops. Examples o: where the City has used this process include the South Vallco Master Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 6 Staff would also like to note that we are working on improving inter -departmental communication. Internal processes that can be improved upon by simple policy changes are also being evaluated and instituted. F irthermore, efforts are being made to prepare additional manuals and how-to guides to help homeowners, contractors and developers get the best information possible on preparation of application submittal materials and requirements/ processes. C. Improving Readability and Consiste. c In order to improve consistency between various City documents and improve readability of documents, staff recommends the following: • Review existing conceptual plans Md area plans to make older documents consistent with the General Plan and to update them with new graphics. No amendments to the plans are proposed as part of this review. An administrative update with new graphics is expected -o cost about $5,000-7,500 per document. • Review 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. Staff notes that we are currently working on a number of Council work program items and that the above -mentioned tasks will be done on a long-term basis as time permits. 2. INFRASTRUCTURWrECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS: Many workshop attendees indicated s =rong support for a comprehensive online permitting system (see Attachment 13). Seven of the 15 attendees at the first workshop indicated support for the acquisition and implementation of an online permit system where they could submit applications, track the progress online and obtain permits online without having to submit paper plans. Based on the preliminary discussion, while many of the attendees supported the idea of instituting a technology fee of roughly 4% in order to cover some of they costs of acquiring a new permitting system, some attendees wanted to keep access to paper plans. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Once the Council provides direction on issues to focus on, staff will bring related ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission for consideration. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: 10-a- Gary C ao City Planner Approved by: Aarti S vastava V Community Development Director CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Recommended Approval Authority and Public Engagement Process (ACT) Attachment 1A Current and proposed noticing requirements Attachment 2 Matrix Consul-ing Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 Attachment 3 Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments Attachment 4 Planning Conunission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Attachment 5 Planning Con-unission minutes from April 13,2010 meeting Attachment 6 Planning Corrunission Staff Report dated April 27,2010 Attachment 7 Planning Conunission minutes from April 27, 2010 meeting Attachment 8 Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010 Attachment 9 Planning Commission minutes from May 11, 2010 meeting Attachment 10 City Council St aff Report dated May 18, 2010 Attachment 11 City Council rrinutes from May 18, 2010 meeting Attachment 12 Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees Attachment 13 Summarized rotes and analysis from July 28, 2010 group workshop Attachment 14 Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees Attachment 15 Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop anc: comparison of current level of approval authority and group recommendation to the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Attachment 16 Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop Attachment 17 Comparison of approval authority on projects approved between 2006 and 2009 and group recommendations. Attachment 18 Draft standards and example for on -site signage related to development proposals. G:Planning\PDREPORT\pcCPreports\2010CPreport\( P-2010-01 PC11-09-10.doc