02-15-11 Bookmarked Packet.pdfTable of Contents
Agenda 4
January 18 City Council minutes
Draft Minutes 11
January 24 City Council minutes
Draft Minutes 21
January 25 City Council minutes
Draft Minutes 23
Accounts Payable for period ending January 28, 2011
Draft Resolution 25
Payroll for period ending February 4, 2011
Draft Resolution 35
Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending
December 2010
Staff Report 36
Investment Portfolio 38
PARS Trust Report 39
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule 41
General Fund Budget Report 43
Expenditure & Revenue Charts 44
Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments
Staff Report 48
Resolution 49
Grant of easement for sidewalk purposes, Apple Inc., a
California corporation, 19333 Vallco Parkway, APN(s) 316-20-
075 and 316-20-076
Resolution 50
Grant of Easement 51
Map 56
Development Permit Process
Staff Report 57
A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended
Approval Authority 64
B: Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management
Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17,
2009 66
C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix
report with staff comments 230
D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010 242
E: City Council minutes from May 18, 2010 meeting 247
F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees 249
G: Transcribed notes from July 28, 2010 group
workshop 250
H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop
attendees 251
1
I: Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010
group workshop 253
J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group
workshop 256
K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9,
2010 meeting 260
L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November
9, 2010 275
M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative
processes 282
N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit
Process 284
O: Comparison of current and recommended approval
authorities for projects approved between 2007 and
2009 285
P: Draft standards and example for on-site signage
related to development proposals 297
Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011
decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a parking
pad to be located at a duplex located at 965-967 Miller Avenue
CC Reconsideration Report on DIR-2010-30 300
A. City Council Draft Resolution & Exhibit 1 303
B. Director's Minor Mod. DIR-2010-30 dated 9/23/10 307
C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated 10/5/10 312
D. PC Staff Report dated 12/14/10 314
E. Draft PC Meeting Minutes of 12/14/10 316
F. PC Resolution No. 6619 319
G. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11 321
H. CC Meeting Minutes dated 1/4/11 324
I. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11 325
Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011
decision to deny an appeal of a personal wireless service facility
at the Results Way Office Park
CC Reconsideration Report on U-2010-03, EXC-2010-
04 &TR-2010-31 327
A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1 331
B. PC Resolution No. 6604 335
C. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10 344
D. PC meeting minutes of 9/14/10 351
E. Appeal filed on 9/28/10 367
F. CC Staff Report dated 11/1/10 380
G. CC meeting minutes of 11/1/10 388
H. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11 392
I. CC meeting minutes of 1/4/11 395
J. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11 398
K. CC Action Letter dated 1/6/11 402
L. Approved Plan Set 405
2
Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino
and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Staff Report 412
Redevelopment Agency Resolution 414
City Council Resolution 417
Loan and Repayment Agreement 420
Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County,
the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the City of
Cupertino for the use of housing funds
Staff Report 424
A. agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa
Clara County 426
B. Draft RDA Resolution approving the Affordable
Housing Agreement 448
C. Draft City Council Resolution approving the
Affordable Housing Agreement 451
Public Infrastructure Agreement with the Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency, City of Cupertino, and Vallco Shopping
Mall
Staff Report Placeholder 454
RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder 455
Council Draft Resolution Placeholder 456
Joint Agreement Placeholder 457
Purchase of storm sewer trash capture devices
Staff Report Placeholder 458
RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder 459
3
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL & CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ SPECIAL MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
4:00 PM
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION – 4:00 PM
1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation (one case)(Gov't Code
54956.9(c))
Page: No written materials in packet
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION
2. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov’t Code 54956.8); Property: 10800
Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and potential lessee;
Under Negotiation: Lease - price and terms of payment
Page: No written materials in packet
3. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - Significant exposure to litigation - (One case)
(Gov’t Code 54956.9(b))
Page: No written materials in packet
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 6:45 PM
ROLL CALL
4
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS
4. Subject: Proclamation recognizing the Santa Clara County Library, the Friends of the
Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino Library Foundation for their support of the 9th Annual
Silicon Valley Reads (continued from February 1)
Recommended Action: Present proclamation
Page: No written materials in packet
5. Subject: Presentation about the local branch of Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), a
voluntary, non-profit, social and cultural organization which aims at preserving and passing
on ancient Hindu heritage and cultural values
Recommended Action: Receive presentation
Page: No written materials in packet
6. Subject: Recognition of the City of Cupertino Finance Department for its excellence in
operating budgeting for Fiscal Year 09-10 from the California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers (CSMFO)
Recommended Action: Recognize Finance Department
Page: No written materials in packet
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of
the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
7. Subject: January 18 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
Draft Minutes
Page: 11
8. Subject: January 24 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
Draft Minutes
Page: 21
6:50 (10)
7:00 (10)
7:10 (10)
7:20 (10)
7:30 (10)
5
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
9. Subject: January 25 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
Draft Minutes
Page: 23
10. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending January 28, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-017
Draft Resolution
Page: 25
11. Subject: Payroll for period ending February 4, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-018
Draft Resolution
Page: 35
12. Subject: Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2010
Recommended Action: Accept the report
Staff Report
Investment Portfolio
PARS Trust Report
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule
General Fund Budget Report
Expenditure & Revenue Charts
Page: 36
13. Subject: Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-019
Description: Extends the appointments of the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer
Staff Report
Resolution
Page: 48
14. Subject: Grant of easement for sidewalk purposes, Apple Inc., a California corporation,
19333 Vallco Parkway, APN(s) 316-20-075 and 316-20-076
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-020
Description: The property owner of this commercial development agrees to grant to the City
an easement for public sidewalk purposes, together with the right to construct, operate, repair
and maintain public utilities and improvements, over a portion of the property
Resolution
Grant of Easement
Map
Page: 50
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (if any)
6
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
PUBLIC HEARINGS
15. Subject: Development Permit Process
Recommended Action:
a. Provide direction to staff on the list of recommended changes and any additional
modifications/enhancements to the permit process and public engagement policy (see
Attachment A); and
b. Authorize Staff to work on modifications to the Zoning Ordinances as required by the
above changes
Description: Application: CP-2010-01; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Application Summary: Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and
opportunities to enhance the quality of the City’s permit services and organizational
efficiency
Staff Report
A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended Approval Authority
B: Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated
November 17, 2009
C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments
D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010
E: City Council minutes from May 18, 2010 meeting
F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees
G: Transcribed notes from July 28, 2010 group workshop
H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees
I: Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop
J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop
K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting
L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010
M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative processes
N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit Process
O: Comparison of current and recommended approval authorities for projects approved
between 2007 and 2009
P: Draft standards and example for on-site signage related to development proposals
Page: 57
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
16. Subject: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council’s January 4, 2011 decision to deny
an appeal of a Director's Approval for a parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 965-
967 Miller Avenue
Recommended Action: Conduct a hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11-021
Description: Application: DIR-2010-30; Appellant: Erwin Wolf; Applicant: Linda Shen-
Jung (GLSAA, LLC); Location: 965-967 Miller Avenue; APN: 369-19-052; Application
Summary: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council decision to deny an appeal of a
7:40 (60)
8:40 (45)
7
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Director’s Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front yard of an existing
duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 965-967 Miller Avenue
CC Reconsideration Report on DIR-2010-30
A. City Council Draft Resolution & Exhibit 1
B. Director's Minor Mod. DIR-2010-30 dated 9/23/10
C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated 10/5/10
D. PC Staff Report dated 12/14/10
E. Draft PC Meeting Minutes of 12/14/10
F. PC Resolution No. 6619
G. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11
H. CC Meeting Minutes dated 1/4/11
I. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11
Page: 300
17. Subject: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council’s January 4, 2011 decision to deny
an appeal of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Office Park
Recommended Action: Conduct a hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11-022
Description: Application Nos: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31; Applicant: Dave
Yocke (AT&T); Petitioners: Grace Chen, Guo Jin; Address: Results Way (rear parking lot);
APN: 357-20-042; Application Summary: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council
decision to deny the appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a personal wireless service
facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and
associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park
CC Reconsideration Report on U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 &TR-2010-31
A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1
B. PC Resolution No. 6604
C. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10
D. PC meeting minutes of 9/14/10
E. Appeal filed on 9/28/10
F. CC Staff Report dated 11/1/10
G. CC meeting minutes of 11/1/10
H. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11
I. CC meeting minutes of 1/4/11
J. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11
K. CC Action Letter dated 1/6/11
L. Approved Plan Set
Page: 327
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
COUNCIL REPORTS
9:25 (90)
8
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
ROLL CALL
18. Subject: Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the City of
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Recommended Action:
A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-01
B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-023
Description: Adopt corresponding resolutions authorizing the City and Agency to enter into
the Agreement
Staff Report
Redevelopment Agency Resolution
City Council Resolution
Loan and Repayment Agreement
Page: 412
19. Subject: Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, the Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the City of Cupertino for the use of housing funds
Recommended Action:
A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-02
B. City Council action:
1) Increase RDA Housing set-aside fund expenditure budget by $1,000,000
2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-024
Description: Adopt corresponding resolutions authorizing the City and Agency to enter into
the Agreement. Discuss an opportunity to fund the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County out
of the RDA Housing set-aside
Staff Report
A. agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
B. Draft RDA Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement
C. Draft City Council Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement
Page: 424
20. Subject: Public Infrastructure Agreement with the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, City
of Cupertino, and Vallco Shopping Mall
Recommended Action:
A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-03
B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-025
Description: Includes installation of storm sewer trash capture devices and reimbursement for
the construction of public street improvements
Staff Report Placeholder
RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder
Council Draft Resolution Placeholder
Joint Agreement Placeholder
Page: 454
10:55 – 90
min total
for Items
18-20
9
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
21. Subject: Purchase of storm sewer trash capture devices
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-04
Description:
Staff Report Placeholder
RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder
Page: 458
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days
after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s
decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city
clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal
ordinance code §2.08.096.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300
Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
12:25 (10)
12:35
10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Adjourned Meeting
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 3:07 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice-Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang
(3:11 p.m.), Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Gilbert Wong announced the closed sessions and invited comments from the public.
Michael McNutt stated that the bid process had taken a very long time and that Council’s
decision on January 4 was reverse discrimination. He urged the Council to reverse their decision
and sign the lease with Coffee Society.
Darcy Paul stated that he had been retained as legal counsel for the Coffee Society. He stated
that the lease negotiations had gone on long before the RFP process began and actually started in
November 2009. He stated that it was Coffee Society’s position that the process has been
unnecessarily long and some added good faith would be needed to restore them to the position
they were in before January 4, 2011.
Paula Davis, Chairwoman of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of the
following individuals:
Andrew Brumm
Clare Brumm
Stuart Chessen
Peggy Griffin
John Ishii
Janice Ishii
Linda Vincent
John Vincent
Wada Naniwada
Mahesh Nihalani
Roger Schindewolf
Patty Robinson
Kevin McClelland
Ruby Elbogen
Sonal Abhyanker
11
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 2
Ms. Davis read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated January 18, and copies were
distributed to the City Council members. The purpose of the letter was to express the Chamber’s
disapproval of the City Council’s decision on January 4 to reopen the bid process for the Coffee
Society property (item No. 3, below). Ms. Davis stated that it was the Chamber’s understanding
that the bid process was well advertised and that all interested parties were clearly aware that the
bid process was open and it was not the obligation of Council or City staff to walk specific
businesses through the process. Ms. Davis also stated that it was critical for local government to
exhibit fairness and consistency when dealing with business, and urged the Council to reconsider
its latest position and award the lease to Coffee Society.
At 3:14 p.m., Council went into closed session to discuss the following items:
1. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8); Property: 10346
Scenic Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiator: Carol Atwood; under negotiation: terms
Recommended Action: Provide direction to negotiator
2. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - Significant exposure to litigation - (Three cases)
Gov't Code 54956.9(b)
3. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8; Property: 10800
Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and potential
lessees; Under Negotiation: Lease - price and terms of payment
At 6:50 p.m., Council reconvened in open session. Mayor Wong announced that the Council had
done the following:
1. Met with the real property negotiator and gave direction.
2. Council was briefed by legal counsel and gave direction. No action was taken.
3. On January 4th, the City Council had concerns about the process. On further review of
the RFP process, the Council is comfortable going forward with the lease. Therefore, the
City Council directed the real property negotiator to re-offer the lease previously signed
by the Coffee Society and considered at the January 4 meeting, and place the item on a
future Council agenda for City action.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS
4. Subject: Declare January 2011 to be National Blood Donor Month
Recommended Action: Present proclamation to the American Red Cross, Northern
California Blood Services Region
Mayor Wong presented the proclamation to Barb Larkin, CEO of the American Red Cross
Silicon Valley Chapter. She noted that the phone number for individuals to call for more
information is 1-800-RED CROSS.
12
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 3
Council member Wang stepped away from the dais before postponements.
POSTPONEMENTS
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to continue Item No. 15 to February 1. The motion carried
unanimously with Council member Wang absent.
Santoro moved and Chang seconded to continue Item No. 10 to February 1. The motion carried
unanimously with Council member Wang absent.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt distributed the following written communications:
· A letter dated January 18 expressing the Chamber of Commerce’s disapproval of the City
Council’s decision to reopen the bid process for the Coffee Society property
· Emails from Ross Heitkamp, President of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, supporting
the current CIP (Item No. 17b) and supporting Alternative 4A for the Stevens Creek
Corridor Project, Phase II (Item No. 17c)
· Email from Leslie Fowler in favor of opening the Scenic Avenue Trail so that her son can
bicycle through Blackberry Farm park to Monta Vista High School (Item 17)
· A copy of the Capital Improvement Status Report prepared by staff (17b)
· Emails from Gail Bower and from Donna Austin, representing the Cupertino Historical
Society, in favor of Alternative 4A (17c)
· Email from Geoffrey Sherman opposed to any encroachment onto any part of the
Blackberry Farm golf course (item 17c)
· Pictures from Barbara Stocklmeir showing the West Side of Stevens Creek Park (item
17c)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Elise Gerson, Director of Resident Services at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio, said that cell
phone coverage on their campus has very poor to no reception at all. She said she wanted to alert
Council that they are starting the process with the Planning Department and AT&T to pursue a
cell tower on the campus. She noted that they look forward to Council’s support when this item
comes before them.
Council member Wang returned to the dais before Consent Calendar.
13
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 4
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
recommended. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None.
5. Subject: December 7 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
6. Subject: December 21 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
7. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending December 31, 2010
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-004
8. Subject: Phase IV of the Employee Wellness Program
Recommended Action: Approve additional proposed enhancements to the Employee
Wellness Program
9. Subject: Changes to the Selection of Classification that receive Automobile Allowance
Recommended Action: Eliminate Automobile Allowance for selected classifications
10. Subject: Animals in Disaster Annex to Cupertino Emergency Plan
Recommended Action: Approve as an Annex to the Cupertino Emergency Plan
Description: Document addresses Cupertino’s role in caring for displaced pets and stray
animals following a major emergency when the City’s Animal Control Service is
overwhelmed
11. Subject: Fee waiver for St. Joseph’s Catholic School Athletic Teams
Recommended Action: Deny fee waiver request
12. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Steven A.
Breinberg and Danna S. Breinberg, 10625 Cordova Road, APN 342-22-103
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-005
Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property
13. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Raman V.
Mummidivarapu and Bhavani Mummidivarapu, 10134 South Tantau, APN 375-07-038
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-006
Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None
14
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Subject: Annual renewal of bingo permits for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino
Senior Center Coordinating Council
Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing and renew permits
Mayor Wong opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no requests to speak, and
the hearing was closed.
Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to renew the bingo permits. The motion carried
unanimously.
15. Subject: Green Building Ordinance
Recommended Action: Continue to February 1
Description: Application: MCA-2010-04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance
Under “Postponements,” this item was continued to the meeting of February 1.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
16. Subject: Abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Cupertino
Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No. 10-224
Recommended Action: Note protest(s) and adopt Resolution No. 11-007
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. Council had questions regarding
changing the deadline date for inspections and concurred to hold off on this item until the
County representative arrived to answer questions.
17. Mid-Year Operating and Capital budget review:
a. Subject: Mid-Year budget adjustment
Recommended Action: Approve mid-year budget adjustment
Written communications for Item No. 17 included:
o Emails from Ross Heitkamp, President of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail,
supporting the current CIP (Item No. 17b) and supporting Alternative 4A for the
Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Phase II (Item No. 17c)
o Email from Leslie Fowler in favor of opening the Scenic Avenue Trail so that her
son can bicycle through Blackberry Farm park to Monta Vista High School (Item
17)
o A copy of the Capital Improvement Status Report prepared by staff (17b)
o Emails from Gail Bower and from Donna Austin, representing the Cupertino
Historical Society, in favor of Alternative 4A (17c)
15
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 6
o Email from Geoffrey Sherman opposed to any encroachment onto any part of the
Blackberry Farm golf course (item 17c)
o Pictures from Barbara Stocklmeir showing the West Side of Stevens Creek Park
(item 17c)
Finance Director David Woo reviewed the staff report.
Jennifer Griffin said she had a question about how the mayor would be handling the
public input for all three items. She thought all the input would be at the end and said she
doesn’t have anything to say for item a, but does for item b.
Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to approve the mid-year budget
adjustments as presented. The motion carried unanimously.
b. Subject: Mid-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Status Report
Recommended Action: Direct staff to proceed with the CIP as currently approved, with
adjustments to the program to be proposed during the annual budget review in spring, 2011
Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint
presentation. He noted the changes made to the CIP status report that was handed out on
the dais.
Council asked questions from staff.
Jennifer Griffin commended the City for the Sterling Barnhart Park acquisition and
delivery. She said that she and her neighbors love the park and are very appreciative. She
also thanked Council for keeping the Lawrence Mitty Park on the horizon for the future.
Carol Stanek said that she wanted to reiterate all the great support from the community for
the Scenic Circle access and hopes it will happen as soon as possible.
Action: Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to accept the report with clarification that
any items for potential reallocation would not move forward until Council sees them first.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Wong reordered the agenda to return to item number 16 regarding weed abatement.
Moe Kumre from the County answered questions about whether the deadline date could be
moved back from April 15. He said that another courtesy letter would go out from the County
regarding if the deadline date has changed, noting that the County would work with residents to
get the weeds abated, and giving the contact information for the County. Mr. Kumre noted that
all the property owners would need to be noticed again if the deadline were to be moved. He also
said that Council could change the deadline date at any of its meetings.
16
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 7
Mayor Wong noted one speaker card with the name of Sri, but the person wasn’t in the audience
anymore. Mr. Kumre said he would look through the list and see if any person matched that
name and contact the person if possible.
Action: Santoro moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 11-007 with the change to
move the deadline date to April 30. Wang offered a friendly amendment to have the date change
be for next year to avoid having to re-notice. Santoro accepted the friendly amendment. The
motion carried unanimously.
Council recessed from 8:38 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
Council continued with item number 17c.
c. Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Phase II
Recommended Action:
1. Authorize staff to initiate the design effort for Alternative 4A
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment with SSA
Landscape Architects for design services not to exceed $200,000
3. Authorize the City Manager to issue Letters of Intent to various granting agencies
clarifying the City’s intent to proceed with Alternative 4A and creek restoration
4. Authorize staff to initiate an environmental clearance process for the project
Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint
presentation.
Patrick Kwok from the Santa Clara Valley Water District discussed the voter approved
Measure B for open space. He noted that the measure provides funding for water quality,
protection, trails and open space, and water restoration. He indicated that the water district
had partnered with the City on Phase I of the project and that there was $100,000
remaining that the City must reapply for. A formal request to the Board is crucial and grant
requests are due by March 15. He stated that the District supports staff recommendation of
4A and is willing to work with the City on the design. He introduced Deborah Cordo (staff
member) who has also worked on this project. Ms. Cordo said that the $800,000 grant
money was never in the budget. She indicated that there were three grants available in the
trails category and three in the environmental category. She noted that these grants are
competitive and urged Council to get the grant applications in. She also stated that letters
of intent and support helps the Board in making its decision.
Brad Allen thanked the City for supporting creeks and restoration and it shows in the
quality of the parks. He said he supports 4A.
Marianne Cali, board member of Stevens Creek Watershed Council, thanked the City for
the beautiful job of Phase I restoration of the Stevens Creek Corridor and supports 4A.
17
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 8
Mike Ferreira spoke on behalf of the Loma Prieta Sierra Club and was in favor of 4A. He
stated that he was impressed with the job that the Parks and Recreation Commission did to
come up with a feasible design and project that was not at the expense of interest groups.
Shani Kleinhaus of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society supported 4A.
James Robenolt expressed gratitude and admiration of Phase I of the Stevens Creek
restoration through Blackberry Farm. He indicated that he would like to see the same level
of excellence through Phase II and not lose the funding available. He supports 4A.
Deborah Jamison said she supported 4A because it is the most cost effective and also
creates a hydrological and ecological, friendly ecosystem which is the purpose of the
restoration. She urged council to take advantage of all funding available and accept the
$1.2 million grant.
Dale Compton supported option 4A.
Ann Ng, member of board of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, said she thought it makes
sense to fix the creek first before continuing with Phase II. She supported option 4A.
Barbara Stocklmeir showed a picture from 1995 of what water can do to the creek. She
stated that she agrees with option 4A. She stated that she has an issue with where the trail
might end up on Stevens Creek as far as bicyclists go. She noted that there is a really hard,
right turn down the driveway of a steep hill from the west side and that oil from cars might
even make it worse. She stated that the bike path could just keep going the way it is which
puts one on the other side of the creek to the golf course or it could go parallel to the home
owners association on the back side of the creek restoration. She urged Council to
consider the safety of children when considering the final destination of the bike path.
Council asked questions of staff.
Action: Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded the following:
1. Authorize staff to initiate the design effort for Alternative 4A
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment with SSA
Landscape Architects for design services not to exceed $200,000
3. Authorize the City Manager to issue Letters of Intent to various granting agencies
clarifying the City’s intent to proceed with Alternative 4A and creek restoration
4. Authorize staff to initiate an environmental clearance process for the project
The motion carried unanimously.
Council member Chang stepped away from the dais before Ordinances.
18
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 9
ORDINANCES
18. Subject: Municipal Code amendments to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element
Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 11-2073
Description: Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2010-06) to Chapter 19.48 (Planned
Development (P) Ordinance), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (PF) Zone Ordinance),
Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Ordinance) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code
to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element; "An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino amending to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) zones), Chapter
19.72 (Private Recreation (FP) zone), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits,
Conditional Use Permits and Variances) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans) of the Cupertino
Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element"
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City
Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Mahoney, Santoro, Wang,
and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: Chang.
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2073. Ayes: Mahoney,
Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: Chang.
Council member Chang returned to the dais.
STAFF REPORTS
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt reported that an unusually large number of applications were
received for the city’s advisory commissions. The City Council had already set aside Monday
and Tuesday, January 25 and 26, at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the interviews, but the typical schedule
of 8 minutes per interview resulted in the meetings going very late into the evening. She asked if
the Council would like to retain the current schedule, which would result in the Tuesday meeting
lasting until 11:50 p.m., or if they would like to adjust the schedule by starting earlier, shortening
the interview time, or adding an additional day.
The Council concurred to begin the interviews at 4:00 p.m.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events.
19
January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Monday, January 24 beginning at 4:00 p.m. for
Commission interviews, Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
____________________________
Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available
for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org.
Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then
click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased
from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.
20
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Adjourned Meeting
Monday, January 24, 2011
ROLL CALL
At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular adjourned meeting to order in Conference
Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang
Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
1. Interview applicants for commission vacancies:
§ Planning
The City Council interviewed Don Sun, Eric Rafia, Alain Dang, Alan Takahashi,
Clinton Brownley, Muneesh Goomer, Rose Grymes, Daniel Nguyen, Rajeev
Joshi, Annie Ho, Rajeev Raman, Sharon Saturnio, and Xiao Liu. The City Council
appointed Don Sun and Clinton Brownley to full terms ending January 2015.
§ Housing
The City Council interviewed Xiao Liu, Rajeev Raman, Annie Ho, and Sharon
Saturnio. The City Council appointed Rajeev Raman to a full term ending January
2015.
§ Fine Arts
The City Council interviewed Rajeswari Mahalingam, Joelle Lieb, Jessi Kaur,
Russell Leong, Elizabeth Adler, Donna Bee-Gates, and Savita Vaidhyanathan.
The City Council appointed Joelle Lieb and Jessi Kaur to full terms ending
January 2015 and Russell Leong to a partial term ending January 2013 (counts as
a full term).
21
January 24, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 2
§ Parks and Recreation
The City Council interviewed Savita Vaidhyanthan, David Fung, Emma Wang,
YuHong Tang, and David Lee. The City Council appointed David Fung and
David Lee to full terms ending January 2015.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:58 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, January 25 at 4:00 p.m. to conduct
additional commission interviews. The meeting will be held in Cupertino City Hall Conference
Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
_________________________________
Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
22
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Adjourned Meeting
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
ROLL CALL
At 4:03 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular adjourned meeting to order in Conference
Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang
Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
1. Interview applicants for commission vacancies:
§ Library
The City Council interviewed Anne Ezzat, Rose Grymes, Thomas Wang, Janet
Riddell, Sushma Anantharam, Adrian Kolb, Jane Otto, and Vijay
Veeramachaneni. The City Council appointed Rose Grymes and Adrian Kolb to
full terms ending January 2015.
§ Bicycle Pedestrian
The City Council interviewed Jimmy Duarte, Jill Mitsch, William Chan, and
Ashish Kolli. The City Council appointed Jill Mitsch, William Chan, and Ashish
Kolli to a full term ending January 2015.
§ Technology, Information, & Communication
The City Council interviewed Bhimachar Venkatesh, Jitendra Jadhav, Rajeev
Joshi, Rod Livingood, Duleep Pillai, Vijay Veeramachaneni, Beverly Siegel, and
Peter Friedland. The City Council appointed Jitendra Jadhav, Rod Livingood, and
Peter Friedland to full terms ending January 2015.
23
January 25, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
_________________________________
Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Treasurer’s Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2010
Recommended Action
Accept the report
Description
Investments
The market and book value of the City’s portfolio both totaled $51.2 million at December 31,
2010. The portfolio’s December yield of 0.28% was down from the September 2010 yield of
0.33% and the year ago rate of 0.46% due to the portfolio’s safe and liquid mix of investments
and because of the temporary high portion of the portfolio in cash and money market positions
due to maturities and tax deposits during the holiday office closure. The liquid positions were re-
invested in January. The LAIF benchmark was at 0.46% for December, down from 0.50% in
September and 0.57% a year ago, reflective of their move to a higher percentage of investments
backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government.
The portfolio increased from September to December by $5 million due to sales and property tax
receipts. Maturing Treasuries and a certificate of deposit totaling $9.6 million were either re-
invested into new Treasuries or temporarily left in the money market fund.
Investments are in full compliance with the City investment policy and State law and are tiered
to provide sufficient cash flows to pay City obligations over the next six months. Market values
on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo Bank
Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data,
Inc.
The retiree medical PARS trust market value grew from $7.1 million to $7.4 million during the
quarter ending December 31, 2010. The portfolio of money market, fixed income and equity
mutual funds returned 4.3% for the quarter and 6.67% since inception six months ago. Short-
term volatility of market value is anticipated, with positive returns expected in the long run to
fund future retiree medical obligations.
36
General Fund Budget Report
Revenues are up five percent over last year, led by strong growth in sales taxes, transient
occupancy taxes, property transfer taxes and charges for services. Grant revenues, fines and
forfeitures are trailing results from last year while other categories are relatively steady. Growth
will need to continue in order to achieve this year’s projections.
Expenditures are on track with last year results and this year’s budget expectations.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy City Treasurer
Reviewed by: David Woo for Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Investment Portfolio
PARS Trust Report
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule
General Fund Budget Report
Expenditure & Revenue Charts
37
City of Cupertino
Investment Portfolio
December 31, 2010
ACTIVITY DATE COUPON YIELD ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZED
PURCHASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION RATE To Maturity COST VALUE VALUE PROFIT/LOSS
SECURITIES MATURED
09/23/10 10/28/10 US Treasury Bill 0.11%0.11%2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0
09/23/10 11/12/10 US Treasury Bill 0.12%0.12%1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0
09/23/10 12/09/10 US Treasury Bill 0.13%0.13%2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0
01/29/10 12/31/10 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.25%2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 0
06/28/10 12/31/10 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.15%2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0
12/28/05 12/28/10 Natl Bnk of New York City, Flushing NY 4.90%4.90%97,000 97,000 97,000 0
SECURITIES PURCHASED
11/22/10 01/20/11 US Treasury Bill 0.11%0.11%2,999,820 3,000,000 2,999,940 120
12/17/10 10/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00%0.26%2,012,099 2,000,000 2,011,720 (379)
CITY PORTFOLIO
CASH
12/31/10 Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking 16,086 16,086 16,086 0
12/31/10 Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements 0.10%0.10%5,557,479 5,557,479 5,557,479 0
5,573,565 5,573,565 5,573,565 0
LAIF
12/31/10 LAIF - State Pool 0.46%0.46%594,808 594,808 594,808 0
MONEY MARKET FUNDS
12/31/10 Wells Fargo 100% Treasury 0.01%0.01%8,313,987 8,313,987 8,313,987 0
8,313,987 8,313,987 8,313,987 0
US TREASURY SECURITIES
11/22/10 01/20/11 US Treasury Bill 0.11%0.11%2,999,820 3,000,000 2,999,940 120
01/29/10 01/31/11 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.28%2,501,254 2,500,000 2,501,275 21
04/26/10 02/28/11 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.39%5,003,891 5,000,000 5,005,250 1,359
03/26/10 03/31/11 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.44%5,005,321 5,000,000 5,008,200 2,879
04/29/10 04/30/11 US Treasury Note 4.88%0.43%6,087,449 6,000,000 6,090,720 3,271
05/27/10 05/31/11 US Treasury Note 4.88%0.41%5,092,073 5,000,000 5,095,500 3,427
06/28/10 06/30/11 US Treasury Note 1.13%0.33%2,007,822 2,000,000 2,009,220 1,398
07/28/10 07/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00%0.32%2,007,921 2,000,000 2,008,900 979
08/27/10 08/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00%0.28%2,009,569 2,000,000 2,010,080 511
09/28/10 09/30/11 US Treasury Note 1.00%0.25%2,011,158 2,000,000 2,010,780 (378)
12/17/10 10/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00%0.26%2,012,099 2,000,000 2,011,720 (379)
36,738,377 36,500,000 36,751,585 13,208
Total Managed Portfolio 51,220,737 50,982,360 51,233,945 13,208
Average Yield 0.28%
Average Length to Maturity (in years) 0.26
MONEY MARKET FUNDS Kester Trust
12/31/10 Wells Institutional Money Mkt Acct 0.15%0.15%48,404 48,404 48,404 0
BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO
Bond Reserve Acct Ambac Assurance Security Bond 1 1 1
Bond Payment Acct Wells Treasury Plus Money Mkt 0.01%0.01%1,015,072 1,015,072 1,015,072 0
Total Bond Reserve Portfolio 1,015,073 1,015,073 1,015,073 0
38
39
40
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
Rate of Return Comparison
LAIF
Cupertino
LAIF
1%Cash
11%
Money Market
16%
US Treasuries
72%
Investments by Type
Managed Portfolio
41
Compliance Schedule
COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY
City of Cupertino
December 31, 2010
Category Standard Comment
Treasury Issues No limit Complies
US Agencies No limit Complies
Medium Term Corporate Bonds 30% with A rating Complies
LAIF $50 million Complies
Money Market Funds 20%Complies
Maximum Maturities Up to 5 years Complies
Per Issuer Max 10% (except for Treasuries and US Agencies)Complies
Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40%Complies
Commercial Paper 270 days & 25%Complies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30%Complies
Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies
Reverse Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies
Page 2
42
City of Cupertino
General Fund Budget Report
December 31, 2010
2009/10 2010/11 12/31/2009 12/31/2010 Analysis of Trends
Taxes:
Sales Tax 11,249,000 12,036,000 7,814,643 8,463,831 Business to business improvement
Property Tax 10,419,503 12,076,000 6,174,438 6,088,845 Flat real estate market and CPI
Transient Occupancy 1,994,000 2,094,000 994,505 1,189,817 Occupancy rates up; delinquent taxes received this year
Utility Tax 3,366,000 3,433,000 1,237,284 1,314,169 Electric, gas, non-wireless telecom improved
Franchise Fees 2,630,000 2,656,000 505,123 590,165 Prior year revenue recorded this year
Other Taxes 1,200,000 1,224,000 495,406 757,605 Transfer tax from N.Vallco property sale
Licenses and Permits 3,210,000 2,610,000 1,519,991 1,495,901 Plan checks and inspections down
Use of Money & Property 891,000 1,188,000 338,287 329,654
Intergovernmental 492,296 553,000 272,927 222,625 Different grants
Charges for Services 1,434,000 1,652,000 720,299 845,665 Senior Center, planning fees up
Fines & Forfeitures 902,000 920,000 331,803 244,138 Lower fine assessments in courts
Other Revenue 100,000 100,000 52,028 36,086
Total Revenue 37,887,799 40,542,000 20,456,734 21,578,501 5% over year
Operating Expenditures:
Administrative 1,517,004 1,611,138 633,113 719,451 On track
Law Enforcement 8,565,636 8,833,336 4,198,952 4,358,436 On track
Public & Environ. Affairs 1,494,522 1,461,143 666,953 666,477 On track
Administrative Service 4,062,641 4,234,559 1,904,993 1,735,503 On track & election off-year
Recreation Service 4,289,549 4,444,052 1,904,514 1,928,869 On track
Community Development 3,560,750 3,703,100 1,426,023 1,440,113 On track
Public Works 11,803,700 12,216,022 5,207,046 5,234,688 On track
Total Expenditures 35,293,802 36,503,350 15,941,594 16,083,537
Transfers In 991,512 265,000 0 132,498 CIP savings in adopted budget
Transfers Out -9,374,885 -6,725,000 -3,786,498 -3,362,496 Debt service, capital, and retiree medical funding
Net Gain/(Loss)-5,789,376 -2,421,350 728,642 2,264,966
Budget Actual
43
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
General Fund Expenditures Projected vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
44
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Property Tax Projections vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Sales Tax Projections vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
45
0
1,000
2,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Licenses & Permits Projected vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Transient Occupancy Tax Projected vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
46
0
500
1,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Use of Money & Property Projected vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
0
500
1,000
9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10Year-To-Date $ThousandsMonth
Charges for Services Projected vs. Actual
Projected, per current budget
Actual
47
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution
Description
Extends the appointments of the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer.
Discussion
Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government
Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. This Section requires
government agencies to appoint a treasurer and deputy treasurer on an annual basis. The
attached resolution extends the current appointments of Carol Atwood and David Woo as the
City’s Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, respectively.
This legislation was intended to provide ongoing review of investment issues by the governing
body.
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy Treasurer
Reviewed by: Kelly Kline for Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Resolution
48
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10-021 AND APPOINTING
TREASURER AND DEPUTY TREASURER
WHEREAS, the City has available funds to invest in accordance with principles of sound
treasury management; and
WHEREAS, the City annually adopts an investment policy;
WHEREAS, the City invests funds in accordance with provisions of California
Government Code Section 53600; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby rescinds Resolution No. 10-021 and appoints Carol Atwood City Treasurer and David
Woo as Deputy Treasurer; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer is empowered and specifically
authorized to invest and reinvest City funds in accordance with California Government Code
Section 53600; to buy, sell, trade and deal in authorized securities on margin or otherwise in
connection therewith and to pledge any and all securities for future delivery thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of February 2011 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
ATTEST:
City Clerk
49
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES,
FROM APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
19333 VALLCO PARKWAY, APN 316-20-075 AND 316-20-076
WHEREAS, Apple Inc., a California corporation, has executed a Grant of Easement for
sidewalk purposes, which is in good and sufficient form, granting the City of Cupertino, County
of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain property for sidewalk purposes situate
at 19333 Vallco Parkway, more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B”, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so
tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
grant and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
50
51
52
53
54
55
1913219146191601916119147191331010019161191471913310052
10162
10175
10149
10133
10123
10109
10039
10053
10067
10053
10123
10135
10149
10163
10191
10161
10163
10151
10153
10141
10143
10520
10480
1933319349193651924010100
10200
10108
10122
10134
10148
10025
10081
19333
19191
191601033010435
1011119230192601924419250193001928010121
19333
10131
10141
10160
1946019480
19472
1946919479
10055
10099
10
0
8
9
10
0
8
7
10166
19507
19503
1018119400
19505 19501
191101914019200
10080
10050
19330
1928610150
19450
10062
19480
193001937619400
10500
19550
19489
19482
19462
19450
19470
10130
10100
193151012110097
10
0
8
5
10080 10070 10060
10066
10080
10094
10067
10081
10095
10109
10123
1907019078190661908219088190801906819062100331002919052190601905019220
TANTAUVALLCO
FINCHSTEVENS CREEK
JUNIPERO SERRA
MILLERWOLFEXXXPERIMETER
CRAFT
ANNE
SORENSON
COZETTEWOLFE ¯
Subject: Grant of Easement for Sidewalk Purposes, APPLE INC., a California corporation, 19333 Vallco Parkway.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-_____
56
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
February 15, 2011
Subject
Development Permit Process Review
Recommended Action
1. Provide direction to staff on the list of recommended changes and any additional
modifications/enhancements to the permit process and public engagement policy (see
Attachment A); and
2. Authorize Staff to work on modifications to the Zoning Ordinances as required by the above
changes.
Description
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.
Background
As part of the Council’s 2008-2009 work program, the Council directed a comprehensive review
of the City's development review process.
In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was hired to conduct a comprehensive organization and
management analysis of the City’s development permit process and operations. Matrix began
their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment B
for Matrix’s Management Study of the Permit Process Report).
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. Matrix
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.
The Matrix Report recommendations fall in the following categories:
· About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented.
· About 22 percent of the recommendations 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.
57
· 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 recommendations were based on incorrect assumptions by the
Consultant.
Attachment C is a summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments.
City Council Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the Matrix report on April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010
and provided recommendations for the Council to consider (see Attachment D for Council staff
report dated May 18, 2010). The City Council reviewed the report on May 18, 2010 (see
Attachment E for minutes).
The Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and noted that they
would specifically like to include input from single-family homeowners who have had
experience with the permitting process and members of the public. The Council then directed
staff to:
1. Conduct additional group 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. In addition, place appropriate notices in newspapers.
Community Outreach Efforts
Approximately 5,300 notices were mailed to invite permittees and property owners to comment
on the development permit process. In addition, notices were placed in the Cupertino Courier,
Cupertino Scene and the City’s website.
Two group workshops (July 28, 2010 and September 8, 2010) were facilitated by Mr. Ken
Rodriguez. The first meeting was focused on collecting comments on the main themes of the
Matrix Report (See Attachment F). See Attachment G for comments from the first group
meeting.
At the second meeting, workshop attendees were given an opportunity to provide their opinion
about the levels of approval for projects. Participants were provided a handout to indicate their
opinion on what level approvals for different types of projects should be given (See Attachment
H). The results of this exercise have been compiled in Attachment I. General comments from this
meeting have been compiled in Attachment J. Staff has reviewed the group workshop input and
has noted where recommendations create potential discrepancies and/or legal considerations.
The discussion in the community workshops revolved around the following themes (See
Attachments G and J for details):
· The development process needs to be simplified.
· A comprehensive online permitting system is key to simplifying both processing and tracking
projects.
58
· While simplifying approval processes is desirable, the current level of public engagement
should not be reduced.
A detailed discussion of these issues is provided later in the report.
Planning Commission Review
On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the input from the group workshops
(See Attachment K for minutes from the Planning Commission’s November 9, 2010 meeting).
They generally agreed with all the changes recommended in the report (See Attachment L for
Staff Report). Individual Commissioners also made additional recommendations noted later in
the staff report. The Planning Commission agreed to forward the recommendations to the
Council for consideration and direction.
The Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee (composed of Commissioner Miller and
Lee) to provide staff with ideas for additional improvements to internal administrative processes.
The subcommittee met with staff on November 23, 2010 (see Attachment M for comments from
the subcommittee). Staff is also working on a draft process workflow chart for the planning
process for discussion with the subcommittee (see Attachment N). Staff will be refining the
chart and providing it with the application forms on the City’s website. A second meeting with
the subcommittee is scheduled for February 9, 2011. Subcommittee comments from the February
9, 2011 meeting will be forwarded to the Council as a desk item.
Planning Commission Recommendations
The following outlines recommendations from the Planning Commission after reviewing input
from the group workshops. In cases where staff has made an alternative or additional
recommendation, a specific notation has been provided. Specific comments provided by the
public are also noted.
1. ORDINANCE/POLICY AMENDMENTS
A. Simplifying Approval Authority:
The Planning Commission supports simplification of approval authority as noted below:
i. The City Council should review all projects that are “outside the box” of regulations –
i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan, Zoning, and Ordinance and/or
involve the preparation of an Environment Impact Report (EIR). Such projects and
Tentative Maps are required to be reviewed by the City Council per State law.
ii. Projects that fit “within the “box” of existing General Plan, zoning and other City
regulations should be approved at the Planning Commission level.
iii. Projects that are small, do not cause impacts, are exempt under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would have no environmental impacts
should be reviewed by staff. Projects that typically are exempt under CEQA include
new construction with six units or less and 10,000 square feet or less of new non-
residential development or additions, façade improvements, site improvements
including landscaping, replacement or reconstruction of non-residential buildings, etc.
59
Ø Project Approval Threshold Alternative for Council Consideration:
o The current recommendation is to allow new construction exempt under CEQA to
be approved at staff level. An alternate recommendation could be to allow new
construction exempt under CEQA to be approved by the DRC. Single-family
homes and other minor permits could still be approved at staff level per the
current ordinance. Attachment A.1 shows the current and recommended levels
for the projects and Attachment O provides a list of past projects and the level at
which they would be approved under the recommended process.
o Under the current recommendations, the Council will review all projects which
require General Plan or Zoning Amendments and any project for which an EIR is
prepared. An alternative for Council review would be projects that propose > 50
residential units and/or 50,000 square feet of commercial space and/or 100,000
square feet of industrial space.
Comments from residents:
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.
B. Ordinance Amendments
i. Single Family (R1) Ordinance – a few workshop attendees brought up the following
issues related to the R1 ordinance.
a. Design Review for two-story homes is onerous.
b. Story Poles are expensive and not effective in conveying the shape of a house.
c. Noticing is financially burdensome and intrusive since entire plan sets with floor
plans have to be mailed.
At the November 9, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the
requirements of the two story permit process and privacy planting requirements at
length but did not make any recommendations. A Planning Commissioner noted that
these requirements are onerous. Some Commissioners expressed concern about
making changes to the R1 ordinance. Staff recommends that any changes to the R1
Ordinance should be part of a separate project to ensure that stakeholders interested
specifically in the R1 Ordinance are included.
Comments from residents:
Some community members also expressed concern with changing the R1 ordinance.
ii. Protected Tree Ordinance – At the November 9, 2010 meeting, the requirements of
the Protected Tree ordinance were also discussed. A Planning Commissioner noted
60
that current requirements for restricting removals and requiring replacements were
onerous.
C. Communication:
The group workshop attendees discussed the issue of noticing at length. Some members
of the community who have previously obtained permits from the City and some
Planning Commissioners felt that the requirements were onerous. Other community
members felt that they like the improvements made by the City over the years to increase
noticing and wanted to retain them. They additionally commented that any process
streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input.
Based upon a review of past projects where notification was enhanced, the Planning
Commission recommends 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 A.
The recommended ACT Public Engagement Process has the following three levels of
engagement:
i. Advise Level – Enhanced noticing shall be provided for all projects through on-site
signage, and project links on the City’s website. The specific recommendations are
provided in Attachment A. 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 P).
ii. Collaborate Level – This level incorporates requirements for the “Advise Level”
noted above as well as additional notification for projects that have the potential to
create neighborhood-level impacts. The Planning Commission recommends a
threshold of 15 residential units, 25,000 square feet of retail/commercial use and
50,000 square feet of office/industrial use for this level.
Projects at this level would be required to expand noticing to 1,000 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.
iii. Team Up Level – 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 will require site signage, enhanced
notification at the neighborhood or City-wide level depending on the type of project,
and community workshops to allow for dialogue between interested parties.
Examples of where the City has used this process include the South Vallco Master
Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan.
61
D. Improving Readability and Consistency
The Planning Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation to work on the following
changes to improve consistency between various City documents and their readability:
i. Review existing conceptual plans and area plans to make older documents consistent
with the General Plan and 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 to cost about $5,000-7,500 per document.
ii. 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 these tasks will be done on a long-term basis as time permits.
2. INFRASTRUCTURE/TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS:
Many workshop attendees indicated strong support for a comprehensive online permitting
system (see Attachment G). 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, they also supported the idea of instituting a
technology fee of roughly 4% in order to cover some of the costs of acquiring a new
permitting system.
On January 18, 2011, the Council preliminarily approved $350,000 to move forward with the
acquisition of the first phase of an online permit system. The system is expected to cost a
total of $500,000. Staff is currently coordinating with the departments expected to use this
system to create an RFP, which will allow us to solicit bids for Phase 1 by Summer 2011.
The Council will review a request for the remaining $150,000 for the online permitting
system as part of the budget for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13.
3. INTERNAL PROCESS CHANGES:
Staff is working on making improvements to inter-departmental communication by:
A. Continually reviewing and evaluating changes and enhancements to internal processes on
an ongoing basis.
B. Preparing customized 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. Implementing suggestions from the Planning Commission subcommittee, applicants and
staff.
62
NEXT STEPS:
Once the Council provides direction on the general recommendation from the Planning
Commission, staff will bring specific ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission for
review and, upon recommendation for approval, to the City Council. As noted earlier, staff
recommends that a review of specific ordinances such as the R1 ordinance and Protected Tree
ordinance should be designated as a separate project.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development
Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended Approval Authority
B: Matrix Consulting Group’s report titled, “Management Study of the Permit Process,”
dated November 17, 2009
C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments
D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010
E: City Council minutes from May 18, 2010 meeting
F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees
G: Transcribed notes from July 28, 2010 group workshop
H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees
I: Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop
J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop
K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting
L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010
M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative processes
N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit Process
O: Comparison of current and recommended approval authorities for projects approved
between 2007 and 2009
P: Draft standards and example for on-site signage related to development proposals
63
CCCuuupppeeerrrtttiiinnnooo PPPuuubbbllliiiccc EEEnnngggaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt PPPrrroooccceeessssss ---AAACCCTTT
Cupertino
Public Engagement
Process
ACT
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT
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.
NOTE: Current and proposed approval authority and noticing requirements are further detailed in Attachment A.1
LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT Advise Inform the public
Listen to and consider concerns in
the decision.
Enhance outreach and information
dissemination.
Legal advertisements
Legal notices
Public hearings
Newspaper ads/Cupertino Scene (as
needed)
Website
Site signage Collaborate Work with the public to ensure
that concerns and solutions are
incorporated in the report to
decision-makers.
For projects ≥25 units; 25,000 sq. ft.
retail/commercial/50,000 sq. ft.
office/industrial
Neighborhood notice (500’ min.)
Neighborhood meetings Team Up Look to the public for input in
formulating project alternatives
and solutions for decision-makers
to consider.
City-wide postcards
Focus groups /Workshops
Project Type Public Engagement Policy (ACT)
Advise Collaborate1 Team Up2
General Plan Amendment – Major
General Plan Amendment – Minor
Zoning Amendment (›5 acres)
Zoning Amendment (1-5 acres)
Zoning Amendment (‹ 1 acre)
Zoning Amendment - Minor
Tentative Map (≥ 5 parcels)
Parcel Map (< 5 parcels)
Planned Development Permit – Major
Planned Development Permit – Minor
Conditional Use Permit – Major
Conditional Use Permit – Minor
Architectural and Site Approval (PC)
Architectural and Site Approval (DRC)
Major Amendment
Variance/Exception
PROJECT CONTEXT Project Size Major
Collaborate
(Neighborhood)
Team Up
(City-wide/Area-wide) Minor
Advise
(Adjacent/Radius)
Collaborate
(Neighborhood)
Community Impact
Low High 1. “Collaborate” level ≥ 25 units; 25,000sq.ft. retail/commercial; 50,000 office/industrial.
2. All EIRs to be processed at “Team Up” level.
64
PROPOSED PROCESS (GROUP WORKSHOPS)ATTACHMENT A.1
1 of 1
Advise
Collaborate
(min. 500'
radius noticing)
Team Up
(One City-
wide notice)
General Plan Amendment – Major1 CC 300‘ 1000’
General Plan Amendment – Minor2 CC 300‘ 1000’
Zoning Amendment (›5 acres)CC 300‘ 1000’
Zoning Amendment (1-5 acres)4 CC 300‘ 1000’4
Zoning Amendment (‹ 1 acre)4 CC 300‘ 500‘4
Zoning Amendment - Minor CC 300‘
Tentative Map (≥ 5 parcels)CC 300’5 4
Parcel Map (< 5 parcels)PC Admin.300’
Development Agreement CC 300'5 4
Planned Development Permit – Major 1 CC PC 300‘ 500‘5 4
Planned Development Permit – Minor 2 PC Admin.300‘
Conditional Use Permit – Major 6 PC/Admin. 6 300’/500‘5 4
Conditional Use Permit – Minor 6 PC/Admin. 6 300’
Architectural and Site Approval (PC)PC Adjacent/1000’ 7 5 4
Architectural and Site Approval (DRC)
(Admin)
DRC Admin.Adjacent
Major Amendment PC/CC 300’5 4
Yard Interpretation PC Admin.Adjacent
Variance/Exception - PC/CC PC/CC 300’ 500‘5 4
Variance/Exception – DIR Admin.300‘
Sign Exceptions DRC/PC
Admin./PC 8
Adjacent/300' 8
Fence Exceptions DRC Admin.Adjacent
R1 Exceptions DRC 300'
R1 Ordinance permits Admin.Adjacent/300'
Tree Removal Admin./PC 9 300'
Extensions CC/PC Admin.None 10
NOTES:
3. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of requirement.
5. Collaborate Level - 25 units; 25,000 square feet retail/commercial; 50,000 office/industrial. Min. noticing radius - 500'.
7. 1000’ requirement for wireless and personal communications facilities.
8. Exceptions for Readerboard and Freeway Oriented signs approved by Planning Commission with 300' radius.
9. Heritage Tree Removals to be approved by Planning Commission.
10. One year extensions approved on consent with no noticing.
4. All EIRs to be processed at Team Up level and approved by City Council.
6. Conditional Use Permits – Major/Minor determined by size of project as noted above. Approval body determined by use per ordinance.
2. Minor (CEQA Exempt) ‹ 5,000 sq.ft. commercial; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial non-residential; eight six residential units.
Project Type CC/PC/Admin.
Proposed Noticing
radius (unless
requiring Collaborate
or Team Up
Public Engagement Policy (ACT) 3
1. Major ≥ 5,000 sq.ft. commercial; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial/office/industrial non-residential; eight six residential units.
65
Management Study of the Permit Process
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101
Palo Alto, California 94303
v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509
November 17, 2009
66
Table of Contents
1.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1
2.
ANALYSIS
OF
PERMIT
STAFFING
8
3.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
PERMIT
PROCESS
17
4.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
AUTOMATED
PERMIT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
71
5.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
PERMIT
CENTER
80
6.
ANALYSIS
OF
PERMIT
ADMINISTRATION
81
7.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AND
DESIGN
REVIEW
COMMITTEE
100
APPENDIX
1
-‐
PROFILE
107
APPENDIX
2
-‐
FOCUS
GROUPS
133
APPENDIX
3
-‐
COMPARATIVE
SURVEY
143
APPENDIX
4
–
SUMMARY
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
156
67
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report, which follows, presents the results of the organization and
management analysis of the permit process conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group.
This first chapter introduces the analysis – outlining principal objectives and how
the analysis was conducted, and the executive summary.
1. AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES.
The project team conducted a comprehensive organization and management
analysis of the permit process in Cupertino including the existing operations, process,
service levels, and staffing levels. The analysis was to be fact based and include all
aspects of service provision by the City. The analysis focused on:
• Organizational structure, including the division of labor and manager/supervisor
spans of control;
• Effectiveness of staffing and service levels including, but not be limited to, staff
assignments, workload, training, and cost-effectiveness of service levels and
service delivery;
• Opportunities to streamline the permit process; and
• Benchmarks and other objective indicators of program effectiveness.
The approach of the project team in meeting this scope is portrayed below.
• Develop an in-depth understanding of the key issues impacting the permit
process. The Matrix Consulting Group conducted interviews with City staff
involved in the permit process at all levels. Interviews focused on goals and
objectives, management systems, the use of technology, the levels of service
provided by the City, the resources available to provide those services, etc.
• Develop a profile of the divisions involved in the permit process. The Matrix
Consulting Group conducted interviews with City staff and other key staff in the
City to document the current organization of services, the structure and functions
of the Department, budgets, workload data, management systems, inventory of
the infrastructure, etc.
68
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
• Conduct a comparison of the permit processes, program, and practices to ‘best
management practices.’
• Conduct focus groups to elicit feedback from customers of the City’s permit
processes regarding the adequacy of the levels of service provided by the City.
• Evaluate the staffing, organization structure, and service levels in the divisions
involved in the permit process. This included interviews with key staff to develop
an understanding of the current service delivery model, evaluation of the
adequacy of current service levels, work practices, work planning and scheduling
systems, productivity and staffing levels, the plan of organization, and asset
management.
The objective of this assessment was to identify opportunities for improvement in the
operational and economic efficiency of the City in the delivery of permit services and
practicable opportunities for enhancing the quality of its product and services.
2. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS VIEWED CUPERTINO’S PERMIT PROCESS
AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICON VALLEY.
As part of the management study of the permitting process, the Matrix Consulting
Group conducted three focus group meetings with a representative sample of
customers of the process. The purpose of the focus group meetings was to obtain
development industry perceptions of Cupertino’s permitting process and to assess
overall customer satisfaction.
Overall, the response of the participants in the focus groups regarding the
Cupertino permitting process was quite positive. Most of the participants were involved
in development in many Silicon Valley cities, and they gave Cupertino high grades
relative to their experiences in nearby communities. With respect to staff attitude,
helpfulness, accessibility and reasonableness, the focus group participants ranked
Cupertino among the top three cities, along with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They
69
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
generally felt that Cupertino was substantially better than San Jose, Menlo Park and
Palo Alto, and slightly better than Mountain View, Milpitas and Fremont.
The “small town atmosphere” was cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff
members were generally available when needed, and they exhibited a friendly and
positive attitude. Most participants knew staff members of all departments by name,
and they appreciated the fact that, for any given project, they generally dealt with the
same planner, plan checker, inspector and engineer throughout the entire process. The
word “excellent” was used several times in describing the attitude and professionalism
of staff.
The groups were nearly unanimous, however, in identifying two major problems
with the Cupertino permitting process: (1) lack of an effective automated on-line
permitting information system, and (2) the City’s politically-charged atmosphere relative
to development and growth.
Participants felt that Cupertino lagged far behind adjacent jurisdictions in
providing an efficient, reliable and user-friendly automated/on-line system. They cited
hand-written applications, difficulties in checking the status of an application, and delays
in receiving staff comments and corrections as problems that could be solved by such a
system.
While the politically charged atmosphere was not part and parcel of the
permitting system, it is a major determinant of the overall perception of Cupertino’s
attitude toward development and the development industry. Participants recognized the
sharp division of opinion within the community-at-large with regard to development and
growth, which division was reflected within the City Council and between the Council
70
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
and the Planning Commission. The result of this atmosphere for developers was less
predictability, greater risk, greater frustration and unanticipated time delays.
3. THE CITY EMPLOYS A NUMBER OF BEST PRACTICES.
An organizational and management analysis by its nature focuses on
opportunities for improvement. However, there are a number of strengths in the City.
Examples of these strengths are portrayed below.
• The City Council conducts an annual goal setting session to establish the annual
work program for the City – including items related to the land use planning of the
City.
• The Planning Commission members are provided the opportunity to attend the
annual League of California’s Cities Planner Institute. Newly appointed
Commission members are provided an orientation by City staff.
• Staff reports provide a discussion of the staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission and identified, where appropriate, alternatives to be considered.
• Planning Commission meetings are televised and prior meetings are archived
and available for viewing of the City’s web site.
• The Planning Division is the sole point of contact for the applicant. All planning
permit applications are submitted to the Planning Division counter in the permit
center and routed to other divisions by the Division.
• Building permit plan checks for zoning compliance are typically completed by the
Planning Division on the same day (or within one business day) of receipt from
the Building Division.
• All major planning ordinances and regulations, including the general plan, the
zoning ordinance, and design guidelines are available on-line through the City’s
web site. Additionally, Planning Commission agendas (current and prior) and
minutes are available to the public on the website.
• The Building Official conducts weekly training with inspections personnel to
update on new codes, convey code interpretations, etc.
• Over-the-counter building permit plan check service is generally available for
very small residential projects (250 sq. ft. or less) that can be reviewed by
Building Division staff in less than thirty (30) minutes, and for very small
commercial projects which can be reviewed by Building Division and Fire District
71
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
staff in less than thirty (30) minutes. Commercial over-the-counter plan checks
are made only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, between the hours of
1:30 and 2:30 p.m. Fire District staff is available only at these times.
• Over 40% of building permits are issued over the counter.
• The Building Division has published “target dates” for plan review submittals,
including for express (5 business days), new construction (10 business days),
and tenant improvement (10 business days).
• A one-stop shop exists for submittal of permit applications.
• Building inspection requests are responded to by a Building Inspector within one
workday of request.
• Inspections can be requested online, via fax, e-mail, and telephone.
• Combination inspectors are assigned to general geographical locations and
conduct all types of inspections within their respective area.
• Inspectors utilize hand-held devices to record and upload inspection results.
• The Building Division allows the phased permits such as foundation-only permits.
• The Engineering Division publishes commercial and residential guides on-line
that identify how the development process works (including cycle times), and the
types of information that need to be submitted, and to whom.
These strengths provide a sound basis for further enhancements.
4. AGENDA FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
In developing recommendations for the improvement of the permit process, the
project team was guided by a philosophy that Cupertino should be the “best of the best.”
That philosophy, and its impact on the permitting process, is reflected in a publication of
the American Planning Association entitled The Development Review Process: A
72
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
Means To A Nobler and Greater End.1 The publication indicated that to be the “best of
the best”, a City’s permitting process needs to deliver:
• Predictability including clear expectations, no surprises, and a clear decision
process with decision points;
• Fair treatment with rules that are the same for everyone with the offering of trust
to applicants by the City and the demonstration of trustworthy behavior by the
City;
• Accurate and accessible information that is easy to find and understand, with
clear applicant requirements and standards;
• Timely processing that establishes early tentative dates for hearings,
guaranteed review turnaround times. And published commission and council
meeting dates;
• Reasonable and fair costs for application fees, impact fees, and development
commitments;
• Competent staff with a team that possesses a balance of “hard” technical skills
and “soft” people skills;
• Elegant regulations that fit the circumstances of Cupertino, are easy to
navigate, are rational, and that contain desired outcomes not requiring
“herculean” efforts top attain.
The report itself contains over 100 recommendations. It is important for the City,
as it begins to implement these recommendations, not to get lost in the volume and
number of recommendations. One of the first steps should be that the Community
Development Director develop a plan of implementation for the recommendations
contained within this report for the review and approval of the City Manager.
The recommendations contained within the report are summarized in the
appendix.
1 American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, The Development Review Process: A Means To A
Nobler and Greater End, January 2005.
73
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
The principal opportunities for improvement that apply to all aspects of the permit
process address the City’s need for better technology management accountability, a
streamlined process, enhanced training for employees. To that end, the top five
recommendations regarding the permit process are presented below.
(1) A fully functional automated permit information system. Use of technology to
enhancer the management of the building, planning, and engineering permit
processes including:
• Acquire and fully deploy an automated permit information system; and
• Fund technology expenditures with a technology fee to be assessed on
building, planning, and engineering permits.
(2) Clarity of regulations - Strive for clear and understandable regulations that
provide developers real guidance and direction at the very conception of their
project (e.g., Heart of the City Specific Plan).
(3) Simplification of the permit process - streamline the planning and building
permit plan check processes by simplifying a complicated process for minor
permits, and empowering staff and the Planning Commission with additional
decision making authority. Overall, the City’s permit process is one of the more
convoluted processes observed by the Matrix Consulting Group.
(4) Accountability – Develop and deploy management controls and reporting
systems that enable the City Manager to hold the Community Development
Director, Public Works Director, and Planning, Building, and Engineering division-
heads accountable for meeting cycle time objectives for plan checking.
(5) Training - Staff development in the Building Division, Engineering Division, and
Planning Division so that the staff has the necessary set of skills to effectively
serve the applicant and the community.
* * * ` * * *
The chapters that follow present these recommendations in more detail.
74
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
2. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT STAFFING
This chapter presents an analysis of the staffing requirements for the Community
Development Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
as it pertains to the processing of planning, building, and engineering permits.
1. STAFFING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION IS SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE
EXISTING CURRENT PLANNING WORKLOAD.
The project team reviewed the recent workload of the current planning function to
determine the appropriateness of existing staffing levels. The first table below outlines
the estimated hours available by a current planner for review activities – assumptions
are made regarding time spent on non-planning functions such as leave time (vacation,
sick, holidays), training, and staff meetings.
Element Hours
Total Annual Hours 2,080
Holidays 88
Vacation 80
Sick Leave 80
Training 80
Staff Meetings (8 hours per month) 96
Administrative Duties/Projects (8 hours per month) 96
Total Annual Available Hours Per FTE to Conduct Reviews 1,560
These assumptions show that each full-time employee has, on average, 1,560
hours per year to devote to planning activities. Since the City has made a decision to
have employees involved in both current planning and advanced planning, a portion of
these hours would be allocated to the advanced planning and current planning.
The following tables outlines the current workload experienced by the City of
Cupertino over the last three years. Workload has clearly been declining, a pattern
found in California as a whole. The first table outlines the number of applications, by
type, for the City Planning Division. The second table summarizes applications by
75
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
approval level (to show the workload associated with applications considered at the
staff, Planning Commission, Design Review and City Council approval levels.
Application Workload
By Type of Application / Permit
Application Type 2006 2007 2008
3 Year
Average
Architectural Site Approval 25 19 9 17.7
City Project Applications 3 4 2 3.0
Development Agreements 0 0 0 0.0
Director's Minor Modifications /
Temporary Use Permits 36 38 37 37.0
Environmental Assessments 20 10 10 13.3
Exceptions 14 11 17 14.0
General Plan Amendments 0 0 1 0.3
Interpretations 0 1 0 0.3
Minor Residential Permit 38 34 37 36.3
Modified/Amended 7 3 5 5.0
Municipal Code Amendment 3 1 4 2.7
R-1 Design Review 62 44 32 46.0
Specific Plan Amendments 1 0 1 0.7
Tentative Map 12 12 2 8.7
Tree Removal Permit 17 14 16 15.7
Use Permit 14 11 4 9.7
Variance 2 3 1 2.0
Zoning 6 0 1 2.3
Application Workload
Sorted by Approval Level
Applications by Approval Level 2006 / 07 2007 / 08
2008 / 09
(estimated
based on 6
month data)
3 year
Average
Planning Commission Application
(INT, M, TM, V) 26 8 12 15.3
City Council Applications (CP, GP,
MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z) 34 32 32 32.7
Design Review Committee
Applications (ASA, EXC) 45 29 14 29.3
Staff Level (DIR, R, RM) 160 100 90 116.7
Environmental Assessments 12 8 8 9.3
TOTAL 277 177 156 203.3
76
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
The project team evaluated staffing levels based upon the 2008 workload. The
following table summarizes the annual workload for current planning functions based
upon 2008 and applying an estimated number of hours per review for each category of
application based upon user fee studies conducted by the project team with significant
increases in the staff hours per type of permit made for Cupertino based upon the staff-
intensive permit processes used by the City for these types of permits.
Application Type 2008 Workload Hours to Review Hours Required
Minor Architectural Site Approval 5 24 120
Major Architectural Site Approval 4 32 128
City Project Applications 2 30 60
Director's Minor Modifications /
Temporary Use Permits 37 16 592
Environmental Assessments 10 60 600
Exceptions 17 32 544
Minor Residential Permit 37 32 1,184
Modified/Amended 5 32 160
Municipal Code Amendment 4 200 800
R-1 Design Review 32 32 1,024
Specific Plan Amendments 1 300 300
Tentative Map 2 32 64
Tree Removal Permit 16 10 160
Minor Use Permit 2 40 80
Major Use Permit 2 120 240
Variance 1 32 32
Zoning 1 150 150
TOTAL 6,238
Important pints to note regarding the data presented in the table are presented below.
• There is an estimated need for 6,238 hours of current planning activity or the
equivalent of almost 4.0 full-time equivalent professional planners.
• Additional staff hours would be required for the coverage of the counter and
building permits. This should not be a significant amount of hours beyond that
required for the planning permit workload.
• In evaluating this balance of workload to available staff, it should be recognized
that the City Planner should not allocate more than one-half of his available work
77
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
hours to current or to long-range planning workload; the remainder should be
allocated to management of the Division.
• This would suggest that only 5.0 full-time equivalent positions authorized for the
Planning Division are actually available for processing planning permits. This
excludes the temporary and unbudgeted Assistant Planner position.
The workload data clearly indicates that the Planning Division has adequate
number of authorized positions to deal responsively with planning permit workload.
The remaining 1.0 planner position within the Planning Division should be utilized
to address the advanced planning services that are necessary to develop and update
regulations that fit the circumstances of Cupertino, are easy to navigate, are rational,
and that contain desired outcomes not requiring “herculean” efforts top attain. In
addition, the City Planner
Recommendation #1: Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle
existing current planning workloads.
2. THE NUMBER OF BUILDING INSPECTORS IN THE BUILDING DIVISION IS
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT GIVEN CURRENT INSPECTION WORKLOAD.
The primary objective of the Building Inspectors is to conduct building permit field
inspections to ensure commercial and residential construction projects are being
conducted to various codes and standards. Inspectors spend the majority of their time
in the field, with the following outlining a typical day:
• 6:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2-hour window to customers, etc.
• 7:30 to 11:30: conduct field stops and inspections
• 11:30 to 12:30: lunch
• 12:30 to 4:00: conduct field stops and inspections
• 4:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field inspections using the Palm
Pilot and Pentamation
78
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
The project team analyzed workload data to determine the number of inspections
and amount of time spent on inspections for staff within this Division. The level of
inspections workload within the Division has fluctuated over the last three years –
averaging approximately 22,120 total inspections per year based on data obtained from
the City, as shown below for the past three fiscal years:
Year Number of Inspections
2006 / 2007 24,816
2007 / 2008 20,147
2008 / 2009 21,398
It is important to note these figures represent the total number of inspections, not
inspection “stops”. Typically, each inspection stop includes a multiple number of
inspections. Based on our experience working with other cities, building inspectors
average a little less than 3 (2.95) inspections per inspection stop. Applied to number of
Division inspections above, this equates to approximately 8,655 stops made by
inspectors in FY 2006 / 2007, 6,741 inspection stops in FY 2007 / 2008, and an
estimated 7,169 inspection stops in FY 2008 / 2009.
The benchmark utilized by the project team for the number of inspection stops
per inspector is an average between 12 and 16 on a daily basis. Utilizing an average
personnel availability of 208 working days per year (or 1,664 available hours per
employee after leaves, training time, etc.) for each of the Divisions four (4) building
inspectors, the following table estimates the number of daily inspections stops:
Year # of Inspections
# of Inspection
Stops (Estimate)
# of Inspection
Stops per Day
(Estimate)
# of Daily Stops /
Inspector @ (3.5
Inspectors)
2006 / 2007 24,816 8,655 41.6 11.9
2007 / 2008 20,147 6,741 32.4 9.3
2008 / 2009 21,398 7,169 34.5 9.9
79
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
Based on this assessment, there are opportunities to reallocate resources and
enhance the utilization of Division building inspectors. As overall development activity
fluctuates in the City, this directly impacts the number of inspections required. At the
staffing level of three and one-half inspectors, the average daily number of stops ranged
between 10 and 11.
Recommendation #2: Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and,
when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for other duties such as plan
checking of residential interior remodels, over-the-counter plan checking, etc.
3. AUTHORIZED STAFFING FOR BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECKING AND
COUNTER SERVICES IN THE BUILDING DIVISION IS SUFFICIENT GIVEN
EXISTING WORKLOAD.
The Building Division allocates one Building Inspector to review and process
over-the-counter plan check applications (supported / backed-up by other Building
Inspector personnel as needed), and one Plan Check Engineer to review plans for small
projects (remodels, small additions, etc.), mid-size projects (larger additions, remodels,
etc.), and large-size projects (brand-new homes, major tenant improvements, etc.) The
Counter Technician utilizes a routing sheet during the intake process that includes:
• Basic contact information;
• Project description and number; and
• Routing sheet (for other departments such as public works, fire department, etc.)
Overall, the application review process involves knowledge and activities
associated with the uniform building codes, national electronic codes, plumbing and
mechanical codes, energy and Title 24, sending out correction notices, structural plan
checks, and issuing building permits, and the permit process include reviewing
applications, attending pre-application meetings, and recommending conditions.
80
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
(1) The Building Permit Plan Check Function is Adequately Staffed.
The City has authorized a number of various staff to support the building permit
application process as needed, including the following:
• Building Division: 2 (1 dedicated front-counter building inspector and 1 plan
check engineer, and other building inspectors as back-up when necessary)
• Planning Division: 5 full-time plus 2 interns
• Public Works: 3 technician and engineering positions
• Fire: 2 offsite positions (with designated counter hours on a weekly basis)
• Sanitary: 1 off-site position
During FY 2007 / 2008, the Building Division received and processed 2,177 total
building permits (703 commercial permits and 1,474 residential permits), with 42%
being approved over the counter by the designated front-counter building inspector –
equaling approximately 1,262 building permits requiring routing and approval.
Based on previous user fee studies conducted by the firm for building permits,
the average staff hours required for plan checking a building permit plan is 4.1 hours
(ranging from a high of 30 – 35 hours for large family dwelling, hotels, motels, churches,
etc., to a low of 1 to 4 hours for signs, demos, etc.). Based on this data, the following
table estimates the staffing requirements for the building permit plan check process.
Hours
# of Permits Reviewed 1,262.0
Avg. Hours to Process 4.1
Hours Required 5,174.3
FTE Availability (Available Hours per Staff 1,560.0
FTEs Required 3.3
As shown above, over 5,000 hours are utilized to review building permit
applications, or approximately 3.3 full-time equivalent positions. Given the number of
81
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
personnel allocated for possible building permit application review, as well as the
number of contractors being utilize to complete their current workload, the number of
staffing is appropriate given the workload.
Recommendation #3: Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to
building permit plan checking in the Building Division.
(2) Building Division Staffing Levels for the Front-Counter Are Appropriate.
The full time Building Inspector positions serve as the primary points of contact
for the front counter, provide public information, respond to inquiries regarding
application status and timing, intake applications and plans for review, calculate plan
review and permit fees, and perform over-the-counter plan review for projects with
standard plans and/or simple scope. The administrative support positions primarily
assist with the processing of new permit application submittals, including data entry of
project application information, creation of project files, coordination of sending and
receiving plans that are routed to the appropriate reviewing departments (i.e., public
works, fire, sanitation, etc.), processing plan check fees, collecting fee balances, and
issuing permits. In addition, these positions provide back up support to the counter
function due to absence of either of the primary contacts.
The Building Division’s staffing level for its permit intake and processing function
is consistent with jurisdictions of similar permit processing workloads and development
climates. However, the workload of permit counter staff is exacerbated by the lack of an
automated permit information system. Inefficiencies in the current intake and processing
function include:
• Applicants typically complete an application using a paper-based system.
82
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
• The Office Specialist position then inputs the handwritten application information
into the Division’s permit information system (Pentamation)
Although existing staffing levels for the Division’s permit counter are adequate for
existing workload, an improved permit information system may work to reduce wait time
at the counter, elimination of duplication of effort on data entry, better internal financial
control, and increase the number of over-the-counter project reviews. Further evidence
that suggests adequate staffing is the focus group participants’ perception that plan
check turnaround time is more than satisfactory.
Recommendation #4: Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the
Building Division’s permit counter.
4. THE AMOUNT OF STAFF AUTHORIZED FOR THE ENGINEERING DIVISION
FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND ENGINEERING PERMITS IS
APPROPRIATE.
Currently, the Engineering Division allocates various personnel, as needed,
toward processing the building permits that are routed from the Community
Development Building Division for review. The project team documented the number of
permit applications processed by the Engineering Division for review and approval.
The level of staffing allocated to the Division is sufficient for permit plan checking
of engineering permits, building permits, and planning permits.
Recommendation #5: The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing
authorized for the permit plan check process.
83
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
3. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT PROCESS
This chapter presents an analysis of the permit process including planning,
building, and engineering permits. The analysis identifies opportunities to (1) streamline
the process for minor permits, and (2) enhance the management of the process.
Overall, the City’s permit process for minor planning permits and minor building
permits is much more complicated than necessary and than that found in the City’s
peers. The recommendations of the project team to simplify and streamline the process
are presented in the following sections of this chapter.
1. THE PROCESS FOR MINOR PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE
STREAMLINED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
One of the “building blocks” of the permit system is the regulatory framework.
The zoning ordinance is the regulatory framework that drives the planning permit
process. There are a number of tradeoffs in the development and administration of
zoning ordinances including:
• Flexibility versus predictability;
• Flexibility versus administrative cost;
• Development cost versus quality;
• Preservation versus development; and
• Under-regulation versus over-regulation.
In considering these tradeoffs, there are a number of lessons to be learned from
other cities. These lessons include striking the right balance between discretionary
review and “as-of-right” development.
84
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
The Matrix Consulting Group does not believe that the City has struck that right
balance. While the Community Development Director is authorized to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny minor planning permits, the minor permit process is
complicated, more so than other comparable cities. Cupertino, for example, requires a
planning permit for:
• Construction of a two-story residence; it is not an “as-of-right” permit;
• All new or expanded second story decks for single family residences with views
into neighboring residential side or rear yards;
• Changing a wood fence to a wrought iron fence in front of a fifteen (15) unit
residential project; and
• Minor landscaping and exterior enhancements for a condominium project.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the process for minor planning
permits be streamlined. There are several alternatives to streamline the minor planning
permit process. These alternatives are presented below.
• Increase the types and extent of minor projects approved at the Director-level.
This could include:
– R2/R3/ML/PD – minor architectural and site modifications
– Sign, fence, deck, R1 exceptions;
– R1 front yard interpretation;
– Tandem garage review;
– Minor building less than 5,000 square feet including
commercial/office/industrial and four (4) residential units or less –
equivalent to a Director’s Architectural and Site Application; and
– Minor use permits.
• Increase the approval authority of the Planning Commission;
85
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
• Reduce projects requiring City Council review such as conditional use permit
extensions, appeals of the Director’s decision, etc.;
• Permit outright the uses that are currently permitted with minor planning permits
by the Community Development Director, where appropriate, using performance-
based development standards; or
• Permit outright the uses that are currently permitted with minor planning permits
by the Community Development Director with limitations with specific
performance-based development standards).
Many of the conditional uses in the existing zoning ordinance are appropriate
considering the circumstances such as hotels, full-service restaurants, theaters, etc.
This is because site-specific impacts can be considered based upon neighborhood
concerns expressed at public hearings, and appropriate conditions of approval then
applied to minimize impacts. The reasons for requiring minor planning permits for all
new or expanded second story decks for single family residences with views into
neighboring residential side or rear yards are far less clear.
Potential impacts can be addressed with performance standards. These
performance standards are designed to deal with two basic concerns:
• How to minimize the adverse effects that new construction or the use of one’s
property can have on its neighbors; and
• How to encourage optimal development patterns and activities within a
community, as expressed in planning policies.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends a new “limited” designation concept
that would impose standards and performance requirements that recognize the types of
uses and the project conditions that generate adverse effects while streamlining the
minor planning permit process.
The use of performance standards would simplify the use regulations, avoid
extensive reliance on minor planning permits, and streamline approvals by deeming
86
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
such uses permitted subject to codified performance standards. These codified
performance standards would need to be tailored to the type of use.
The streamlining of the process, based upon the application of performance
standards, would expand the number of permits that are permitted, if performance
standards are met. For example:
• Ministerial Review (e.g., plot plan or Director’s Review). No discretionary review
and no conditions of approval; subject to codified performance standards.
• Quasi-ministerial review (e.g., tree removal permit). Discretionary review for
CEQA document; conditions of approval may be required; subject to codified
performance standards. No conditions of approval or public hearing; approved by
the Community Development Director
The Matrix Consulting Group believes that the City’s processing of minor
planning permits should be streamlined, using performance standards. The process
should be streamlined so that these types of minor development are treated as a
permitted use that would only require a building permit, not a minor planning permit.
This modification to the process would require the development of effective design
guidelines for all of the types of residential development that occur within the City
(single-family and multi-family) and the development of performance standards for this
type of development.
Recommendation #6: The City should streamline the process for minor planning
permits by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi-ministerial
review and are subject to codified performance standards.
Recommendation #7: The Planning Division should develop codified performance
standards and requirements for these minor permits for consideration and
approval of the City Council.
Recommendation #8: The approval of these codified performance standards and
requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the conversion of these
minor planning permits to permitted uses.
87
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE THE FINAL APPROVAL
AUTHORITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES.
Section 19.124.060 of the City’s zoning ordinance provides that upon receipt of a
recommendation of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 19.124.050, the City
Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning
Commission for conditional use permits and variances.
This is a highly unusual level of approval for these types of permits. In each of
the peer cities included in the comparative survey, the zoning administrator was
approving conditional use permits and variances. None of the peer cities required the
approval of a Planning Commission and a City Council.
This process is also unusual in that the City Council rarely reverses a decision
made by the Planning Commission.
Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be modified. The Planning
Commission should be the final decision-making authority with the City Council having
the right of appeal. This is the role of a planning commission that was envisioned when
these commissions were originally created in the United States: to provide for a public
hearing for land use decisions to enable the input of adjacent property owners and
consideration of that input in land use decisions.
Recommendation #9: Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be
modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision-making
authority for conditional use permits and variances with the City Council having
the right of appeal.
88
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
3. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD NOT WRITE STAFF REPORTS FOR
MINOR PLANNING PERMITS OR MAIL PLAN SETS TO ADJACENT
RESIDENTS.
With or without the streamlining of the minor permit process, there are other
steps that the City should take to simplify that process. These steps are presented
below.
• The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for minor
permits. At the present time, staff arte writing 3-page staff reports for such types
of minor permits as:
– Constructing a 42 square foot addition to an existing 2-story SFR;
modification to a use permit;
– Minor modification to re-landscape the front of an apartment complex;
– Minor architectural landscaping and outdoor patio enhancements at an
existing bank;
– Allowing a portion of a 2-car garage to encroach by 1-foot into the 19-foot
front-yard setback; and
– Enclose an existing sunroom that is setback 17' from the rear property
line.
This is an inefficient use of the time of the staff of the Planning Division. Staff
should document the findings and conditions of approval for these minor permits
into the automated permit information system. Written reports should not be
developed for these minor permits. This is the typical approach used by the City’s
peers; staff in the planning divisions in these peer cities are not writing staff
reports for minor permits.
• The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for minor permits to
those adjacent property owners that are noticed. These adjacent property
owners should still be noticed. However, these plan sets should be made
available at City Hall if requested. Most other planning divisions in these peer
cities do not even notice these minor permits.
Overall, the process utilized for minor planning permits should be simpler than
the process used for major planning permits. At the present time, the difference is
indistinguishable. Second story residential decks are being treated as if they were major
89
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
land development. While the impact on and interest of adjacent property owners should
not be ignored, the process should be simplified to reflect the scope of the proposed
development.
Recommendation #10: The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff
reports for minor permits.
Recommendation #11: The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for
minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed.
4. APPEALS OF DECISIONS REGARDING PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO ONE APPEAL.
At the present time, decisions regarding planning permits may be appealed as
much as two times. These decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission and
to the City Council. This is an unusual appeal process not utilized in peer cities.
The appeal process should be modified so that only one appeal is possible. The
City Council itself, however, should continue to be able to appeal decisions to the
Council-level itself.
Recommendation #12: The number of appeals that are possible for planning
permits should be limited to one appeal.
5. ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A COVENANT.
An obstacle to permit streamlining is the requirement for the filing of covenants
subsequent to approval of a planning application.
This was a common practice in the 1980’s and some cities continued this
practice to ensure that future owners of property or tenants were aware of the
conditions of approval. However, in a 1987 decision, Anza Parking Corp. vs. City of
Burlingame (1987), courts have determined that conditions of approval “run with the
land.” As a consequence, most cities have discontinued requiring of the recording of the
90
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
conditions of approval. It is unnecessary.
Recommendation #13: Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants
subsequent to approval of a planning application.
6. THE CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES FOR PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE
REDUCED.
The Planning Division does not utilize a set of established plan review cycle
objectives that differ based upon the nature of the application. The Division is following
the statutory requirements that are in place requiring approval or denial of submitted
applications.
The ability to evaluate actual review times and performance data is difficult
because the Planning Division is not utilizing the Pentamation system for tracking of
plan review actions and the existing database that is utilized only captures initial
application date and date of final action (approval or denial by staff, the Planning
Commission, or the City Council). It does not track other relevant dates for applications
such as date application deemed complete, date of first and subsequent reviews (if
applicable), or dates for individual reviews completed by other departments.
The following table summarizes the total processing times for various application
types processed in calendar year 2008, based upon the project team’s review and
analysis of the available data in the Planning Division database. This table shows the
average time, in calendar days, from the date of submittal to the date of decision (either
approval or denial). The database also groups items together in broad categories
making evaluation of subsets of applications by type more difficult.
91
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
Type of Application Cycle Time
Director’s Minor Modifications / Temporary Use 35.0
Exception Applications 17.0
R-1 Design Review 45.1
Minor Residential Permit 32.0
Tree Removal 32.7
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that differential plan review times be
established based upon the size and complexity of the application submission as follow.
Possible calendar date targets for processing different types of applications, based
upon the experience of progressive cities and counties, are presented in the table
below.
The City should establish cycle time objectives for all planning applications for
the length of time -- in calendar days -- required to process applications from the date of
submittal to the date of the applicant's initial public hearing or the approval / disapproval
of the application by staff (for those applications subject to administrative approval).
Possible calendar date benchmarks for processing different types of planning
applications are presented in the table below.
Application Type Review Times in Calendar Days
Architectural Site Approval 90
Director’s Minor Modifications / Temporary Use 30
Exception Applications 30
Minor Residential Permits 30
R-1 Design Review 30
Minor Residential Permit 30
Tree Removal 7
Conditional use permit 60
Variance 60
Parcel Map 60
These possible targets for processing applications are based upon the project
team’s experience, and should be reviewed by the City Planner, Community
Development Director, and the City Manager, modified as necessary, and adopted by
92
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
the City Council. Within these processing times, differential time periods for review for
the first submission and re-reviews should also be established. Typically, the re-
submittal plan review timeframe should be established at no more than one-half of the
time review period for initial review.
For the Planning Division to effectively set cycle time objectives and meet them,
it is important to have an effective public education effort and the availability of
application guides that identify, in detail, submittal requirements and that provide
guidance to the applicant.
Case managers accepting applications must conduct a thorough review to
ensure that applications are complete (have all required elements for a review to be
conducted) or to inform the applicant of the missing items.
Recommendation #14: The timelines for processing of planning permits by the
City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential time periods for
review based upon project size and complexity and to differentiate between initial
and re-submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re-submittals should be
established at no more than one-half the timeframe required for the initial review.
Recommendation #15: Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should
be published to the Department website and prominently displayed in the
Department’s application materials.
7. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD MAKE THE TENTATIVE PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATION SCHEDULE MORE VISIBLE ON ITS WEB PAGE.
The Planning Division has developed a tentative application schedule for
planning permits. However, this schedule is “hidden” in a 34-page planning application
form.
The Division should separate this schedule from the 34-page application form,
and publish it separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the Planning
“sidebar.” The “sidebar” should contain a link to the tentative application schedule.
93
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
Recommendation #16: The Planning Division should separate the tentative
application schedule from the 34-page planning application form, and publish it
separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the Planning
“sidebar.”
8. DEVELOP AND ADOPT PLANNING PERMIT CYCLE TIME AGREEMENTS
WITH APPLICANTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS.
Effective planning permit services are able to provide services in a way that is
quick, consistent and predictable. The recommendations to change the way the
Planning Division provides its planning permit plan check services will help the City
enhance its services.
This is particularly important as the City competes against its peers for
commercial development.
A tool that the Cupertino could utilize to enhance its effectiveness in competing
against its peers for commercial development is the use of cycle time agreements with
applicants for high priority projects. These agreements, which should be used
selectively to further the City’s economic development objectives, are simple and highly
effective. The agreements are non-binding and typically are limited to 2-pages in length.
The City could choose, for example, to offer cycle time agreements for:
• Commercial projects in the City’s commercial centers;
• Industrial projects that generate or retain over 50 employment opportunities;
• Commercial projects that generate significant new sales tax revenue; and
• Affordable housing projects of 10 units or more.
The City should discuss and decide the types of projects that should be afforded cycle
time agreements and the exact content of the agreement. Cycle time agreements
should include basic project information and a schedule for processing of the planning
94
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
permit plan that includes a schedule for the City and for the applicant.
Recommendation #17: Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements
with applicants for high priority projects.
9. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ALL OF THE PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO GO THROUGH A PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW.
At the present time, a pre-application conference is required prior to submittal on
all planning permit applications. The purpose of the pre-application conference is to
determine if the application is ready for submittal. The applicant is required to call the
case manager to schedule a time for the review of their application materials. The
Planning Division recommends that the applicant allow enough time prior to the
application deadline to prepare additional information or make changes in case any are
needed.
This practice should be utilized only for complex applications such as conditional
use permits, parcel maps, and architectural and site review permits. It should not be
utilized for routine planning permit applications approved by the Community
Development Director, for example. The applicant should be able to submit an
application in the permit center without pre-application review for routine planning permit
applications. This will require that the Division develop and deploy measures to control
the submittal of incomplete applications other than the pre-application conference.
Recommendation #18: Pre-application conferences should not be required for
routine planning permit applications approved by the Community Development
Director.
10. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD TAKE MEASURES TO REDUCE THE
EXTENT OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS.
In the absence of a pre-application conference, the Planning Division could
encounter a significant number of planning permit applications being deemed
95
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
incomplete thirty days after submittal. The Division needs to take steps to assure that
the proportion of applications deemed incomplete after the thirty-day review is relatively
small.
(1) The Planning Division Should Develop and Adopt a Written Policy On
Planning Application Completeness.
This policy should be developed to clarify the responsibility of the Planning
Division staff assigned to the permit center for checking planning applications for
completeness at submittal and rejecting the application if incomplete, the essential
submittal requirements for each type of application to be deemed complete, timelines
for all divisions / departments involved in the 30-day completeness review to provide
comments back to the Planning Division, etc.
Recommendation #19: The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written
policy on planning application completeness and the basis for rejecting
incomplete applications.
Recommendation #20: Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff
assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for rejecting planning
applications as incomplete.
(2) The Application Guides Should Be Tailored For Each Type of Planning
Permit and Include All Of The City’s Requirements For An Applicant To
Achieve A Complete Submittal.
The Planning Division has developed application forms and guides for its
application types such as conditional use permits, variances, etc. The Planning
Application form, for example, is for all non-residential applications. It contains a list of
all fees charged by the Planning Department. It also contains information required by
the Public Works Department for meeting the C3 requirements for water retention on
site etc. It is 34-pages long.
These application guides need to be customized to each type of permit (i.e.,
96
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
conditional use permit, variance, etc.). The guides should define the required submittal
and application information for the applicant to aid in the development of a complete
application for each specific type of permit. These application guides should not be 34-
pages long. These guides should be approximately 4 to 6 pages in length.
The City Planner should assemble a team of staff for those divisions /
departments involved in the planning permit process and update all of the City’s
application guides for planning permits. These guides should include the whole gamut
of application requirements, but the City Planner should exercise authority to assure
these requirements are realistic.
These application guides should include a checklist of submittal requirements
that an applicant has to check off and that requires the applicant’s signature. This is
designed to have the applicant self-certify the application includes all of the information
required to achieve a complete submittal. The Division has developed a limited number
of such checklists for parking, for hillside exception applications, tentative maps,
variances, and the CEQA initial study. These checklists should be expanded to included
each application type, and be integrated with the application guide itself for each type of
permit, which is not the case at the present time.
Recommendation #21: Planning application guides should be developed for each
specific type of planning permit to include all of the City’s requirements for an
applicant to achieve a complete submittal.
Recommendation #22: These planning permit application guides should be
approximately 4 to 6 pages in length.
97
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
(3) The Case Manager Should Meet With The Applicant To Discuss Issues That
Have Been Found During The Initial Thirty-Day Completeness Review Of
The Application
Applicants for planning permit applications, or their representatives, should be
invited to meet with the case manager and other necessary staff to discuss their
application if it will be deemed incomplete at 30-days. The case manager would inform
the applicant face-to-face about basic problems, if any, with the application being
deemed complete, preliminary environmental findings, basic conditions that might be
imposed, and timing for processing of the application. The meeting would allow the
applicant to meet staff members that are working on the application, and staff could
hear what goals the applicant might have, and what problems the conditions might
cause.
Recommendation #23: The case manager in the Planning Division should meet
with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 30-day
completeness review of the application.
(4) The Planning Division Should Provide Training To Consulting Planners,
Architects, Engineers And Developers Regarding Its Planning Permit
Submittal Requirements.
The Planning Division should be proactive and periodically meet with consulting
planners, architects, engineers, and with developers that prepare discretionary permit
applications for submittal to the City and discuss planning permit submittal
requirements. As part of this training, the staff should identify for consulting planners,
architects, and engineers and with developers the most common factors that delay
projects. These discussions should also occur after each submittal when consulting
planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application
and when they encountered particular problems meeting submittal requirements. The
98
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
training of the consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers should be
viewed as an ongoing responsibility, almost like preventive medicine. The intent is to
prevent a recurring pattern of incomplete submittals.
It is in the Division’s best interests to educate applicants, make them aware of
how the City interprets regulations, provide them with examples of acceptable work, and
otherwise help them navigate the process.
Recommendation #24: The Planning Division should provide training to
consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers regarding its planning
permit submittal requirements.
Recommendation #25: The Planning Division should provide training after each
submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the
development of the application and when they encountered particular problems
meeting submittal requirements.
11. UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MANAGE
THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION
PROCESS.
There are a number of important objectives for the City in the management of the
planning, building, and engineering permit process. These objectives include the
following:
• Consistent interpretation of regulations;
• Clear communication of the process and the requirements;
• The predictability of the process;
• Staff responsiveness;
• Consistency; and
• Accountability for decisions and the management of the process.
The automated permit information system, when fully deployed, should be
utilized to enhance the accountability for management of the process. The approach to
99
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
the use of the automated permit information system to enhance accountability is
presented below.
(1) Monitor and Maintain Case Assignment and Case Status Information in the
Automated Permit Information System.
The current approach to monitoring and maintenance of planning, building, and
engineering permit cases could be improved by effective case management,
supervision, and monitoring using an automated permit information system including:
• Improving management’s ability to track project staff’s progress;
• Improving staff’s ability to track concurrent project developments; and
• Improving the ability of management to manage workload within their division.
Accurate data on workload, by permit type, cyclical variances in activity, and
workload activity by team and by planner are all essential management tools. With this
information, management can make informed, logical decisions regarding staffing,
budgeting, procedures, and organizational structure.
This will necessitate managers, supervisors, and staff to be held accountable for
the timely input and updating of data into the automated permit information system. This
is one of the biggest challenges that cities face in the deployment of these systems.
Recommendation #26: Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for
the maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information
system by managers, supervisors, and staff assigned to processing planning,
building and engineering permit applications.
Recommendation #27: Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure that
assigns responsibility to the division-heads for assuring ongoing maintenance of
case status information in the automated permit information system and that
requires the division-heads to audit the caseload assigned to staff to determine
whether the case is active, is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should
be terminated, or has been closed and the case should be updated in the
automated permit information system.
100
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
(2) Track And Monitor The Success Or Failure Of Staff Assigned To
Processing Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications In
Meeting Cycle Time Objectives.
The City, once it has established cycle time objectives for planning, building, and
engineering permit applications, should utilize the automated permit information system
to measure and monitor staff performance in meeting these objectives. It is important for
the division-heads to have quantifiable tools to: regulate performance, identify training,
staffing needs, and detect organizational deficiencies. The cycle time objectives can
serve as fair and accurate means to gauge staff performance for the following reasons:
• Staff will know and be familiar with the standards;
• Standards are easily understandable;
• Standards are flexible;
• Standards have been created through their input.
The management reports defined and discussed in a later section of this chapter, if
generated on a regular basis, would track both individual and overall staff performance.
Recommendation #28: The City should hold division-heads in Planning, Building
and Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring the success or failure
of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular management
information reports generated on a monthly basis by the automated permit
information system.
Recommendation #29: The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be
integrated into their performance evaluation.
(3) The Division-Heads Should Be Held Accountable For Formally Planning
and Scheduling Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications
Processed By Their Staff Using the Automated Permit Information System.
The division-heads in the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should be
held accountable for preparing and maintaining a schedule for processing of planning,
101
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
building, and engineering permit applications by their staff. The purpose of the schedule
is to make visible the amount of calendar days required to analyze and reach a decision
on the permit application. The specific objectives related to the design and development
of this system should be as follows:
• To establish a process whereby specific calendar day targets are set for each
application based upon cycle time objectives established by the City;
• To utilize the proposed automated permitting systems to ease the tracking of the
timeliness of the processing of planning permit applications and enable the
division-heads to hold their staff accountable; and
• To generate data sufficient to assist in the assessment of the performance of
these staff in comparison to those cycle time objectives;
Major elements of the system are presented below.
• The division-heads would review incoming applications and analyze application
characteristics, focusing in particular on potential processing difficulties. Once
difficulties are identified, the division-heads would (1) set calendar day targets for
completing the analysis of the application, and (2) set overall staff hours
allocated to the staff for processing the application. The division-head would
review the most recent open case inventory report and note the workload of their
plan checking staff. Cases would then be assigned as appropriate. The division-
head would then enter the cycle time target dates and the name of the staff in the
automated permit information system.
• When projects are first assigned, the staff to whom the permit application is
assigned would review the calendar day and staff hour target established for the
case. If the staff believe that the targets are unreasonable after a review of the
application, those staff should discuss them with the division-head and negotiate
appropriate changes.
• The automated permit information system should be utilized to track the extent to
which the specific cycle time objectives are met, and to ‘red flag’ permits that
exceed these guidelines.
The division-heads should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of
this open case inventory and the completion of the processing of permits in accordance
102
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
with the cycle time objectives. The planning and scheduling system should be utilized
to:
• Evaluate employee performance;
• Balance workload among different staff; and
• Quantify the anticipated completion date of various applications given all work in
progress.
The planning and scheduling system should be designed to manage the
workload including reviewing actual progress versus scheduled deadlines and facilitate
the shifting of work assignment and schedules in the face of changing priorities or
workload.
Recommendation #30: The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering
should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by their
staff using the automated permit information system.
Recommendation #31: The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering
should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case
inventory and the completion of the processing of permits by their staff in
accordance with the cycle time objectives.
(4) Generate Ongoing Monthly Management Information Reports Using the
Automated Permit Information System To Track Performance Against Cycle
Time Objectives And Monitor The Case Workload And Performance of Staff
Assigned To Processing Permit Applications.
The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering must receive reliable
information on workload and individual staff workload to use in scheduling. In addition,
overall information on staff efficiency and productivity should be available for staff
evaluation.
Management information reports capture the detailed information about staff
productivity and performance to monitor workload, balance assignments and evaluate
internal operations. After several discussions with management and staff, we
103
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
recommend the automated permit information system be utilized to track and report the
following information:
• Division Workload;
• Case Tracking;
• Elapsed Processing Times;
• Work in Backlog;
• Personnel Productivity; and
• Project Management Measures.
The division-heads are not currently provided with the type of reliable information
necessary to manage the processing of permits. The Matrix Consulting Group believes
it is imperative that management be provided with reliable case information to manage,
direct and enhance the operations and the processing of permits.
Once these initial management information reports are implemented and used
routinely. These management reports focus more on staff performance and workload
monitoring necessary for management to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of
the divisions.
Recommendation #32: The City should utilize the automated permit information
system to generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track
performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case workload and
performance for staff assigned to the processing of these permits.
12. THE ROLE OF THE CASE MANAGER IN THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD
BE CLARIFIED.
The City currently utilizes a quasi-case manager approach in processing
planning permit applications in which the assigned case planner takes the lead in
shepherding the application through the planning process. The purpose of this case
104
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
manager system is to provide applicants with a single point of contact as their permit
goes through the multi-department (or Division) plan check process and to coordinate
the development of a unified set of comments and corrections for applicants. Assigned
case managers currently perform some of the functions of a comprehensive case
manager – though additional expansion of these duties is necessary.
There are three key aspects of case management that leading organizations use
to support an organized approach to permit administration. These are: (1) providing a
single point of contact for applicants, (2) having dedicated project managers, and (3)
monitoring internal timelines. These are described below:
• Single Point of Contact – A single point of contact is having one person
assigned to a particular permit or permit type, and having that individual
accessible to the applicant for any questions regarding permit application, review,
and issuance.
• Dedicated Case Managers – Similar to a single point of contact, dedicated
project managers (also known as application facilitators, case managers) are
typically assigned only for large or complex projects. A project manager is
different from the single point of contact, in that the project managers take an
active role in managing the permit application through the permit process.
• Monitoring Internal Timelines – These are the approaches used to monitor the
time it takes to process a permit from the time of permit application.
The case manager in the Planning Division should be responsible for managing
all aspects of a planning permit application submitted to the Planning Division, including
being the single point of contact for applications submitted, monitoring internal timelines
and each reviewer (whether within the Planning Division or external to it), and taking an
active role in managing the permit application and moving it through the permit process.
The case manager should be empowered to manage the review of these permit
applications by all staff in the various divisions/departments that are conducting reviews.
105
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
The project manager should further be empowered as the team leader of a multi-
discipline team comprised of staff from all reviewing entities but particularly from
Planning, Engineering, Fire and Building.
While the Planning Division already utilizes a quasi-case manager system, the
parameters and authority of the case manager should be clarified and defined in writing.
The parameters or authority of the project or case manager should include those
aspects defined in the following paragraphs.
(1) The Case Manager Should Be Responsible for Making Sure the Applicant
Gets to a Clear Decision Point in Accordance with Adopted Timelines.
The case manager position is designed to make sure that the review of the
permit application submitted to the Planning Division proceeds in a timely and
predictable fashion. The current process utilized by the Planning Division for processing
development permits includes the following:
• Applicants have available, under the current process, the ability to attend a pre-
submittal meeting with representatives of the various reviewing Departments.
Submission requirements and the general conception of the proposed
development are discussed.
• Once an application is submitted, it is assigned to a current planner who
becomes the “project manager” for that project.
• Development plans are routed to several departments, including Building, Public
Works/Engineering, etc. Reviewing divisions / departments are provided a
deadline for returned comments.
• After the review meeting, the case manager assigned to the project summarizes
the comments and sends them to the applicant.
• If revisions are required, based on division / department comments, it is the
applicant’s responsibility to work out issues with individual departments /
divisions.
106
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
While the initial stages of this process are consistent with a good case manager
system, the latter stages lack clear guidelines, and sometimes follow-through, on how
quickly divisions / departments should respond to revisions made by the applicant and
when an ultimate decision will be made. The case manager from the Planning Division
assigned to the project should facilitate the resolution of issues between the applicant
and reviewing divisions / departments.
However clear rules have not been established. As a result, the Matrix
Consulting Group recommends that the case manager’s role throughout the process be
clarified.
Some concerns were identified regarding the ability to get timely responses to
voice mail and phone messages left by applicants with reviewing departments/divisions
or the assigned planner. To remedy this, all interactions with an applicant should be
noted in a Planning Division policy regarding timeframes for responding to inquiries on
projects (i.e. – within 24 hours) should be established. If a formal response cannot be
given to the applicant within the established time frame, they should at least be
contacted and provided a time by which a response will be issued.
Recommendation #33: The Planning Division should establish guidelines for
reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish
clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30-day initial completeness
review and subsequent reviews.
Recommendation #34: A formal written policy should be established for response
times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from applicants that are received via
email and/or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held accountable for
meeting these guidelines.
107
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
(2) The Case Manager Should Be Responsible for Complete and Timely
Communication Among the Multi-Disciplinary Team.
The case manager should make sure communication occurs among the multi-
disciplinary team, and that complex issues are resolved, such as when conditions of
approval issued by individual departments imposed conflicting requirements on the
applicant.
During the focus groups conducted by the project team, a number of comments
were received regarding conditions of approval imposed on projects. Two specific
areas of concern were:
• Not all conditions appeared to be related to code requirements but were
preferences of specific individuals conducting the review; and
• Staff reports often contained conditions of approval that differed from those
previously discussed between staff and the applicant.
While the case manager is not expected to be the technical expert on reviews
conducted by other Departments, the project manager project manager should lead any
discussions that focus on resolving conflicting conditions of approval or competing code
requirements. His or her job is to keep the review process of the permit application
submitted to the Planning Division coordinated and predictable. Additionally, the case
planner should ensure that all conditions of approval distributed to applicants clearly
identify the code or regulation that imposes the condition to prevent conditions being
imposed that are “personal preferences”. To ensure that there is no lack of
understanding between the applicant and staff, all conditions of approval should be
documented in writing and provided to the applicant. Additionally, a copy of the staff’s
draft report should be provided to the applicant when developed – ideally with sufficient
time for the applicant’s review prior to the meeting at which it is being considered.
108
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
Recommendation #35: The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as
the project manager and be responsible for the communication among the multi-
disciplinary team and the resolution of conflicting conditions of approval or
competing code requirements.
Recommendation #36: The case manager should ensure that all conditions of
approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition
references the specific code or regulation that imposes / regulates the issues.
Additionally, a copy of the staff report should be provided to the applicant once
completed.
(3) The Role and Authority of the Case Manager Should Be Clarified in a
Written Policy.
The responsibility and the authority of the project manager should be clearly
spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division, and approved by the
Community Development Director. The responsibility and authority, in addition to that
previously identified, should include:
• Conducting pre-application meetings and reviews as appropriate;
• Collecting and integrating comments from other divisions and departments;
• Resolving inter-division or inter-departmental problems, such as conflicting
conditions of approval;
• Assuring that the conditions of approval suggested by other divisions or
departments are reasonable, specific to the project under review (and not blanket
conditions of approval that are inapplicable), and reference specific regulations;
• Analyzing the application in regards to compliance with zoning regulations and
the general plan;
• Coordinating citizen input and comments;
• Working with the applicant to resolve problems and revise the project as
appropriate;
• Managing the processing of the permit application in accordance with adopted
timelines and seeing that they are met;
• Promptly reviewing and issuing notifications of omissions or problems with the
project;
109
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
• Coordinating with key decision makers;
• Signing the staff reports; and
• Following up on enforcement of conditions.
The role of the case manager should be that of a team leader; if there are
problems with one of the members of the team, it would not be the role of the project
manager to resolve this problem directly with that member, but rather with the
supervisor of that member of the team. It also does not suggest that the project
manager has the authority to override code requirements or adopted standards.
However, if the project manager has a problem with the conditions of approval
suggested by the team member, it should be the role of the project manager to resolve
that problem working with the member of the team or the supervisor of that member of
the team.
In summary, the case manager is a team leader for a multi-disciplinary team who
is responsible for keeping the review of a permit application on track, who makes sure
issues involving conflicting code or regulatory issues are resolved, who charts a clear
course for the applicant through the review process, and who makes sure issues
regarding the application are identified early in the review process.
Recommendation #37: The authority of the case manager should be clearly
spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division and approved
by the Community Development Director.
13. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UTILIZED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS
AND DEPARTMENTS IN THE REVIEW OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND
ENGINEERING PERMITS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED.
In the experience of the Matrix Consulting Group, one of the primary methods for
assuring consistency in the completion of plan check activities, whether it is a building
110
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
permit plan check, final development permit plan check, or conditional use plan check,
or any other type of planning application review, is to document and publicize in writing
the standard conditions of approval that staff will be utilizing. The Planning Division
should take the lead in the development of this effort.
Other divisions and departments involved in the permit activities should follow
suit and develop, in writing, their own standard conditions of approval. This would
include Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Building. These standard conditions of
approval (related to land development applications) should be posted on the Planning
Division’s web site for use by the general public and the development community to aid
them in knowing what will be expected from them when applying for permits. They
should be developed in “plain English” so they are suitable for use by both seasoned
developers and individual citizens undertaking a small project or who do not routinely
utilize the planning process.
The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating and publicizing
the development of these standard conditions of approval by all of the divisions and
departments.
Recommendation #38: The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions
and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering permits
should be documented and posted to the City’s web site.
Recommendation #39: The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in
facilitating the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the
divisions and departments.
111
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
14. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND UTILIZE A FULL RANGE
OF CHECKLISTS FOR THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY ITS OWN STAFF.
To increase consistent application of the enabling ordinances among all staff,
and to provide a means for the applicant to pre-evaluate an application prior to
submission, the Planning Division staff should review and update the current checklists
that are available as part of the application handouts. The Division has developed a
limited number of such checklists for parking, for hillside exception applications,
tentative maps, variances, and the CEQA initial study. These checklists should be
expanded to included each application type, and be integrated with the application
guide itself for each type of permit, which is not the case at the present time.
These checklists should be designed to ensure that staff (and applicants) are
reviewing all critical areas of each application for a common series of compliance
factors with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Given the various modifications to
the Zoning Ordinance that take place over time and the myriad of situations that can
arise when trying to apply and interpret the code, this can reduce uncertainty and
inconsistent application of the principal regulations. These checklists should be posted
on the departmental web site when available; and when completed as part of a plan
review, should become a part of the application file.
For example, for a preliminary development plan application, the checklist could
include such aspects as the following:
• Setting up the file;
• Reviewing for consistency with zoning guidelines, parking standards, setback
and height requirements, compliance with requirements for drainage,
downstream sanitary sewer analysis, traffic impact analysis, etc.;
112
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
• Working with the applicant to obtain an adequate design for either staff approval
or the Planning Commission;
• Coordinating the resolution of revisions required by other divisions / departments;
and
• Conditional clearance prior to the building permit plan check.
The checklists should be utilized in all project reviews to ensure consistency and
completeness of the reviews conducted. These checklists also provide important
guidance to individuals, contractors, design professionals, and developers that are
doing work for the first time in the City to fully understand how the codes are applied in
Cupertino, specific requirements that must be met, and generally detail the type and
level of detail of the information necessary for submittal in order to gain approval.
Recommendation #40: The Planning Division should develop and utilize
checklists for the review and processing of discretionary and administrative
applications by its own staff.
Recommendation #41: The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its
web site for use by those individuals submitting plans.
15. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP MULTI-FAMILY,
COMMERCIAL AND SIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
The purpose of design guidelines should be to guide, educate and motivate
homeowners, developers and designers to create projects that contribute to community
design objectives and provide the tools needed for staff, the Design Review Committee
and other decision-makers to properly evaluate development proposals. The City has
developed residential design guidelines, but other design guidelines either have not
been developed (multi-family) or not fully developed (signs).
There are a number of issues that would need to be considered in the
development of commercial design guidelines, for example, such as the following:
113
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
• How to maintain a commercial area consistent with the existing neighborhoods
with regard to bulk, size, height, and scale of structures? Will the commercial
development be consistent with the scenic character of the City and enhance the
appearance of the specific commercial area? The guidelines should encourage
design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Cupertino.
• What methods for controlling size, bulk and scale are preferred? How compatible
is the structure’s mass, bulk and scale with neighboring structures’ mass, bulk
and scale? How does a large expanse of wall contribute to a structure’s
appearance of bulk? How can a structure’s mass be articulated to minimize large
expanses of walls? Do building plate heights create wall, window and door
details that are of a human scale? The design guidelines should provide a
richness of architectural façade depth and detail, provide a unified design around
all sides of the building, avoid blank walls and service areas that are visible from
adjacent streets and projects, and utilize high quality building materials and
details,
• Are the guidelines easy to understand and based upon transparent rationale?
• Do the guidelines work to ensure that the beauty of commercial areas is
preserved with consideration of structure placement, use of materials,
landscaping, exterior lighting, etc?
• Can the design guidelines be crafted to make the review process proceed more
efficiently?
The commercial design guidelines should cover a number of topics including the
following:
• Site planning;
• Site layout, development pattern, building orientation, etc.;
• Relationship to surrounding development;
• Vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation;
• Parking;
• Landscaping and screening;
• Lighting;
• Hotels and motels (building materials, internal circulation, building form, building
architecture, etc.); and
114
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
• Signage.
The challenge in the development of these guidelines will be to crafting clear
quantitative review standards that are easy to administer and offer certainty to
developers and citizens alike while maintaining a requisite degree of design flexibility to
allow and encourage creative site and building design.
Recommendation #42: The Planning Division should develop design guidelines
for multi-family, commercial, and signs.
16. CODE INTERPRETATIONS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED AND PUBLISHED
TO THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISION’S WEB
SITES.
Another tool to help the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions achieve
consistency in plan checking is an “interpretations log” that records how various
provisions of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes are
interpreted and applied in cases where the application of certain regulations is not
entirely clear.
Interviews with personnel within the Planning Division indicate that a number of
code interpretations have already been documented and are contained within a binder
in the office for use by staff. However, these interpretations are not disseminated
beyond the Division and are not available for use by the public to better understand how
to comply with the City’s regulations.
The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should begin documenting
code interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes
and publish these interpretations on the City’s web site. These interpretations should
be reviewed at least annually (and whenever the referenced regulation is modified or
115
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
adjusted) to ensure continued applicability. Only interpretations that are not “site
specific” should be included.
Recommendation #43: The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should
document interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and
building codes and make these available to the public on their web sites.
17. ENHANCE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK
PROCESS.
The length of time taken to process building permit plans cannot be managed or
controlled in any meaningful way unless certain conditions exist:
• Targets are set for the length of time each organizational unit should take to
process building permit plans.
• Actual processing times are systematically collected and monitored.
• On-going processing time performance is visible to all concerned parties.
The City should utilize the automated permit information system so that these
conditions can be met and control exercised over the length of time expended in
processing building permit applications and plans. The steps that should be taken for
improving the control over the length of the time required for processing building permit
plans are presented in the sections below.
(1) Revise the Cycle Time Goals for the Length of Time Required to Process
Building Permit Plans to Serve as a Performance Guideline for All
Organizational Units.
The Building Division has already adopted cycle time goals for building permit
plan checking. These goals include the following:
These cycle times include:
Residential Plan Review Cycle Times:
• Over the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes
116
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
• Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (500 sq. ft. or less) within 5 business
days
• Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, second review within
5 working days
• Large / Major Projects: apartments and subdivisions (over 10 units) is a
minimum of 4 weeks.
Commercial Plan Review Cycle Times
• Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30
• Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (10,000 sq. ft. or less) within 5
working days
• Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, rechecks within 5
working days
• Large / Major Projects: minimum 4 weeks.
There are a number of problems with these cycle time objectives. First, these
goals do not identify the types of permits that should be plan checked over-the-counter.
The Residential Plan Review Process Workbook, for example, merely states that “this
process is for very small residential projects (250 sq. ft. or less) that can be reviewed by
Building Department staff in less than thirty (30) minutes. It does not specify the specific
types of permits that can be approved over-the-counter. Other cities that provide
responsive over-the-counter services will identify the specific types of building permits
that can be approved over-the-counter such as electrical lights, HVAC replacements,
reroofs, sewer line replacement, water heater replacement, kitchen remodel, new
windows, portable spas, solar systems, decks,
The Division should clarify those types of permits that will be plan checked over-
the-counter in these plan check objectives. Secondly, some types of minor residential
117
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
remodel projects and additions should be plan checked in less than five (5) working
days. Examples of these types of permits are presented in the table below.
Balcony
Remodel – Major (SFD)
Addition (SFD)
Accessory Building – Detached
Accessible Ramps
Fences w/Calculations.
Garage – Detached (SFD)
Patio Enclosure (SFD)
Third, the commercial cycle time goals the plan check cycle goals for tenant
improvements are too long based upon the experience of the firm with other cities.
The Building Division should revise these cycle time benchmarks and include a
number of features. These features are presented below.
• The benchmarks should identify those organizations that should receive the
building permit plans. For example, pools, decks, and spas should be plan
checked only by Building, simple tenant improvements should be plan checked
only by Building, and commercial shells by Building, Planning, Fire, and
Engineering.
• These benchmarks should be established as a joint effort by each of these units.
Ultimately, however, the Chief Building Official needs to review these targets to
determine whether processing targets are not unacceptably long.
• The benchmarks need to be differentiated according to the type of plan being
processed and its complexity. The target for processing a plan for a residential
interior remodel should be different than that of a custom single-family residence.
• These benchmarks should be designed to enable the Chief Building Official to
hold each organizational unit involved in the plan checking process accountable
for the length of time the unit takes to review and approve plans.
118
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
The attainment of these benchmarks is dependent upon streamlining a number
of the existing processes, the effective use of the automated permit information system
to document actual cycle time versus these objectives, the effective and expanded use
of over-the-counter plan checking by the Building Inspector, etc.
Recommendation #44: Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for
the length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as a
performance guideline for all organizational units.
(2) Utilize the Automated Permit Information System to Assure the Status of
Each Plan Check Is Readily Visible.
The automated permit information system should be used to make visible the
amount of calendar time required to check building permit plans and enable an easy
comparison with targets for processing these plans. The specific objectives related to
the system include:
• To establish a process whereby specific calendar data targets are set for each
building permit plan.
• To generate data sufficient to assess the performance of each division or
department (Planning, Building, Engineering, Fire, etc.) in comparison to those
targets.
• To enable automated feedback to the Chief Building Official when plan checking
by these divisions exceeds targets.
Major elements of the system are as follows:
• The Building Division would enter the appropriate data for processing each
building permit plan including the divisions to which the plan is distributed, the
date of distribution, and the due dates.
• The Division would enter the actual date the plans were returned by all units after
completing the plan check.
• The Chief Building Official, or his / her designee, on a weekly basis – would
access the system to determine which plans are still being checked and
exceeded the targets. The Senior Plans Examiner would then contact the
manager or supervisor of those units to prompt the completion of those plan
119
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
checks.
• The Division would utilize the automated permit information system to generate
reports regarding actual processing time versus targets.
The automated permit information system should be the tool which the Division
utilizes to manage the plan check process and assure the time required to process
building permit plans consistently meet targets.
Recommendation #45: The Building Division should utilize the automated permit
information system to assure the status of each plan is readily visible.
(3) The Chief Building Official Should Be Given the Written Authority and
Responsibility to Interface with Other Organizational Units to Resolve
Delays in Processing Building Permit Plans.
This authority should include the following elements:
• Scheduling of the plan check of building permit plans by the various
organizational units.
• Identification of the timing and priorities for plan checking of building permit plans
by the various organizational units involved in commenting and analyzing the
plans.
• Monitoring the timely plan check of building permit plans and contacting the
managers or supervisors of these units to prompt the completion of the plan
check if the guidelines for completion are exceeded.
This authority and responsibility should be clearly spelled out to other
organizational units involved in processing building permit plans by the Community
Development Director.
Recommendation #46: The Chief Building Official should be given the written
authority and responsibility to interface with other organizational units to resolve
delays in processing building permit plans in a formal written policy published by
the Community Development Director.
120
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
18. SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK
PROCESS.
This section presents an analysis of the plan review and permitting services
provided by the Building Division. Similar to other sections in this chapter, this section
focuses on issues related to:
• Levels of service provided by the plan review and permitting programs;
• Ability to increase services to the public; and,
• Ability to increase customer service to the public.
The following are summaries of improvement opportunities in the plan review and
permitting programs of the Building and Safety Division.
(1) The Extent of Building Permits Provided On-line Should Be Expanded.
Permits that do not require a plan check, such as single trade permits (i.e., water
heater change-out, furnace change-out, re-roofs, and even simple kitchen remodels),
often known as over-the-counter permits, are well suited to on-line permit processing.
Similar to e-commerce transactions, such as buying products from a web site, this
activity involves credit card processing and the printing of a permit. On-line processing
of permit applications can be as basic as automating only the front-end information
collection process or as complete as full automation of the entire over-the-counter
permit transaction.
At their own personal computer, applicants can apply for a building permit,
schedule an inspection, and print the permit and receipt. Credit card payments are
secured through the use of encryption technology. Applicants can setup their access so
that basic information does not need to be re-entered for multiple transactions. The City
has the capability to allow applicants to complete a permit application via the Internet.
121
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
Applicants, for example, can complete on-line forms and hit a “send” button to transmit
the application to the City’s permit database. The on-line system can process, review,
approve, and stores completed permits. The permit system then generates a permit for
the applicant. Applicants can pay for permits using a credit card.
The Division should expand this feature. In the first month – mid-September to mid-
October – 10% of the building permits were issued on-line.
The objective of the Division should be to issue 20% of its building permits over
the Internet. This should include simple kitchen remodel, re-roofs, skylights, masonry
chimney repair, swimming pool removal, gas lines, irrigation sprinklers, sewer lines, tub
and shower replace/repair, water heaters, water piping, water service lines, air
conditioning, chimney, electrical panes, furnace, gas line, lighting, and spas. Some of
these permits are already issued on-line; the range of the types of permits issued on-
line should be expanded.
Recommendation #47: The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of its
building permits over the Internet.
(2) Expand the Extent of Building Permits Issued Over-the-Counter.
For the past several fiscal years, the Division has plan checked from 42% to 45%
of the building permit applications over-the-counter, as noted below.
Year # of Over-the-Counter
Plan Checks
# of Other Plan
Checks
% Over-the-Counter
2006 / 2007 1,069 1,306 45%
2007 / 2008 923 1,275 42%
2008 / 2009 1,104 1,104 43%
The best practice target for this practice is 50% to 75% of total building permits being
checked over the counter.
The project team does not expect that over-the-counter building permits would be
122
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
issued for such permits as new multi-family, new commercial, or new single family.
However, the project team does expect that over-the-counter permits can be issued for
such building permits as the following:
• Single family addition. Single story room addition not to exceed 600 square feet;
• Single family Outdoor Pools and Spas;
• Single family Patio Enclosures;
• Single family New Roof Framing Over Existing Roof (without major structural
work);
• Office Space: Tenant Improvements for office space less than 4,000 square feet.
For commercial projects to be issued over-the-counter, the following restrictions
should apply:
• There will be no storage of hazardous materials of any amount in the space;
• The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations to the
structural system of the building (e.g. openings into bearing or shear walls,
changes to floor system, etc.). Structural modifications required to install roof
mounted mechanical equipment should be exempted pending plans examiner
verification;
• The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations or
modification to fire-rated walls; and
• The application does not require any special Planning, or Fire District processing.
The project team should expect that the Division should be able to increase the
number of building permits issued over-the-counter from 42% to 45% of total plan
checks to 60% using these criteria.
The Counter Technician, when the position is filled, should be utilized for the plan
checking and issuance of these types of minor and miscellaneous building permits. This
assignment should recognize the impact of this additional skill and knowledge
123
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
requirements. The Counter Technician should be required to obtain certification by the
International Code Council as a Permit Technician to enable this position to the provide
over-the-counter plan checking. This would increase the responsibility of the Counter
Technician and will also benefit the Division by enabling the Division to enhance the
Building Inspector assigned to counter duty to plan checking of residential and
commercial plans of a more significant nature, such as tenant improvements. This
reassignment could be achieved by the following method:
• The Division should provide the support, funding, and work hours necessary for
the Counter Technician to obtain certification as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician.
• The Building Official should function as a team leader for the Counter Technician
and train the incumbent in the performance of plan checking of minor and
miscellaneous building permit plans.
• The Plan Check Engineer should provide code and practical plan check training
to the Counter Technician for an appropriate period of time.
• The Division should establish a time period for training and implement the
program on a target date. The Division should confer with the Counter
Technician to establish the implementation date. The Division should establish
the target date realizing that some of the quality expertise will only occur with
practice. A comfort level can be achieved by realizing that support by the Plan
Check Engineer is available.
This method will produce quality performing Counter Technician that is fully capable of
plan checking miscellaneous and minor building permit plans.
Recommendation #48: The Building Division should increase the number of
building permits issued over-the-counter to 60% of all building permits issued.
Recommendation #49: The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to
Building Technician.
Recommendation #50: The Building Technician position, when filled, should be
utilized to provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous
building permits.
124
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
Recommendation: #51 The Building Technician classification should be revised
to require certification as an ICC-certified Permit Technician within 12 months of
hire.
Recommendation #52: The Building Division should provide support, funding,
and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician.
(3) Develop Standard Plans For Use By The Public In The Construction Of
Minor Residential Improvements.
A number of residents in Cupertino and other communities are do-it-yourselfers
in terms of constructing minor retaining walls, residential patio covers, detached storage
sheds, and outdoor fireplaces. In other instances, residents will pull building permits
rather than their contractors for construction such as spas.
The City should assist these “do it yourselfers” meet building permit plan check
requirements by developing standard plans. These standard plans, if utilized by the “do
it yourselfers” in applying for their building permit, would allow avoiding the retention of
an architect or designer for the preparation of these plans, as long as the homeowner
utilized these standard plans.
In addition, the Building Division should develop a “Home Improvement Center”
web page on the City’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building
permit plan check and inspection process.
Recommendation #53: Develop standard building permit plans for use by the
public in minor residential improvements.
Recommendation #54: Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the
Town’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit
plan check and inspection process.
125
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
(4) The Division Has Developed a Number of Cycle Time Objectives for Plan
Review, But Actual Cycle Time Exceeds the Objectives.
The Division has established cycle times for both residential and commercial plan
reviews. This information is identified within the guidebooks published by the Division
and available on the Division’s web site.
The project team analyzed plan check cycle time data provided by the Division
that identified the number of building permit plan checks completed during FY 2007 /
2008 (showing the permit number, permit type, apply date, date in, revision, date out,
reviewer, and permit issue date). The following exhibit shows the calculation of the
number of days between the “date out” and the “apply date,” and utilizes a sampling of
3,932 permits received by the Division.
As indicated in the exhibit, the average time between the application date and the
date of review completion was 33 days (and a median of 24 days). For the top ten
permit types in terms of volume (excluding single trade permits), the average days from
“application date” to “date out” was 40 days. The data provided does not allow for the
calculation of elapsed time between re-submittals.
Additionally, it is a challenge for the Division, given current technology limitations,
to identify and publish more comprehensive data that will allow the project team or the
Division to better manage its cycle time performance. However, based on this available
data, actual cycle times are generally longer than the cycle time objectives (e.g., for
large projects the cycle time objective is 28 days, however, the average for all types of
permit applications is 33 days).
126
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
Exhibit 1 (1)
Building Division Plan Check Cycle Time
Type # of Permits
# of Days (Apply Date
to Date Out) # of Reviews
TELECOMFAC 27 78.3 1.7
SOLAR-RES 49 11.4 1.1
SFDWL-REM 189 24.3 1.3
SFDWL-NEW2 2 2.0 1.0
SFDWL-NEW1 237 59.5 1.6
SFDWL-DEM 56 40.1 1.1
SFDWL-ADD1 345 38.0 1.5
RMB1 1 2.0 1.0
MFDWL-REM 9 21.4 1.4
MFDWL-NEW1 4 4.8 1.0
FURN/AC 106 48.4 1.5
COMML-TI 259 32.8 1.3
COMML-NEW 15 14.9 1.1
COMML-DEM 3 1.0 1.0
CMB6 2 14.5 1.0
CMB1 8 16.1 1.4
CMAP2 8 18.8 1.4
CELECTRICA 1 9.0 1.0
CEAP5 10 19.6 1.1
1SOLARRES 51 13.6 1.1
1SOLARCOMM 5 10.8 1.0
1SHELLBLDG 42 82.5 1.9
1SFDWLREM 8 25.6 1.3
1SFDWLNEW1 7 16.9 1.0
1SFDWLDEM 103 41.4 1.1
1SFDWLADD1 21 30.3 1.3
1RPSS 8 32.4 1.5
1RBSP 6 10.2 1.2
1R3SFDW 454 73.5 1.7
1R3SFDREM 173 23.0 1.3
1R3SFDALT 5 19.8 1.4
1R3SFDADD 662 48.5 1.5
1R3SFD 5 22.6 1.8
1R1APTRM 37 177.7 1.3
1R1APT 116 125.2 1.6
1M TI 54 54.7 1.5
1I TI 7 16.1 1.3
1GENRES 182 26.9 1.2
1GENCOM 122 43.9 1.4
1E TI 11 29.7 1.8
1COMMLTI 1 9.0 1.0
1COMMLADD 4 10.0 1.0
1CMAP2 1 2.0 1.0
1CEAP6 5 37.0 1.4
127
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
Exhibit 1 (2)
Type # of Permits
# of Days (Apply Date
to Date Out) # of Reviews
1CEAP5 19 13.6 1.4
1BOFF 16 45.7 1.9
1B TI 371 30.9 1.4
1A3 34 53.4 1.8
1A TI 71 42.9 1.4
Average 33.2 1.3
Median 24.3 1.3
128
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
The project team also calculated the cycle time from the application date to the
actual permit “issue date,” and found the average number of days was 68, while the
median number of days between application date and the permit issuance date was 54
days. This suggests that once the Building Division completes plan checking, there is a
lag time between the final plan review, and when the applicant actually picked up and
paid for the permit. The Division cannot and should not be held accountable for this lag.
Once a mechanism is in place to more comprehensively measure actual cycle
time performance, monthly reports should be developed for reporting the actual time
required to plan check building permit plans versus the targets.
The information contained in this report would be used for several purposes:
• To identify where processing delays are occurring, in what step of the process,
and the organizational unit responsible
• To trigger questions regarding the causes of the delays so that corrective action
can be take
• To provide a more reliable and readily available record on what happened to
each building permit plan.
It should be underscored that the scheduling and monitoring system proposed is
not intended to replace the responsibility and accountability of staff in other
organizational units who actually plan check the building permit plans. This system has
been designed only to provide important and more accurate, comprehensive and
uniform information regarding the plan checking of building permit plans and to pinpoint
the manager that owns the process: the Building Official. Without this information and
this ownership, it is virtually impossible to control the number of days required for
processing of these building permit plans.
Recommendation #55: The Building Division should improve the building permit
plan check performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives.
129
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
(5) Reduce The Number Of Organizational Units That Plan Check Some Types
Of Building Permit Plans.
In many instances, the divisions / departments that plan check building permit
plans in Cupertino is different than patterns used in other cities. For example:
• Single-family additions are routed to the Planning Division, the Engineering
Division, Building Division, Sanitary, and Fire Prevention;
• Patios and decks are routed to the Planning Division and Building Division; and
• Tenant improvements are routed to the Planning Division, Building Division,
Sanitary, and Fire Prevention.
Other cities have reallocated responsibility for zoning clearance with their
Building Division. This eliminates the need for building permit plan checking of simpler
building permit plans by the Planning Division such as patios and decks, single family
additions, or tenant improvements
Other cities, such as Pasadena, only route single-family additions and remodels
and new single family residences to the Fire Department for plan checking if located in
the Hillside District Overlay.
The City should take steps to reduce the number of divisions / departments that
plan check building permit plans. The project team recommends the City review the
routing of building permit plans to assess if all organizational units need to review these
plans. For example, the City could consider the following:
• The City should eliminate the routing for single-family remodels/additions to the
Planning Division, Fire Prevention, and to the Engineering Division. This will
require the Building Division to check for zoning clearances, and easements.
• Tenant improvements should not be routed to the Planning Division. This will
require the Building Division to check for zoning clearances.
• Minor permits, such as awnings, spas, and pools, should be plan checked solely
by the Building Division.
130
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
The project team believes the routing of building permit plans can be reduced.
The Chief Building Official should develop a proposal for review of the City Manager’s
Office and the affected departments.
With the effective deployment of the automated permit information system, the
responsibility for zoning clearance should be reassigned to the Building Division. The
automated permit information system should enable the plan checking staff of the
Building Division to determine the zoning of the property. This would enable the staff of
the Division to determine the development standards (e.g., setbacks) for the
applications. This transition should not occur until the Building Division staff has been
trained in the use of the system, and Building Division staff has been trained in applying
the development standards.
Recommendation #56: The Building Division should reduce the number of
divisions and departments that are routed building permit plans.
Recommendation #57: The City should assign responsibility to the Building
Division for zoning clearance of simple building permits.
19. CONTRACTORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE BUILDING
INSPECTIONS UP TO 7:00 AM OF THE DAY OF THE REQUESTED
INSPECTION.
The leading industry practice for customers to schedule an inspection is up to
7:00 AM the morning of the desired date and time. Inspection requests are processed
until 3:30 PM the day before the scheduled inspection. This is due the highly manual
nature of the scheduling process, which involves the following:
• The administrative staff print out the listing of requested inspections at the end of
the afternoon
131
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
• The Senior Building Inspector then reviews and manually assigns the various
inspections staff based on geographical location, workload, areas of interest /
expertise, etc.
• The Senior Building Inspector then prints the master copy and distributes to
inspections staff in the morning, printing a specific copy for each building
inspector.
• The Building Inspector staff then determines the windows of time they will
conduct the inspection (typically 2-hour windows). The Building Inspector notes
these windows of time on the master copy and makes copies for the division’s
administrative staff to enable these staff to respond to telephone inquiries about
time window.
Because of these processes, the ability to accommodate inspections requests up
to 7:00 AM the same day is challenging, as the schedule is confirmed by that time. As
such, the Division should utilize more automated processes in order to better
accommodate same-day inspection requests.
Recommendation #58: The Building Division should adopt a policy to
accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request
service.
20. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION IS MEETING THEIR CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVE
FOR PLAN CHECKING BUILDING PERMIT PLANS IN 5 TO 10 DAYS.
The project team obtained Engineering Division data for building permit plan
checking. Using a sample of 19 building permit applications, the plan check cycle time
of the Division is presented in the table below.
132
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
1st Review
# Date In Date out Days
1 2/2/09 2/2/09 0
2 10/15/08 10/16/08 1
3 10/20/08 10/21/08 1
4 10/23/08 10/27/08 4
5 11/14/08 11/18/08 4
6 10/16/08 10/21/08 5
7 10/7/08 10/13/08 6
8 11/19/08 11/25/08 6
9 2/13/09 2/19/09 6
10 10/20/08 10/28/08 8
11 1/5/09 1/13/09 8
12 3/2/09 3/11/09 9
13 3/2/09 3/11/09 9
14 11/12/08 11/21/08 9
15 10/8/08 10/22/08 14
16 2/2/09 2/17/09 15
17 1/9/09 1/25/09 16
18 2/6/09 2/23/09 17
19 12/16/08 1/9/09 24
Average 9
Median 8
As shown above, the average number of days for this sample was nine (9) days
of review time, with a median of eight (8) days. It is important to note, however, that this
was just a sampling of over 159 building permit reviews conducted over a 3-month
period, including the following:
Plan Type Number
Arch 108
Arch / IMP 2
Arch / RGP 1
IMP 43
Parcel Map 3
RGP 1
Structural 1
3-Month Total 159
133
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 67
Annualized, the Engineering Division conducts approximately 636 permit
application plan checks that are routed from the Community Development Department,
which equates to approximately 12 per week, or 2.5 per day. Based on this
assessment, the Engineering Division should better track the intake dates of building
permits being routed from the Community Development Department, and continuously
monitor their cycle time performance of reviews.
21. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES
FOR ENGINEERING PERMITS.
The Engineering Division has an important role in the planning and building
permit processes. In these instances, the Division is most often not the lead in the
process: the Community Development Department is the lead in the process.
The Division, however, is the lead with some permits. This could include grading
permits, improvement plans, utility joint trench permits, encroachment permits, heavy
haul permits, sewer lateral or water service permits, etc.
A guide for a grading permit could include such aspects as the following:
• The purpose of the permit
• The process for plan checking the permit
• The required material that must be submitted with the application such as
grading plan, preliminary landscape and irrigation plan, etc.
• A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements
• General grading notes / conditions of approval
In each of these instances, the Engineering Division should develop an
application guide.
Recommendation #59: The Engineering Division should develop application
guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead.
134
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 68
22. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD PUBLISH ITS CYCLE TIME
OBJECTIVES FOR PLAN CHECKING TO ITS WEB PAGE.
To provide better customer service, the Engineering Division has a number of
items available on the web site, including the following:
• Engineering Standards - which includes guidelines as the City of Cupertino
Standard Details, the Best Management Practice Plan Sheet, and Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams (user manual).
• Pavement Management Program – which is a comprehensive description of the
program, maintenance techniques, and overall condition of Cupertino’s streets
• Fee Schedule (effective July 1, 2008) – which summarizes the user fees for
engineering, planning, building, and recreation
• Maps and Data – which provides a city map guide and a Water Service Boundary
Map
• Permit Applications – which allow users to download various types of
applications, including an encroachment permit, grading permit, permit parking,
streamside modification, and block party / special event permit.
The Engineering Division should also develop cycle time objectives for all permit
applications for the length of time -- in calendar days -- required to process applications
from the date of submittal to the date of the applicant's initial public hearing or the
approval / disapproval of the application by staff. Possible calendar date benchmarks for
processing different types of permit applications are presented in the table below.
Type of Permit
Proposed Cycle Time Objective (Calendar
Days) At The Median
Tentative maps / Parcel Maps 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 10 calendar days for rechecks
Final Subdivision Map Improvement Plans 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 10 calendar days for rechecks
Final Parcel Map Improvement Plans 14 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 7 calendar days for rechecks
Grading Plans 14 calendar days to complete the first check, and
7 calendar days for rechecks.
135
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
For the Engineering Division to set cycle time objectives from the date of submittal of
the application, as opposed to the date the application is deemed complete, the
Engineering Division staff will need to be rigorous in checking applications at submittal
to assure the applications contain all of the essential information required to achieve a
complete submittal, and rejecting applications that do not contain this essential
information. It will also require that the application guides developed that clearly identify
the elements of a complete application.
As a general policy, the Engineering Division has an objective of reviewing the
first submission within 5 to 10 days for building permit review, however, this should be
stated in the residential development guidebook and the commercial development
guidebook, as well as made available on the Division web-site.
Recommendation #60: The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time
objectives to the Division’s web site and identify these cycle time objectives in
the Division’s application guides.
23. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES
FOR ENGINEERING PERMITS.
The Engineering Division has an important role in the planning and building
permit processes. In these instances, the Division is most often not the lead in the
process: the Community Development Department is the lead in the process.
The Division, however, is the lead with some permits. This could include grading
permits, improvement plans, utility joint trench permits, encroachment permits, heavy
haul permits, sewer lateral or water service permits, etc.
A guide for a grading permit could include such aspects as the following:
• The purpose of the permit
• The process for plan checking the permit
136
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 70
• The required material that must be submitted with the application such as
grading plan, preliminary landscape and irrigation plan, etc.
• A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements
• General grading notes / conditions of approval
In each of these instances, the Engineering Division should develop an
application guide.
Recommendation #61: The Engineering Division should develop application
guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan checking.
137
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
4. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT
INFORMATION SYSTEM
The acquisition of a fully functional and easy-to-use automated permit
information system should be viewed as a high priority by the City of Cupertino.
However, If the City is to obtain an effective return on its investment, there are a number
of features that should be included with the system.
1. ALL OF THE CITY’S DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED
IN THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS SHOULD UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED
PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MEET ALL OF THEIR PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS.
It is apparent that not all of the divisions and departments involved in the permit,
plan check, and inspection process do not utilize an automated permit information
system or do not fully utilize the existing automated permit information system..
The City will be making a significant investment in an automated permit
information system. The system will be capable of a broad range of tasks including the
following:
• Plan review tracking;
• Permitting including the issuance and tracking of permits;
• Inspections scheduling and tracking;
• Workflow management;
• Fee calculation and collection;
• Customer communications through web-based customer services;
• Telephone-based voice response services; and
• Inter- and intra-departmental communication and management.
138
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 72
All of the departments and divisions involved in the issuance of permits need to
utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building
permit, and engineering permit process.
Recommendation #62: All of the departments and divisions should utilize the
automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building
permit, and engineering permit process.
Recommendation #63: Modules, applications and reports should be developed
within the automated permit information system to support the work of these
departments and divisions.
Recommendation #64: Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the
use of the automated permit information system.
2. THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ACCESS TO
THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM OVER THE INTERNET.
Automating the permit process opens the door for customer self-service. Simple
e-permitting capabilities allow citizens and businesses to use both the Internet and the
telephone to check the status of their permit application or comment on new
development projects. The use of standard Web development technologies and
relational databases make permit information available through the Internet.
A fully functional automated permit process provides the capacity for the public
and for applicants to access the automated permit information system through the
Internet. This capacity would make information from the City’s permit database
accessible via the Internet by permit applicants, residents, and other interested parties.
In this instance, the City’s web site would provide a search form where citizens enter a
property address or permit number to receive current information on that permit, 24
hours a day, seven days a week, from any computer with Internet access. The City can
control the amount of information that is accessible by the public and can limit the
139
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
amount of users by incorporating password protection, if it chooses to do so.
This feature of the automated permit information system should be utilized to
enable applicants to check the status of their permits. Giving applicants the ability to
check the status online reduces telephone and walk-in traffic and allows applicants and
city residents to review this information even when City Hall is closed.
It should also be utilized to enable citizens to review proposed projects online. By
placing information about proposed developments on the web, citizens have increased
opportunity to participate in the extent and type of development occurring in their
neighborhood.
Overland Park, Kansas, for example, enables citizens to access development
activity in their neighborhood through a marriage of their permitting software and
geographical information system. The City’s Web site contains “What’s Happening In
My Neighborhood.”
Recommendation #65: The City should utilize the automated permit information
system to provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data
through the Internet or for the public and applicants to subscribe to information.
3. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD INCLUDE THE
CAPACITY TO INTERFACE WITH AN INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE.
Interactive Voice Response systems (IVR) systems are used widely throughout
the customer service industry. When calling a bank, credit card company or utility
company, most customers interact with an automated voice system before reaching a
live person. An IVR system is available 24 hours a day and can simultaneously handle
multiple callers. When connected to an automated permit system, IVR enables permit
applicants and other interested parties to receive information such as permit status and
the expected date of completion, schedule an inspection, or obtain the results of an
140
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
inspection.
An IVR system can be programmed to adapt to an organization’s specific needs.
For example, announcements can be incorporated into the IVR system notifying
external customers of changes in the permit process, important dates, and events of
concern to permit applicants.
City employees are responsible for maintaining the system and providing back-
up customer service when callers indicate the need to speak directly with Permit
Center/counter staff or other city staff. Both internal and external customers use the IVR
at any time, night or day.
An IVR system is a “black box” (a self-contained computing system that can be
plugged into other systems) that interfaces with a host computer(s) and telephone
system through various communications protocols. Calls come into the system through
the telephone switch or are routed by an Automated Call Distributor (ACD). The system
prompts callers to select the information they want from a menu. The caller makes a
selection either by using the touch-tone keypad or by speaking into the telephone
receiver. The system then retrieves the requested information from the host system and
“delivers” it to the caller.
Recommendation #66: The automated permit information system should include
the capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice Response system.
Recommendation #67: The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response
(IVR) System.
4. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE
WIRELESS CAPABILITIES.
Using a handheld computer, inspectors in the field should be able to access the
City’s permit database. They should be able to download a list of scheduled inspections,
141
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 75
enter inspection results, and even print a certificate using a small, wireless printer.
Inspectors should also be able to collect information in the field and load this information
into the permit database.
Building inspectors in the Building Division have mobile “laptop” systems for field
use. These mobile systems should be used in field.
Recommendation #68: The automated permit information system should have
wireless capabilities.
5. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPABILITY FOR AUTOMATED WORKFLOW.
Complex planning and building permits often have to be routed to several
employees at different departments and divisions within the City. Automating the permit
process using the automated permit information system means that the planning and
building permit will not sit on a desk too long or get misplaced as it is being reviewed.
The system itself operates according to business tasks and rules defined by the City.
Automated workflow systems encompass role/relationship definition, security, auditing,
and tracking capabilities. Users have the ability to know who has taken what actions on
what date and where a particular task is in a sequence of steps. In addition, the system
may have the ability to effectively archive required data and recreate representations of
data.
Managers and permit staff use automated workflow to track a variety of
documents, plans and attachments associated with a planning and building
permits permit application. External customers do not usually access the
agency’s workflow system.
Recommendation #69: The automated permit information system should
have an automated workflow capacity.
142
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 76
6. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPACITY FOR ONLINE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION
TOOLS.
The City should host project management and collaborative Web tools on their
own Web site. Both city employees and external permit participants from the design and
building community work together via electronic communication to share documents. A
password should be required to enter the Web site, but be accessed from any
computer.
Architects, consultants, developers, and contractors should be able to use this
tool to participate with City plan checking staff on complex projects involving a large
number of plans and details.
Recommendation #70: The automated permit information system should have the
capacity for online project management and collaboration tools.
7. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPACITY FOR INTERFACING WITH GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (GIS).
GIS links maps of an area with information from a database to generate maps
and reports, allowing users to display, analyze, maintain, and model location-based
information to support decision making. GIS systems have the capability to combine
disparate sets of data (maps, aerial photographs, land coordinates) from various
departments and agencies (such as water, electric, gas, land use) to graphically display
data in any combination, for many purposes. For permitting, GIS can be used to search
for addresses and features such as poles, utility mains or pipes below or above ground,
water table and seismic information, and find its location in relation to any other location
such as a freeway, or residential, commercial, or flood zone.
143
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 77
Recommendation #71: The automated permit information system should have the
capacity to interface with ESRI GIS.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOULD BE STORED IN
PERMITS PLUS.
Document management tools within the automated permit information system will
offer the capacity to transform paper documents into digital documents and files,
allowing staff to store, manage, and access documents and applicants and the public to
access these documents using a standard interface – the automated permit information
system. Using these document management tools, any information associated with the
permit process is digital and indexed to the permit application. In addition to the
electronic documents that can be stored in the automated permit information system,
hard copy documents, photos and drawings can be scanned and converted to digital
files in the automated permit information system. Organizations are beginning to
integrate document management tools into their permit processes because this
technology improves the linkages between related information and provides a single
point of access to multiple sources of permit information.
The City should accomplish this goal using a number of approaches. These
approaches are presented in the paragraphs below.
• All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and
inspections should be archived in the automated permit information
system so that they can be stored and located more easily and efficiently.
The automated permit information system will have the capacity to store
electronic documents (such as those created by Microsoft Word or Excel), legacy
documents imaged or scanned from paper or microfiche, and documents and
images from databases. In addition, city staff can scan non-electronic documents
to add them to the document management database.
• The City should scan architectural plans submitted to the City
electronically or require the applicant to submit electronic copies of these
architectural plans. This is not an uncommon approach. Other cities and
144
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
counties have already taken this step.
• Architectural plans that are scanned should be archived in the automated
permit information system. All plans should be labeled and archived for future
reference. There are a number of public agencies that are not only archiving
these architectural plans, but also receiving these plans from applicants over the
Internet.
Recommendation #72: All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan
checks, and inspections should be archived in the automated permit information
system.
Recommendation #73: Architectural plans should be archived in the automated
permit information system once the permit is finalized.
9. PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT ANNOTATIONS, CORRECTIONS AND
COMMENTS SHOULD BE STORED IN THE AUTOMATED PERMIT
INFORMATION SYSTEM.
Once planning and building permits are plan checked, annotations and
comments could be added within the automated permit information system, shared
among the review team, and forwarded to the applicant. This is an essential element of
the automated permit information system: to facilitate collaboration, integration, and
cooperation among staff, applicants, architects, and the neighborhoods. Use of the
automated permit information system for these annotations and comments provides the
potential for 24/7 access to staff, applicants, architects, and the neighborhoods.
The City should fully utilize the capacity of the automated permit information
system storing comments and corrections. All of the divisions and departments that
utilize the automated permit information system should enter and store their
annotations, comments, and conditions in this system.
Recommendation #74: All of the divisions and departments that utilize the
automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations,
comments, and conditions in the system.
145
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 79
10. THE CITY SHOULD ACQUIRE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL COMMERCIAL-OFF-
THE-SHELF AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
The City is now working with Pentamation to develop a fully functional automated
permit information system. This process has been ongoing for several years and the
automated permit information system has not yet reached its full development and
conclusion. The Planning Division is still using a Microsoft Access database to track
permit applications, while the Engineering Division is using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet to track permit applications. Various features of the Pentamation permit
system have yet to be implemented.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City provide Pentamation with
the opportunity to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of
a fully functional automated permit information system.
Regardless of that effort, the Matrix Consulting Group believes that the City
should acquire a fully developed commercial-off-the-shelf automated permit information
system. Given the costs of the Pentamation permit system to-date, the Matrix
Consulting Group believes that the City would be better served by acquiring a system
that has already been fully developed and deployed, with a significant installed
customer base, rather than continuing to allocate additional funds for the development
of the automated permit information system by Pentamation.
Recommendation #75: The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity
to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a fully
functional automated permit information system.
Recommendation #76: The City should acquire a fully developed commercial-off-
the-shelf automated permit information system.
146
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
5. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT CENTER
The Matrix Consulting Group evaluates permit centers from the context of
sufficient space for receiving and serving customers; sit-down counters for customers;
computers that customers can access for application preparation and review of zoning,
building materials, reading material; maps (general plan/zoning) available for customer
access; application guides and forms; toys for children; etc.
1. THE CITY SHOULD REMODEL THE PERMIT CENTER.
In the evaluating the ability of the downstairs permit center to effectively serve
the City’s customers in this context, the Matrix Consulting Group noted numerous
problems from a customer service perspective regarding the permit center as presented
below.
• The space available in the permit center is limited and at peak hours the center is
crowded. Our national experience is that the best permit centers have extremely
large waiting areas so customers do not feel they are in such a hectic
environment. Given the number of permit center customers, the lobby is too
small. A few of our recommendations can help this.
• There is an absence of sit-down work space for customers.
• There is a shortage of conference rooms for staff to have meetings with permit
center customers to discuss their applications.
• The permit center is not staffed during the lunch hour.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City remodel the permit
center. The permit center should provide sit-down counters for customers, computers
that customers can access, better access to small conference rooms for staff to meet
with applicants and discuss their applications, etc.
Recommendation #77: The City should remodel the permit center.
147
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
6. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT ADMINISTRATION
This chapter presents an analysis of the administrative practices of the permit
process such as staff training, customer service in the permit center, etc.
1. A GREATER FOCUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON ENSURING THE
AVAILABILITY OF PLANNERS TO SERVE THE FRONT COUNTER DURING
ALL HOURS OF OPERATIONS AND INCREASE THE SERVICES PROVIDED
TO THE PUBLIC ON A WALK-IN BASIS.
At the present time, all planners are assigned (on a rotating basis) to works shifts
at the front counter. The staff member assigned to the counter is not required to remain
at the counter, but is provided a pager to carry so that they can be located when a
customer arrives and needs assistance.
While generally this approach is effective in utilizing staff time and freeing them
up to work on projects at their desk, some issues with this approach were identified
including periodic inability to locate the planner in a timely manner, and the wait time for
customers during the location of the planner by the receptionist in the permit center.
Additionally, the counter is not staffed during lunch hours as the entire City organization
takes a coordinated lunch period and services to the public (at the permit center) are
closed from noon to 1:00 p.m. While this approach typically works well for staff, it often
eliminates a key time period for many applicants who may need or desire to conduct
permit processing during their lunch period.
The Division should provide a greater focus on ensuring that a planner is
available during all hours of operation, including the lunch hour, to address issues and
answer questions at the front counter. This can be easily accomplished through efforts
such as the following:
148
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 82
• Rotating lunch hours so that front counter service can be provided throughout all
hours of operations; and
• Increasing the time spent at the front counter during the shift by physically basing
a planner at the front counter and utilizing the computer at the counter for
planners to conduct other work activities when an applicant is not present.
This approach will increase the availability of staff to handle customer issues
promptly, and eliminate the perception, shared with the project team, that Planning staff
is not always readily available or easily located to handle counter functions.
Additionally, the project team recommends that the Planning and Development
Department institute a set schedule for providing review of minor corrections over the
counter to expedite the approval process. This can be undertaken on a pilot basis to
determine the usefulness to the applicants and gauge the workload that is generated by
this approach. Individual planners assigned to current planning should have a set
number of hours, on a recurring weekly basis, where they are available in the office to
review minor corrections on planning related issues outstanding. The hours for each
current planner should be posted in the Permit Center and on the Department’s web
site.
The Department should establish guidelines for what constitutes “minor
corrections” and should inform applicants when they qualify to utilize this service by
noting this when comments are issued for a particular plan review.
Recommendation #78: A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division
on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at the front counter during
all hours of operation including during the lunch hour.
Recommendation #79: The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of
providing scheduled hours for “walk in” reviews of minor corrections to expedite
the approval process.
149
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
2. SEVERAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS SHOULD
BE UNDERTAKEN TO EDUCATE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIPS WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
One of the easiest, least expensive and most effective opportunities to enhance
the service provided to the customer is to ensure that frequent, timely, and meaningful
dialogue is undertaken. These interactions should be designed to increase the
customer’s understanding of existing procedures and policies, and to provide a
mechanism for staff to receive ongoing feedback regarding issues from the
development community. The following sections outline some specific
recommendations.
(1) A “How to Develop in the City of Cupertino” Guide Should Be Developed.
A comprehensive how to guide should be developed that covers the entire permit
process from project concept through the final certificate of occupancy. In developing
this guide, the City needs to ensure that it is developed in a “plain English” approach
that is understandable by a variety of audiences and not just those that work within the
development arena on a daily basis. The City currently has in place many elements that
would be included within this document. These would simply need to be updated and
refined for inclusion.
This document needs to be more than a simple recitation of the ordinances, but
clearly explain the steps of the process, how to comply and appropriately submit an
application, and identify the review that will be conducted by staff. Within this document,
it would be appropriate to include copies of checklists for each phase of the process that
clearly identify to the applicant the information that must be submitted and why it is
150
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
required. A section that clearly outlines the review time standards that have been
adopted by the City should also be included within the document.
Another critical component of the guide should be a section outlining the
standard conditions of approval for each of the reviewing departments (as discussed
previously in this chapter).
Recommendation #80: The City should develop a comprehensive “How-to
Manual” or “Development Guide” for use by the public and publish this document
to their web site.
(2) The Level of Ongoing Dialogue Between the Community Development
Department and the Development Community Should Be Increased.
The Community Development Department should focus on increasing the
amount and type of communication, dialogue and interaction with the development
community in a proactive manner – not simply working with them when problems arise.
This should be initiated by publishing a periodic newsletter (either 2 or 4 times per year)
that addresses changing requirements, code interpretations, a discussion of emerging
issues, or an informational discussion of a particular policy or requirement. These
newsletters should be posted on the City’s web site and emailed directly to all
individuals who sign-up to receive them.
Additionally, at least annually, the Community Development Department should
host a meeting with the development community to discuss issues of general interest,
solicit input for consideration on specific regulations under consideration for revision,
and provide an opportunity to receive feedback regarding service levels. Most
communities that implement this approach utilize a one and a half hour to two-hour
meeting that is focused on a specific topic and held in a community center.
151
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 85
Finally, the Community Development Department should conduct an annual
survey of the development community to evaluate the Community Development
Department’s level of performance. This can easily be accomplished through the use of
a short online survey. Staff should consider whether there are a significant number of
customers that wouldn’t be able to respond online and if so, hard copy forms of the
survey should be available in the permit center. Additionally, comment postcards
should be made available to all applicants following the completion of the application
review (approval or denial), asking them to evaluate the level of services provided on
their case.
The City of San Jose has developed a customer satisfaction survey; the Matrix
Consulting Group has provided a copy to the Community Development Department.
Recommendation #81: The Community Development Department should institute
a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is distributed to the
development community containing code or interpretation updates, training
information, and general discussion of relevant topics.
Recommendation #82: The Community Development Department should conduct
at least an annual meeting to engage the development community in a discussion
of general issues regarding permit matters in Cupertino, solicit input regarding
service levels, and seek input regarding potential changes to the enabling
legislation (general plan, subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building
codes).
Recommendation #83: The Community Development Department should conduct
an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey.
(3) New Ordinance and Code Requirements Should Be Implemented After
Communication With The Development Community.
When Building Inspectors bring new information into the field for building inspection that
was acquired at outside training or realize that something that they have not been
requiring is, in fact, required by the codes, Building Inspectors immediately call for
152
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 86
corrections. On other occasions they may decide to change requirements after meeting
together. This causes hardship for owners and contractors when construction has to be
dismantled and it impacts their costs and job completion deadlines. Owners and
contractors are entitled to notice time in order to prepare for requirements not previously
imposed. The Building Division should provide 60-days notice regarding any changed
requirements not previously invoked, and should not impact jobs under construction.
Recommendation #84: The City should require that any new ordinance and code
requirements not previously imposed will not be enforced on current
construction and future jobs until the industry is informed and a 60-day waiting
period is put in place.
Recommendation #85: The City should communicate any new plan review and
inspection requirements to developers, contractors, architects, engineers, and
the construction community through issuance of information bulletins and a
newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the new requirements, and
show effective date of implementation.
3. ADDITIONAL TRAINING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO STAFF OF THE
PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISIONS.
During the conduct of the study, the project team concluded that, as a general
rule, the staff assigned to the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions were
generally well-versed and trained regarding their assigned duties and in professional
planning techniques
There are several areas where the project team recommends that the City focus
additional efforts to further enhance the training of staff of the Planning Division. These
include:
• Supporting and encouraging staff to achieve the AICP certification
available from the American Planning Association. This is the nationally
recognized certification for professional planners, and it ensures that staff stay
both current in the planning profession and maintain a broad understanding of
applicable planning techniques and practices, including emerging and developing
aspects of the profession. Achievement of the AICP certification should be
153
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
strongly considered as a requirement for advancement within the Planner job
family.
• The utilization of the current bi-weekly departmental staff meeting to
increase staff’s understanding of difficult compliance issues related to
implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. At each meeting
an individual staff member should be responsible for leading a short training
session on a particular topic. The focus of this training should be to increase the
staff ability to make decisions at the lowest appropriate level in the organization.
This will also have an added benefit of increasing consistency among staff. Staff
who have attended external training sessions should also share the training
information received during these departmental staff meetings.
• Coordinating the training that staff attend annually to ensure that the
limited training funds are most effectively utilized. Priority should be given to
ensuring that all staff attend sufficient training in order to maintain their AICP
certification. Additionally, training should be coordinated so that staff attend a
variety of training sessions and generally do not all attend the same training
session (which may be appropriate on certain topics).
An enhanced focus on these areas of training will increase and maintain the
professional knowledge and skills of the planning professionals in the City.
Sending individual Building Inspectors to classes presented outside of the City is
also encouraged. It is equally important that the staff share the information received
from seminars and classes, and that all agree on the use of each subject. Individual
Building Inspectors that receive information learned from outside the organization need
to verify how it is going to be utilized in the City through team learning and sharing.
Placing priority on training, sharing of information, and agreement on interpretations
should contribute to the issue of consistency.
Coordination and consistency can be enhanced by periodic meetings between
fire inspectors, Plan Check Engineer, Building Inspectors, Counter Technician, and all
personnel who participate in the development process, to review operations and
contribute to efficient delivery of services. Involving everyone who serves in the
154
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
development process will assure that all good ideas are heard and will allow everyone
to participate and take advantage of resolution of all matters. If consensus cannot be
achieved, supervision and management may have to make decisions and publish their
findings. This kind of effort will give all personnel the opportunity to be involved, provide
input and take ownership for the process.
Recommendation #86: All full-time planners should be encouraged to attain the
AICP certification from the American Planning Association. The City of Cupertino
should consider requiring achievement of this certification to progress through
the Planner job family.
Recommendation #87: The Planning, Building and Engineering division-heads
should develop annual training programs for each employee in the division.
Recommendation #88: The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should
provide additional training to increase their ability to make decisions regarding
subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes to increase
consistency of interpretation among staff.
Recommendation #89: Provide not less that 40-hours of job-related training
annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions.
Recommendation #90: Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign
all employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their
presentation. Bring in outside industry training where appropriate.
Recommendation #91: The Building Division should implement quarterly training
sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building Inspectors, the Plan Check
Engineer, the Counter Technician, and all employees involved in the development
process (Planning, Engineering, Fire Prevention, etc.) to review operations,
eliminate overlap or duplication, and improve coordination for efficient delivery of
services. Allow each discipline to present matters of concern for decision and
resolution.
Recommendation #92: The Building Division should involve the District Fire
Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency.
155
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
4. THE CITY SHOULD UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City conduct a
comprehensive development fee study that covers the planning, engineering and
building permit plan review and inspection fees within the next several years.
While the Planning Division has a goal of covering 100% of their current planning
processes through related fees, the City has not undertaken a fee study of the planning
land development fees in recent years. The fees associated with the building permits
were last reviewed in 2007. The best practice is to undertake a comprehensive fee
analysis at least every five years.
The City should ensure that all planning, building, and engineering permit fees
related to land development are included in the next fee study conducted. The inclusion
of these fees in the study at the same time the building fees are evaluated will not
increase the cost of the study significantly and should require an additional expenditure
within the range of $10,000 to no more than $15,000.
Recommendation #93: The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning,
building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next
review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees are
appropriately calculated and assessed.
5. THE CITY SHOULD CHARGE A TECHNOLOGY FEE TO PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION
SYSTEM AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
A key tenet of the City’s development services is that the costs of these services
should be recovered through user fees. In fact, one of the City’s financial policies states,
“we will pursue cost recovery for services funded by governmental funds incorporating
defined budgets, specific goals, and measurable milestones.”
156
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge on its planning and
building permits. This fee should be based upon the actual costs to fund the deployment
of the automated permit information systems, the accessory technologies such as
wireless devices, the ongoing licensing fees, and the replacement funding for the
system. The funding should also be utilized to deploy the geographic information
system within the Community Development Department.
Other cities, such as Sacramento and Culver City, already charge such a
technology fee. In both instances, it amounts to a 4% surcharge.
Recommendation #94: The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to
its building permits.
6. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING
DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR PERMIT PROCESSING.
The division-heads in the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should
develop a central desk manual for employees which lists office management duties and
who is responsible. The manual should include instructions on how to use the manual,
detailed definitions of procedures or processes, direction about when and where to get
help, and any other necessary resources and references (software manuals, important
phone numbers, etc.). Examples of items to be included in the manual are shown
below.
Function Policies and Procedure Information
Permit Processing
• Overview of processes required from start to finish on application
submittals
• Application submittal checklists and requirements
• Protocol for answering the phones, scheduling appointments
• Policies for rejecting incomplete submittals
• Process for fee calculations and collecting money
• Procedures for packaging and routing plan submittals
• Plan routing matrix by type of project and department requiring review
157
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
Function Policies and Procedure Information
Plan Review
• Plan Review Checklists
• Case management duties for plan review staff
• Cycle review times by type of project
• Customer service goals such as response times for email and phone
inquiries
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Common Code interpretations
• Policies regarding communication with customers about vacation and
9/80 schedules
An employee desk manual will provide a quick reference for employees to get
questions answered, back each other up in the case of absence, and gain a
comprehensive understanding of the Division’s operations. In addition, it provides the
division-heads a method for standardizing operating procedures and developing
measures of accountability for those procedures for staff. The division-heads should
also work closely with lead workers, supervisors and managers in the Division to update
the manuals on at least an annual basis.
Recommendation #95: A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all
major work functions and services provided by the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions. A copy of the manual should be available to each
employee, and updated at a minimum on an annual basis. The manual should be
published to the Intranet.
7. THE MANAGEMENT OF ADVANCED PLANNING SHOULD BE IMPROVED.
The Planning Division already develops an annual work program for advanced
planning projects for each fiscal year. For example, the advanced work program for
fiscal year 2009-10 includes the development of a green building policy / sustainable
land use policy, a long-term assessment of the City’s jobs / housing balance, etc. The
annual work program includes a bar chart schedule for each project included in the
annual work program.
This is a good step. Additional improvements are required to enhance
158
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
accountability.
(1) The Annual Work Program Should be Expanded.
The annual work program should be expanded. The program should be include
such information as the following:
• A description of the project (already included in the existing program);
• The priority of the project (already included in the existing program);
• A summary of previous work performed on the project;
• The tasks to be performed for the project in the next fiscal year;
• The milestone dates for each project;
• The name of the project manager;
• The proposed allocation of staff hours per Planner per month to the various
projects;
• The month-by-month allocation of staff hours by planner;
• The proposed consulting budget for the project, if appropriate) in the next fiscal
year including the source of funding, appropriation status, and proposed
expenditures by major component;
• A summary month-by-month Gantt chart for the year that provides an overall
summary of the tasks to be performed for each project ((already included in the
existing program).
This expanded annual work program will likely require one to two pages per project.
Recommendation #96: The Planning Division should expand the annual work
program.
(2) A Project Work Plan Should Be Prepared Prior to the Initiation of Each
Advanced Planning Project.
At the inception of a project, the project may be loosely defined. For example, the
initial request may be for a zoning ordinance amendment that presents legal or policy
issues. If potential project issues are identified early, the City Planner can determine
159
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
whether alternatives need to be developed to achieve the desired result. If the project is
not adequately defined, the estimated time requirements are likely to be understated.
The projects should be formally defined, in writing, via a project work plan.
This project work plan is, in essence, a scoping document. The Planning Division
should not initiate an advanced planning project until this scoping document has been
developed. The project work plan should include the components enumerated below.
• The project title;
• A general project description including a narrative summary description of the
project;
• The project objectives;
• The planning process to be utilized that would be utilized (such as the tasks and
activities involved in the study startup, data collection an analysis, development
of study alternatives, environmental assessment, and final study report);
• The study data needs and sources (maps, soil studies, etc.);
• A budget covering the project management or Planning Division staffing including
the staff costs, consulting costs and other related costs such as traffic analysis,
environmental impact report preparation, etc.;
• The responsibility for completing the various components of the advanced
planning project including the manager, supervisor or lead worker, and planning
staff;
• The extent of coordination necessary, listing the inter-agency coordination by
outside agency with whom coordination will be required in the completion of the
advanced planning project, the nature of the coordination, and the key contacts;
• The preliminary schedule for completing the advanced planning project
• A document control procedure and record-keeping system including contract
documents;
• Project team organizational structure and staffing levels required throughout the
advanced planning project, including the estimated staffing required in terms of
person hours required for each task; and
160
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 94
• Community relation and public information requirements including public
hearings or meetings and how the public will be informed and involved in the
advanced planning project and informed about the progress of the project.
A project work plan should be completed before commencement of an advanced
planning project. It should be reviewed with the Planning Commission prior to the
commencement of the project.
Recommendation #97: The Planning Division should complete a project work
plan prior to commencement of an advanced planning project.
(3) A Quarterly Report Should Be Prepared Reporting Progress Against the
Project Work Plan
The Planning Division should prepare a quarterly narrative statement regarding
each advanced planning project. The following information should be included in this
status report.
• The advanced planning project name;
• The project manager assigned to the project;
• A comparison of actual project costs to date versus planned including
– Budget for the project including staff costs, consultant costs, and other
related costs; and
– Project expenditures to date separately identifying staff expenditures from
consulting expenditures;
• A comparison of actual project schedule to date versus planned including:
– The date the advanced planning project was scheduled to begin and
actually begun; and
– The current status of the project containing explanations such as 30%
complete.
These should be simple reports. The reports should be published quarterly, on-
line on the Internet. Each project should be presented on a single line with information
161
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 95
regarding the project number, project title, project description, budget amount, current
balance, the project manager, the date for completion, and comments (e.g., project is
50% complete).
Recommendation #98: The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report
regarding the status of advanced planning projects.
(4) A Final Report Should Be Prepared on Completion of an Advanced
Planning Project.
Without a formal analysis and distribution for review, the mistakes and
weaknesses of one project will almost certainly be repeated on others. The final report
should focus on analyzing the good and bad aspects of the completed project,
transmitting that information to the staff of the Advanced Planning Section, and
providing a convenient summary of the project.
At the completion of the project, the project manager assigned to the project
should complete a final report including:
• Project name, and a description of the project.
• Costs – planned versus actual with an identification of reasons for the variances;
• The staff hours allocated to the project - planned versus actual;
• The schedule for completion of the project - planned versus actual;
• Whether the project at completion met the expectations of the community, the
appropriate Boards and Commissions and City Council;
• Comments and discussion regarding the project as necessary including unusual
conditions encountered during the project.
This report should be circulated to the other staff within the Planning Division, the
City Planner, and the Community Development Director.
Recommendation #99: At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final
report should be published good and bad aspects of the completed project,
162
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 96
transmitting that information to the staff of the Planning Division, and providing a
convenient summary of the project.
(5) The Vacant Senior Planner Position Should be Filled and Dedicated to
Advanced Planning.
Regardless of the project management practices for advanced planning, the City
needs to dedicate staff to advanced planning. At the present time, the Planning Division
is allocated a temporary Assistant Planner position. There is sufficient ongoing
advanced planning workload to warrant a full-time authorized position. The vacant
Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated to advanced planning.
To help pay for the costs of advanced planning, the City should charge a zoning
ordinance update fee. This fee is permissible, and utilized by a number of cities to
enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning.
Recommendation #100: The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and
dedicated to advanced planning.
Recommendation #101: The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to
enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a surcharge to its
building permits.
8. THE SENIOR PLANNERS SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS LEAD
PROFESSIONALS IN THE PLANNING DIVISION.
In evaluating the current plan of organization for the Planning Division in
comparison to the principles noted above, a number of issues are apparent. These
issues, presented as advantages and disadvantages, are presented in the table below.
163
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 97
Advantages
Disadvantages
• The current structure provides clear lines of
accountability, but at the City Planner level.
• The current approach to organizing long-range
planning and current planning promotes
resource sharing, scalability (ability to manage
peaks and valleys), and adaptability (cross
functional capability) since staff can be utilized
for both advanced planning and current
planning.
• The spans of control for the City Planner are
reasonable, and not too broad.
• The lines of accountability and functional
cohesion are muddled in regards to the
provision of advanced planning and current
planning below the level of City Planner.
• The spans of control are too narrow for the
Senior Planners if the Senior Planners are to
be utilized as first-line supervisors.
• The “handoffs” for advanced planning projects
can be a problem given the absence of staff
dedicated to this function.
• The current structure impedes workload
management, resource sharing, scalability, and
adaptability since different Senior Planners are
responsible for current and for advanced
planning.
• The current structure does not aid performance
management, quality control checks, and
consistency of policy/procedure application
since different Senior Planners are responsible
for current and for advanced planning.
• The current structure impedes the sharing of
knowledge and understanding due to the lack
of lead workers.
The current plan of organization clearly offers a number of advantages. The
current plan of organization has worked for the Division. However, the current plan of
organization has a number of issues associated with it as noted previously.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends a modified plan of organization for the
Division that provides for career growth for the Senior Planners by utilizing these three
Senior Planners as lead professionals for distinct services within the Division. Important
points to note regarding the proposed role of the Senior Planners are presented below.
• The City Planner would continue as the division-head for the Planning
Division.
• The Three Senior Planners would be responsible for taking the lead a
distinct function. One of the Senior Planners should take the lead for Current
Planning, the other should take the lead for Advanced Planning, and the third for
CEQA. These three Senior Planners would be the lead practitioners in these
areas.
164
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 98
• In this role, the Senior Planner would be responsible for being a lead
professional for a team of other professionals. This team could include
Assistant and Associate Planners or staff from other divisions, as appropriate.
These three Senior Planner positions should be trained and utilized as lead
professionals.
Recommendation #102: The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead
professionals within the Planning Division. This role should be clarified in a
written division policy and procedure.
9. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD UPDATE THE STORMWATER
MASTER PLAN.
The stormwater master plan was prepared in the 1980’s. Master plans typically
have a 20-year life span at the maximum given changes in the regulatory environment
and the implementation of the capital projects contained in the master plan.
The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master plan in the next
two years using a consulting engineering firm. The pricing in this economic environment
should be advantageous to the City.
Recommendation #103: The Engineering Division should update the stormwater
master plan in the next two years using a consulting engineering firm.
10. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO AVOID CONDUCTING
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS IN THE EARLY
MORNING.
A number of different types of planning permits require the consideration and
decision of the City Council. This includes such types of permits as conditional use
permits and variances.
The project team, in studying the permit process, also reviewed the decision-
making process. A review of this process found that the decisions made by the City
Council sometimes occur in the early morning. This is unusual and not commonly found
165
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 99
in Cupertino’s peer cities. The decisions made in the early morning by the City Council
defeat the purpose of public hearings since few members of the public can afford to
participate in the public process in the early morning.
The Mayor and the City Manager should develop alternatives for the
consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings after a certain hour
in the evening such as 11 pm. Implementation of these alternatives would enable viable
public comment and participation.
Recommendation #104: The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives
for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings for
City Council meetings in the early morning.
166
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 100
7. ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
This section presents an analysis of the Planning Commission and staff
interactions with the Commission, as well as approaches that could be utilized by the
Community Development Department to enhance the effectiveness of the operations
and planning efforts of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee.
The Planning Commission is appointed by the City Council and is designed to review
and make recommendations on major planning permits and to provide feedback and
review of changes to enabling legislation affecting the planning process. The Design
Review Commission is a subset of the Planning Commission and includes members of
the Planning Commission acting on behalf of the full Commission.
1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SHOULD
CONDUCT AN ANNUAL RETREAT WITH STAFF.
The staff of the Community Development Department Planning Division should
conduct a retreat with the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee
annually. The purpose of the retreats is to enable the Commission and Committee to
get away from the ordinary routine and discuss strategic issues such as the annual work
program, for example. One city’s annual retreat agenda for its Planning Commission
consisted of the following:
• The Commissions’ role in implementing City Council policy;
• Review of variances and planned unit developments zoning regulations; and
• The code enforcement process, coordination with Planning and case studies.
Other cities utilize these annual retreats to discuss zoning regulations, the
167
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 101
grounds upon which applications can be denied, future planning efforts and developing
issues, transportation issues, housing policy, etc. It is important to keep the
commission fully aware of changing requirement, trends in the industry, and specific
challenges that may be faced in the coming year. Similar topics should be covered with
the Design Review Committee to ensure a clear vision and the development of an
agreed upon annual work program that is in conformance with the adopted City Council
policy goals.
Managerial and supervisory staff of the Planning Division should participate in
this annual retreat with the Commission and Committee. An important part of the
annual retreat is to define the relationship between the Planning Commission and the
Design Review Committee and the staff of the Planning Division. This includes the
expectations the two entities have of staff and, similarly, what expectations staff has of
the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Without discussing the
expectations each has of the other, misunderstandings can result. This, in turn, can lead
to publicly aired disagreements on critical planning issues that reflect poorly on the City
as a whole.
To enhance the working relationships between the Planning Commission and the
City Council, the Planning Division should conduct joint retreat sessions with the
Planning Commission and the City Council annually. The purpose of these joint work
sessions is to discuss matters involving planning, land use, and community change
management issues. To avoid being haphazard and disjointed, an agenda should be
developed by the Department and followed through the retreat to ensure an orderly and
comprehensive session.
168
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 102
The Planning Division should designate one individual, such as the City Planner,
to serve as the facilitator to keep this annual retreat on track, develop the agenda,
coordinate the meeting, and conclude the retreat by developing an agreed upon list of
actions or next steps.
Recommendation #105: The Planning Commission should conduct annual
retreats with staff.
2. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONDUCT A JOINT MEETING EACH YEAR
WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.
It is extremely critical for the effective implementation of the general plan and the
zoning regulations that the City Council and the Planning Commission speak from the
same basis on a common vision for the city and development activities.
The Commission and the City Council need to discuss their expectations of each
other. Regular meetings, not less than once annually, keep lines of communication
open between the bodies, preventing rifts and misunderstandings. The Planning
Commission functions as an extension of the City Council in implementing land
development within the City of Cupertino. It is critical that all entities are proceeding in
their review and approval (or denial) with a common vision and understanding of what is
trying to be achieved.
In addition, these meetings are a good time to discuss potential changes (at a
high level) in the Zoning Ordinance utilized by the City. This session can include a joint
visioning exercise between the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide
guidance to staff in making changes in the enabling ordinances and setting work
priorities for the coming year. By conducting this joint visioning exercise for the
updating of the zoning ordinance (and the design review regulations), listening to ideas
169
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 103
(and complaints) about a range of neighborhood and citywide issues, the City Council
and these two Commissions can provide early input and direction to these critical policy
documents, to assure the document incorporates the important perspectives and
concerns of all interested parties and present a common vision for the future of
Cupertino. This will reduce the chances of being “blind-sided” by critical comments at
the end of the process or the City Council and the Commissions proceeding in different
directions.
Recommendation #106: The City Council and the Planning Commission should
conduct joint meetings at least annually.
Recommendation #107: The City Council and Planning Commission should
conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of any updating of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. COMMISSION MEMBERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONGOING
ANNUAL TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES.
The Planning Division should provide members of the Planning Commission with
ongoing training. This issue is so important that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee
have passed legislation in the past few years that mandates orientation for new
Planning Commissioners and continuing education for these commissioners (as well as
staff). This training ensures that members serving on this critical commission are
provided a common base of knowledge of the planning profession and the enabling
ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Cupertino.
The ongoing training that should be provided by the Planning Division to
commission members should include such topics as the following:
• The legal basis for the Commission;
• The duties, roles and responsibilities of the Commission, including the kinds of
decisions that the Commission makes, and the required legal basis for making
170
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 104
those decisions;
• The structure and staffing of the Planning Division, and the duties, roles and
responsibilities of staff;
• Recent significant issues, significant applications, and advanced planning
program initiatives that the Commission and City Council have considered;
• The comprehensive plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and any design guidelines that
have been developed by the City, and the overall planning and land use
framework;
• The bylaws of the Commission and the City Council, meeting management and
procedures;
• Public participation, both in terms of noticing and at Commission and City Council
meetings;
• Environmental regulations and environmental issues;
• Sources of funding for the Planning Division and the most recent adopted annual
budget for the division – both revenues and expenditures;
• The most recent advanced planning work program adopted by the City Council;
and
• Publications available from the Planning Division.
In addition, each member of the Planning Commission should be provided with
membership in the American Planning Association. The American Planning Association
provides information specifically for Planning Commissioners including a Commissioner
newsletter, a CD-ROM and video training package series for planning commissioners,
audio training packages, a planning commissioner training resource center, a planners
book service and a series of retreats at the annual American Planning Association
annual conference, the monthly Planning magazine, and other relevant material. This
membership is available at a discounted rate for planning board members.
Recommendation #108: Planning Commission members should be provided with
ongoing training of no less than four hours a year.
171
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 105
Recommendation #109: The members of the Planning Commission should
continue to be provided with membership in the American Planning Association.
4. AN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED THE CITY COUNCIL.
As part of ensuring ongoing communications and interaction, the City Planning
Commission, with the assistance of staff from the Planning Division, should prepare an
annual report. This report should be formally submitted to the City Council.
The report should outline the activities performed by the Planning Commission
including information such as:
• Workload data, including the number of cases processed and summaries of the
outcome;
• Major issues faced during the year; and
• Identification of potential areas for future revision in the enabling ordinances
(drawn from both cases where the commission had difficulty in applying it during
the prior year, or from areas identified as potentially conflicting or problematic).
This report should be reviewed during the annual meeting held between the City
Council and the Planning Commission.
Recommendation #110: The Planning Commission should prepare an annual
report summarizing their activities and submit it to the City Council.
5. THE CITY SHOULD TAKE A NUMBER OF STEPS TO REDUCE THE LENGTH
OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.
It is clear from a review of agendas and minutes of the Planning Commission that
these meetings are lengthy. The Planning Division should work with the Chairperson of
the Commission to develop and implement steps to reduce the length of these
meetings. The recommendations of the Matrix Consulting Group to address this
challenge are presented below.
172
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 106
• Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Clarify the Responsibility of the
Chairperson To Manage Commission Meetings. The clarification of the
responsibility of the chairperson should include presiding over all commission
deliberations and having the authority to preserve order, enforcing rules of the
commission, assuring commission meetings are conducted in accordance with
commission bylaws, and determining the commission order of business.
The bylaws should clarify that one of the main duties of the chairperson is
to preside over meetings of commission and ensure these meetings are well-run,
prompt, that its membership is respectful of each other and staff, that these
meetings do not consistently end at the early hours of the morning, and a
pleasant atmosphere exists at these meetings.
The role and responsibility of the chairperson should include monitoring
Commissioner comments to assure these comments are pertinent to the matter
and concise, that Commissioners avoid issues that it cannot use to base its
decisions, and provide direction to the public about what issues are germane to
the Commission.
Recommendation #111: Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify
the responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to manage
Commission meetings.
• Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Reduce the Amount of Time
Available to Public Speakers to the Same Amount As Provided by the City
Council. The amount of time provided for applicants, appellants, and the public
should be the same for the Planning Commission as the public. The issues
considered by the City Council are equally as serious and complex as those
before the Planning Commission. The amount of time provided for public
speakers by both bodies should be the same.
Recommendation #112: Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to
reduce the amount of time available to public speakers to the same amount
as that provided at City Council meetings.
173
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 107
APPENDIX 1 - PROFILE
This section of the profile provides organizational and operational information for
the resources allocated to the City permit process, including the Administrative,
Planning, Economic Development and Housing, and Building Divisions of the
Community Development Department, and the Engineering Division of the Public Works
Department.
The information in this profile is based upon interviews conducted with Division
personnel, collection of workload statistics from various information management
systems, and review of budget and other documentation, and is organized as follows:
• Administrative Division;
• Planning Division;
• Economic Development and Housing Division;
• Building Division; and
• Public Works Engineering Division.
For each of these areas, the project team provides the organizational structures,
the key roles and responsibilities of staff involved in the permit process, and a summary
of workload and service levels where available.
1. THE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 6 POSITIONS.
The Administrative Services provides overall direction to the Community
Development Department and general administrative support to the department's other
divisions (the Planning Division, Economic Development and Housing Division, and the
Building Division). Its activities include staff support to top and mid-level management,
and the Planning Commission, Design Review Commission, Environmental Review
174
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 108
Commission, and the Housing Commission. It is involved in the overall direction and
coordination of department's different programs and work processes. The Division
accomplishes a number of ongoing tasks including the following:
• Provides overall support to the department in the areas of budget management,
purchasing and personnel recruitments;
• Monitors contracts and payments for professional consultants (such as Arborist,
Architectural Advisor, and Geologist) hired by the department; and
• Oversees and monitors work plan items of the department’s different programs
including completion of the annual work plan items adopted by the City Council.
The fiscal year 2008 / 09 work plan adopted by the City Council included the
following projects and tasks related to the Community Development Department.
• Major Developments: Periodic updates and analysis regarding major
development projects including: Cupertino Square, HP Property, The Oaks,
Rose Bowl, North Vallco Parkway Retail, and California Pizza Kitchen.
• E-Services: Implementation of enhanced E-Services including online building
permitting and inspection scheduling, on-line issuance of basic permitting
functions, and redesign of website.
• Housing: Implement various affordable housing efforts including: develop and
encourage development of housing opportunities for Cupertino workers, creation
of a teacher housing assistance program, and implementation of Cleo Avenue
Affordable Housing.
• Economic Development / Redevelopment: Several Council priorities were
established including:
- Encourage, retain and support health environment for retail growth.
- Consider retail in reviewing new developments.
• Planning: Specific projects adopted by the City Council as priorities in the
Planning area included:
- Review the Heart of the City plan.
- Development of Green Building Standards.
175
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 109
- Preparation of Historic Preservation Policy.
- Develop policy for tree topping under property maintenance standards.
- Place sign code review on Planning Commission work program.
- Update of General Plan Housing Element
The plan of organization for the Administration Division is presented in the first
exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized 6 full-time equivalent
positions. The number of staff by classification is presented in the table below.
Class Title Number of Authorized Positions
Director of Community Development 1
Administrative Assistant 1
Senior Office Assistant 2
Administrative Clerk 2
The roles and responsibilities of the staff assigned to this Division are presented
in the second exhibit at the end of this chapter. The following table outlines the overall
budget, by division, for the Community Development Department.
2005-06
Actual
2006-07
Actual
2007-08
Adopted
2008-09
Adopted
% Change
05/06 to
08/09
Administration $209,148 $194,606 $211,184 $265,068 26.7%
Planning $1,024,561 $1,166,623 $1,674,265 $1,750,428 70.8%
Housing $1,394,794 $375,568 $555,828 $740,553 -46.9%
Building $2,438,731 $2,230,732 $2,107,466 $2,365,653 -3.0%
TOTAL $5,067,234 $3,967,529 $4,548,743 $5,121,702 1.1%
As noted in the chart above, the overall budget for the Community Development
Department has increased only 1.1% over the last four years. A review of the budget
detail shows that the major areas of change during this time period are the amount of
funds allocated for contractual services and special projects.
176
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 110
2. THE PLANNING DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 5.5 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING
POSITIONS.
The Planning Division is responsible for long-range planning and current
planning. The plan of organization for the Planning Division is presented in the third
exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized 5.5 full-time equivalent
professional planning positions. One of these positions – A Senior Planner - is vacant; a
temporary Assistant Planner position has been authorized. Important points to note
concerning the plan of organization are presented below.
• The Planning Division is organized in one section. All planners carry both an
advanced planning and a current planning workload. Senior Planner typically are
assigned those projects that are more complex, have unique characteristics, or
are otherwise more difficult. The Assistant and Associate Planners handle more
routine applications.
• The City Planner serves as the division-head for the Planning Division, and
reports to the Community Development Director. The City Planner provides
overall guidance to the Division, supervises all staff of the division, and is
responsible for assigning applications to staff planners.
• The Associate Planner is shared between the Planning Division and the
Economic Development and Housing Division.
• The Planning Intern works 24 hours per week and is responsible for handling
counter functions, processing of simple planning applications, and special
projects as assigned.
• Daily counter / phone duties are shared between two planners.
• The authorized Planning Division staffing is presented in the table below.
Class Title Number of Authorized
Positions
Number of Vacant
Positions
City Planner 1.0 0
Senior Planner 3.0 1
Associate Planner 0.5 0
Assistant Planner 1.0 0
Assistant Planner - Temporary 1.0
TOTAL 6.5 1
The table shows 6.5 positions; one of these 6.5 positions is a 1.0 temporary
Assistant Planner.
177
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 111
The roles and responsibilities of the staff assigned to the Planning Division are
presented in the fourth exhibit at the end of this chapter.
The fifth exhibit presented at the end of this chapter presents the workload for the
Planning Division, while the sixth exhibit presents service levels and other important
operational characteristics for the Planning Division.
The Planning Division supports three commissions: the Planning
Commission, the Design Review Commission (a subset of the Planning Commission)
and the Environmental Review Commission. The make up and roles of the
Commissions are presented in the paragraphs below.
• Planning Commission. The Planning Commission consists of five members
appointed by the City Council to carry out a variety of assigned and delegated
functions. State law sets out the major areas over which the Planning
Commission has authority, either as a decision-making or advisory body to the
City Council. The Commission is responsible for recommending various
development policies to the City Council, and once adopted in the form of the
City's General Plan or other ordinances (such as sign ordinance), for reviewing
development applications for their conformance to the adopted plans and
policies. The Commission acts as an advisory body to the City Council on
applications for subdivision of land, and the approval or denial of tentative parcel
maps (four parcels or greater) and, making recommendations to the City Council
on a variety of discretionary development applications (Conditional Use Permits,
Development Plan Review Permits, etc.), variances from the zoning regulations
and for the environmental assessment of such applications, as proscribed by law
or municipal ordinance.
• Design Review Committee. The Design Review Commission consists of the
Planning Commission Vice-Chair and one additional Planning Commission
member appointed by the Planning Commission. An alternate member is
designed in the absence of the Planning Commission member and is also
selected by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Committee is charged
with reducing the Planning Commission’s workload by addressing design review
responsibilities and incorporating professional architectural advice into the
process.
• Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Commission
consists of the following members: one City council person, one Planning
178
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 112
Commission, the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and the Director of
Community Development (or their designated alternatives). The Chair of the
Committee may appoint one at-large nonvoting citizen member to the committee.
The Environmental Review Commission is responsible for reviewing all
discretionary projects, not otherwise exempted from environmental assessment,
for evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Committee
will evaluate the initial study of a project to determine whether the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED
2.5 EMPLOYEES.
The Economic Development and Redevelopment Division is responsible for
managing the City’s overall economic development efforts (including business
attraction, retention and assistance), CDBG administration, housing programs and
related services. Primary goals related to housing include:
• Encourage a balanced community by improving local availability of affordable
housing opportunities; and
• Maintain existing housing through correction of housing deficiencies and building
code violations.
• Prepare updates or modifications to the Housing Element of the General Plan
when necessary.
• Prepare and submit approved Consolidated Plan to HUD.
• Coordinate the Request for Proposals process for CDBG funds and Affordable
Housing Funds annually. Present CDBG proposals to the Housing Commission
for their recommendation to the City Council.
• Develop and monitor contracts with all CDBG sub-recipients on a quarterly basis.
• Present funding applications and coordinate meetings of the Cupertino Housing
Commission. Conduct quarterly monitoring of housing program accounts and
affordable housing loan / rent payments to the Affordable Housing Fund. Work
with local developers to encourage development of 30 affordable housing units.
• Monitor existing Housing Rehabilitation Program loan collections, payoffs,
foreclosures and program income for a $100,000 loan portfolio.
• Facilitate Mortgage Credit Certificate funding in the amount of $100,000.
179
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 113
• Work with school district to provide teacher housing opportunities.
The plan of organization for the Economic Development and Housing Division is
presented in the seventh exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized
2.5 full-time equivalent positions. Important points to note concerning the plan of
organization are presented below.
• The Division is managed by the Economic Development / Redevelopment
Manager.
• One staff member, the Senior Planner CDBG, is responsible for administration
and oversight of all CDBG, public service and housing programs.
• The Division shares an Associate Planner with the Planning Division. While
staffing is shown as split 50% between the two Divisions, current planning
functions take priority over non-planning activities.
• The authorized Economic Development and Housing Division staffing is
presented in the table below.
Class Title Number of Authorized
Positions
Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager 1
Senior Planner CDBG 1
Associate Planner .5
TOTAL 2.5
The eighth exhibit at the end of this chapter presents the roles and responsibilities of the
staff of the Division.
3. THE BUILDING DIVISION IS ALLOCATED 10.0 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS
The Building Division safeguards the health and safety of residents, workers, and
visitors to the City of Cupertino through the administration and enforcement of building
codes and ordinances adopted by the City, by providing field inspections and plan
checking, and overall regulating the design, construction, use, occupancy, location and
maintenance of all buildings and structures. The Division service objectives include:
180
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 114
• Assist customers in meeting their deadlines and objectives
• Increase the knowledge of staff through in-house training, meetings, and
seminars.
• Provide useful and informative data on the City’s website.
The plan of organization for the Building Division is presented at the end of this
profile. The Division is authorized 10.0 full-time equivalent positions. Important points to
note concerning the plan of organization are presented below.
• The personnel of the Division are primarily organized within building inspections
and plan checking.
• The authorized Building Division staffing is presented in the table below:
Class Title Number of Authorized Positions
Building Official 1
Senior Building Inspector 1
Building Inspector 6
Plan Check Engineer 1
Counter Technician 1
• The Building Official is the overall manager of the Division, providing general
guidance and leadership and represents the Division in meetings with elected
City officials, executives, and the community.
• The administrative support is responsible for routing plans and entering data
regarding permit applications and inspections into the computer application.
• The Building Inspection section is responsible for conducting required field
inspections at various points of residential and commercial building projects,
address citizen complaints, enforce building codes, conduct community
education, etc.
• The Plan Check section is responsible for reviewing residential and commercial
building, remodel, and tenant improvement plans for conformance to State and
Municipal building codes.
The key roles and responsibilities of the personnel assigned to the Building
Division are presented in an exhibit at the end of this profile. Other exhibits for the
Division presents service level information.
181
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 115
4. THE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ALLOCATES
APPROXIMATELY 1.25 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS TO THE PERMIT
PROCESS
The Public Works Engineering Division reviews plans for private residential and
commercial developments to ensure conformance with City standards. Public Works
Engineering staff involved in the permit process are co-located with the Community
Development Department personnel (within the same office space) with the following
positions providing some level of involvement in the building permit approval process:
• The Assistant Director of Public Works oversees the review of building and
discretionary permits (encroachment, grading, etc.), commercial development,
land division, single family dwelling, room additions, etc., including those projects
which impact the right of way and on additions resulting in 25% or more square
footage
• An Engineering Technician is routed the plans from the Building Division and
enters the information into an excel spreadsheet for tracking purposes. This
position will route to an engineer for review.
• Engineer positions provide all the permit review (1 position is dedicated, 1 other
position to a much lesser extent), processing the drawings, conducting site visits
utilizing field checklists, reviewing plans, spending time with developers and
owners to make sure public works issues are being addressed.
For the past three months, the Engineer Division conducted approximately 159
plan checks for permits. Annualized, the Public Works Engineering Division conducts
plan reviews routed from Community Development for approximately 636 permits (or 53
per week).
182
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 116
Exhibit 2
Plan of Organization of the
Administration Division
183
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 117
Exhibit 3 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Administrative Division
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Community
Development Director
1.0
• Supervises the City Planner, Building Official, Economic
Development/Redevelopment Manager, and the
Administrative Assistant.
• Represent the City in development and land use matters.
• Plans, organizes, controls, and evaluates the work activities
of the Community Development Department.
• Research, analyze and recommend policies for development
and land use matters.
• Implements and monitors long-term plans, goals and
objectives focused on achieving the Department’s mission
and City Council priorities and annual workplan.
• Directs the development of and monitors performance against
the annual department budget.
• Participate in numerous public meetings including City
Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings.
• Oversees the development, implementation and evaluation of
plans, policies, systems and procedures to achieve the
Department’s goals, objectives and work standards
• Provides leadership to develop and retain highly competent,
service-oriented staff through selection, training and day-to-
day management practices that support the Department’s
mission and values
Administrative
Assistant
1.0
• Reports to the Community Development Director.
• Assists the Community Development Director by providing
administrative and technical support in the planning, direction
and operation of the department.
• Serves as Office Manager and supervisor for all
Administrative support staff. Assigns, prioritizes and
evaluates work efforts of assigned staff.
• Oversees departmental records retention program.
• Assists with department budget development and ongoing
administration and monitoring of budget.
• Performs all accounts payable and payroll functions for the
Department.
• Manages on-going and project specific contracts for external
consultants and resources (i.e. - architectural/design
consultant, arborist resources, geologist/soils consultant,
traffic consultant, and environmental assessments.
• Handles bond processing, recordkeeping and tracking.
• Manages Planning Commission agenda process including
drafting Director’s report.
• Drafts Development Activity Report.
• Oversees and updates departmental website.
• Serves as project manager for eGov implementation.
184
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 118
Exhibit 3 (2)
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Senior Office Assistant
2.0
• Provides back up support to administrative staff assigned to
the Planning Division, including the front lobby counter to help
with minor questions about plan check, issue permits and
collect fee balances.
• Processing the plan checks, including data entry, checking for
fees, routing them to different departments based on scope
off work, filing the charts, etc.)
• Other general administrative duties include filing, scanning
and microfilming, printing out the daily schedule, handling
phone calls, and consensus reports.
• One Sr. Office Assistant assigned to serve as receptionist /
front counter staff.
• Enters applications into permitting software, accepts and
processes permit payments, and issues receipt to applicant.
• Answers incoming calls and walk-ins and directs to
appropriate division / staff member.
• Conducts research of permits as requested.
Administrative Clerk
1.0
• Reports to the Administrative Assistant.
• Provides administrative support to Planning staff including
preparation and distribution of agenda packets for Planning
Commission (PC), Design Review Commission (DRC), and
Environmental Review Commission (ERC).
• Prepares minutes of DRC and ERC meetings.
• Handles noticing of property owners within applicable radius
for planning applications.
• Assists in entering new planning applications into Planning
Database.
• Coordinates efforts between IT and Pentamation on
implementation of planning module and e-services.
• Responsible for developing reports from data maintained in
Pentamation utilizing Cognos.
• Oversees records storage and retention efforts of Community
Development Department.
• Performs application and permit electronic filing program
including indexing and organizing of microfilm that has been
converted to electronic format. Conducts scanning of
records.
• Maintains all planning application files (paper copies).
• Provides backup for issuance of building permits.
185
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 119
Exhibit 3 (3)
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Administrative Clerk
1.0
• Takes phone calls regarding inspection requests and
schedules inspections in Pentamation.
• Processing the incoming and outgoing plan checks, including
entering the permit information into Pentamation (permit
number, intake date, due date, department route, etc.).
• Delivering documents to planners and the respective
Departments, including Public Works, Fire, and Sanitation
• Processing address changes and sending out letters to the
affected agencies (Assessor’s Office, utilities, school districts,
etc.) of the change, and sending out letters for expired
permits
• Printing out the master inspection log report on a daily basis
and updating it to include the assigned inspector and time of
inspection.
• Entering into Pentamation the field inspection results and
comments, if any.
• Other general administrative duties such as ordering supplies,
handing customer phone calls, handling the Quarterly
Construction Tax report, etc.
• Answers phones and assists callers directly or by transferring
them to appropriate staff member.
186
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 120
Exhibit 4
Plan of Organization of the
Planning Division
187
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 121
Exhibit 5 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Planning Division
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
City Planner
1.0
• Manages the Planning Division including supervision of all
planning staff (6.1 full time equivalents).
• Ensures current planning operations meet all federal, state,
and local rules and regulations for processing times, public
disclosure, compliance with codes, environmental
assessments, etc.
• Coordinates divisions efforts with other agencies (including
Fire and Health) and adjoining communities.
• Maintains a small current planning workload as necessary.
• Reviews all work of assigned staff including staff reports,
administrative approvals, etc.
• Responsible for case assignments to planners.
• Drafts policies and procedures related to current and
advanced planning and ensures the adherence of the
Division to adopted policies and procedures.
• Develops goals and objectives for the Division, and
monitors performance.
• One Senior Planner supervises work efforts of the
contracted Assistant Planner and the Planning Intern.
Senior Planner
3.0
(1 vacant)
• Reports to City Planner.
• Carry both a current planning and advanced planning
workload. Generally assigned more complex current
planning projects.
• Conducts zoning studies; analyzes land use issues;
recommends resolutions to land use problems; directs
proposed ordinances through review process.
• Reviews assigned planning applications to ensure
compliance with General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific
Plans, and City Development Standards. Ensures
appropriate environmental reviews are conducted.
• Serves as case manager for planning applications and
coordinates review with other departments and external
agencies. Prepares staff reports to Planning Commission
and City Council for assigned projects.
• Coordinates development review meetings with reviewing
departments/agencies and applicants.
• Assists with development of special and specific plans.
• Perform building permit plan checks for zoning compliance.
• Manages, supervises or prepares reports for special
planning projects and studies.
• Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
complaints received. Conducts investigations and works
with residents to reach compliance.
188
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 122
Exhibit 5 (2)
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Associate Planner
0.5
• Reports jointly to City Planner and Economic Development /
Redevelopment Manager.
• Has assigned counter duty in rotation with other City
planners.
• Assigned both a current and advanced planning case load.
• Current planning work activities include review and
processing of applications for single family applications,
building permit plan check approvals (for zoning
compliance), basic residential and non-residential
applications.
• Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
complaints received. Conducts investigations and works
with residents to reach compliance.
• Conducts tree removal permit reviews – conducts site visits
and coordinates with arborist to determine appropriateness
of request.
Assistant Planner
(1 budgeted; 1
unbudgeted and
temporary)
2.0
• Reports to one of the Senior Planners.
• Assigned to counter duty schedule in rotation with other
Planners.
• Provides information and guidance to applicants submitting
a variety of projects including: small residential, 2nd story
additions, processing of covenants, and building permit plan
checks (zoning compliance),
• Ensures applications meet City codes and requirements
including compliance with Zoning Ordinance and standard
conditions of approval. Where required develops staff
reports, issuance of public notices, and development of
staff recommendation for approval/denial.
• Developing Historical Ordinance for consideration by the
City Council.
• Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
complaints received. Conducts investigations and works
with residents to reach compliance.
189
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 123
Exhibit 6
Workload
For the Planning Division
Application Workload
By Type of Application / Permit
Application Type 2006 2007 2008
Architectural Site Approval 25 19 9
City Project Applications 3 4 2
Development Agreements 0 0 0
Director's Minor Modifications
/ Temporary Use Permits 36 38 37
Environmental Assessments 20 10 10
Exceptions 14 11 17
General Plan Amendments 0 0 1
Interpretations 0 1 0
Minor Residential Permit 38 34 37
Modified/Amended 7 3 5
Municipal Code Amendment 3 1 4
R-1 Design Review 62 44 32
Specific Plan Amendments 1 0 1
Tentative Map 12 12 2
Tree Removal Permit 17 14 16
Use Permit 14 11 4
Variance 2 3 1
Zoning 6 0 1
TOTAL 260 205 179
Application Workload
Sorted by Approval Level
Applications by Approval Level 2006/07 2007/08
2008/09 (6
months)
Planning Commission Application (INT, M, TM, V) 26 8 6
City Council Applications (CP, GP, MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z) 34 32 16
Design Review Committee Applications (ASA, EXC) 45 29 7
Staff Level (DIR, R, RM) 160 100 45
Environmental Assessments 12 8 4
TOTAL 277 177 78
190
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 124
Exhibit 7
Service Levels
For the Planning Division
Characteristic
Description
Hours of Operation and Schedule
• Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Thursday, and Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Office closed from Noon to 1:00 p.m. daily.
• Individual work hours for each Planner varies. Some staff
are on AWP schedule which includes every other Friday off
and others are on a traditional work schedule. Starting and
ending times vary to provide office and counter coverage.
Coverage Area
• For all processing of discretionary and administrative permit
applications assuring the applications meet the
requirements of the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
• Staff provide support to Planning Commission,
Environmental Review Commission, and Design Review
Commission.
• All planners have assigned counter duty shifts. Counter
service is provided in two shifts: 7:30 a.m. to Noon and 1:00
p.m. to 5:30. Planners have pagers so they do not remain
at counter unless customer is present.
• Responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any Specific or Area
Plans.
• Specific and Master Plans overseen include:
- Heart of the City Specific Plan
- N. De Anza Blvd. Specific Plan
- South Vallco Master Plan
- North Vallco Master Plan
- Wireless Facilities Master Plan
Training and Certification
• The planning series classification descriptions do not
require AICP certification.
• There are three AICP certified members on staff.
Codes Administered and Enforced
• General Plan
• Zoning ordinance
• Sign Ordinance
• Subdivision Map Act
• California Environmental Quality Act
191
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 125
Exhibit 8
Plan of Organization of the
Economic Development and Housing Division
192
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 126
Exhibit 9 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Economic
Development /
Redevelopment
Manager
1.0
• Reports to the Director of Community Development.
• Directly supervises the Senior Planner CDBG and
Associate Planner (half time assignment).
• Oversees the City’s economic development and
redevelopment activities including recruitment/retention
efforts, identification of available space for business
locations/relocations.
• Maintains, compiles and/or analyzes data regarding
community demographics.
• Oversees City TIF district.
• Serves as liaison with variety of organizations and
committees including Chamber of Commerce and
Economic Development Committee.
• Conducts City branding/marketing efforts.
• Develops various publications and brochures including
Restaurant Guide.
• Develops and maintains redevelopment plan for the City.
• Oversees City’s CDBG and housing programs.
• Drafts / updates relevant sections of General Plan and
assists with development of specific plans (i.e. – Heart of
the City Plan).
Senior Planner CDBG
1.0
• Reports to Economic Development / Redevelopment
Manager.
• Oversees the City’s CDBG program (including public
service grant allocations); assisting with development of
staff recommendation to CDBG Committee for action and
recommendation to City Council.
• Serves as staff liaison to Housing Commission.
• Performs all grant administration functions and sub-
recipient monitoring for allocated funds.
• Oversees and coordinates funds allocated to affordable
housing received from Housing Mitigation fee charged on
new developments.
• Enters required data into HUD’s IDIS system and prepared
requests for fund drawdowns.
• Responsible for development of Housing Element of the
General plan. Coordinates and oversees efforts of
consultant.
193
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 127
Exhibit 9 (2)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division
Associate Planner
0.5
• Reports to both City Planner and Economic Development /
Redevelopment Manager.
• Prepares economic data and analysis to support Economic
Development efforts.
• Conducts data analysis on sales tax receipts generated –
restaurant program.
• Works on special projects as assigned (i.e. – preferred
caterer list).
• Develops a variety of reports and brochures as requested
to support programs and efforts of the Division. Dining
guide is one recent example.
194
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 128
Exhibit 10
Plan of Organization of the
Building Division
195
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 129
Exhibit 11 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff
Of the Building Division
Position
Number of
Positions
Description of Responsibilities
Building Division Administration
Building Official
1.0
• Serves as Chief Building Code Official for the City of
Cupertino.
• Oversees operation of the Building Division including
performance of the building inspectors, plan check staff, and
permit processing.
• Develops and monitors the budget for the Division.
• Conducts selective plan reviews for complex, high-profile or
otherwise difficult projects.
• Assigns, evaluates and monitors work activities of assigned
staff.
• Responsible for making all final City decisions regarding code
applicability, approval of alternative methods/materials, etc.
Building Inspection
Senior Building
Inspector
1.0
• Reports to the Building Official.
• Conducts inspections on complex, sensitive or problematic
projects.
• Serves as working supervisor for Field Inspectors and
counter plan check personnel. Assigns and evaluates work
activities.
• Prepares daily inspection schedule and assignment of
inspections to inspectors.
• Conducts non-structural building permit plan checks (tenant
improvements, small additions with conventional framing).
• Handles some code interpretation issues.
• Handles customer complaints.
196
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 130
Exhibit 11 (2)
Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff
Of the Building Division
Building Inspector
6.0
• Primary responsibility is conducting inspections for projects at
various stages requiring a building permit (construction and
remodels) that affect a structure’s electrical, plumbing, and /
or mechanical systems, including initial inspection and any
necessary follow up for re-inspections, writing correction
notices, issuing permits, etc.
• Responding to citizen complaints and addressing building
code violations (including those resulting from proactive
enforcement).
• Answering questions and providing education to developers,
contractors, architects and the general community regarding
building and development, including non-point source
environmental initiatives, etc.
• 1 position is assigned to the front counter and is responsible
for the intake, review, routing and / or approval of over-the-
counter plan checks, express plan checks, standard plan
checks, and large/major projects.
Plan Check
Plan Check Engineer
1.0
• Primary responsibility is reviewing building plans for small
(remodels, minor additions), mid-size (larger additions,
significant remodels), and large (major tenant improvements,
new homes) projects.
• Verifying that plans for construction or alteration to
commercial, residential, and industrial structures comply with
State and municipal codes and ordinances.
• Works with architects, engineers, and contractors to address
questions and issues regarding structural design, zoning,
grading, energy standards, etc.
• Other duties include checking plans over the counter for
smaller projects and attending development meetings.
Counter Technician
1.0
• This position is vacant.
197
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 131
Exhibit 12 (1)
Service Levels for the
Building Division
Characteristic
Description
Hours of Operation and Schedule
• Counter operation is open between 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM
(closed between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM)
• Building inspections may be scheduled between the hours
of 7:30 AM to 12:00 PM, and from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM by
phone, with customers given a 2-hour window.
• To schedule an inspection for the next day requires the
inspection to be requested by 3:00 PM the previous day.
• Inspectors provide on-call roofing inspections for tear-off
and ply-wood nail and will be there within an hour.
Service / Turnaround Targets
Residential Plan Review Cycle Times:
• Over the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within
30 minutes
• Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (500 sq. ft. or
less) within 5 business days
• Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days,
second review within 5 working days
• Large / Major Projects: apartments and subdivisions (over
10 units) is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Commercial Plan Review Cycle Times:
• Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30 (these
are the hours when Fire Plan Reviewers are available at
the counter).
• Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (10,000 sq. ft.
or less) within 5 working days
• Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days,
rechecks within 5 working days
• Large / Major Projects: minimum 4 weeks.
Coverage Area
• Building Inspector work schedule is M-F from 6:30 AM to
4:30 PM, and typically work schedule is as follows:
- 6:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2-hour
window to customers, etc.
- 7:30 to 11:30: conduct field stops and inspections
- 11:30 to 12:30: lunch
- 12:30 to 4:00: conduct field stops and inspections
- 4:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field
inspections using the palm pilot and Pentamation
• Personnel are combination inspectors and generally
perform all types of inspections.
• Building inspectors are not generally assigned to one of
five “regions” but are reassigned, as needed, based upon
workload and specific expertise.
198
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 132
Exhibit 12 (2)
Characteristic
Description
Training and Certification
• Team conducts staff meetings each Tuesday from 730 –
900 for building code updates, training, etc.
• Building Inspector position require an ICBO certification.
Codes Administered and Enforced
• Latest approved by the State of California
199
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 133
APPENDIX 2 - FOCUS GROUPS
As part of the management study of the permitting process, the Matrix Consulting
Group conducted three focus group meetings with a representative sample of
customers of the process. The purpose of the focus group meetings was to obtain
development industry perceptions of Cupertino’s permitting process and to assess
overall customer satisfaction.
Participants in the three focus groups included developers (30%), major
landowners / businesses (30%), contractors (10%), and professionals (e.g., architects)
(30%). Almost all of the participants had worked with Planning, Building and Public
Works/Engineering; one participant had worked only with Planning. They were selected
based upon their knowledge and experience with the City’s permitting process.
The focus groups were intended to elicit views and opinions on positive and
negative aspects of relevant development service activities and to seek ideas for
change that would improve and streamline the process.
In considering the results, the reader must bear in mind that unlike technical
research and statistics, the views expressed by individuals are subjective and may
reflect personal biases. In addition, there will be conflicting perspectives between the
developer, residents and businesses surrounding the proposed development, the City’s
permit staff. These conflicting perspectives are inevitable in a democratic society, and
result in compromise. Not everyone will get everything they want, and sometimes this
generates negative perspectives (i.e., developers believe staff are too regulatory;
residents feel that staff are too friendly to developers).
200
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 134
Nonetheless, these perspectives are important as the objective material because
it is these people, with their feelings and prejudices, who establish the users’ perception
of the strengths and weaknesses of the process. It is not important to determine
whether or not a particular response is “correct”: rather each response is accepted as a
perception, recognizing that perception is reality to the person holding the perception.
The reader should also be aware that although the participants were questioned on both
positive and negative aspects of the process, the tendency of respondents was to dwell
upon those negative aspects that they felt could be improved upon.
1. THE CUPERTINO PERMITTING PROCESS WAS VIEWED BY THE FOCUS
GROUP PARTICIPANTS AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICON VALLEY
Overall, the response of the participants in the focus groups to the Cupertino
permitting process was quite positive. Most of the participants were involved in
development in many Silicon Valley cities, and they gave Cupertino high grades relative
to their experiences in nearby communities. With respect to staff attitude, helpfulness,
accessibility and reasonableness, the focus group participants ranked Cupertino among
the top three cities, along with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They generally felt that
Cupertino was substantially better than San Jose, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and
slightly better than Mountain View, Milpitas and Fremont.
The “small town atmosphere” was cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff
members were generally available when needed, and they exhibited a friendly and
positive attitude. Most participants knew staff members of all departments by name,
and they appreciated the fact that, for any given project, they generally dealt with the
same planner, plan checker, inspector and engineer throughout the entire process. The
201
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 135
word “excellent” was used several times in describing the attitude and professionalism
of staff.
The groups were nearly unanimous, however, in identifying two major problems
with the Cupertino permitting process: (1) lack of an effective automated on-line
permitting information system, and (2) the City’s politically-charged atmosphere relative
to development and growth.
Participants felt that Cupertino lagged far behind adjacent jurisdictions in
providing an efficient, reliable and user-friendly automated/on-line system. They cited
hand-written applications, difficulties in checking the status of an application, and delays
in receiving staff comments and corrections as problems that could be solved by such a
system.
While the politically charged atmosphere was not part and parcel of the
permitting system, it is a major determinant of the overall perception of Cupertino’s
attitude toward development and the development industry. Participants recognized the
sharp division of opinion within the community-at-large with regard to development and
growth, which division was reflected within the City Council and between the Council
and the Planning Commission. The result of this atmosphere for developers was less
predictability, greater risk, greater frustration and unanticipated time delays.
2. PLANNING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS FRIENDLY AND HELPFUL, BUT
CAUTIOUS AND SUBJECTIVE
The Planning staff was complimented on its professionalism, its friendliness, and
its sincere effort to be helpful. Focus group participants found planners to be generally
accessible, particularly at the permit counter. Some focus group participants cited the
slow response to telephone calls and e-mails as a negative factor.
202
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 136
Most participants felt that planners tried to anticipate the reactions of the
Planning Commission and City Council to a proposed project, and advised developers
accordingly. Some felt that this advice was merely a cover to “push their own agenda.”
One participant noted that the “ebb and flow of public opinion” makes it nearly
impossible to predict Planning Commission and City Council responses.
Developers reported that they were routinely advised by planners to meet early in
the process with those in the public most likely affected by the proposed project. They
found this advice to be sound and the meetings with the public to be useful.
Most participants saw plan review turn-around time and consistency as
acceptable. Some had a sense that the plan review planner had to go back and get
direction from “someone else,” creating unnecessary delay and uncertainty. The overall
turn-around time for processing a development application was seen as long, but not
unnecessarily so given the public notice and other legal requirements built into the
system. There was no sense that turn-around time in Cupertino suffered relative to
other communities.
On the negative side, some focus group participants felt that Cupertino planners
are too rigid, exercising less of a “how can we make this work” attitude than staff of
other City departments. This caution and lack of flexibility was attributed to fear that
they might “get nailed politically” when they appeared before the Commission or Council
if they strayed too far from a rigid interpretation of the code.
On the other hand, some participants found Cupertino planners to be too
subjective. This was particularly true with regard to architectural and landscape design
review. The feeling was that recommendations and conditions of approval were often
203
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 137
based upon the individual planner’s taste and prejudices, rather than upon sound
principles of design. Required plan changes at times appear arbitrary, based upon
opinion rather than upon code. Some developers stated that they are often “surprised”
when they receive a copy of the staff report, because conditions of approval bear little
resemblance to their prior discussions with staff. “Where is the nexus between the
required plan change and the alleged negative impact?” asked one developer.
Recommended Improvements:
The focus group participants offered numerous recommended improvements for
Planning, more than for any other department. They are listed below in no particular
order of priority.
• The Planning Commission should hold public “study sessions” on potentially
controversial projects well before the formal public hearing. This would expose
community concerns early in the process and allow developers to anticipate the
Planning Commission’s major issues with the project.
• In their communication with developers, planners should always emphasize facts
over opinions. For instance, instead of saying “There’s no way City Council will
ever approve that!”, they should report the specific actions of Council on similar
projects over the past year.
• Planners should be careful to link a recommended plan change or condition of
approval to a specific code section or Council policy, or should explain the nexus
to the negative impact being addressed.
• Planning managers should nurture a department culture which consistently
produces the best professional recommendations as opposed to the
recommendations that will most likely satisfy the Planning Commission or City
Council, and be prepared to support and defend those recommendations in the
public forum.
• Applicants should be given the opportunity to review and comment on a draft
staff report on their project before it is released to the public. This would
eliminate factual errors in the report (and discussion of them at the public
hearing) and allow for negotiation on conditions of approval.
204
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 138
3. BUILDING STAFF IS VIEWED AS KNOWLEDGEABLE, REASONABLE, AND
EXHIBITING A PROBLEM-SOLVING ATTITUDE
Focus group participants expressed a very positive perception of the Building
function in Cupertino --- “one of the best around.” Building staff were seen as friendly,
always accommodating, accessible, and willing to “sort through the gray areas” to come
up with a reasonable solution.
Participant’s felt that the consistency in building plan checking has improved
since plan checking was moved in-house. They appreciated the fact that the same plan
checker is in charge of a particular project throughout the entire process. Plan
corrections were considered to be clear and specific.
Plan check turn-around time was seen to be good, although some felt that
comments are delayed by a slower response time by fire prevention.
Complex issues are apparently routinely referred to the Building Official for
resolution. Participants seemed to respect the Building Official’s rulings, but they felt
that he is often too busy to render a prompt decision.
There was strong consensus that the Cupertino Building staff places unusually
strong emphasis on Title 24 accessibility requirements, and that the interpretation of
these requirements was noticeably less flexible than interpretation of the overall building
code. Inspectors were charged with enforcing Title 24 requirements, and they seemed
to be overly cautious and exacting in requiring corrections. Overall, participants felt that
the Building staff was too fearful of being sued over Title 24 and were therefore
unwilling to take reasonable risk in interpreting the requirements.
Building inspectors are generally seen to be helpful, reasonable and consistent.
They almost always show up on the job when they say they will. A developer noted one
205
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 139
exception; the developer lost a whole day’s work when an inspection request was
apparently not properly entered into the system. It was reported that inspectors
occasionally give oral direction rather than writing corrections on the inspection card.
Recommended Improvements:
• The Building Official should explain in detail his rulings on new and complex
issues to the Building plan checkers, and delegate to them responsibility for
ruling on similar issues when they arise.
• Applicants should be permitted to substitute pages in approved plans when minor
modifications are made, rather than be required to submit a new full set of plans.
• Inspection requests should be confirmed with the contractor by e-mail to insure
that the requests are properly and accurately logged into the system.
4. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS PROFESSIONAL
AND HELPFUL
Focus group participants had limited, but largely positive comments with regard
to Public Works/Engineering. They felt that the staff was knowledgeable, helpful,
accessible and easy to work with. Turn-around time was good, although final resolution
of some issues was often delayed by the slow response time of public utilities.
Engineering codes and guidelines are consistently interpreted.
One participant expressed concern that traffic engineering requirements
appeared to lack sufficient nexus to the anticipated project impacts. This was likened to
alleged similar subjectivity and personal bias in the recommendations of the Planning
staff.
206
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 140
5. FIRE PREVENTION IS VIEWED AS FRIENDLY AND HELPFUL, BUT NOT AS
FLEXIBLE AND READILY ACCESSIBLE AS CUPERTINO IN-HOUSE STAFF
Cupertino contracts with Santa Clara County for provision of Fire Prevention
services. Because the workload does not require a full-time plan checker, Fire
Prevention staff is scheduled for limited hours at the public counter.
Focus group participants felt that the limited availability of Fire Prevention staff
made the Cupertino development permitting process less smooth and less expeditious
than it might otherwise be. They felt that this often made it difficult for Cupertino staff to
set up interdepartmental meetings to review and comment on development applications,
adding delay to the process. One developer indicated that he somewhat overcame the
accessibility problem by meeting with Fire Prevention staff in their Los Gatos office.
None saw this as an attitude problem on the part of Fire Prevention, but merely as a
scheduling problem.
Fire Prevention plan check was viewed as being very consistent, and inspection
was viewed to be consistent with plan check. The groups noted, however, “huge
swings” in the priorities of Fire Prevention with changes in the Fire Marshall. The
current Fire Marshall is a firefighter, as opposed to a codes person, and relies heavily
upon his inspection staff to discover violations requiring correction. As a result, field
inspection often requires changes that were not anticipated through plan check.
Despite these concerns, the participants seemed quite accepting of the present
Fire Prevention system, and made no specific recommendations for improvement.
207
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 141
6. THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PERMITTING PROCESS IS NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD
Focus group participants had little experience in relating to Economic
Development staff. Those that did had positive comments, noting ready availability,
good input, and “very good at connecting the dots in the process.” One developer was
grateful for Economic Development’s assistance in community outreach. The majority
of the participants, however, did not realize that Economic Development was available
to assist them navigate through the development permitting process.
7. THE CREATION OF AN EFFICIENT AND USER-FRIENDLY ON-LINE PERMIT
PROCESSING AND TRACKING SYSTEM IS VIEWED AS THE SINGLE MOST
NEEDED IMPROVEMENT
The focus group participants had numerous negative comments about the public
counter, noting that it is “dungeon-like,” “uninviting,” and “with the Wizard behind the
wall!” Nevertheless, none thought that modernization of the public counter should be
high priority for the expenditure of limited funds. Rather, they unanimously agreed that
any available resources should be directed toward the acquisition of a user-friendly on-
line permit information system.
When asked if they would utilize an on-line system, focus group participants
responded with a resounding “absolutely!” They felt that such a system should, at a
minimum, offer its public users the following on-line operations:
• Permit application;
• Inspection request scheduling;
• Status of application within the system; and
• Comments of various departments on the application as they are completed by
each department (i.e., not withheld until all departments had completed their
review).
208
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 142
The focus group participants felt that Cupertino lags far behind other Silicon
Valley communities in not having an automated, on-line permit information system. In
their opinion, this is the single most important improvement that the City could make to
its development permitting process.
209
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 143
APPENDIX 3 - COMPARATIVE SURVEY
This chapter presents the results of the comparative survey conducted as part of
the management study of the Community Development Department. Seven cities were
selected for this comparative survey. The cities are presented below.
• Novato;
• Dublin;
• Mountain View;
• Petaluma;
• Palo Alto;
• Pleasanton; and
• San Ramon.
Of the seven cities, three did not respond including Petaluma, Palo Alto, and
Pleasanton.
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The table, below, presents the population and estimated geographical size
(square miles) of the city for each of the four responding cities and Cupertino.
City 2008 Population Estimated Size of the City
Dublin 46,934 12.6
Mountain View 73,932 12.2
Novato 52,737 27.7
San Ramon 59,002 11.6
Cupertino 55,551 10.9
Important points to note concerning the data presented in the table are presented
below.
• The population of the cities ranged form a low of 46,934 for Dublin to a high of
73,932 for Mountain View.
210
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 144
• The geographical size of the cities ranged from a low of 10.9 square miles for
Cupertino to a high of 27.7 square miles for Novato.
2. PLANNING DIVISIONS
The first section of the survey asked questions regarding the planning
department / division. The following sections present a summary of the information
collected.
(1) Staffing Levels
The cities provided data concerning the number of staff authorized for advanced
and current planning. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses among
the comparative cities.
City Staff Allocated to Advanced
Planning
Staff Allocated to Current
Planning
Dublin 1.0 6.0
Mountain View 2.0 8.0
Novato 1.5 8.5
San Ramon 1.5 2.5
Cupertino 1.0 4.5
Important points to note concerning the data contained in the table are presented below.
• The number of staff allocated to advanced planning ranged from a low of 1 in
Dublin to a high of 2 in Mountain View.
• The number of staff allocated to current planning ranged from a low of 2.5 in San
Ramon to a high of 8.5 in Novato.
Overall, the cities were mixed in terms of dedicating staff to Advanced Planning on a
full-time basis. Novato and Mountain View indicated that these cities dedicated staff to
Advanced Planning. Dublin, San Ramon, and Cupertino did not dedicate staff to
Advanced Planning.
211
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 145
(3) Interdepartmental Development Review Committee
The cities were asked if an interdepartmental committee is utilized to review and
critique planning permit applications after submittal, the departments or divisions that
participate, and how the Committee meets. The table, below, presents a summary of
the responses from the cities.
City Interdepartmental
Committee Divisions/Departments Meetings
Dublin Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire,
Police, Water District As needed
Mountain View Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire,
Urban Forestry Once a month
Novato Yes Planning, Building, Engineering As Needed
San Ramon Yes Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Police,
Building, Planning As Needed
Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, Engineering
All of the cities use an interdepartmental development review committee. The
most commonly included divisions / departments were Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Building.
(4) Architectural Review Board
Information was requested regarding the role and responsibilities of the
Architectural Review Board including whether the cities had an Architectural Review
Board, whether the Board considers an application before or after the Planning
Commission, and the types of applications requiring the approval of the Board. The
following table presents a summary of information gathered.
212
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 146
City Architectural
Review Board
Before or After the
Planning Considers
Same Application
Types of Applications (Approved or
Recommended)
Dublin No N / A N / A
Mountain
View
Yes Before Single family structures on lots less
than 5,000 square feet or in
subdivisions with 5 or more lots, new
single family and 2 family units in the
R-3 zone, 2 single family dwellings on
a single lot in an R 2 zone, buildings
and site improvements in multi-family,
commercial, and industrial districts,
minor setback and FAR exceptions,
etc.
Novato Yes Before All commercial, office, industrial and
most residential construction.
San Ramon Yes Before All new construction, including signs,
but excluding TI’s
Cupertino Yes; a sub-
committee of
the Planning
Commission
Before 2-story residential development
with a FAR over 35% located in a
single-family residential zoning
district, single-family home in a PD
zoning district, minor modifications
to buildings, landscaping, signs,
and lighting for new development,
redevelopment, or modification in
such zones where such review is
required. Exceptions to the R1
Ordinance, minor architectural and
site changes, minor development
proposals located in a Planned
Development zone, minor
modifications and exceptions to
buildings, landscaping, signs, and
lighting for new development,
redevelopment, or modification in
such zones where such review is
required.
213
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 147
(5) Formal Design Guidelines
The cities were asked if they have formal written design guidelines and the year
the guidelines were developed. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses
among the comparative cities.
City Formal Design Guidelines
Dublin Yes
Mountain View Yes
Novato Yes
San Ramon Yes
Cupertino Yes
All of the cities have developed formal design guidelines. Mountain View has developed
design guidelines for small lot development, row houses, and town houses,
(6) Role of A Zoning Administrator
The cities were asked if a zoning administrator is utilized and the type of
applications approved by a zoning administrator. The table, below, presents a summary
of the responses of the cities.
City Zoning Administrator? Applications
Dublin Yes Conditional use permits and variances
Mountain View Yes Conditional use permit, density bonus, sign
permits, sign programs, variances, temporary
use permits
Novato Yes Temporary use permits, use permits and
variances
San Ramon Yes Use permits, variances, home occupation
permits, parcel maps
Cupertino No N / A
All of the cities, with the exception of Cupertino, utilize a zoning administrator to approve
/ deny a variety of planning permits including conditional use permits, variances,
temporary use permits, etc.
214
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 148
(7) Planning Applications Approved at the Staff Level
The cities included in the comparative survey were asked to provide information
in regards to the types of application that may be approved at the staff level. The table,
below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities.
City Applications
Dublin No response
Mountain View No response
Novato Minor design review
San Ramon Minor design review, minor exceptions
Cupertino Minor design review, exceptions
All of the cities empower staff to approve minor planning permit applications at staff
level.
(8) Use of the Case Manager Concept
The cities were asked if they use a case manager concept in processing planning
permit applications, and his / her responsibility in managing the processing of these
applications. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities.
City Case Manager Concept
Processing (from receipt through
Architectural Review Board to
Planning Commission and City
Council)
Dublin Yes Yes
Mountain View Yes N/A
Novato No N/A
San Ramon Yes- Yes
Cupertino Yes Yes
All of the cities, including Cupertino, use the case manager concept for managing the
processing of planning permits.
(9) Standard Conditions of Approval and Correction Lists for Planning
Permits
The cities were asked if all of the divisions / departments that are involved in the
processing of planning permits had developed written conditions of approval, written
215
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 149
correction lists, and whether these conditions of approval and correction lists had been
published to the City’s Internet. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses
of the cities.
City Written Conditions of
Approval
Written Correction
Checklists
Internet Availability
Dublin Yes No No
Mountain View Yes No No
Novato Yes Yes No
San Ramon Yes Yes No
Cupertino Yes Yes No
All of the cities have written conditions of approval, only Novato and San Ramon have
developed written correction lists, and none of the cities have published these
conditions of approval or correction lists to the Planning Division’s web site.
(10) Cycle Time Objectives For the Processing of Planning Permits.
The cities were asked if they have developed cycle time objectives for the
processing of planning permits, the cycle time objectives and the degree of success in
meeting these objectives. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the
cities.
City Processing Targets How Successful in Meeting
Targets
Dublin No N/A
Mountain View No N/A
Novato No N/A
San Ramon Yes 90%
Cupertino Yes 90%
Only two cities reported having processing targets: San Ramon and Cupertino.
(11) One-Stop Permit Center
The cities were requested to provide information regarding their one-stop center
for development permits. The cities were also asked what functions were co-located at
216
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 150
the one-stop center and the hours the center was open for business. The table, below,
presents a summary of the responses of the cities.
City One-Stop Center Functions Co-located Hours of Operations
Dublin No N / A N / A
Mountain View Yes Planning and Building 8 am to 5 pm; closed
for lunch
Novato Yes Planning, Building, and
Engineering
9 am to 12 noon
San Ramon Yes Planning, Building,
Engineering, and Fire
8 am to 5 pm, 3 days a
week
Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, and
Engineering
7:30 am to 12 noon; 1
pm to 5 pm
The following points present a summary of information in the table above.
• All of the cities report having one-stop centers except Dublin.
• Those cities with one-stop centers co-located Planning and Building in each
instance, and Planning, Building, and Engineering in the instance of Novato, San
Ramon, and Cupertino.
• The hours of operations of the one-stop permit centers were dissimilar amongst
all cities.
3. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
The cities were asked to provide information regarding their building and safety
division. The following sections provide a summary of the responses.
(1) Valuation and Number of Permits
The cities were asked to provide the total building permit valuation and the total
number of building permits. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses.
City Total Building Permit Valuation
Dublin $306,000,000
Mountain View No Response
Novato $78,000,000
San Ramon $65,300,000
Cupertino $222,500,000
Overall, the total building permit valuation ranged from a low of $65,000,000 in San
Ramon to a high of $306,000,000 in Dublin.
217
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 151
(2) Staffing Levels
The cities were asked to provide the number of plan checking staff authorized for
building permit plan checking. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses.
City Total Staffing
Dublin 0.0; outsourced
Mountain View
Novato 2.5
San Ramon 2.0
Cupertino 2.5
The total number of plan checking staff authorized for building permit plan
checking ranged from a low of 0 in Dublin (all plan checking that cannot be approved
over-the-counter is outsourced) to 2.5 staff in Novato.
(3) Utilization of Plan Check Consultants
The cities were asked to indicate the proportion of their building permit plans that
were plan checked by consulting plan checkers. The table, below, presents a summary
of the responses among the comparative cities.
City % Of Permits Plans Checked by Consultants
Dublin 50%
Mountain View 90%
Novato 30% to 40%
San Ramon <5%
Cupertino 0%
Dublin had the highest proportion of permits that were outsourced: 50%.
Mountain View, San Ramon, and Cupertino all had little to none of their building permit
plan checking outsourced.
218
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 152
(4) Plan Checking of Simple Building Permits Plan
The cities were asked to describe alternatives for plan checking building permit
plans including the proportion of their building permit plans checked over the counter
that require plan checking (excluding MEP permits), whether partial permits were
issued, and requirements for plan checking of retrofit window replacements. The table,
below, presents a summary of the responses among the comparative cities.
City Over the Counter Partial Permits Retrofit Window
Replacement
Dublin 10% No / rarely Yes
Mountain View 10% Yes No
Novato 20% Yes Yes
San Ramon >50% Yes Yes
Cupertino 44% Yes Yes
Important points to recognize concerning the data contained in the table are presented
in the paragraphs below.
• Most of the cities reported that 10% to 25% of their building permit plans were
plan checked over the counter. San Ramon plan checked over 50% of its
building permit plans over-the-counter..
• Dublin was the only city that did not issue partial permits.
• Only Mountain View did not require building permits for retrofit window
replacements in which the framing was not altered.
(5) Plan Check Cycle Time Targets
The cities were asked if they had developed cycle time targets for the building
permit plan checking, the cycle time in terms of days or weeks, and the degree of
success in meeting those targets.
City Processing Targets Targets
Dublin Yes 98%
Mountain View Yes 95%
Novato Yes 90%
San Ramon Yes 95%
Cupertino Yes 98%
219
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 153
As the table indicates, all of the cities have adopted cycle time objectives for building
permit plan checking. All of the cities are highly successful in meeting these objectives.
For Cupertino, it is not possible to determine the success rate in meeting these cycle
time objectives given the limitations in the reporting module of the automated permit
information system.
(6) Standard Conditions of Approval and Correction Lists for Building Permits
The cities were asked if all of the divisions / departments that are involved in the
processing of building permits had developed written conditions of approval, written
correction lists, and whether these conditions of approval and correction lists had been
published to the City’s Internet. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses
of the cities.
City Written Conditions of
Approval
Written Correction
Checklists
Internet Availability
Dublin Yes No No
Mountain View Yes No No
Novato Partial Yes No
San Ramon Yes No No
Cupertino Yes Yes No
All of the cities have written conditions of approval with the exception of Novato, only
Novato and Cupertino have developed a written correction list, and none of the cities
have published these conditions of approval or correction lists to the Building Division’s
web site.
(7) Building Permit Plans Approvals
The cities were asked to identify the type of building permit plans that were plan
checked over the counter. The following table presents a summary of the information
gathered.
220
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 154
City Over-the-Counter
Dublin Single trade permits, commercial signs w/o calcs,
residential bathroom repair, residential fireplace,
residential repair / in-kind, residential spa, residential
skylights
Mountain View Single trade and minor building permits including
kitchen / bath remodels without structural
modifications
Novato Single trade permits and kitchen and bath remodels.
San Ramon Residential improvements and minor tenant
improvements
Cupertino Residential: Over the Counter: small projects (250
sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes
Commercial: Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes
only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
between 1:30 and 2:30 (these are the hours when
Fire Plan Reviewers are available at the counter).
Overall, the types of building permit plans that were plan checked over-the-counter was
not extensive besides single trade permits.
(8) Combination Building Inspectors
The cities were asked about their utilization of combination inspectors. The
following table presents a summary of the information gathered.
City Combination Inspectors
Dublin Yes
Mountain View Yes
Novato Yes
San Ramon Yes
Cupertino Yes
All of the cities use combination inspectors as a normal practice.
(9) Percentage Of Building Inspection Requests Responded To The Next Day
The cities also provided responses regarding the percentage of inspection
requests that were inspected the next working day.
City % Of Inspection Requests Inspected the Next
Working Day
Dublin 100%
Mountain View 100%
Novato 100%
San Ramon 100%
Cupertino 100%
221
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 155
The majority of the cities reported responding to inspection requests within the
next working day.
(10) Use of A Case Manager For Building Permits
The cities were asked if a case manager was utilized for processing of building
permits. The following table presents a summary of the information gathered.
City Case Manager
Dublin No
Mountain View No
Novato No
San Ramon No
Cupertino Yes
Only Cupertino uses a “case manager” concept in its Building Division.
222
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 156
APPENDIX 4 – SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
Chapter 2 - Analysis of Permit Staffing
1
Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle existing
current planning workloads. 8
2
Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and, when
workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for other duties such
as plan checking of residential interior remodels, over-the-counter
plan checking, etc. 11
3
Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to building permit
plan checking in the Building Division. 14
4
Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the Building
Division’s permit counter. 15
5
The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing authorized for
the permit plan check process. 16
Chapter 3 - Analysis of the Permit Process
6
The City should streamline the process for minor planning permits
by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi-
ministerial review and are subject to codified performance
standards. 17
7
The Planning Division should develop codified performance
standards and requirements for these minor permits for
consideration and approval of the City Council. 17
8
The approval of these codified performance standards and
requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the
conversion of these minor planning permits to permitted uses. 17
9
Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be modified.
The Planning Commission should be the final decision-making
authority for conditional use permits and variances with the City
Council having the right of appeal. 21
10
The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for
minor permits. 22
11
The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for minor
permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed. 22
12
The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits
should be limited to one appeal. 23
13
Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants subsequent to
approval of a planning application. 23
14
The timelines for processing of planning permits by the City should
be reviewed and revised to provide differential time periods for
review based upon project size and complexity and to differentiate
between initial and re-submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes
for re-submittals should be established at no more than one-half the
timeframe required for the initial review. 24
15
Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should be
published to the Department website and prominently displayed in
the Department’s application materials. 24
223
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 157
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
16
The Planning Division should separate the tentative application
schedule from the 34-page planning application form, and publish it
separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the
Planning “sidebar.” 26
17
Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements with
applicants for high priority projects 27
18
Pre-application conferences should not be required for routine
planning permit applications approved by the Community
Development Director. 28
19
The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written policy on
planning application completeness and the basis for rejecting
incomplete applications. 29
20
Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff assigned
to the Permit Center regarding the basis for rejecting planning
applications as incomplete. 29
21
Planning application guides should be developed for each specific
type of planning permit to include all of the City’s requirements for
an applicant to achieve a complete submittal. 29
22
These planning permit application guides should be approximately
4 to 6 pages in length. 29
23
The case manager in the Planning Division should meet with the
applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial
30-day completeness review of the application. 31
24
The Planning Division should provide training to consulting
planners, architects, engineers and developers regarding its
planning permit submittal requirements. 31
25
The Planning Division should provide training after each submittal
when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in
the development of the application and when they encountered
particular problems meeting submittal requirements. 31
26
Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for the
maintenance of case status information in the automated permit
information system by managers, supervisors, and staff assigned to
processing planning, building and engineering permit applications 33
27
Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure that assigns
responsibility to the division-heads for assuring ongoing
maintenance of case status information in the automated permit
information system and that requires the division-heads to audit the
caseload assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active,
is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should be
terminated, or has been closed and the case should be updated in
the automated permit information system. 33
28
The City should hold division-heads in Planning, Building and
Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring the success or
failure of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular
management information reports generated on a monthly basis by
the automated permit information system. 34
29
The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Engineering
divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be
integrated into their performance evaluation. 34
30
The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should
formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by
their staff using the automated permit information system. 34
224
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 158
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
31
The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should be
held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case
inventory and the completion of the processing of permits by their
staff in accordance with the cycle time objectives 34
32
The City should utilize the automated permit information system to
generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track
performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case
workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of
these permits. 36
33
The Planning Division should establish guidelines for reviewing
departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and
establish clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30-
day initial completeness review and subsequent reviews. 39
34
A formal written policy should be established for response times by
Planning Division staff to inquiries from applicants that are received
via email and/or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held
accountable for meeting these guidelines. 39
35
The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as the
project manager and be responsible for the communication among
the multi-disciplinary team and the resolution of conflicting
conditions of approval or competing code requirements. 41
36
The case manager should ensure that all conditions of approval are
provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition
references the specific code or regulation that imposes / regulates
the issues. Additionally, a copy of the staff report should be
provided to the applicant once completed. 41
37
The authority of the case manager should be clearly spelled out in
a written policy developed by the Planning Division and approved
by the Community Development Director. 42
38
The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and
departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering
permits should be documented and posted to the City’s web site. 43
39
The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating
the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the
divisions and departments. 43
40
The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the
review and processing of discretionary and administrative
applications by its own staff. 45
41
The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its web site
for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45
42
The Planning Division should develop design guidelines for multi-
family, commercial, and signs. 46
43
The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document
interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and
building codes and make these available to the public on their web
sites. 48
44
Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for the
length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as
a performance guideline for all organizational units. 49
45
The Building Division should utilize the automated permit
information system to assure the status of each plan is readily
visible. 52
225
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 159
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
46
The Chief Building Official should be given the written authority and
responsibility to interface with other organizational units to resolve
delays in processing building permit plans in a formal written policy
published by the Community Development Director. 53
47
The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of its building
permits over the Internet. 54
48
The Building Division should increase the number of building
permits issued over-the-counter to 60% of all building permits
issued. 55
49
The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to Building
Technician. 55
50
The Building Technician position, when filled, should be utilized to
provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous
building permits. 55
51
The Building Technician classification should be revised to require
certification as an ICC-certified Permit Technician within 12 months
of hire. 55
52
The Building Division should provide support, funding, and training
to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician. 55
53
Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in
minor residential improvements. 58
54
Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the Town’s
web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building
permit plan check and inspection process. 58
55
The Building Division should improve the building permit plan check
performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives. 59
56
The Building Division should reduce the number of divisions and
departments that are routed building permit plans. 63
57
The City should assign responsibility to the Building Division for
zoning clearance of simple building permits. 63
58
The Building Division should adopt a policy to accommodate
inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request
service. 64
59
The Engineering Division should develop application guides for
those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67
60
The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to
the Division’s web site and identify these cycle time objectives in
the Division’s application guides. 68
61
The Engineering Division should develop application guides for
those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan checking. 70
Chapter 4 - Analysis of the Automated Permit Information System
62
All of the departments and divisions should utilize the automated
permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building
permit, and engineering permit process. 71
63
Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the
automated permit information system to support the work of these
departments and divisions. 71
64
Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the
automated permit information system. 71
226
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 160
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
65
The City should utilize the automated permit information system to
provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data
through the Internet or for the public and applicants to subscribe to
information. 72
66
The automated permit information system should include the
capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice Response system. 73
67
The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
System. 73
68
The automated permit information system should have wireless
capabilities. 74
69
The automated permit information system should have an
automated workflow capacity. 75
70
The automated permit information system should have the capacity
for online project management and collaboration tools. 76
71
The automated permit information system should have the capacity
to interface with ESRI GIS. 76
72
All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and
inspections should be archived in the automated permit information
system. 77
73
Architectural plans should be archived in the automated permit
information system once the permit is finalized 77
74
All of the divisions and departments that utilize the automated
permit information system should enter and store their annotations,
comments, and conditions in the system. 78
75
The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify
the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a
fully functional automated permit information system. 79
76
The City should acquire a fully developed commercial-off-the-shelf
automated permit information system. 79
Chapter 5 - Analysis of the Permit Center
77 The City should remodel the permit center. 80
Chapter 6 - Analysis of Permit Administration
78
A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division on
ensuring availability of a professional staff member at the front
counter during all hours of operation including during the lunch
hour. 81
79
The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of providing
scheduled hours for “walk in” reviews of minor corrections to
expedite the approval process. 81
80
The City should develop a comprehensive “How-to Manual” or
“Development Guide” for use by the public and publish this
document to their web site. 83
81
The Community Development Department should institute a
periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is distributed to
the development community containing code or interpretation
updates, training information, and general discussion of relevant
topics. 84
227
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 161
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
82
The Community Development Department should conduct at least
an annual meeting to engage the development community in a
discussion of general issues regarding permit matters in Cupertino,
solicit input regarding service levels, and seek input regarding
potential changes to the enabling legislation (general plan,
subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes). 84
83
The Community Development Department should conduct an
annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey 84
84
The City should require that any new ordinance and code
requirements not previously imposed will not be enforced on
current construction and future jobs until the industry is informed
and a 60-day waiting period is put in place. 85
85
The City should communicate any new plan review and inspection
requirements to developers, contractors, architects, engineers, and
the construction community through issuance of information
bulletins and a newsletter. Distribute information bulletins
describing the new requirements, and show effective date of
implementation. 85
86
All full-time planners should be encouraged to attain the AICP
certification from the American Planning Association. The City of
Cupertino should consider requiring achievement of this
certification to progress through the Planner job family. 86
87
The Planning, Building and Engineering division-heads should
develop annual training programs for each employee in the division. 86
88
The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should provide
additional training to increase their ability to make decisions
regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building
codes to increase consistency of interpretation among staff. 86
89
Provide not less that 40-hours of job-related training annually for
each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. 86
90
Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign all
employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their
presentation. Bring in outside industry training where appropriate. 86
91
The Building Division should implement quarterly training sessions
with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building Inspectors, the Plan
Check Engineer, the Counter Technician, and all employees
involved in the development process (Planning, Engineering, Fire
Prevention, etc.) to review operations, eliminate overlap or
duplication, and improve coordination for efficient delivery of
services. Allow each discipline to present matters of concern for
decision and resolution. 86
92
The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at
least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency. 86
93
The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning, building, and
engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next
review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees
are appropriately calculated and assessed. 89
94
The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to its
building permits. 89
228
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Matrix Consulting Group Page 162
Recommendation
# Recommendation
Page
Number*
95
A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all major
work functions and services provided by the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions. A copy of the manual should be available to
each employee, and updated at a minimum on an annual basis.
The manual should be published to the Intranet. 90
96 The Planning Division should expand the annual work program. 92
97
The Planning Division should complete a project work plan prior to
commencement of an advanced planning project. 92
98
The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report regarding
the status of advanced planning projects. 94
99
At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final report
should be published good and bad aspects of the completed
project, transmitting that information to the staff of the Planning
Division, and providing a convenient summary of the project. 95
100
The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated
to advanced planning.
96
101
The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to enable
the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a surcharge to its
building permits. 96
102
The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead professionals within
the Planning Division. This role should be clarified in a written
division policy and procedure. 96
103
The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives for the
consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public
hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. 98
104
The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master
plan in the next two years using a consulting engineering firm. 98
Chapter 7 - Analysis of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee
105 The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats with staff 100
106
The City Council and the Planning Commission should conduct
joint meetings at least annually. 102
107
The City Council and Planning Commission should conduct a joint
visioning exercise early in the process of any updating of the
Zoning Ordinance. 102
108
Planning Commission members should be provided with ongoing
training of no less than four hours a year. 102
109
The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be
provided with membership in the American Planning Association. 103
110
The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report
summarizing their activities and submit it to the City Council. 103
111
Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the responsibility
of the Planning Commission chairperson to manage Commission
meetings. 105
112
Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce the
amount of time available to public speakers to the same amount as
that provided at City Council meetings. 105
* The page number reference indicates the page where the discussion regarding the
recommendation commences, not necessarily the actual page location of the
recommendation itself.
229
SUMMARY TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH STAFF COMMENTS
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
Corrections
1 1
Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle
existing current planning workloads.
The workload table on page 10 does not include
time required to serve the counter functions and
other miscellaneous tasks which amount to an
additional 1.0FTE 8
2 14
The timelines for processing of planning permits by the
City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential
time periods for review based upon project size and
complexity and to differentiate between initial and re-
submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re-
submittals should be established at no more than one-half
the timeframe required for the initial review.
Cycle times noted on page 25 include multiple
submittals. A more accurate measure of cycle
time would be to count the time between when an
application is deemed complete and the approval
date for the project. It should be noted that this
distinction is harder to capture since the City’s
data management system is not currently able to
provide this information – a situation that can be
remedied with improved permitting software. 24
3 55
The Building Division should improve the building perm it
plan check performance to meet its stated plan check
cycle time objectives (Table on Pg 60)
The cycle times noted on page 60 are not
accurate because they also include multiple
resubmittals. The correct way to note cycle times
would be to get the difference between the last
submittal and the permit date. The current
permitting software does not capture this
distinction. As noted on page 152, even with
these numbers, the Building Division meets its
cycle time objectives 98% of the time. 59
Currently in Place
1
2
Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and,
when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for
other duties such as plan checking of residential interior
remodels, over-the-counter plan checking, etc.
11
2 3
Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to
building permit plan checking in the Building Division.
14
3 4
Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the
Building Division’s permit counter.
15
4 5
The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing
authorized for the permit plan check process.
16
5 15
Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should
be published to the Department website and prominently
displayed in the Department’s application materials.
Already posted with application forms
24
6 19
The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written
policy on planning application completeness and the
Checklist included in application forms and
customized for each application by project planner 29
ATTACHMENT C
230
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
basis for rejecting incomplete applications.
7 20
Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff
assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for
rejecting planning applications as incomplete.
Ongoing
29
8 23
The case manager in the Planning Division should meet
with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found
during the initial 30-day completeness review of the
application.
Ongoing
31
9 29
The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time
objectives should be integrated into their performance
evaluation.
Ongoing
34
10 31
The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering
should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance
of this open case inventory and the completion of the
processing of permits by their staff in accordance with the
cycle time objectives
Included in review
34
11 33
The Planning Division should establish guidelines for
reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by
applicants and establish clear timelines at each step. This
would include the 30-day initial completeness review and
subsequent reviews.
39
12 35
The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as
the project manager and be responsible for the
communication among the multi-disciplinary team and the
resolution of conflicting conditions of approval or
competing code requirements.
41
13 36
The case manager should ensure that all conditions of
approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that
each condition references the specific code or regulation
that imposes / regulates the issues. Additionally, a copy
of the staff report should be provided to the applicant
once completed.
Applicant is informed of the staff recommendation
as well as all the conditions of approval ahead of
time. Staff report is provided to applicant when
the packet is ready for public review.
41
14 37
The authority of the case manager should be clearly
spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning
Division and approved by the Community Development
Director.
42
15 38
The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions
and departments in the review of planning, building, and
engineering permits should be documented and posted to
the City’s web site.
43
16 39
The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in
facilitating the development of these written conditions of
approval by all of the divisions and departments.
43
231
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
17 40
The Planning Division should develop and utilize
checklists for the review and processing of discretionary
and administrative applications by its own staff.
45
18 41
The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its
web site for use by those individuals submitting plans.
45
19 44
Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for
the length of time required to process building permit
plans to serve as a performance guideline for all
organizational units.
49
20 45
The Building Division should utilize the automated permit
information system to assure the status of each plan is
readily visible.
52
21 46
The Chief Building Official should be given the written
authority and responsibility to interface with other
organizational units to resolve delays in processing
building permit plans in a formal written policy published
by the Community Development Director.
Building Official already has authority to interface
with other departments and agencies to resolve
delays in processing building permits
53
22 56
The Building Division should reduce the number of
divisions and departments that are routed building permit
plans.
We already keep routing to the minimum required.
Routing is only done to departments that have
conditions of approval or review authority over
projects.
23 58
The Building Division should adopt a policy to
accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for
same day inspection request service.
We accommodate requests up to 7:00AM based
on availability.
64
24 79
The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of
providing scheduled hours for “walk in” reviews of minor
corrections to expedite the approval process.
Our current policy allows us to schedule
appointments at the applicant’s convenience and
communicate through email in addition to having
the counter staffed from 7:30-5:30 every day.
This allows us to provide better service than
having availability only during scheduled hours. 81
25 85
The City should communicate any new plan review and
inspection requirements to developers, contractors,
architects, engineers, and the construction community
through issuance of information bulletins and a
newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the
new requirements, and show effective date of
implementation.
We currently do this with mailed notices, our
website, flyers at the counter and newspaper
notices.
85
26 86
All full-time planners should be encouraged to attain the
AICP certification from the American Planning
Association. The City of Cupertino should consider
requiring achievement of this certification to progress
through the Planner job family.
86
27 87
The Planning, Building and Engineering division-heads
should develop annual training programs for each
employee in the division.
86
232
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
28 88
The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should
provide additional training to increase their ability to make
decisions regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning
ordinance, and building codes to increase consistency of
interpretation among staff.
86
29 89
Provide not less that 40-hours of job-related training
annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions.
86
30 91
The Building Division should implement quarterly training
sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building
Inspectors, the Plan Check Engineer, the Counter
Technician, and all employees involved in the
development process (Planning, Engineering, Fire
Prevention, etc.) to review operations, eliminate overlap
or duplication, and improve coordination for efficient
delivery of services. Allow each discipline to present
matters of concern for decision and resolution.
The City has a Pre-hearing Committee consisting
of departments and agencies involved in the
development process that discusses issues as
they arise.
86
31 92
The Building Division should involve the District Fire
Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training
to achieve consistency.
86
32 96
The Planning Division should expand the annual work
program.
The Planning Division prepares an annual work
program with the Planning Commission and
Council. 92
33 97
The Planning Division should complete a project work
plan prior to commencement of an advanced planning
project.
The scope and schedule for large projects are
reviewed and approved by the Council
92
34 98
The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report
regarding the status of advanced planning projects.
94
35 102
The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead
professionals within the Planning Division. This role
should be clarified in a written division policy and
procedure.
Our flat organizational setup allows us to handle a
large workload with a comparatively small staff of
4.5 planners. We already utilize this system of
having planners become “experts” on an issue
and train other staff. 96
36 105
The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats
with staff
The Planning Commission attends an annual
conference that also serves as an opportunity for
discussion. Staff plans to add a retreat to the
Planning Commission agenda for 2010 100
37 108
Planning Commission members should be provided with
ongoing training of no less than four hours a year.
The Planning Commission attends a three-day
annual conference and is provided additional
opportunities to train throughout the year. 102
38 109
The members of the Planning Commission should
continue to be provided with membership in the American
Planning Association.
103
233
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
Can Be Implemented Administratively
1 16
The Planning Division should separate the tentative
application schedule from the 34-page planning
application form, and publish it separately to its first web
page for the Planning Division in the Planning “sidebar.”
26
2 17
Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time
agreements with applicants for high priority projects
27
3 21
Planning application guides should be developed for each
specific type of planning permit to include all of the City’s
requirements for an applicant to achieve a complete
submittal.
29
4 22
These planning permit application guides should be
approximately 4 to 6 pages in length.
29
5 24
The Planning Division should provide training to
consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers
regarding its planning permit submittal requirements.
31
6 25
The Planning Division should provide training after each
submittal when consulting planners, architects, and
engineers are involved in the development of the
application and when they encountered particular
problems meeting submittal requirements.
31
7 30
The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering
should formally plan and schedule the permit applications
processed by their staff using the automated permit
information system.
34
8 34
A formal written policy should be established for response
times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from
applicants that are received via email and/or voice mail.
Planning Division staff should be held accountable for
meeting these guidelines.
The City has a policy of returning inquiries within
24-hour period.
39
9 43
The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should
document interpretations of the zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, and building codes and make
these available to the public on their web sites.
48
10 49
The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to
Building Technician.
We have a Counter Technician position that can
be renamed Building Technician 55
11 50
The Building Technician position, when filled, should be
utilized to provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor
and miscellaneous building permits.
Already in the job description for the Counter
Technician
55
12 51
The Building Technician classification should be revised
to require certification as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician within 12 months of hire.
Already in the requirements for the Counter
Technician
55
234
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
13 52
The Building Division should provide support, funding,
and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an
ICC-certified Permit Technician.
Same as above
55
14 54
Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the
Town’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate
through the building permit plan check and inspection
process.
58
15 59
The Engineering Division should develop application
guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead.
67
16 60
The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time
objectives to the Division’s web site and identify these
cycle time objectives in the Division’s application guides.
68
17 61
The Engineering Division should develop application
guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead
for plan checking.
70
18 78
A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division
on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at
the front counter during all hours of operation including
during the lunch hour.
Can open counter at lunch hour. Having
permanent staff at the counter not recommended
since this would require additional staff, which
would be more expensive. 81
19 80
The City should develop a comprehensive “How-to
Manual” or “Development Guide” for use by the public
and publish this document to their web site.
83
20 81
The Community Development Department should institute
a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is
distributed to the development community containing
code or interpretation updates, training information, and
general discussion of relevant topics.
Can be implemented as an email flyer/website
resource
84
21 82
The Community Development Department should
conduct at least an annual meeting to engage the
development community in a discussion of general issues
regarding permit matters in Cupertino, solicit input
regarding service levels, and seek input regarding
potential changes to the enabling legislation (general
plan, subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and
building codes).
84
22 83
The Community Development Department should
conduct an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction
survey
The City has survey cards at the Development
Permit Center that people can fill out. In addition,
the City conducts periodic Godbe surveys. 84
23 90
Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign
all employees as presenters, and have them prepare
outlines for their presentation. Bring in outside industry
training where appropriate.
Staff has begun to identify items for training and
plans to begin this shortly.
86
24 95
A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for
all major work functions and services provided by the
Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. A copy of
90
235
No. Matrix
Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation
Staff Comments
Pg.
No.*
the manual should be available to each employee, and
updated at a minimum on an annual basis. The manual
should be published to the Intranet.
25 100
The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and
dedicated to advanced planning.
Already in the budget (position is vacant). Can be
implemented if workload indicates more staff is
needed.
96
26 99
At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final
report should be published good and bad aspects of the
completed project, transmitting that information to the
staff of the Planning Division, and providing a convenient
summary of the project.
95
27 110
The Planning Commission should prepare an annual
report summarizing their activities and submit it to the City
Council.
103
236
Requires Council Review for Implementation (Budget/Ordinance)
No.
Matrix
Recomm
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category
1 6
The City should streamline the process for minor
planning permits by increasing the number of permitted
uses that require quasi-ministerial review and are subject
to codified performance standards.
Requires Ordinance change
17
Streamline
2 7
The Planning Division should develop codified
performance standards and requirements for these minor
permits for consideration and approval of the City
Council.
Requires Ordinance change
17
Streamline
3 8
The approval of these codified performance standards
and requirements by the City Council should be
sequenced to the conversion of these minor planning
permits to permitted uses.
Requires Ordinance change
17
Streamline
4 9
Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be
modified. The Planning Commission should be the final
decision-making authority for conditional use permits and
variances with the City Council having the right of appeal.
Requires Ordinance change
21
Streamline
5 10
The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff
reports for minor permits.
Requires policy change
22
Streamline
6 11
The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for
minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are
noticed.
Requires Ordinance/policy change
22
Streamline
7 12
The number of appeals that are possible for planning
permits should be limited to one appeal.
Requires Ordinance change
23
Streamline
8 26
Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for
the maintenance of case status information in the
automated permit information system by managers,
supervisors, and staff assigned to processing planning,
building and engineering permit applications.
We already implement this without our
permitting system. A well-designed
online permitting system (which requires
funding) will help automate many of the
functions that currently need manual
checks. 33
Infrastructure/Technology
9 27
Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure
that assigns responsibility to the division-heads for
assuring ongoing maintenance of case status information
in the automated permit information system and that
requires the division-heads to audit the caseload
assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active,
is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should be
terminated, or has been closed and the case should be
updated in the automated permit information system.
Same as above
33
Infrastructure/Technology
237
No.
Matrix
Recomm.
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category
10 28
The City should hold division-heads in Planning, Building
and Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring
the success or failure of their staff in meeting cycle time
objectives through regular management information
reports generated on a monthly basis by the automated
permit information system.
Same as above
34
Infrastructure/Technology
11 32
The City should utilize the automated permit information
system to generate ongoing monthly management
information reports to track performance against cycle
time objectives and monitor the case workload and
performance for staff assigned to the processing of these
permits.
Same as above
36
Infrastructure/Technology
12 42
The Planning Division should develop design guidelines
for multi-family, commercial, and signs.
Requires funding for
consultants/outreach 46
Readability and Consistency
13 47
The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of
its building permits over the Internet.
Our current online permitting system
allows about 10% of our permits to be
processed. A more robust permitting
system (which requires funding) will
increase the type and number of permits
that can be handled online. 54
Infrastructure/Technology
14 48
The Building Division should increase the number of
building permits issued over-the-counter to 60% of all
building permits issued.
Same comment as above. It should be
noted that the complexity of the permit
types will determine whether they can be
handled online. 55
Infrastructure/Technology
15 62
All of the departments and divisions should utilize the
automated permit information system for all aspects of
the planning, building permit, and engineering permit
process.
Requires funding for new automated
permitting system
71
Infrastructure/Technology
16 63
Modules, applications and reports should be developed
within the automated permit information system to
support the work of these departments and divisions.
Same as above
71
Infrastructure/Technology
17 64
Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the
use of the automated permit information system.
Same as above
71
Infrastructure/Technology
18 65
The City should utilize the automated permit information
system to provide the capacity for the public and for
applicants to access data through the Internet or for the
public and applicants to subscribe to information.
Same as above
72
Infrastructure/Technology
19 66
The automated permit information system should include
the capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice
Response system.
Same as above
73
Infrastructure/Technology
20 67
The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response
(IVR) System.
Same as above
73
Infrastructure/Technology
238
No.
Matrix
Recomm.
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category
21 68
The automated permit information system should have
wireless capabilities.
Same as above
74
Infrastructure/Technology
22 69
The automated permit information system should have
an automated workflow capacity.
Same as above
75
Infrastructure/Technology
23 70
The automated permit information system should have
the capacity for online project management and
collaboration tools.
Same as above
76
Infrastructure/Technology
24 71
The automated permit information system should have
the capacity to interface with ESRI GIS.
Same as above
76
Infrastructure/Technology
25 72
All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan
checks, and inspections should be archived in the
automated permit information system .
Same as above
77
Infrastructure/Technology
26 73
Architectural plans should be archived in the automated
permit information system once the permit is finalized
Same as above
77
Infrastructure/Technology
27 74
All of the divisions and departments that utilize the
automated permit information system should enter and
store their annotations, comments, and conditions in the
system.
Same as above
78
Infrastructure/Technology
28 75
The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity
to identify the total installed cost for the development and
deployment of a fully functional automated permit
information system.
Same as above
79
Infrastructure/Technology
29 76
The City should acquire a fully developed commercial-off-
the-shelf automated permit information system.
Same as above
79
Infrastructure/Technology
30 77 The City should remodel the permit center. Requires funding
80
Infrastructure/Technology
31 93
The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning,
building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and
evaluated when the next review of development fee
schedules is conducted to ensure fees are appropriately
calculated and assessed.
Requires funding for Fee Study
89
Fees/Cost Recovery
32 94
The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge
to its building permits.
Requires funding for Fee Study
89
Fees/Cost Recovery
33 101
The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to
enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a
surcharge to its building permits.
Requires funding for Fee Study
96
Fees/Cost Recovery
34 103
The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives
for the consideration of the City Council to avoid
conducting public hearings for City Council meetings in
the early morning.
Council Policy
98
Other
239
No.
Matrix
Recomm.
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category
35 104
The Engineering Division should update the stormwater
master plan in the next two years using a consulting
engineering firm.
Requires funding for Stormwater Master
Plan
98
Streamlining
36 106
The City Council and the Planning Commission should
conduct joint meetings at least annually.
Council Policy
102
Other
37 107
The City Council and Planning Commission should
conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of
any updating of the Zoning Ordinance.
Council Policy
102
Other
38 111
Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the
responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to
manage Commission meetings.
Requires change to bylaws
105
Other
39 112
Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce
the amount of time available to public speakers to the
same amount as that provided at City Council meetings.
Requires change to bylaws/policy
105
Other
Not Recommended
No.
Matrix
Recomm.
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.*
1 13
Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants
subsequent to approval of a planning application.
The City uses covenants to ensure that
critical conditions of approval are recorded
against the property to ensure that the
intent of a decision remains as properties
change owners. 23
2 18
Pre-application conferences should not be required
for routine planning permit applications approved by
the Community Development Director.
Pre-application conferences help
applicants provide complete applications
before submittals and reduce cycle times. 28
3 53
Develop standard building permit plans for use by the
public in minor residential improvements.
Not recommended due to liability
associated with providing plans, which
typically need to be customized for a
particular situation. 58
4 57
The City should assign responsibility to the Building
Division for zoning clearance of simple building
permits.
Not recommended because many planning
applications have conditions of approval
that require detailed review that is best
done by a planner. This also allows
multiple reviews to be done in a shorter
time instead of having one person follow
up on all issues.
63
240
Notes
1. The recommendations are listed using Matrix numbering system (for easy reference) and not in the order of priority.
2. * The page number reference indicates the page where the discussion regarding the recommendation commences, not necessarily the actual
page location of the recommendation itself.
No.
Matrix
Recomm.
#
Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.*
5 84
The City should require that any new ordinance and
code requirements not previously imposed will not be
enforced on current construction and future jobs until
the industry is informed and a 60-day waiting period is
put in place.
We already provide adequate notice of
public hearings, first and second readings
for ordinance amendments through the
newspaper, mailed notices and our
website. In addition the ordinance goes
into effect 30-days after the second
reading. This provides more than 60 days
notice for potential applicants. 85
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 9 2010
Piu Ghosh Associate Planner presented the staff report
Said that the current ordinance amendments presented are proposed to make the zoning
ordinance consistent with the housing element adopted in 2010 the environmental
determination is that it is CEQA impacted because there are no environmental impacts
In April 2010 the City Council adopted the housing element and also adopted some associated
Municipal Code amendments however since then additional changes have been identified
related to consistency or conformance with both the housing element and also with other
chapters of the Municipal Code The layout is also being changed to improve readability and
trying to eliminate redundancies or discrepancies
She reviewed the amendment details for Chapter 1948 Planned Development P Zones
Chapter 19124 Planned Development Permits Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Chapter 1972 Private Recreation FP Zones and Chapter 2004 Specific Plans as outlined
in the staff report
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the recommended amendments
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing as no one was present to speak the public hearing was
closed
Motion Motion by Com Miller second by Com Kaneda and unanimously carried
5 0 0 to approve Application MCA 2010 06 per the model resolution
5 CP 2010 01 Review of the Management study of the Permit process and
City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the Citys permit
Citywide Location services and organizational history Continued from the May
8 2010 City Council meeting Tentative City Council date
February 2011
Chair Brophy noted that the presentation is for discussion purposes only no motions will be made
discussions will include what should be covered and establish a formal public hearing to discuss
what recommended changes will be made
Aarti Shrivastava
Said that the Council reviewed the documentation that staff provided the Planning
Commission as part of the matrix report and they wanted staff to conduct two workshops
where everybody who had gone through the permitting process were noticed as well as
interested parties in the last five years Two different workshops were held Consultant Ken
Rodriguez will discuss what input was heard from the workshops and what the compilation of
the data is and Piu Ghosh will review the technical details
Ken Rodriguez Consultant
Reported on the two workshops held and applauded staff on the excellent job of documenting
the workshops
Piu Ghosh Associate Planner presented the staff report
Reviewed the staff report relative to the development process review Matrix Consulting
Group prepared a comprehensive analysis of the citys development permit process in
November 2009 Planning Commission reviewed it in April and May and the City Council
also reviewed the item in May City Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach into
the community and sent notices to all property owners contractors and developers who
260
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 9 2010
received permits within the last 5 years Outreach efforts included the mailing of 5300 notices
and notices were also placed in Cupertino Courtier Scene and the citys website
The first workshop was held on July 28 2010 19 attendees including 4 Planning
Commissioners Different themes were identified within the Matrix report including
streamlining technology and communication The main comment from the meeting was that
the development process needs to be streamlined a comprehensive online permitting system is
key and that streamlining is desirable as long as there is no reduction in the level of public
engagement that the city currently does
The second workshop was held on September 8 2010 a group exercise and free discussion
was held details are outlined in the staff report Page 5 3 the only change recommended
related to parcel maps that those could be approved administratively No changes were
suggested to the single family review process however changes were suggested to the
exception processes She reviewed the recommended changes as outlined in the staff report
Relative to communication the attendees at the second workshop discussed at length the
noticing process Some members of the community especially applicants felt that the
requirements were onerous while others were satisfied with the level of communication and
felt that any streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input Staff is
suggesting a new enhanced public engagement process called ACT Advise Collaborate and
Team Up which was explained in detail on Page 5 5 of the staff report
Relative to technology at the first workshop 7 of the 15 attendees indicated support for a new
online permitting system preliminary discussion held indicated support for roughly a 4
increase in fees to cover the cost of the system
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission comment on the proposed changes and
submit any other proposed modifications or recommendations to be forwarded to City Council
Com Miller
Said that lowering the level of approvals is a good idea which is one way to improve
efficiency Also staff suggested an online system to improve efficiency The Matrix report
has a number of suggestions in terms of reducing some work which they felt was unnecessary
It was suggested that two story residences be treated the same as one story as far as the
approval process is concerned
One area that wasnt adequately addressed is the actual processes that staff currently has in
place and how they can be improved
Aarti Shrivastava
Noted that the flow chart in the staff report outlines the processes which change depending on
what the applicant provides every one of the processes follow the flow chart except for Rl
which staff can provide
Staff is also looking at many of the administrative changes and to make those in house
improvements The flow chart except for the R1 doesnt include story poles and the tree
removal process is different The process is what you see in front of you changes depending
on who is applying how much information they provide
Com Miller
Said that he felt the flow chart does not help an applicant in terms of what steps he has to take
and that is where the exercise could be valuable because the output of the exercise could be put
online for clear understanding None of the steps are clear in the ordinance or guidelines it is
very confusing for a new applicant He suggested addressing it as a Planning Commission and
make improvements and submit something to the Council
261
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 9 2010
Aarti Shrivastava
Said she was attempting to differentiate between ordinance amendments and internal
processes The application packet addresses many of the questions and staff is looking to
improve it and customize it for R1 vs all other applications The flow charts describe the steps
in a process and what meetings are needed to go through it and the application packet walks
the applicant through each paper to provide in order to complete the application
Com Miller
Said he felt the application packet was not fully complete as to the current requirements
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing
Jennifer Griffin Rancho Rinconada resident
Said she has followed the process from the beginning and felt there was too much change
happening She said the way Cupertino does business now protects and maintains strong
neighborhoods and asked why would they want to change it Cupertinos process has evolved
over a number of years to be uniquely Cupertinos The city has politically active residents
who are trying to maintain the true nature and strength of their neighborhoods and she saw no
reason for change She said she felt there were many outside forces beyond Cupertino that
dont like the way that Cupertinians do thing3 and she had concerns that some of those people
are influencing this beyond the point they should such as the anonymous focus groups in the
Matrix report Relative to the many reports she did not want a lower level of authority but
things to stay as is She wanted to make sure the neighborhood notification continues and that
the neighbors remain involved as they are the heart and soul of Cupertino
Kevin McClelland representing the Board of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
In favor of application
Applauded the review of the process and the work that has been done so far it is a step in the
right direction
He disagreed with the previous speaker regarding her comment about standards being lowered
to make it easier for people to conduct business in Cupertino he saw no evidence where
standards are being lowered
He suggested having a better timeframe on some of the approvals and response times to help
keep projects moving along many times information can be missing or there can be snags that
stall or slow down a process
He also suggested having better timeframes and perhaps alternatives for the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings to ensure that everyone is heard and the meetings
have a distinct timeframe and be completed in a shorter timeframe
They support the online system which would help to not only save the city money but also
streamline and help the process
Bob McVie Cupertino resident
Said he supported the online system as it would save staff time and provide access to the
public on a readymade basis Item 3 is important where overwhelmingly the group members
were looking at streamlining but didnt want a reduction in the level of public engagement
they do not want to revert back to the 1990s after going through 10 years of developing what
they now have
Referring to Attachment 1 Collaborate level it mentions greater than 25 units 25000 sq ft of
retail commercial industrial all three categories are major developments in Cupertino
Cupertino is a small city He recommended those be reduced to a lower level of 10 to 15 units
10000 sq ft of retail and about 25000 sq ft of office industrial He recommended
262
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 9 2010
increasing the neighborhood notice which is at 500 feet minimum to 1000 feet because in the
past notifications wouldnt get to the citizens of Cupertino but only to the developed
commercial properties
He said he appreciated the process it was informative for all and allowed the public to provide
input at those meetings
Darcy Paul Cupertino resident
Said he supported the streamlining process for development permitting Relative to noticing
he applauded the Commission for considering expanding the general notice which will benefit
public input
He said he felt the three minute limit for each speaker makes it arduous because some meetings
go until 2 or 3 am which is not necessarily an effective process He said he was not
suggesting eliminating the public input process at meetings but try to make it more efficient if
there are comments prior to the meeting being processed by the city He said with respect to
being able to integrate some modern technologies and using online tools he supported being
more creative about how to process public input in that manner
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing
Chair Brophy
Reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to put together an agenda for formal
consideration
Aarti Shrivastava
Said that a major or minor permit depends on the size of the project and that decides whether
the Commission or Council hears the items
If it is a conditional use or CG ordinance it has certain uses that could be approved at staff
level and certain uses for Commission approval everything cannot be put in one box They
could say the more intense or more controversial uses get reviewed at the Planning
Commission and the larger projects get reviewed at the Council level She noted that they have
taken every project individually but if they are combined in one application the highest
approval body will review it
She said when it was first brought to the Planning Commission the Planning Commission did
not want to open up the R1 but they heard in meetings some comments from people saying
that it was onerous and they thought they would bring it back to see if the Planning
Commission did have any comments to move forward The last time the R1 was looked at was
in 2009 it has been through three or four reviews in the last 8 to 10 years and the last set went
through a fair amount of vetting by the community as well as Planning Commission and
Council There is also design review story poles and noticing and comments can be
forwarded to staff
Chair Brophy
Relative to tree removals especially in the case of owner occupied houses there were opinions
that the process is onerous What are the thoughts on tree removal whether or not the problems
arise are greater than what the social benefits are
Aarti Shrivastava
The ordinance states that if a tree is dead or in a very hazardous situation if staff can
determine the condition and not have to see an arborist there is no requirement for an arborist
report
263
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 9 2010
On occasion there are reports that the tree appears healthy but there is something going on
inside the tree and more information is needed if staff cannot make a determination an
arborist report is required There is no charge if it is determined dead or hazardous and a
replacement schedule per the tree ordinance is worked out at no charge If it is a protected tree
per the ordinance the ordinance requires tree replacement if it is non protected tree they do
not require replacement
Com Miller
Relative to the tree ordinance if a tree dies of natural causes whether protected or not it has
lived and died on its own and there should not be a requirement that you have to replace it with
two more protected trees He said he had difficulty with that concept
Said that staff spends an inordinate amount of time on architectural review it is not done for
one story buildings but is done extensively for two story buildings Suggested that it is an area
where significant improvements could be made in efficiency and how to do things with no loss
of quality in eliminating or changing the process
The new ordinance that allows square footages on the second floor greater than 45 of the
first floor have requirements that it would have to be a definable style and need to have four
sided architectures
It may make sense but then it is required that all those sides be hidden behind privacy
protection He said he was at a loss to see where the benefit is of spending time and effort on
getting very detailed architecture particularly when the buildings are small and lots are tight
and then hiding that beautiful architecture behind a barrier of landscaping He said it was an
area that should be looked at
Many cities require story poles but Cupertino takes it a level that no other city does requiring
that an engineer go out and survey the exact location where the story poles are to be planted in
the ground which is an expensive proposition from 2000 to 5000 for poles that will stay
up for a month The city also requires that all the corners and ridgelines be detailed in plastic
He said when looking at the plan and looking at the story poles he could not distinguish all the
detail and doubted that anyone else could He questioned the value of the expenditure which is
another area to look into
Relative to noticing he said he did not see a reason to send out detailed floor plans to
neighbors what goes on in the interior of the building is a private matter of the homeowner
and does not have to be disclosed to the neighbors It is appropriate to put a four sided
elevations to see the site plan the grading drainage but not floor plans why should the
neighbor have the right to comment on the location of someone elses bathroom
The other issue with the R1 ordinance that creates much conflict is the concept of
compatibility with the neighborhood and mass and bulk they are very subjective and it causes
endless discussions and arguments Relative to compatibility and conformity he referred to the
Willow Glen neighborhood in San Jose where every house is different than the neighbors yet
the neighborhood look good and one couldnt argue about conformity or compatibility there
One of the reasons Cupertino is now allowing a larger second story is because people have said
that Cupertino has the wedding cake look and they want to get away from that The
compatibility stipulation in the ordinance goes to the same question and it does not allow for
creativity for designs that could fit in with the neighborhood or are not allowed because they
dont look like the ranch house next door It is another area where it is right to look at the R1
ordinance
He cautioned about reopening the RI ordinance because it is a risky thing however it could
be opened in a limited way and agree to address certain things and agree to send that request
onto City Council
264
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 9 2010
Aarti Shrivastava
Said staff would like to get comments on Attachment 1 and 1A which are the heart of the
recommendations Attachment 1 tries to put a level of certainty into projects where both the
applicants as well as people understand what the requirements are
The second takes it to the technical level and compiles data received from the group
workshops along with the recommended public strategy The site signage is a great idea it
addresses people who may not have been in the noticing radius renters people who moved in
new and werent updated on the metro scan it addresses a lot of issues and we have looked at
this from all angles and tried to find the best way to inform the public as well as a creative way
to get input We believe for larger projects the neighborhood workshops are a better way than
the three minute input at meetings
Com Giefer
Said she was part of the development of the current R1 over the past 8 years and many of the
points that Com Miller brought up were the things that were put in the R1 because that was
what the public was most fearful of they felt a lack of control they felt they didnt know what
was going on in residential development they had no way of understanding what was going to
happen in properties adjacent and across from them She recalled that they sent out the floor
plans because some peoples living rooms or family rooms would be facing a neighbors
master bedroom and they discussed what the appropriate level of information given out should
be She suggested that if they reopen the R1 they tie it in with the they had with green
building where they lowered the overall FAR and the greener the building is the more FAR
you are entitled to
She said that story poles do work but if there is new information to make the process easier for
the developer they should consider it
Said that no more angry groups are coming to meetings which happened during the two story
development issues because neighbors know what is going on and she said she did not want
the future Planning Commissions to have to deal with that She said if they are going to look at
R1 or send it to Council then they should look at FAR and reducing the overall FAR in the
city if you want to increase your FAR back up to the current levels then build a greener home
She said it would be helpful to know exactly what information is required for various permits
and try to transpose a timeline
Com Kaneda
Said he did not like the fact that two stories are treated separately from one story the argument
for not having a stricter review on one story buildings is that you have a fence in between and
it more or less blocks the view between houses but at the street level architecture is
architecture and it can get ugly or nice
He recalled his personal experience when his architect told him not to try to do a two story
house in Cupertino because he would have to go through an architectural review and it is not
worth the hassle He decided on a one story although he preferred a two story home
Com Giefer
Said during her remodel they did not experience major problems her pool plans were lost
three times and they had to make one phone call about a framing issue but it was worked out
Ken Rodriguez
Said he was interested in peoples experiences with the R1 On a commercial level the Matrix
report is very accurate extremely cooperative and very organized
Said he liked the idea of computer permit streamlining and suggested that the Council go to
Apple and partner with them and beta test the whole system with them
265
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 9 2010
Cupertino is a place where people want to locate because of the school system and a nice
community and building a single family home is probably the only time they will do that The
process is confusing it could be simpler for first timers and with the help of technology staff
will be able to put many of those printed documents on the computer
He said he was hopeful that all the things discussed will be translated into that process and it
will make it easier for the first time person He said some communities because of budget cuts
are forced to cut down on staff and people going to their city hall are forced to locate the staff
through phone lines in the lobby area which is impersonal
Aarti Shrivastava
Noted that the planning department hours have been extended to improve customer service
Com Giefer
Said that having a process online similar to R1 For Dummies would make it simple for
people going through the process Details explaining what the documents consist of etc and
what to expect when attending a design review meeting or Planning Commission meeting
would be extremely helpful to people because not everyone utilizes an architect
Ken Rodriguez
Once you get the process online people could study the process and complete the paperwork
in their own homes it is a daunting process for people to appear before a Planning
Commission meeting or City Council meeting
Com Kaneda
Suggesting making available a set of drawings for the public to look at as part of the process
Staff said she would discuss it offline with Corn Kaneda
Com Miller
He said a detailed flow chart was needed showing each step including the deliverables what
the city is expecting you to submit what the dependencies are for doing those submittals
going through it step by step would provide a birds eye view of exactly what each process
involves and where When it is laid out you can see where improvements can be made and
staff can possibly make some modifications afterwards and that could be the basis of
documentation to go online for an applicant to look at and get a better idea up front of what
needs to be done It is a valuable process to go through and they can find places to make
improvements
Provided an example of an RI approval requirement of providing the interior square footage of
the proposed house Staff requires the applicant to provide drawings of squares inside the
house which would indicate the total square footage If the application was designed on a
CAD system it is a more efficient and accurate way to provide the information There are
other similar areas where improvements can be made and by flow charting it out and seeing
all the requirements staff can then look at them individually and make suggestions for
improvement
Reiterated that they were asked to look at the process and he felt he could not do an evaluation
of the process without knowing exactly what the process is and asked for more detail to better
understand the process where it works and where improvements can be made
He said if applicants have to go through it the commissioners should also
Chair Brophy
Said that the Commissions role is to focus on things related to the ordinance and some of
these issues brought up are not ordinance matters but work processes and he was not sure
266
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 9 2010
they were set up for resolving those types of issues If it is not in an ordinance it shouldnt be
a matter for the Commission to resolve
Said they need to resolve the RI issue he agreed with Coms Giefer and Miller that some of
the process is unduly complicated but to the extent that they have generous FAR scores he
was not sure they were willing to reopen that issue They reviewed in in detail and the Council
expressed their opinion in no uncertain terms and notwithstanding the Commissions
unanimous view that they were not going to touch the FAR matter
Said he was reluctant to reopen R1 unless there are specific ordinance problems such as the
story poles not requiring a formal engineering survey or the corner and ridgelines detail
because he did not feel they were providing much value
Piu Ghosh
Said they do require story pole certification however it does not have to be by a surveyor and
can be done by a contractor They must be presented at the correct height and location which
has been a contentious point in past RI appeals
Aarti Shrivastava
Story poles requirements are part of the ordinance and staff will implement whatever the
Planning Commission and City Council decide should be implemented as part of the
ordinance If the story pole requirement is removed they wont have to do it any longer
Whatever requirements the Council decides staff wants to ensure that the applicant is able to
self certify without staff having to go and check every detail because that takes extra staff
time She said she understood the issues and perhaps they could be argued in relation to the
ordinance to say that many of the story pole requirements are onerous and that people who
have gone through the process are best able to bring those comments in
Com Miller
Suggested a subcommittee of two commissioners to meet with staff and present findings to the
Planning Commission
Com Giefer
Suggested that it be Planning Commissioners who were not involved with the original RI so
their discovery would be original and not be tainted by prior hearings and feedback which
would provide unbiased information
Com Miller
Said he felt they would lose experience and knowledge that is valuable in the process if they
took that approach
Aarti Shrivastava
Having gone through the Rl process recently it is appropriate to bring a lot of this staff was
hoping to get more comments on Attachment 1 and 1A I am not saying that other changes
dont have to be made but if we could get some of that to see if we are in the right direction or
not and then we can look at R1 we will bring the comments to the Council about generally
trying to streamline the RI requirements
Chair Brophy
Said he was not sure he agreed with the comment about noticing as they were already covered
under zoning amendments up to 1000 ft and to the extent you have an industrial parcel in
Vallco
267
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 9 2010
Com Giefer
There are special cases where you have the best intentions with 300 500 or 1000 square feet
but only one neighbor would actually get notice but others are interested with RHS adjacent
property owners were included because the parcels were so large that notice may have been
sent to only one resident
Valerie Armento
Said that an ordinance sets the minimum standard that is going to apply uniformly throughout
the city there is nothing that prohibits noticing extra or additionally in those types of
situations but it sets the minimum requirement which is going to apply across the board so
you want to set something that is reasonable and not overly burdensome in the grand scheme
of things recognizing that in special cases you can always notice in addition Keep in mind
that going to the the 500 or 300 foot level know as they drive or walk by the site It will be
another requirement that will end up in the handout
The Wireless Ordinance states that it should be a specific radius noticing or two properties on
either side of the subject property
Com Miller
Said feedback from neighbors said the most effective thing when changing the ordinance was
putting up the renderings people walking by can see them and get a good visual idea of
exactly what the house is going to look like which is far superior to the story poles and
anything else done
Com Kaneda
Expressed concern about the issue of whether or not to allow balconies on homes in Cupertino
He said he did not personally care whether or not balconies were permitted but he noted the
inconsistencies in some neighborhoods where balconies were permitted and within a five block
area balconies were not permitted in another neighborhood because of complaints from
neighbors
Chair Brophy
Said he did not want the Planning Commission involved with gates and fences
Aarti Shrivastava
Said that the ordinance remains as is
Com Miller
Suggested having a subcommittee to look at R1 and bring it back to the Commission
Aarti Shrivastava
Said they did not address R1 because it was heard loud and clear that the Planning
Commission did not want to open up the RI
Relative to the R1 staff hoped it would be more of a streamline process for revenue producing
projects in the city Having just gone through an R1 they werent excited about reopening it
again one of the things people value is certainty and if the R1 is reopened every year it is not
providing the best service to their customers
However if there are things that both the Commission and Council think should be removed
staff will address it but their focus is going to be on trying to make the ordinance clear about
the process trying to make it clear for the commercial developments and the larger projects
providing that protection to neighbors to add noticing
268
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 9 2010
Chair Brophy
Said he would like to avoid getting involved with second story decks because they cant be
addressed without going into the whole R1 ordinance He was not opposed to minor
landscaping and exterior enhancements for condos but not interested in working on changing
wood fences to wrought iron fences etc He said he would rather not deal with the core of the
R1 but focus more on internal work processes rather than ordinance processes
Aarti Shrivastava
Said staff was looking at internal work processes and working with applicants and any
comments from commissioners would be welcomed
Staff is not looking at all Matrix recommendations relative to the R1 specific ordinance
amendments they have gone to the two public meetings and are bringing back the
recommendations for the ordinance amendments Staff is also working on the internal staff
improvements as well as the online permitting process They have received a lot of positive
feedback on the online permitting we are seeking funding for it
Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission
Com Giefer
Concurred with Chair Brophy but does not feel as part of Matrix they should open it up
Com Miller
Said he disagreed the architectural review is such a huge resource and expensive process for
both the city and the applicant that it screams out for review It is an area they could save
countless hours of staff time and thousands of dollars of applicant time by doing a better job It
is such a sore point with every applicant who comes in and has to go through it There is no
better time for improvement than now
Chair Brophy
Said if there are large homes on small lots there is an inherent potential for being intrusive to
the adjoining houses and he preferred not to reopen it
Com Miller
Said there were two separate processes one for one story and a different one for two story
houses There are actually duplicate processes going on because the two story homes have to
be reviewed by the city architect and then reviewed again by staff the applicant gets two sets
of changes one from the architect and another one from city staff
It is a problem particularly for an applicant who hires an architect who has an opinion they go
and get reviewed by the city architect and he may have a slightly different opinion and then
they get reviewed by the staff who may or may not have architectural experience All this has
to go into a mix and come out and it is a very long expensive process and I dont see where it
adds any quality whatsoever to the end result We can let it go on but that is not my
preference my preference is when there is a problem fix it
Aarti Shrivastava
Said the homes that are above 45 are because of specific guidelines the ones below are not
Staff comments along with the architects comments are integrated as early as possible the
idea being to integrate all comments from different departments as well as the consultants the
person is always working with one staff planner
Com Kaneda
Said he was concerned about trying to balance two things if you totally let it go it reverts back
269
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 9 2010
to the reason they started trying to put controls on it in the first place which is the monster
homes where you build a straight wall up to the edge of the allowable property envelope The
other option is to follow Palo Alto which has a DRC and they look at everything it is overly
onerous but they have beautiful homes He said he did not like the past layer cake architecture
which encouraged one style of building which is not particularly attractive the Spanish style
development architecture that developers use up and down the peninsula He said he did not
like seeing every house in Cupertino looking like that
Said his sense was to give it some time and see if the problem looks like it has been taken care
of to see what the results are before tweaking it more
Com Miller
The two story process that people have been complaining about has been in place for five
years the way to put controls on it is to be more prescriptive and put more guidelines and
requirements in the ordinance but give the applicants architect flexibility to choose among
them Presently they are subject to staff saying they know there is a set of guidelines but this is
the one they want you to follow He said he would like to eliminate that issue as well
Com Giefer
Said they just changed the first to second FAR to specifically address architectural
differentiation last year
Chair Brophy
Com Miller gave the example of the Willow Glen neighborhood where you have homes quite
different from one another and where there is no problem The reason why that worked and is
not working as well any longer is because the homes were much smaller relative to the size of
the lots when you were building homes at 15 or 20 of lot size you could build whatever you
wanted and your neighbor may not like it but it didnt overwhelm him In Willow Glen today
homes are being torn down and large homes are being built
Said he did not feel the process addresses the issue one ordinance says you can put a very
large home on very small lot but it has to be good architecture and the reason clients are
unhappy is because you cannot build 45 homes that are good architecture on a standard lot in
a California suburb
Com Miller
Said he had no objection to lowering the FAR and if other commissioners feel the same way
and want to do that with other recommendations send them to the Council for their reaction
Relative to story poles he said he questioned their value but was willing to get input from the
residents He said he felt the use of renderings provided a very clear picture of what is going in
there There is a height limit and story poles are intended to see mass bulk and height and
they have setbacks and height limits to address those issues If someone is building something
within those guidelines then they have a strong argument for getting approval even if their
neighbor doesnt like it otherwise they can change the guidelines which is what is being
discussed
Com Giefer
Said she would not support a minute order because it is outside of the matrix She said they
should focus on things such as policy the feedback received and the direction they started out
with on the project
270
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 November 9 2010
Com Miller
Said he understood the direction was to look at the permitting process and suggest
improvements and that is why he wanted to see flow charts and deliverables From that they
may decide that there are some changes to the ordinance that make sense based on that review
Com Giefer
Said she had no problem with the flow charts and looking at the process That is something
they can handle as they have discussed wanting to review that
Said she heard Com Millers ideas on this as a developer and recalled sitting through long
meetings where the community felt the city had abandoned them and people who have lived
here their entire lives didnt have a say in things which was a concern in terms of where they
are headed
Com Miller
Commented that open hearings have been held where the public can attend and give their
input
Following discussion there was a straw vote 4 1 not to forward a minute order to the Council
Com Miller
Said he understood the objective was to look at the permitting process but felt he could not do
so without knowing what the process is He suggested a subcommittee be formed to address it
and bring it back to the Commission He volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and
suggested another commissioner also serve on the subcommittee
Com Giefer
Cautioned the Commission on bias and suggested they get fresh ideas and let people who
havent dealt with this before review it and see what they come up with to get a new
perspective
Com Miller
Said he felt there was no substitute for having someone who understands it to begin with who
has been through it followed it and gone into detail and doesnt have to spend a month getting
up to speed
Vice Chair Lee
Volunteered to be on the subcommittee
Aarti Shrivastava
Recommended that staff bring the Commissions input on Attachments 1 2 and a
recommendation that two commissioners would work with staff to provide their input on
processes staff will continue to take input from applicants throughout the process and look at
improving it offline
Next step would be to go to the Council with Commissions recommendation on the broad
brush area to say they have heard your comments on Attachments 1 and 2 on the collaborative
process reducing the number of units to 15 in order to require neighborhood meeting didnt
hear any changes to the retail or office there wasnt a majority vote to make any changes to
the R1 and that we work with two commissioners and involve applicants in trying to make the
process more user friendly
271
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 November 9 2010
Chair Brophy
Suggested waiving the 162 appeals fee since it doesnt cover the costs associated with an
appeal and sends the wrong message to residents
Aarti Shrivastava
Said the appeals fee was established to discourage frivolous appeals and it doesnt begin to
cover the costs which range between 5000 to 6000 Staff feels having a nominal fee helps
but if the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation they will bring it forward to
Council She noted that if the appeal is upheld the appeal fee is returned to the appellant
Com Kaneda
Said he felt the fee discourages frivolous appeals and is warranted
Chair Brophy
Said that in the interest of democracy the few frivolous appeals they receive is worth not
having a fee
Com Giefer
Said she was neutral on charging an appeals fee
Vice Chair Lee
People appeal because they are upset so it is not likely that charging them a fee of 162 given
will generate a large number of new appeals
Com Miller
Said there should be an appeals fee even if it is a small barrier to frivolous appeals If the
appeal is granted the fee is not charged to you which seems to be reasonable and the appeals
are usually done by several people or an entire neighborhood and the 162 fee divided
amongst neighbors would not seem to be a hardship in Cupertino The Council decided on the
fee not long ago
Vice Chair Lee
Relative to signs for tree removal the draft states that a sign needs to be up and if it with
another application they need to have an ASA and have to remove a number of trees A TR
could be put up however if it is one person in the home that wants to cut down one tree it
should not be required if not associated with a major sign approval
Aarti Shrivastava
This wasnt an addition by staff it is a current requirement in the ordinance the tree ordinance
was reviewed in 2007 and it was added at that time Any recommendation can be brought
forward to the Council
Com Giefer
Said her experience is it is usually a planned development because somebody moves in and
doesnt understand there was a landscaping pan approved as part of the overall development
even if it is 5 homes If a home is a part of a planned development a replacement plan is
needed in order to remove a tree People may be caught off guard because they did not realize
the planting was approved as part of the development
272
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 November 9 2010
Valerie Armento
Cautioned the Commission that they were conducting a process study to focus on the process
and discussion should not drift into regulations
Aarti Shrivastava
Reviewed the tree removal process If a heritage tree is removed it is to be replaced by one 48
inch box tree The heritage trees are specific historic trees that are mapped in the city with tags
on them protected trees are five species used for landscape plans approved as part of a planned
development An arborist is consulted to determine the best replacement for the site because
of possible overcrowding
If the homeowner does not agree with the tree replacement they would have to appeal to the
Planning Commission or decision maker
Explained the different options relative to tree replacement for various reasons
Com Miller
The Director has the discretion to do what she wants including not replacing the tree If the
reason for removing a tree is because there is crowding among the trees it would be better for
the remaining trees to have that one tree removed does the ordinance require the replacement
of the tree that was removed
In general the tree ordinance is somewhat onerous on the homeowners We view the trees as a
community good but it is an individual cost and there is some level of unfairness and some of
the expense associated with permanent removal and the replacement by more trees tends to be
costly Requiring signage is just another expense that may not be necessary I think we should
look at single family residences and planned development He explained the requirements for
tree replacement when trees are removed
Chair Brophy
Said it seemed unreasonable to have to replace a large tree that has died of natural causes trees
grow from small to large and it is expecting a lot to replace a tree that has died of natural
causes
Com Kaneda
Said he agreed with Com Miller that if you require privacy planting and then in later years
when the trees are overgrown they have to be thinned out the person who was originally
required to plant all the trees should not have to pay an in lieu fee in addition to removing the
tree it adds insult to injury
Aarti Shrivastava
Said that the R1 process allows a neighbor to waive a planting requirement if the neighbor
says they dont need the new trees planted it is still part of the waiver and is acceptable
Aarti Shrivastava summarized
All the ordinance recommendations have been identified in the packets relative to the
administrative process staff is redoing the handouts Lunch time counter has been
implemented and there will be an internal meeting to see if the process can be streamlined
and staff will meet with the subcommittee as well There are specific ordinance issues that are
identified that the staff will bring it back to the full Commission for consideration
She confirmed the 15 unit reduction in the collaboration section as well
273
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 November 9 2010
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee No meeting
Housing Commission Meeting scheduled for November 10 2010
Manors Monthly Meeting With Commissioners Meeting scheduled for November 10 2010
Economic Development Committee Meeting
Com Miller provided the following summary
The commercial environment has been decimated there is concern that there is something like
a couple of trillion dollars worth of building loans coming due over the next three years and
some people felt that they would be taken care of in some way other people thought they
would create another crisis Aside from that though most of the participants felt they were
cautiously optimistic that we had reached bottom and that in various places around the Bay
Area we were starting to see some small evidence of new development going on particularly
in the East Bay there was some concerns about the legislation coming out of Sacramento and
the amount that it was adding to the cost of construction specifically new EPA requirements
from the federal level as well as SB375 and AB332 and they even attached a number to it
indicating that that would cost at least 6 per square foot to everything they did Also they are
hoping as we move forward that the money situation loosens up because it presently is
extremely difficult to get loans
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Aarti Shrivastava reported
The Council reviewed the appeal of the wireless facility on Results Way Nov 1s and directed
staff to work with the applicant to find an alternate location on the front portion of the site
closer to McClellan to see if that could be identified If they could the item would come back
to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation If they cant identify an
alternate location then they would go back to the Council
On the modification to the Shashi hotel the Council approved the modification but they raised
the parking ratio to 75 per room the Commission had recommended 6 The valet service
would stay in place and they also wanted the Council to get an update of the parking annually
for the first three years of operation
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled flilr v 23 2010 at 645 pm
C f
Respectfully Submitted
Elizabet is Recording Secretary
Approved as presented December 14 2010
274
OFFICE OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENJE CUPERTINO CA 950143255
u PT N
408 7773308 FAX 408 7773333 plannin@cupertinoor
PLANNING COMM SSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No J Agenda Date November 9 2010
Application CP201001
Applicant City of Cupertinc
Property Location Citywide
Application Summary Review of the Vlanagement Study of the Permit Process and
opportunities to enhance the quality of the Citys development permit services and
organizational efficiency
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Con provide
Comments on the list of recommendfd changes to the permit process and public
engagement policy see Attachments 11A and 15 and
Provide any additional modifications andor recommendations related to permit
process enhancements
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the Matrix Consulting Grou was asked to conduct a comprehensive
organization and management analysi of the development permit process and
operations The objective of the analysis vas to identify opportunities for enhancing the
quality of the Citys permit services ani improve organizational efficiency Matrix
began their research in March 2009 and cmpleted 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 th development process permit data and the
Citys website Matrix then compared Cu pertinos permit processes and organizational
framework with other comparable cities a nd best management practices in the industry
A list of recommendations was presentE d to improve the Citys permit process and
organizational efficiency
The recommendations fall in the followin categories
About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented
275
CP201001 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9 2010
Page 2
About 22 percent of the recommendati ns are being currently being implemented by
staff
About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission reviewCity
Council action in the form of OrdinancePolicy amendments or funding
About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to
inconsistencies with City policies deartment functions and or potential liability
concerns and
About four percent of the recommendtions were based on incorrect assumptions by
the Corisultant
Attachment 3 is a summary table of recc mmendations 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 se Attachments 10 11 for staff report and
minutes
The Council reviewed the recommendaticns 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 propez ty owners and developers who got permits
from the City in the last five years Iz addition place appropriate notices in local
newspapers
Approximately 5300 notices were mailec to invite permittees and property owners to
participate in workshops on the developrlent permit process In addition notices were
placed in the Cupertino Courier Cupertino Scene and the Citys website
Two group workshops were held one cn July 28 2010 and another on September 8
2010 The first meeting was focused on ccllecting comments on the main themes of the
Matrix Report At the second meeting wrkshop attendees were given an opportunity
to provide their opinion about the levels oE approval for different types of projects
Group Workshop 1
Nineteen residents and property ownei sincluding four Planning Commissioners
attended the group workshop on July 23 2010 At the first meeting the grou was
asked to comment on three main categories indentified from the Matrix Report
streamlining technology and communiction The attendees were provided with six
key recommendations made by Matrix in each category for discussion see Attachment
12 Participants were also given an oppcrtunity 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
i2
276
CP201001 Matrix Project tecommendations November 9 2010
Page 3
Group Worksho 2
Twenty eight community members nd developers including two Planning
Commissioners and one Councilmember attended the September 8th group workshop
The attendees were provided with hanouts that compared Cupertinos approval
authority with three neighboring cities Mcuntain View Sunnyvale and Santa Clara see
Attachment 14 Each category was discus ed 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 sumrr arized in Attachment 15 and the comments
from the group have been summarized in ttachment 16
The main points brought up by the groups at the workshops were
The majority of the group agreed ihat the development process needs to be
streamlined
A comprehensive online permitting sstem 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 llow
Also staff has reviewed the input to see if there are discrepancies or legal requirements
that would require changes to the recomnendations 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 1 It compares how the roject would have been reviewed per the
workshop attendees recommendation staffs 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 InfrastructureTechnology ImprovemEnts
DISCUSSION
The following is a compilation of input received at the group workshops In cases
where staff has made a different reccmmendation or where staff has provided
additional recommendations they are speifically noted in each section
1 ORDINANCFPOLICY AMENDMENTS
Based on the results of the group workshcps staff has attached its recommendations in
Attachment 1
A Streamlining Aproval AuthoritU
The comments from the first group wcrkshop and the results of the tally of the
responses from the second group woikshop indicates support for reducing the
3
277
CP201001 Matrix Project ecommendations November 9 2010
Page 4
thresholds of the approval level for prcjects 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
ie those that require a change to the General Plan or Zoning Staff notes that these
projects Ordinance amendments and Teltative 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 lanning Commission level
Projects that are small and do not caue impacts should be reviewed by staff Staff
notes that such projects could include thos 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 contruction with six units or less and 10000 square
feet or less of new nonresidential develpment or additions faade improvements site
improvements including landscaping rEplacement or reconstruction of nonresidential
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 approvall
A number of residents expressed co ncern about reducing thresholds of project
approval and recommended enhancin g 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 apeal fee is set at 162 and is refunded if the
appeal is upheld
Single Family R1 Ordinance While th Planning Commissin had indicated at their
meeting on April 27 2010 that they dd not want to review amendments to the R1
Ordinance it is important to note tht some workshop attendees brought up the
issue that R1 requirements were onero xs The two story permit application involves
the following three steps
o Design Review
o Story Poles expensive and not alw ays effective if not properly installed
o Noticing financially burdensome a nd could cause potential security issues since
entire plan sets with floor plans hav e to be mailed
While staff does not have specifi reconmendations the Planning Commission may
have comments or recommendations tYey wish the Council to consider
1 The Infill Development Exemption under CEQ 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
c4
278
CP201001 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 btained permits from the City felt that the
requirements were onerous Other commtinity 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 bsed on the following key principles
A participation process must ensure tht a participants time is well spent
A participation process must be focu ed and participants needs should be fully
aired and considered
Project and participation expectations rnust be clear from the start
Staff has reviewed past projects where n otification was enhanced and would like to
recommend a consistent policy for project where expectations for the applicant as well
as neighborsresidents would be clear fom 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 lublic Engagement Process has the following
levels of engagement
Advise Staff is recommending enharcing noticing for all projects by requiring on
site signage and providing link on the Citys 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 tandards based on a review of signs and
standards in San Jose and Mountain Vi w see Attachment 18
Collaborate This level incorporates ethanced notification for projects that have the
potential to creae neighborhood imacts Staff is suggesting a threshold of 25
residential units 25000 square feet of retailcommercial use and 50000 square feet
of officeindustrial use since project at this level have the potential to create
neighborhood level impacts Project at this level would be required to expand
noticing to 500 feet and have a neigllborhood meeting The public engagement
process at this level allows for dialogue between all parties and helps to discuss
solutions that could be brought to deciionmakers for their consideration
Team Up This is the highest level of ublic engagement for projects with citywide
implications Staff recommends this l vel for large projects such as major General
Plan amendments and zoning and Planned DevelopmentUse permits that require
an EIR Projects at this level would require expanded or citywide noticing and
focus groups workshops Examples o where the City has used this process include
the South Vallco Master Plan and the Iorth Vallco Master Plan
E5
279
CP201001 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9 2010
Page 6
Staff would also like to note that we ae working on improving interdepartmental
communication Internal processes that can be improved upon by simple policy changes
are also being evaluated and instituted Frthermore efforts are being made to prepare
additional manuals and howto guides to help homeowners contractors and developers
get the best information possible on prep ration of application submittal materials and
requirements processes
C Improving Readabilitu and Consistenc
In order to improve consistency between various City documents and improve
readability of documents staff recommenis the following
Review existing conceptual plans nd area plans to make older documents
consistent with the General Plan and to update them with new graphics No
amendments to the plans are proposd as part of this review An administrative
update with new graphics is expected o cost about 50007500 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 abovementioned tasks will be done on a longterm basis as time permits
2 INFRASTRUCTURFTECHNOLOGY IMPRO VEMENTS
Many workshop attendees indicated srong support for a comprehensive online
permitting system see Attachment 13 Sven of the 15 attendees at the first workshop
indicated support for the acquisition anc 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 thE costs of acquiring a new permitting system
some attendees wanted to keep access to aper plans
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission comments ancl recommendations will be forwarded to City
Council for consideration Once the Council provides direction on issues to focus on
staff will bring related ordinance amE ndments to the Planning Commission for
consideration
Prepared by Piu Ghosh Associate P1annEr
Reviewed by Approved by
Gary C ao Aarti S vastava
City Planner Community Development Director
i6
280
CP201001 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9 2010
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Recommended Approval Authority and Public Engagement
Process ACT
Attachment 1A Current and pioposed noticing requirements
Attachment 2 Matrix Consuling Groups report titled Management Stcdy
of the Permit Prcess dated November 17 2009
Attachment 3 Summary tabl of recommendations in the Matrix report
with staff conunerts
Attachment 4 Planning Convnission Staff Report dated April 13 2010
Attachment 5 Planning Corrunission minutes from Apri113 2010 meeting
Attachment 6 Plaruzing Corrunission Staff Report dated Apri127 2010
Attachment 7 Planning Comnission minutes from Apri127 2010 meeting
Attachment 8 Planning Corrunission Staff Report dated May 11 2010
Attachment 9 Planning Con 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 Ju ly 28 2010 group workshop attendees
Attachment 13 Summarized r otes and analysis from July 28 2010 group
workshop
Attachment 14 Handouts to SEptember 8 2010 group workshop attendees
Attachment 15 Tally of Apprcval Authority from September 8 2010 group
workshop anc comparison of current level of approval
authority and group recommendation to the cities of
Mountain Viev Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
Attachment 16 Transcribed notes from September 8 2010 group workshop
Attachment 17 Comparison oE approval authority on projects approved
between 2006 a nd 2009 and group recommendations
Attachment 18 Draft standards and example for onsite signage related to
development p roposals
G Planning PDREPORT pc CP reports 2010 CPreport P201001 PC 110910doc
j7
281
ATTACHMENT M
Comments from November 23, 2010 from Subcommittee on process changes
Comments from the subcommittee related to internal administrative processes focused
on the following key principles:
1. Customer service comes first.
2. Coordinate the development process so that projects are processed in parallel among
all departments to make for a seamless and efficient experience.
3. Provide consistency among staff and across departments to allow for certainty in the
process.
4. Provide online resources, training and workshops to applicants, contractors and the
public to help them understand the permit process.
5. Use feedback from participants in the process including applicants, the public, staff
and decision-makers to make continuous improvements to internal processes.
The following are specific comments related to the abovementioned principles:
A. Promote Case Manager approach to projects
B. Avoid inconsistency related to project requirements or code interpretations
among staff members – by having regular staff discussion and sessions on project
conditions and requirements.
C. Improve consistency and clarity in the review process (i.e., clarify interpretations
and definitions) – for example, what items need to be completed before final
occupancy is granted and what items can be deferred with bonds, agreements,
etc.?
D. Clarify and/or simplify dependencies of the development review process – for
example – is a tentative map application required before architectural site
approval for home design for a subdivision can be approved?
E. Promote parallel processes where possible
F. On-site signage for projects is a good idea
G. Improve inter-departmental coordination
H. Provide online training resources and links for information such as the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements, Green Building resources, etc.
I. Host “how to” workshops, especially for first-time users of the permitting
process – for example, single-family homeowners considering an
addition/remodel or building a new home.
J. Create “how-to” manuals
K. Allow flexibility (i.e., tree selection for privacy protection trees and/or mitigation
for removal of protected trees)1
282
L. Streamline process and approval requirements (i.e., remove architectural review
for two story home approvals1
M. Consider eliminating onerous requirements (i.e., story poles, noticing,
landscaping requirements, tree removal process) 1
N. Review ways to get input on improvements from users of the process including
survey cards for applicants, discussions with staff, Commissioners, Council, etc.
Notes:
1. May require ordinance amendment(s).
283
Application Flowchart to Approval 2/3/2011
Flowchart does not account for the applicant's response times and/or multiple reviews
Preliminary
Review (15 Days).
Pre hearing Review
(~14 Days). Plans routed to Building, Planning,
Public Works, Fire and Sanitary District and
departments such as Health, Sheriff, Water
District etc. as necessary.
Provide Applicant Comments on issues and
changes. May be iterative. Turnaround depends
on applicant completeness and turnaround
Does it need
Arborist/Geotechnical/Traffic
Impact/Acoustical Review?
Comments
to applicant
Contact applicant outlining
issues and changes required
Pre-hearing meeting:
1. Any issues or
concerns?
2. Preliminary conditions
of approval
Noticing 21
days prior
to hearing
Applicant to make changes to plans
and resubmit and/or respond to
comments. Must receive plans 3-4
weeks prior to hearing date to allow
review time.
Building
Department Planning
Departmen
Environmental
considerations?
Architectural
considerations?
Land Use/Zoning
considerations?
Public Works
Department
Fire
Department
Yes
No Draft Staff Report
to Planning
Manager due 12
days prior to
Draft Staff Report
to CDD due 10
days prior to
Neighborhood
meeting, if
Report to CM due
6 days prior to
hearing date
PC hearing
Initital consultation
with planner
Collect deposit
and initiate
contract
Consultant review (3
weeks, more for
complicated projects)
Consultant
draft report
to planner
Planner review
(3-5 days)
Applicant to
update plans
Formal
Submittal
File to admin
for file
preparation
File to City
Planner for
review and
File to
Planner for
review
Plans to admin
for routing (1
week max)
Sanitary
District
Water
Companies
Water
District
Health
Departmen
Sheriff's
Department
School
District
Alcohol and
Beverage Control Other State and
County Agencies
ERC
Packet to DRC/PC 4
days prior to meeting
Packet to CC 5 days
prior to meeting date
Final
Decision?
Building
Permit
DRC or
PC or CC?
No
Yes
Any modifications
required//made?
No
Additional staff or
consultant review Yes
DRC/PC
CC
CC hearing
Reconsideration?
Appeal?
Yes
No
Talk to Bldg/Public
Works and Fire
Finalize technical
review scop e and
budget
Additional
Review/clarification?
Yes
No
One week max.
2nd round of review
if necessary.
Yes
284
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
1 of 12
ASA-2007-01, U-2007-01,
TM-2007-01, EA-2007-01 Frank Ho
Four lot subdivision,
four new houses
(Linnet homes)
Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for four
single family residences in a planned development PC PC
ASA-2007-02
Steve
Peterson
Exterior signs, façade
details (California
Pizza Kitchen)
Architectural Site Approval for exterior signs, canopy
and awnings for California Pizza Kitchen (Vallco
Fashion Park)DRC Admin.
ASA-2007-03, TR-2007-02,
EXC-2007-06, V-2007-02, EA-
2007-02
Michael
Ducote
117 apartment units,
park, parking
exception, variance
from side, front and
rear yard setbacks
(Villa Serra)
pp
117 apartment units, a public park, a recreational
facility, and leasing office within an existing
apartment complex (Villa Serra/The Grove),for a total
of 505 units with exception to side, front and rear
setback, a parking variance and associated tree
removals.CC PC
ASA-2007-04, U-2007-02,
TM-2007-05, EA-2007-03,
TR-2007-09
Metro
Planning
Group 6 unit single family PD
Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative
Map for a new six-unit single family residential planned
development with associated Tree Removals.CC CC
ASA-2007-05, U-2007-03,
TM-2007-08, TR-2007-03,
EXC-2007-08, EA-2007-05
Clifford
Chang
Retail building,
parking garage
(Tantau Retail)
Architectural Site Approval of a proposed 10,650
square foot retail building and one-level parking garage
on an existing office site, Tentative Map to subdivide
a parcel into two with associated Tree Removals and an
exception to the front setback in the Heart of the
City Specific Plan Area.CC CC
CC approval
since
Heart of
the City
Exception
required.
ASA-2007-06, U-2007-04,
TM-2007-09, EA-2007-06 Karen Ngo
4 story hotel, 3 story
mixed use retail (Oaks
Hotel & Retail bldgs)
Architectural and Site approval and Use Permit for a
proposed 4-story, 122 room hotel, 3-story 56,194
square foot mixed use retail/office/convention center
building over an underground parking podium and site
improvements at an existing shopping center.
Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into two and
condominiumizing one parcel further.CC CC
ASA-2007-07 Strike, Inc.Exterior signs
Architectural and Site Approval for exterior signs at
Cupertino Square (formerly Vallco Fashion Park)DRC Admin.
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
285
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
2 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
ASA-2007-08 Susan Chen
Outdoor dining area
along SCB
Architectural Site Approval for an outdoor dining area
at an existing restaurant DRC Admin.
ASA-2007-09, U-2007-05,
TM-2007-10 Terry Brown
2 unit single family PD
on Pasadena
Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative
Map for two single family residences, 2,838 square
feet each, in a planned development zoning district PC Admin.
ASA-2007-10, U-2007-06,
EA-2007-08
Brian
Replinger
2 single story retail
bldgs, parking garage
(Cupertino Village)
Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for two
one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet
and a two-level parking deck CC PC
ASA-2007-12, TM-2007-11, U-
2007-08
Jyan-Ping
Lily Chang
2 new houses on
Pasadena
Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative
Map for two, two-story 2,193 square foot single family
residences PC Admin.
ASA-2007-14, U-2007-09,
TR-2007-06, EA-2007-10
Tantau
Investments,
LLC 2 story office building
Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for a
100,000 square foot, two-story office building and
site improvements with associated tree removals.CC PC
ASA-2007-15, U-2007-10 Jody Chan
New daycare center
(Legend Learning Ctr)
Architectural Site Approval for site modifications and
Use Permit for a Day Care Center/Specialized School PC PC
ASA-2007-16 Mahesh Patel
Landscaping, parking
modifications
(Furniture 2000)
Architectural Site Approval for façade, landscaping
and parking lot modifications for an existing
commercial building PC PC
ASA-2007-17 Keith Kolkar
Final Architectural
details and Landscape
improvements (Las
Palmas)
Architectural Site Approval for final building and
landscaping plans for an approved residential
development DRC Admin.
ASA-2007-18, M-2007-03
Union Church
of Cupertino
New 5,000 s.f.
building
Architectural Site Approval and Modification of a Use
Permit for a new 5,000 square foot building PC Admin.
ASA-2007-19 Li-Sheng Fu New 2 story duplex
Architectural Site Approval for a new two-story 3,676
duplex DRC Admin.
EXC-2007-01
Jonathan
Hobbs
Sign exception
(Symantec)
Sign Exception to exceed the allowed height for a wall
sign DRC Admin.
286
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
3 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
EXC-2007-02
Jennifer
Jodoin
Hillside Exception for
2nd story addition
(DeCarli home)
Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot
second story addition to an existing residence for a
total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500
square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a
prominent ridgeline PC PC
EXC-2007-03, DIR-2007-05 Aaron Kelsey
Sign exception
(Marketplace)
Sign Exception to exceed the allowed sign height for
sign on a tower element DRC Admin.
EXC-2007-04 Amar Gupta Fence exception
Fence Exception to construct a driveway gate at an
existing single family residence DRC Admin.
EXC-2007-07 Whole Foods Sign exception
Sign Exception for two additional wall signs, with two
on one wall face, and an exception to exceed the
allowed height of 48" inches DRC Admin.
EXC-2007-09, EA-2007-07 Kathy Yates Hillside exception
Hillside Exception to construct a new 5,765 sq. ft.
residence on slopes greater than 30% slope PC PC
EXC-2007-10 Sasha Cukic Fence exception
Fence exception to construct a fence in the front
setback area of a single-family residence DRC Admin.
INT-2007-01 Greg Malley
Car wash consistent
w/ PD, Rec & Ent zone
(Homestead Lanes)
Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is
consistent with the Planned Development,
Recreation/Entertainment Zoning District PC Admin.
M-2007-01
Masayoshi
Fujioka
Extend hours of
operation (Kiku Sushi)
Modification to a Use Permit (20-U-99) to extend the
hours of operation of an existing restaurant to 9:30
PM (with patrons/employees leaving by 11 PM) Monday
through Friday and 10 PM on Friday and Saturday
(with patrons/employees leaving by 1AM)PC PC
M-2007-02, U-2007-11 Evershine
Clarify food services
allowance at
Marketplace
Modification to an existing Use Permit (16-U-76) to
modify the conditions under which food services
businesses will be allowed in the Marketplace Shopping
Center along the rear service corridor CC PCTM-2007-02, ASA-2006-22,
U-2006-13, Z-2006-05, EA-
2006-18
Lawrence
Guy
22 residential units
(Las Palmas)
Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1 acre parcel into 21
parcels and one common parcel CC CC
287
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
4 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
TM-2007-03, V-2007-03 Tracy Hsu 2 lot subdivision
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46 acre parcel into two
parcels, 8,375 square feet and 11,470 square feet
respectively CC PC
TM-2007-04
Rick
Bleszynski 3 lot subdivision
Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three
parcels, ranging from 6,650 to 7,047 square feet PC Admin.
TM-2007-06 Terry Brown
3 parcel condominiums
(Hu)
Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use
development into three parcels PC Admin.
TM-2007-07 Terry Brown
3 parcel condominiums
(Peng)
Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use
development into three parcels PC Admin.
TM-2007-12 Terry Brown
3 parcel condominiums
(Ghazvini)
Tentative Map to create three condominiums units,
one commercial and two residential, on a previously
approved mixed-use development PC Admin.
V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14, TM-
2006-12 Jitka Cymbal
2 lot subdivision with
variance to allow 50
foot wide lots where
60 foot is required
Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into two with
variance to allow 50 foot wide lots where 60 foot is
required.PC PC
ASA-2008-02, EXC-2008-09
Ray
Newcomer
Exterior changes
(TGI Friday)
Architectural and Site approval for a new exterior
entrance and minor exterior changes to an existing
restaurant (TGI Friday's) located at Cupertino Square
Shopping Center DRC Admin.
ASA-2008-03 Mike Ducote
Landscape
improvements and
final green building
measures (Villa Serra)
Architectural and Site approval of a landscape street
improvement plan and final details of the Green
Building measures according to the conditions of
approval as directed by the City Council at their
meeting of July 3, 2007 DRC Admin.
ASA-2008-04
Brian
Replinger
Final building and
landscape details
(Cupertino Village)
Architectural and Site approval to finalize the
architectural, site and landscaping plans for an
approved Use Permit (U-2007-06)DRC Admin.
288
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
5 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
ASA-2008-05, EA-2008-06,
TR-2008-06, M-2008-03 Tim Kelly
3 new two story
office buldings
(Results Way)
Architectural and Site approval and Modification of an
existing Use Permit for the demolition of five
buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the
development of three new, two-story office buildings
containing 155,500 sqaure feet, a two-level, 204 space
parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping
improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office park
(Results Way Campus) and associated Tree Removals.CC PC
ASA-2008-06, EA-2008-07,
U-2008-01, TR-2008-08, TM-
2008-01
Kevin
Dare/500
Forbes LLC
Mixed use- retail,
commercial, hotel,
housing (Main Street)
Architectural and Site Approval for a master plan for
a mixed-use development consisting of approximately:
147,000 square feet of retail commercial, 100,000
square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 160 unit
senior (age restricted) housing, facility, 145,000
square foot athletic club, a four level parking garage
and a 1.6 acre park/town square. (A project alternative
consists of approximately 205,000 square feet of
office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic
club).CC CC
ASA-2008-07, EA-2008-08,
U-2008-02, TR-2008-09
Rajeev
Chopra
5 story hotel (Shashi
Hotel)
Architectural and Site Approval for a proposed 5-
story, 138-room hotel of approximately 82,000 square
feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and
conference rooms built over a two-level underground
parking podium that contains tandem parking.CC PC
ASA-2008-08 Tom Dyer
Landscape and minor
building improvements
(St.Jude’s)
Architectural and Site Approval for landscaping,
parking improvements, and accessory structures at an
existing church.DRC Admin.
ASA-2008-09
Christine
Liang
New chiller bldg,
seismic upgrades (HP)
Architectural and Site Approval for the addition of a
new chiller building to support a new lab, seismic
upgrades to the existing building, a building façade
change, tree removal and upgraded landscaping plan
for Building 47.DRC Admin.
289
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
6 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
EXC-2008-01 Evershine
Sign exception
(Marketplace)
Sign Exception to exceed the number of allowed
tenant names on a monument sign, to exceed the
allowed maximum sign height and to exceed the
number of allowed signs for several tenants as part of
a sign program DRC Admin.
EXC-2008-02, RM-2008-07
Michael
Abler R1 setback exception
Single Family Residential Exception to construct a
portion of a side-yard addition to within five feet of
the north, side property line DRC DRC
EXC-2008-03 Tenny Tsai
Sign exception (Civic
Park, LLC)
Sign Exception for a monument sign in the public right
of way and second wall sign DRC Admin.
EXC-2008-04 Barbara Ford
Sign exception (Jiffy
Lube)
Sign Exception for a proposed logo to exceed the
allowed height (Jiffy Lube)DRC Admin.
EXC-2008-05 Karen Ngo
Sign exception
(Cupertino Landing
former Any Mountain)
Sign Exception for a ground sign more than 8 feet tall
measuring from the sidewalk grade and a ground sign
area exceeding 100 square feet DRC Admin.
EXC-2008-06 Susan Chen R1 setback exception
Single Family Residential Exception to construct a
portion of a single story addition to within five feet of
the non-cornforming side yard setback DRC DRC
EXC-2008-10 John Jeong R1 setback exception
Exception to the Single Family Residential
Development regulations to reduce the front yard
setback on an irregularly shaped lot by approximately
one foot resulting in an approximately 19 foot front
yard setback for a portion of a new two car garage at
an existing home DRC DRC
EXC-2008-11, R-2008-18 Sabrina Ellis
2nd floor exposed wall
exception in R1
Residential Design Exception to allow more than 50%
of a second floor, exposed wall height to exceed 6
feet Admin.Admin.
EXC-2008-12, R-2008-19 Mohsen Jalili Setback exception
Residential Design Review Exception to reduce the
required 10 foot surcharge to 4.5 feet for a new DRC DRC
290
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
7 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
EXC-2008-13
Breanna
Chamberlin Set back exception
Residential Design Exception for a portion of a 910
square foot single story addition to encroach into the
required front yard setback DRC DRC
291
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
8 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
EXC-2008-14, TR-2008-05 Amy Cheng
Hillside exception for
a home
Hillside Exception for a new two story, 3304 square
foot, single family residence on a slope greater than
30%.PC PC
EXC-2008-15
Kyi Chow
Shar
Sign exception
(Evertrust Bank at
Crossroads Shopping
Center)
Sign Exception request to allow signs to exceed the
number and maximum hight limitations at an existing
commercial building (EverTrust Bank) located at 20510
Stevens Creek Boulevard.DRC Admin.
EXC-2008-16 Quynh Tran Garage exception
Exception request to construct a one-car garage
where a two-car garage is required by ordinance at an
existing single family residence.DRC DRC
EXC-2008-17, V-2008-01,
DIR-2008-37
Dayna
Aguirre
Height exception for
a wireless
antenna/personal
communication facility
(T-Mobile)
Height Exception to allow 8 panel antennas to be
mounted at a height of 94 feet 4 inches and a
microwave dish to be mounted at a height of 85 feet 6
inches on a lattice tower where 55 feet is allowed.PC PC
M-2008-01, TR-2008-04
Jennifer
Jodoin
Modification to
hillside exception (De
Carli home)
Modification of a Hillside Exception (EXC-1995-06) to
allow a 328 square foot second story addition to an
existing residence on a prominent ridgeline PC PC
M-2008-04 Mike Ducote
Modification to
required fees (Villa
Serra Apts)
Modification of the Architecture and Site approval
(ASA-2007-03) to amend the fees required by the
conditions of approval.CC CC
M-2008-05
Jackie
Horton
Modification to
parking agreement
(Apple)
Modification to a Use Permit (11-U-77) to allow a
shared parking agreement between two office
buildings at 20400 Mariani Avenue and 10500 North
De Anza Boulevard.PC Admin.
TM-2008-02 Terry Brown 3 parcel condominiums
Tentative Map to divide a new mixed-use building into
2 commercial units and 1 residential condominium unit.PC Admin.
292
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
9 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
ASA-2009-01, U-2009-01 Eugene Sakai
New commercial,
modification to
existing bldg
(Learning Game)
Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit for
construction of a 2,159 square foot retail commercial
building, conversion of an existing 2,917 square foot
former auto repair buidling into retail commercial and
associated site improvements.PC Admin.
ASA-2009-02, U-2009-02
Muthana
Ibrahim
New car wash (Valero
Gas Station)
Architectural and Site and Use Permit to allow the
construction of a new automated carwash tunnel, a new
trash enclosure and enhancements to the parking lot,
and new landscaping features at an existing gas
station.PC PC
ASA-2009-03 Barre Barnes
New house in Oak
Valley
Architectural & Site Approval for a proposed new
5,202 square foot, two-story, single family residence
in a Planned Development Residential DRC Admin.
ASA-2009-04, EXC-2009-02
Dayna
Aguirre
Height exception for
a wireless
antenna/personal
communication facility
(T-Mobile)
Architectural & Site Approval and Height Exception to
allow the replacement of an existing 60-foot tall
baseball field light pole with a wireless
telecommunications facility, consisting of a base
equipment enclosure and a 75-foot tall monopole that
will carry six panel antennas and the baseball field
lights.PC PC
ASA-2009-05, U-2009-05 Tim Raduenz
Set back exception &
addition
Architectural & Site Approval and Use Permit for a
441 square foot garage within 3 feet of the sideyard
setback and a 368 square foot residential addition
with a reduced rearyeard setback located in a light
industrial zone.DRC DRC
ASA-2009-06, TR-2009-17
Greg
Murakami
Exterior modification
to office building
Architectural & Site Approval for exterior building
modifications and landscaping improvements and Tree
Removals at an existing office building.DRC Admin.
293
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
10 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
ASA-2009-07, U-2009-07,
TM-2009-05 Terry Brown
2 new houses on
Pasadena (Adzich)
Architectural & Site Approval and Use Permit to
construct two new, two-story single family residences
with two new detached granny units in a Planned
Development District.Tentative Map to subdivide a
parcel in to two.PC Admin.
ASA-2009-08, U-2009-08,
EA-2009-11, TR-2010-08
Ken
Rodrigues
4 new commercial
bldgs (PW Market)
Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit to
allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing
commercial space and the construction of 146,458
square feet of new commercial space consisting of
four new commercial satellite buildings and three new
major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center.
The approval also allows a 24-hour drive-through
pharmacy and a second drive-through at one of the
satellite buildings to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m including associated Tree Removals.CC PC
EXC-2009-07, DIR-2009-20 Gordon Bell
Height exception for
a wireless
antenna/personal
communication facility
(Clearwire)
Height Exception to allow three panel antennas to be
mounted at a height of 149 feet and three microwave
dishes mounted at a height of 148 feet where 55 feet
is the maximum height allowed.PC PC
PC approval
since
height
exception
was
requested.
EXC-2009-08, DIR-2009-21 Gordon Bell
Height exception for
a wireless
antenna/personal
communication facility
(Clearwire)
Height Exception to allow three panel antennas to be
mounted at a height of about 158 feet and three
microwave dishes mounted at a height of about 157
feet on a PG&E lattice tower extension where 55 feet
is the maximum height allowed.PC PC
PC approval
since
height
exception
was
requested.
294
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
11 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
EXC-2009-09, DIR-2009-36 Gordon Bell
Height exception for
a wireless
antenna/personal
communication facility
(Clearwire)
Height exception for antennas to be mounted at a
height of 97 & 98 feet where 55 feet is the maximum.PC PC
PC approval
since
height
exception
was
requested.
M-2009-01 Tenny Tsai
Modification of uses
(Civic Park)
Modification to an existing Use Permit (U-2002-06) to
amend the conditions to allow specialized tutorial or
studio uses, and the amount of office/retail uses along
De Anza Boulevard. Includes a reassessment of the
shared parking arrangement within the parking
structure.CC PC
M-2009-02 Tim Kelly
Modification to Use
Permit to extend
permit for five years,
phasing, clarifying
conditions and
modification of
traffic and signal
conditions (Results
Way)
Major Amendment modifying the Architectural and
Site Approval (ASA-2008-05), Use Permit
Modification (M-2008-03), Director’s Minor
Modification (DIR-2008-32) and Tree Removal Permit
(TR-2008-06) for the purpose of extending the
expiration date of these approvals for six years,
phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval,
and modifying the traffic and signal improvement
condition.CC PC
M-2009-03 Suna Lai
New Childcare facility
(Growing Tree)
Modification to a Use Permit (49-U-87) to allow an
approximately 6,670 square foot preschool & daycare
facility to operate at an existing commercial building.
The application also includes a new outdoor play area in
a section of the existing rear parking lot.CC PC
M-2009-05 Anjali Arora
New afterschool
program (Bethel
Lutheran)
Modification to the Use Permit (6-U-86) to allow an
afterschool program for children at the existing
Bethel Lutheran Church PC PC
295
Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009
12 of 12
Comments
Group
RecommendationApplication(s)Name Brief Description
Current
Approval Description
M-2009-06 Elaine Chong
Remove a condition of
approval re: easement
(Metropolitan)
Modification of Use Permit (U-2003-04, Condition
#22) to remove the Public Pedestrian Easement at the
Metropolitan at Cupertino.CC PC
M-2009-07
Catherine
Chen
Modification of uses
to remove "retail only"
condition (Adobe
Terrace)
Modification to an existing Use Permit (U-2004-01) to
amend the conditions to allow commercial/office uses
where only retail had been allowed.CC PC
M-2009-08
Kevin
Pasquinelli
Modification of uses
to allow a private
school (West Valley
Presbyterian Church)
Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (25-
U-83) to allow the operation of a Mandarin Immersion
grammar school.PC PC
TM-2009-02, EA-2009-06 Bigler 4 lot subdivision
Tentative Map to subdivide a 13.47 acre parcel into
four parcels ranging from 2.86 acres to 3.65 acres
each.PC PC
TM-2009-03 Brian Kelly
3 lot subdivision
(Amelia Ct)
Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 42,925
square foot parcel into three parcels ranging from
12,049 to 14,470 square feet.PC Admin.
TM-2009-04 Terry Brown
3 lot subdivision -
condo
Tentative Map request to subdivide one parcel into
three commercial condominium units, one residential
condominium unit, and a common area lot.PC Admin.
U-2009-04
David
O’Mara
Full bar in a
restaurant (Aqui)
Use Permit to allow a full bar to operate inside an
existing restaurant.PC PC
U-2009-09 Cindy Cheng
Daycare center
(Kiddie Academy)
Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare
facility to operate at an existing commercial building.
The application also includes a new outdoor play area in
the existing rear parking lot.CC PC
296
297
298
299
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approved parking pad to be
located at a duplex located at 965-967 Miller Avenue.
Recommended Action
Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council’s decision on the
duplex parking pad at 965-967 Miller Avenue.
Adopt the draft resolution, Denying the Petition of Erwin Wolf seeking Council reconsideration
of its decision to approve the duplex parking pad at 965-967 Miller Avenue (See Attachment A).
Description
Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s Minor
Modification Approval to allow a parking pad in front of a duplex located at 965-967 Miller
Avenue.
Discussion
Background
The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up
to the reconsideration request:
Sept. 23, 2010 Community Development Director approved the duplex parking pad with a
Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-30 (Attachment B).
Oct. 5, 2010 Project approval appealed by adjacent property owner Erwin Wolf
(Attachment C).
Dec. 14, 2010 Appeal heard by Planning Commission who recommended approval of the
appeal on a 3-2-0 vote (Attachment D, E, & F).
Jan. 4, 2011 Appeal heard by City Council, who denied the appeal on a 5-0 vote
(Attachment G, H).
Jan. 18, 2011 Appellant Erwin Wolf files petition for reconsideration (Attachment I).
300
Basis for the Reconsideration
The City’s Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to
petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify
in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any
particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or
grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for
reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its
jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes
the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for
reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City’s findings of fact on
each of these criteria are delineated below.
Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of facts
that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not
supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not
supported by the evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that there are errors in
the City staff report:
1) Staff states there are numerous Miller
Avenue duplexes with parking in the
front setback. However, there is only
one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes
like this one with the parking in the
rear. In both cases, there are no parking
pads in the landscaped front setback.
Driveways of other duplexes are not
front setbacks. This proposed pad
would be the only one on the front
setback.
2) The assumption that no
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle accidents
happened is that this design is safe- is
1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller
Avenue between Atherwood Avenue &
Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct
garage access to Miller Avenue or a side
street and four duplexes have parking in the
rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a
front setback means, which is a designated
building setback from a front property line,
regardless if that front setback area is used
for landscaping, driveways or parking.
2) It is a fact that there have been no reported
accidents of vehicles backing into
pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch
of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years.
Most single-family and two-family
residential houses in Cupertino require
301
wrong.
3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller
Avenue have cars that park much closer
to the garage door, leaving ample room
for safe passage. The proposed pad
with car parked therein would totally
obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of
any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles
exiting from the driveway.
vehicles to back into the public street.
Based on the statistics and the proposed
design, staff noted that the project didn’t
appear to create a significant safety risk.
3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City
Council lengthened the parking pad by
incorporating the abutting pedestrian path,
increasing its length from 17 feet to about
21feet. The longer length meets City
standards for parking stall length. The
parking pad would not hang over the public
sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle
to park over a public sidewalk.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director;
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. City Council draft Resolution and Exhibit 1
B. Director’s Minor Modification Approval dated Sept. 23, 2010
C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated Oct. 5, 2010
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated Dec. 14, 2010
E. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Dec. 14, 2010
F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619
G. City Council Staff Report dated Jan. 4, 2011
H. City Council Meeting Action Minutes of Jan. 4, 2011
I. Petition for Reconsideration filed Jan. 18, 2011
302
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING THE PETITION OF ERWIN WOLF SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION
OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF DIR-2010-30, A DIRECTOR’S MINOR
MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PARKING PAD IN FRONT OF A DUPLEX AT 965-967
MILLER AVENUE
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and
recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director’s Minor Modification approval of a parking
pad in front of an existing duplex at 965-967 Miller Avenue.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the
hearing denied the appeal filed by Erwin Wolf on a 5-0 vote at its meeting of January 4, 2011
.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at
a properly noticed public meeting.
WHEREAS, Erwin Wolf requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the
provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the
parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.
2. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
by denying the appeal of a Director’s approval (file no. DIR-2010-30) of a parking pad
for an existing duplex at 965-967 Miller Avenue. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096(B)(5).)
Specifically, the City Council determines that:
a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1.
b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4,
2011 on item __ is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of February 2011, by the following vote:
303
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ _______________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
304
EXHIBIT 1
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
“A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration.
Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes
that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial
proceeding.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of
its jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.”
Original Petition
The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes
the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for
reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City’s findings of fact on
each of these criteria are set forth below.
Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of
facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was
not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were
not supported by the evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that there are errors
in the City staff report:
1) Staff states there are numerous Miller
Avenue duplexes with parking in the
front setback. However, there is only
one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes
like this one with the parking in the
rear. In both cases, there are no parking
pads in the landscaped front setback.
Driveways of other duplexes are not
1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller
Avenue between Atherwood Avenue &
Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct
garage access to Miller Avenue or a side
street and four duplexes have parking in the
rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a
front setback means, which is a designated
building setback from a front property line,
regardless if that front setback area is used
for landscaping, driveways or parking.
305
front setbacks. This proposed pad
would be the only one on the front
setback.
2) The assumption that no
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle accidents
happened is that this design is safe- is
wrong.
3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller
Avenue have cars that park much closer
to the garage door, leaving ample room
for safe passage. The proposed pad
with car parked therein would totally
obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of
any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles
exiting from the driveway.
2) It is a fact that there have been no reported
accidents of vehicles backing into
pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch
of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years.
Most single-family and two-family
residential houses in Cupertino require
vehicles to back into the public street.
Based on the statistics and typical designs,
staff noted that the project didn’t appear to
create a significant safety risk.
3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City
Council lengthened the parking pad by
incorporating the abutting pedestrian path,
increasing its length from 17 feet to about
21 feet. The longer length meets City
standards for parking stall length. The
parking pad would not hang over the public
sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle
to park over a public sidewalk.
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approval for a personal
wireless service facility consisting of antennas mounted on a monopine and an equipment
enclosure in the rear parking lot of the Results Way Business Park.
Recommended Action
Conduct a hearing on the petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council’s decision on
the personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Business Park.
Adopt the draft resolution, Denying the Petition of Grace Chen and Guo Jin seeking Council
reconsideration of its decision to deny the appeal, and thus approve the personal wireless service
facility at the Results Way Business Park (See Attachment A).
Description
Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission
approvals of the following:
Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve
panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the
Results Way office park.
Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a
height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed.
Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal
Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility.
Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/APN 357-20-042
Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility)
Petitioners: Grace Chen & Guo Jin
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
327
Discussion
Background
The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up
to the reconsideration request:
Sept. 14, 2010 Planning Commission approved the entitlements for the personal wireless
service facility on a 4-1 vote (Attachments B, C, D & L).
Sept. 28, 2010 Project approval appealed by three adjacent neighbors, Allen Wang, Grace
Chen, Guo Jin (Attachment E).
Nov. 1, 2010 Appeal heard by City Council at two meetings who denied the
Jan. 4, 2011 appeal on a 4-1 vote (Attachments F, G, H & I).
Jan. 18, 2011 Appellants Grace Chen & Guo Jin file petition for reconsideration
(Attachment J).
Basis for the Reconsideration
The City’s Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to
petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify
in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any
particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or
grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for
reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its
jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages. Reconsideration of this item constitutes
the fourth full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The grounds for the reconsideration
are summarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims do not bear any
relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City’s findings of fact on each of claims and the
criterion are delineated below.
328
Finding: There are three claims that do not bear any relationship to the Reconsideration criteria
found in municipal code section 2.08.096(B).
Petition Response
Screening landscaping for the monopine needs
to follow strict aesthetic guidelines. We
request the addition of a condition to the
approval that the “additional screening trees at
the northern property line” will conform to that
of the approved redevelopment plans of the
Results Way office park and any revisions or
modifications of those plans. Landscape
screening plans are unclear and should be open
for public view.
Petitioners seek to add and refine development
conditions that have already been adopted by
the City Council (Attachment K) which does
not relate to the reconsideration criteria.
Petitioners’ interests are already addressed by
Council’s added condition #6: “require that
tree planting conform to the approved
development plans of the results way office
park.” In addition to #6, City Council added
six more conditions pertaining to landscaping.
Staff has already agreed to allow Astoria
Townhome owners to informally review the
landscape plans when they are submitted.
Request to add a new condition to the approval
requiring applicant to pay $30,000 to the
Astoria Homeowners Association for
additional irrigation, trees, fencing and related
matters connected to the visual screening of the
wireless facility.
Petitioners seek to add new development
condition to City Council approval, which does
not relate to the reconsideration criteria. There
are no legal grounds to add this condition.
We are talking to the property owners of 10340
& 10420 Bubb Road to explore a lease for a
cell site. This alternative site should have
similar criteria as compared to the approval
with less impact to residents. We request
additional time allowance
There is no evidence or facts that relate to the
reconsideration criteria. The request for
continuance should be denied. The applicant
already evaluated 10420 Bubb Road in its
alternative site analysis (PC staff report).
Applicant cited a lack of room and proximity
to the freeway where AT&T already has
coverage.
Finding: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Monta Vista
High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal
Code, section 2.08.096(1).
Petition Response
The Fremont Union High School District has
recently entered into leases for cell sites at
several other high schools in the District.
More than 5 years have passed since AT&T
approached FUHSD about Monta Vista High
School (H.S.). Given what has happened at
other area high schools, AT&T should go back
and check about antenna opportunities at
The petitioners have not presented any
evidence that FUHSD would be willing to
consider Monta Vista H.S. for cell sites again.
The 2005 City approval of a wireless facility at
Monta Vista H.S. expired in 2007, so the
applicant would need to go through another
public entitlement process again. A request to
place a wireless facility at a school site is not
329
Monta Vista since District criteria may have
evolved.
before the Council.
Based on the above findings and the fact that the petitioners failed to provide relevant
grounds/evidence for the reconsideration, staff recommends that the City Council deny the
reconsideration request and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director,
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. City Council draft Resolution and Exhibit 1
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604
C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10
D. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 9/14/10
E. Appeal filed by Allen Wang, Grace Chen & Guo Jin on 9/28/10
F. City Council staff report dated 11/1/10
G. City Council meeting action minutes of 11/1/10
H. City Council staff report dated 1/4/11
I. City Council meeting action minutes of 1/4/11
J. Petition for Reconsideration filed Jan. 18, 2011
K. City Council Action Letter dated 1/6/11
L. Approved plan set
330
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING THE PETITION OF GRACE CHEN & GUO JIN SEEKING COUNCIL
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF U-2010-03, EXC-
2010-04 & TR-2010-31, A USE PERMIT, HEIGHT EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE PARK
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and
recommendation to deny an appeal of a Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal
approvals to facilitate the development of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way
Office Park.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the
hearing denied the appeal filed by Allen Wang, Grace Chen and Guo Jin on a 4-1 vote at its
meeting of January 4, 2011
.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at
a properly noticed public meeting.
WHEREAS, Grace Chen and Guo Jin requested that the City Council reconsider its
decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the
parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.
2. The petitioners have failed to offer any new evidence that there are any feasible
alternative sites to the project that are less intrusive. (See Municipal Code §
2.08.096(B)(1).) Specifically, the City Council determines that:
a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1.
b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4,
2011 on item __ is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
331
Cupertino this 15th day of February 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ _______________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
332
EXHIBIT 1
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
“A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration.
Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes
that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial
proceeding.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of
its jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.”
Original Petition
The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages. Reconsideration of this item
constitutes the fourth full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The grounds for the
reconsideration are summarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims
do not bear any relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City’s findings of fact on
each of claims and the criterion are delineated below.
Finding: There are three claims that do not bear any relationship to the Reconsideration
criteria found in municipal code section 2.08.096(B).
Petition Response
Screening landscaping for the monopine
needs to follow strict aesthetic guidelines.
We request the addition of a condition to
the approval that the “additional screening
trees at the northern property line” will
conform to that of the approved
redevelopment plans of the Results Way
office park and any revisions or
modifications of those plans. Landscape
screening plans are unclear and should be
open for public view.
Petitioners seek to add and refine
development conditions that have already
been adopted by the City Council
(Attachment K) which does not relate to
the reconsideration criteria. Petitioners’
interests are already addressed by
Council’s added condition #6: “require that
tree planting conform with the approved
development plans of the results way office
park.” In addition to #6, City Council
added six more conditions pertaining to
333
landscaping.
Staff has already agreed to allow Astoria
Townhome owners to informally review
the landscape plans when they are
submitted.
Request to add a new condition to the
approval requiring applicant to pay
$30,000 to the Astoria Homeowners
Association for additional irrigation, trees,
fencing and related matters connected to
the visual screening of the wireless facility.
Petitioners seek to add new development
condition to City Council approval, which
does not relate to the reconsideration
criteria. There are no legal grounds to add
this condition.
We are talking to the property owners of
10340 & 10420 Bubb Road to explore a
lease for a cell site. This alternative site
should have similar criteria as compared to
the approval with less impact to residents.
We request additional time allowance
There is no evidence or facts that relate to
the reconsideration criteria. The request
for continuance should be denied. The
applicant already evaluated 10420 Bubb
Road in its alternative site analysis (PC
staff report). Applicant cited a lack of
room and proximity to the freeway where
AT&T already has coverage.
Finding: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Monta Vista
High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal
Code, section 2.08.096(1).
Petition Response
The Fremont Union High School District
has recently entered into leases for cell
sites at several other high schools in the
District. More than 5 years have passed
since AT&T approached FUHSD about
Monta Vista High School (H.S.). Given
what has happened at other area high
schools, AT&T should go back and check
about antenna opportunities at Monta Vista
since District criteria may have evolved.
The petitioners have not presented any
evidence that FUHSD would be willing to
consider Monta Vista H.S. for cell sites
again. The 2005 City approval of a
wireless facility at Monta Vista H.S.
expired in 2007, so the applicant would
need to go through another public
entitlement process again. A request to
place a wireless facility at a school site is
not before the Council.
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
Attachment A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. ____ Meeting Date: November 1, 2010
Subject
Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility
Recommendation
Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility
consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base
equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park
Description
Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals:
Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve
panel antennas mounted on a 74-foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the
Results Way office park.
Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a
height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed.
Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood
trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility.
Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042
Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility)
Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Background
On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved (4-1 vote; Miller voting
no) a proposal for a 74-foot tall AT&T wireless service monopine located in the northwest corner of
the parking lot at the Results Way office park (Attachments B-resolution, C-hearing minutes, D-
Commission staff report & L- approved plan set) The Commission noted that most of residents’
concerns related to perceived hazards of RF energy, and a radio frequency study determined that the
380
2
cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal
safety standards. The commissioners noted that federal law prohibits cities from making wireless
facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that met federal
standards. Generally, the Commissioners felt that the monopine was well-designed and given its
location and context, the facility would not be visually obtrusive. Commissioner Miller voted no on
the project. He felt the monopine was too visible at the proposed location, being over twice the
height of the existing trees.
The Planning Commission hearing was well attended and comments were received from both
supporters, as well as those who opposed the project. Please see Attachment I for the numerous
emails and letters received. For a detailed Planning Commission hearing discussion, please refer to
the September 14, 2010 Commission meeting minutes (Attachment C).
The Planning Commission decision was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010
(Attachment A – Appeal Request).
Discussion
The basis of the appeal is described below followed by staff comments in italics. Where the
applicant has provided the response, at the request of staff, the comments are so noted:
1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of
Cupertino’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
Appeal Point 1(a): It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as
viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods.
“The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby
and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road.”
Staff Response: The Glossary of the City’s Wireless Master Plan (p. 38) describes a visually
“intrusive” impact as a wireless facility “that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of
conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings.” The project does
not visually contradict its surroundings as it has been camouflaged as a tree and it is sited in a large
landscape strip with other trees of similar shape. The Facilities Master Plan Siting and Design
Guidelines for Lattice Towers and Monopoles recommends that:
“Intrusive and Obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such
artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger
trees near the monopole may be a project requirement.”
The project is already sited in a wide landscape berm with other trees of similar form (Coastal
Redwoods). The Planning Commission approval included the rehabilitation of the irrigation system
and the planting of three 24” box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Trees
planted in this location would have the most beneficial effect in screening views of the project for
nearby Astoria residents.
381
3
The monopine is most visible in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue. It has limited
visibility to McClellan Road as it is separated by over 1,400 feet of landscaping with tall, mature
trees and over 650 feet of intervening landscaping and buildings to Bubb Road.
Appeal Point 1(b): It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously
with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood.
The proposed 74’ tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings.
Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40
feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly
taller. Existing landscaping has a height similar to the surrounding buildings of approximately 30
feet.
Staff Response: It is more appropriate to make height comparisons between the proposed monopine
with the existing vegetation, rather than the buildings. The project lot is large and the topography
varies. While the redwood trees (25-35 feet tall) immediately around the monopine (74 feet) are
much shorter, the closest building is 265 feet away and is on a grade 10 feet higher than the
proposed facility. Ideally to make the monopine blend better with the surrounding, it should be
located near those existing trees of comparable height in the landscape strip; however, those taller
trees directly abut residences and the 75-foot setback requirement between a wireless facility and a
residential property line could not be met.
The 74-foot height for the monopine is needed for two reasons:
1) The monopine must be tall enough to see over the buildings in order to provide cell
coverage to residential neighborhoods and schools south of the project site; and
2) Provide an opportunity for another wireless carrier to collocation its antennas on the
monopine.
The City requires wireless carriers to consider collocation opportunities when they propose new
monopoles in order to reduce the proliferation of new wireless facilities and if it will reduce the
visual intrusiveness of having more new facilities in the area. Given the difficulty of finding suitable
wireless facility sites in this area and the fact that two other wireless carriers are looking for a
Monta Vista location, makes this monopine a strong candidate for collocation.
AT&T has indicated to staff that the 74-foot height is the minimum height needed for the carrier to
meet its coverage objectives for the area, regardless if whether the collocation of antennas is
permitted in the future or not.
Appeal Point 1(c ): It violates the following policy:
Policy 6-3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so
that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings.
It does not blend in with the current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the
382
4
surrounding buildings, of approximately 30 feet….The proposed cell tower will be significantly
taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current
Cupertino City Ordinance – and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood – does not allow
structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet.
Staff Response: The difference in height between the monopine and surrounding structures has been
answered in the previous response. The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC
Section 19.108, Attachment G) permits a maximum structure height of 55 feet. Taller structure
heights may be allowed with a height exception approval. New wireless facilities with similar
heights have been approved by the City in the past.
The wireless facility has been designed to be compatible with its surroundings with faux bark,
branching limbs and needle covers on the antennas to hide the antennas (Attachment F-
photosimulations). Additional conditions were approved by the Planning Commission to give the
monopine a more natural appearance. They include mottling the green color of the artificial
needles and shaping and adding branching to give it a more natural appearance. Another condition
requires the applicant to perform regular maintenance to maintain the appearance of the monopine.
2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in the City of Cupertino’s
Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies:
Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency radiation
assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close
proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines.
Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for all co-located
antennas. (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines).
The radio frequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, dated
August 20, 2010 is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about
65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56’ above
ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also the bottom elevation of future antennas
proposed at lower elevations.
A radio frequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers
and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other carriers. AT&T
has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year’s application,
AT&T had proposed six antennas. The City should not approve more antennas than actually needed
to improve coverage.
Staff Response: A last minute design change lowered the height of six of the twelve proposed
antennas from 65 feet to 56 feet. An updated radio frequency study for the revised 12-antenna
design (Attachment J) with the lowered tier of antennas demonstrates that the radio frequency
energy exposure plus the contribution from the existing, next door, Sprint-Nextel personal wireless
service facility is still well within the Federal safety standard. The maximum calculated cumulative
level of radio frequency emissions at ground is 0.73% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE).
383
5
At the second floor elevation of any nearby residence, the exposure is 0.92% of the MPE. On the
rooftop of any nearby non-residential building, the exposure is estimated to be 2.4% of the MPE.
According to the applicant, the number of antennas has changed from the initial six requested in the
2009 application to the 12 requested as part of this application because it would allow AT&T the
flexibility to add additional antennas as new technology is deployed. The proposed 12 antennas
have been included on all drawings, photo-simulations, project descriptions and in the City staff
report. Furthermore the Hammett & Edison radio frequency energy report based its analyses and
conclusions of the facility utilizing all 12 antennas operating at maximum power levels.
Also, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff will require a new radio frequency
energy study when a future antenna collocation proposal is made. Staff normally requires a new
radio frequency study whenever an antenna collocation occurs, but the City Council may add it as a
requirement to its action on the appeal.
3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map
based on the proposed location.
An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site
should be studied and reviewed. The City should not approve a wireless facility application without
even seeing a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Three different coverage
maps have been available:
• The first coverage map included with the Planning Commission staff report shows the
proposed facility near the intersection of Imperial Avenue and McClellan Road. If the
facility is incorrectly placed on the map, then the proposed coverage area is likely wrong too.
• The second coverage map from AT&T’s website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/,
with zip code 95014) shows good coverage for most of Monta Vista.
• The third coverage map was presented by AT&T’s representative at the September 14, 2010
Planning Commission Hearing shows that at the proposed facility site that there is no/limited
coverage.
Staff Response: Please see Attachment K for the updated coverage maps (showing existing and
proposed coverage) with the location of the facility accurately depicted.
The applicant states that its website (www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer) coverage maps were
developed to allow existing and potential AT&T customers the ability to view the general level of
coverage in a geographic area. AT&T included a statement on the website to ensure viewers
understand the limitations of the website, noting that actual coverage area may differ substantially
from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage,
buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T also
noted that the maps shown on the AT&T web page are intended for use for the general public and
are not as detailed as the radio frequency engineering maps submitted to the city and discussed at
the planning commission public hearing. The radio frequency coverage maps are based on data
taken in the field and sophisticated computer programs and models that provide a graphical
representation of existing coverage as well as coverage if the proposed facility is built. Wireless
384
6
networks are dynamic and their performance is influenced by a number of factors including the
geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding
sites and the number of users accessing the network. The level of coverage in a geographic area
served by a wireless facility is also impacted by these factors.
4. It was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing that at times cell coverage was good
in Monta Vista. It was also mentioned that there was a significant degradation in coverage
especially during after-school hours and after-work hours when many parents are calling
their children. More than 4,400 students plus teachers and administrators arrive at school
and are dismissed within a 30-60 minutes interval. Given this, if this is the problem, then
capacity issues may be misconstrued as “poor coverage.” This issue still needs to be
explored and discussed. The need for the facility is not clear-cut, perhaps other alternatives
can resolve this issue.
Staff response: The applicant states that the level of coverage in a geographic area served by a
wireless facility is impacted by numerous factors, including the geography of the surrounding area,
heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding (wireless facility) sites and the
number of users accessing that facility at any given time. For instance, sites located near freeways
usually have peak times that correspond to the peak traffic hours on the freeway. As traffic
increases on the freeway, more people in the same geographic area are attempting to make calls
and once the wireless network reaches capacity, no more calls can be initiated and existing calls
may be dropped. So, even though there may be “coverage” in an area, the level of service may be
lower than expected due to an increase in network traffic.
Staff notes that the 2007 Technology, Information and Communications Commission survey of cell
phone users in Cupertino documented that the Monta Vista/Kennedy Schools/Bubb Road/McClellan
Road area was the number one poor cell phone coverage area in Cupertino
Staff also believes that the perception of “good” cell phone coverage has also evolved over the
years. Historically, consumers used cell phones when they were mobile (i.e. outdoors). Nowadays,
consumers expect their cell phones to operate at work and at home (i.e. in buildings). In general,
low-power radio signals are inadequate to provide good in-building coverage and wireless networks
must be built-up and expanded in order to provide better in-building cell phone coverage.
5. Alternative locations and structures should expand to larger areas.
Since the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative
locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings. It is also clear that a smaller
structure, such as roof-mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the
coverage in this area, instead of the 74-foot tall treepole. Half of Monta Vista area has good
coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet there is no Sprint or Verizon cell
phone tower near the residential area. Why is a 74-foot tall monopole the only viable solution to
improve AT&T coverage? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof-mounted antennas
serve as a potential solution?
385
7
Staff Response: Sprint-Nextel’s wireless facility is located on Imperial Avenue next door to the
Astoria Townhomes; the closest Verizon Wireless site is on the De Anza College campus. Staff has
summarized AT&T’s and city staff’s 5-year search and evaluation for a suitable Monta Vista
wireless facility site in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D).
As part of their due diligence, AT&T also approached other property owners in the general area
including, the following:
Potential Co-Location Opportunity:
• 10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino – The property owner and AT&T were not interested in
pursuing a lease due to lack of room for a facility.
Other Alternative Locations Explored:
• Monta Vista High School - The project was subsequently approved by the city however, due
to concerns raised by parents and neighbors, the school board declined to enter into a lease
agreement to permit the facility to be constructed. At that time, suggestions were made by
opponents of the project and city staff to move the location of the facility out of the
residentially-zoned areas and look at commercial properties to the northeast that had
sufficient space to accommodate the proposed use.
• 21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino –The property owner and AT&T were not interested in
lease due to lack of room for a facility.
• Industrial Areas to the East-These were reviewed and had no available space (without taking
up parking spaces) or were too close to the freeway where AT&T currently has coverage
from existing facilities to the northeast and southeast.
• Utility Poles – these are used in extreme locations where a standard wireless facility cannot
be built (steep hillsides, public right-of-way, etc.). If utility poles are used, height is
compromised and it would take multiple facilities to obtain the same coverage that one
standard facility (such as the one proposed) can obtain.
• Sites on Results Way - The applicant submitted an application to the city in 2008 to place the
proposed facility near the southwest corner of the office park. This initial site was rejected
by staff, so the applicant sought an alternate location in the rear parking lot landscape strip
near the building. This site was reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing but the
application was ultimately withdrawn because of conflicts with a utility easement. A third
location on the property was proposed by the applicant in June 2010 (current proposal).
Due to future development plans on the subject property and proximity to existing utility
easements and overhead power lines, the current location was ultimately selected as a
compromise location that met the requirements of the city while allowing AT&T to meet most
of the original coverage objectives.
386
8
Staff notes that the Results Way Office Park consists of three separate parcels. The entire focus of
the current application has been on the rear parcel that is furthest away from McClellan Road.
Most other alternative sites on the properties were not feasible because of the property owner’s
approved redevelopment plans, utility easements and closer proximity to residential properties.
Selection of an alternative site on the other two parcels would require a separate City review.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments
A. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10
B. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10
E. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Letter dated 6/23/10
F. Photosimulations of monopine (3)
G. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map
H. Communications from TIC Commissioners
I. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters
J. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino,
California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10
K. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps (updated)
L. Planning Commission-approved Plan Set
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency
Recommended Action
A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-01
B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11-
Description
Adopt corresponding resolutions authorizing the City and Agency to enter into the Agreement.
Discussion
In order to receive property taxes, State law requires that the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
(RDA) file an annual report showing the obligations of the RDA. RDA obligations consists of
City advance funding of RDA expenditures, low and moderate income housing fund
contributions, State payments, property taxes passed-through to local jurisdictions, and tax
reassessments due back to taxpayers. The RDA can pay back the City after the property taxes
are received.
The RDA finances the Vallco project area’s public improvements and administrative programs
described in the redevelopment implementation plan. The implementation plan includes public
infrastructure improvements such as construction and installation of street modifications, access
ramps, drainage facilities, and street trees in the Vallco project area.
Vallco Shopping Mall has not been able to move forward with the construction of these
improvements due mainly to the economic recession. These infrastructure improvements are
within the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency boundaries and meet redevelopment law criteria
regarding funding of public infrastructure. In order to provide a potential catalyst to development
in the Redevelopment area, the City and RDA could finance the public improvements at the Mall
with the RDA reimbursing the City for any advancement of funds. Staff will provide a
supplemental staff report to the Council regarding the infrastructure improvements by February
11, 2011.
412
The City General Fund will advance $650,000 toward public infrastructure improvements in
2010-11 with the RDA reimbursing the General Fund once the taxes are received this fiscal year.
The RDA has a $350,000 tax roll reassessment obligation which the General Fund can carry until
the RDA receives and pays back the tax by next year. Lastly, RDA has $252,000 in 2010-11
administrative costs (including contract and legal costs) that the General Fund is fronting and
which the RDA will reimburse with taxes later this year. The total of these is $1,252,000.
To formally document the arrangement, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency and
the City execute a Loan and Repayment Agreement. Redevelopment counsel recommended this
routine procedure to support annual reporting requirements.
Fiscal Impact
Executing the Agreement allows the RDA to receive $1,252,000 in property taxes in fiscal year
2010-11. The City General Fund currently budgeted $500,000 for RDA advances, but can
increase the advance to $1,252,000 using undesignated reserves. It is anticipated that the Agency
will pay back the advances after the taxes are received.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Woo, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager and RDA Executive Director
Attachments: Redevelopment Agency Resolution
City Council Resolution
Loan and Repayment Agreement
413
1
394\01\942281.2
RESOLUTION NO. 11-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE A LOAN
AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO (CITY) AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (AGENCY)
WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and
carrying out necessary redevelopment projects within the Cupertino Vallco
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, to assist with the Agency's implementation of the redevelopment
program in the Project Area, the Agency and the City desire to enter into a Loan and
Repayment Agreement (the "Agreement", on file with the City Clerk and the Agency
Secretary) in which the City agrees to provide staff services to the Agency, to construct
improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under specified circumstances
and to address tax roll reassessment liability issues, subject to reimbursement by the
Agency as provided in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to
accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation
Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report”);
and
WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law"), before the Agency can expend money for public
improvements, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 33445; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, the Agency is authorized, with the consent of
the City Council to pay for part, or all, of the costs of public improvements that are of
benefit to the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, no other reasonable means of financing the estimated cost of the
public improvements are available to the City or the community; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council
accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional
information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.
414
2
394\01\942281.2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency as follows:
1. In compliance with Section 33445 of the Law, the Agency hereby finds
that: (a) the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the
Agreement that are publicly owned are of benefit to the Project Area by helping to
eliminate blight within the Project Area or providing housing for low- or moderate-
income persons; (b) no other reasonable means of financing the installation or
construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned
are available to the community; and (c) the appropriation and payment of funds by the
Agency for the cost of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly
owned is consistent with the Agency's current Implementation Plan.
2. The Agency hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the Agency
Chairperson to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency,
substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such
revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the Agency signatory, such
determination to be conclusively deemed to have been made by the execution of the
Agreement by the Agency signatory. The Agency Executive Director is authorized to
implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other documents
which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement.
3. The Agency hereby approves and appropriates (to the extent not already
appropriated) the amounts necessary to fund the Agency's obligations under the Agreement
as a lawful expenditure of Agency funds under the Law. The Agency's current fiscal year
budget is hereby amended to the extent necessary to implement the foregoing appropriation.
4. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized to take such further
actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agency’s obligations pursuant
to this Resolution and the Agreement.
5. The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
415
3
394\01\942281.2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Redevelopment Agency
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary, City of Cupertino Chairperson, City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Agency
416
1
394\01\942280.2
RESOLUTION NO. 11-________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO (CITY) AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (AGENCY)
WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and
carrying out necessary redevelopment projects within the Cupertino Vallco
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, to assist with the Agency's implementation of the redevelopment
program in the Project Area, the Agency and the City desire to enter into a Loan and
Repayment Agreement (the "Agreement", on file with the City Clerk and the Agency
Secretary) in which the City agrees to provide staff services to the Agency, to construct
improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under specified circumstances
and to address tax roll reassessment liability issues, subject to reimbursement by the
Agency as provided in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to
accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation
Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report”);
and
WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law"), before the Agency can expend money for public
improvements, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 33445; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, the Agency is authorized, with the consent of
the City Council to pay for part, or all, of the costs of public improvements that are of
benefit to the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, no other reasonable means of financing the estimated cost of the
public improvements are available to the City or the community; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council
accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional
information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.
417
2
394\01\942280.2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino
as follows:
1. In compliance with Section 33445 of the Law, the City hereby finds that:
(a) the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement
that are publicly owned are of benefit to the Project Area by helping to eliminate blight
within the Project Area or providing housing for low- or moderate-income persons; (b)
no other reasonable means of financing the installation or construction of the public
improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned are available to the
community; and (c) the appropriation and payment of funds by the Agency for the cost of
the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned is consistent
with the Agency's current Implementation Plan.
2. The City hereby approves the Agreement, consents to the Agency's
expenditures under the Agreement and authorizes the City Manager to enter into and
execute the Agreement on behalf of the City, substantially in the form on file with the
City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such revisions as are reasonably determined
necessary by the City signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to have
been made by the execution of the Agreement by the City signatory. The City Manager is
authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other
documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement.
3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may
be necessary or appropriate to carry out the City’s obligations pursuant to this Resolution
and the Agreement.
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
418
3
394\01\942280.2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk, City of Cupertino Mayor, City of Cupertino
419
1
c:\docume~1\graces\locals~1\temp\loan and repayment agreement.docx
LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
The following is a Loan and Repayment Agreement, dated February 15, 2011, by and
between the City of Cupertino (the "City") and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency").
W I T N E S S E T H
A. WHEREAS, the City and the Agency caused the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for
the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and
B. WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and carrying
out necessary redevelopment projects within the City and implementing the
Redevelopment Plan; and
C. WHEREAS, the parties desire to contract for the City to provide staff services to the
Agency and to construct improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under
specified circumstances, subject to reimbursement by the Agency as provided in this
Agreement; and
D. WHEREAS, the City and the Agency are each ready and willing to assume the
relationship described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and the Agency, for and in
consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained do agree as follows:
1. PURPOSES
The purposes of this Agreement are:
a. To establish a mechanism for reimbursement of specified future administrative costs
incurred by the City in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Cupertino Vallco
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), as more fully set forth in Section 3.
b. To provide a mechanism for reimbursement of specified future public works
improvement costs or other costs related to implementing the Redevelopment Plan incurred by
the City in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Project Area or related to tax roll
actions by the County, as more fully set forth in Section 4.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period beginning as of the date first
above written and continuing until all repayment and reimbursement obligations of the Agency
to the City are satisfied in full in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
420
2
c:\docume~1\graces\locals~1\temp\loan and repayment agreement.docx
3. REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
The Agency agrees to reimburse the City for all administrative costs incurred by the City
in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Project Area (the "Administrative Costs").
Such Administrative Costs may include, but are not limited to, costs to the City for consulting
services, legal services, City staff time and other related administrative expenses. The City and
Agency shall, at the end of each fiscal year, set forth in a schedule to be attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit A the amount of such Administrative Costs incurred by the City for the
applicable fiscal year. The Agency shall thereupon become indebted to reimburse the City for
such Administrative Costs. This debt shall bear no interest, and shall be repayable as provided in
Section 5.
4. REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER COSTS
The City may incur costs for public improvements in the Project Area on behalf of the
Agency. In addition, the City may incur costs for other activities related to implementation of
the Redevelopment Plan or related to tax roll actions by the County. These costs shall become a
debt of the Agency and shall be set forth in an Exhibit B, which shall be attached to this
Agreement and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. These costs shall bear no interest,
and shall be repayable as provided in Section 5. Such Exhibit B shall specify the date from
which the Agency's reimbursement obligation to the City shall begin to bear interest.
5. REPAYMENT TERMS; SUBORDINATION
Each repayment or reimbursement obligation of the Agency pursuant to this Agreement
shall be repayable solely from tax increment funds, if any, generated within the Project Area. It
is understood that if tax increment funds from the Project Area fail to yield sufficient revenue to
pay the repayment or reimbursement obligations of the Agency under this Agreement, the
Agency is under no obligation to make such repayment or reimbursement to the extent tax
increment funds are insufficient.
It is agreed by the parties hereto that all repayments and reimbursements to the City
pursuant to this Agreement are hereby subordinated to any and all payments necessary to satisfy
existing debt of the Agency and to any and all payments necessary to satisfy the Agency's
obligations in connection with any existing or future bonded indebtedness or obligation which
may be incurred by the Agency for the benefit of the redevelopment program or to the extent
necessary for any bonded indebtedness for which the Agency has pledged as a security or source
of repayment tax increment generated within the Project Area.
6. VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT
If any provisions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, party,
transaction, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application
of such provision to other persons, parties, transactions or circumstances, shall not be affected
thereby.
421
3
c:\docume~1\graces\locals~1\temp\loan and repayment agreement.docx
CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By: ____________________________ By: ______________________________
Chairperson City Manager
City of Cupertino City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency
Approved as to form:
By: ______________________________
City Attorney
422
4
c:\docume~1\graces\locals~1\temp\loan and repayment agreement.docx
EXHIBIT A
TO LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:
LOAN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Fiscal Year Loan Proceeds Interest Due Payments Made Loan Balance
2010/11
252,000
-
-
252,000
EXHIBIT B
TO LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:
LOAN FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER COSTS
Fiscal Year Loan Proceeds Purpose Interest Due Payments Made Loan Balance
2010/11
650,000
Public
Improvements
-
-
650,000
2010/11 350,000
Tax roll
reassessment
350,000
423
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 15, 2011
Subject
Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (Trust), the City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the City of Cupertino (City) for the use of housing funds.
Recommended Action
Action of City of Cupertino RDA:
1. Adopt the Draft Resolution
a. Approving an Agreement between the RDA and the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County to allocate $1,000,000 from RDA Housing set-aside funds.
b. Directing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement between the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino and the City of
Cupertino RDA.
2. Increase RDA Housing set-aside fund expenditure budget by $1,000,000.
Action of City of Cupertino:
1. Adopt the Draft Resolution
a. Approving an Agreement between the City and the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County allocating $1,000,000.
b. Directing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement between the
the Housing Trust of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino and the City of
Cupertino RDA.
Description
Discuss an opportunity to fund the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County out of the RDA
Housing Set-Aside.
Discussion
Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the City of Cupertino and Bay Area Legal Aid
(BALA), 25% of the City of Cupertino’s RDA tax increment must be set-aside for affordable
housing. There is currently $1,005,000 in the housing set-aside fund available for affordable
housing. To date, the RDA has not allocated any funding for affordable housing projects.
The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County has requested funding from the City of Cupertino
RDA to serve Cupertino residents. Money that is invested in the Housing Trust is highly
leveraged. Over the past ten years, the City of Cupertino has granted the Trust $350,000 which
424
the Trust has reinvested in Cupertino by more than double. Since 2001, the Trust has invested
$38 million and leveraged over $1 billion in County of Santa Clara housing projects and
programs. Below are a list of just some of the programs that the Housing Trust offers to
Cupertino residents and non-profit developers:
· Developer Loans (i.e., Senior Housing Solutions, Habitat for Humanity, Maitri, etc.)
· First Time Homebuyer Programs – including down payment assistance, equity share, or
closing cost loans; and
· Homeless Prevention –assistance to the local homeless population through agencies such as
West Valley Community Services.
Staff believes that investing the $1,000,000 with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County would
not only be a multi-year investment that would benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of
affordable housing throughout the City of Cupertino but would also leverage additional funds
that could be spent in the community.
Findings
In order to utilize RDA funds outside of the Vallco project area the City and the RDA must make
findings in the resolutions detailing why it is a hardship to provide affordable housing inside the
project area. In the case of the Vallco Project Area, there are limited residential sites on which to
provide affordable housing. There are only two existing vacant parcels in the redevelopment
area. One of them does not have housing allowed as a use under the General Plan and was a
subject of a referendum that has reversed City Council approval of a housing project. The other
currently serves as parking for the existing Vallco Mall. For these reasons, it makes sense to
provide the affordable housing outside the project area within the City, where sufficient
residentially zoned land exists and is in relatively close proximity to the redevelopment area.
Fiscal Impact
The RDA currently has $1,890,000 in reserves, with $1,005,000 in the housing set-aside fund
and $885,000 in redevelopment project area funds. The $1,000,000 would come from the
housing set-aside fund.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development; Carol Korade, City
Attorney; David Woo, Finance Manager, Kelly Kline, Economic Development &
Redevelopment Manager
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and the
City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Attachment B: Draft RDA Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement
Attachment C: Draft City Council Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement
425
1
394\01\941447.4
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE
CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
This Affordable Housing Agreement (the "Agreement") is for purposes of funding
affordable housing projects and programs to be developed and/or administered by the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
(the "Trust"), and is entered into as of February 15, 2011 by and among the Trust, the
City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (the "City") and the City of Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Agency"), on the
basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties:
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.; the "Redevelopment Law"), the City Council of the
City has adopted and the Agency is responsible for implementing the Redevelopment
Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area
(the "Project Area").
B. To assist in implementing the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has
adopted a five (5)-year implementation plan (the "Implementation Plan") pursuant to
Section 33490 of the Redevelopment Law.
C. The Agency and the City are parties to a Settlement Agreement, dated as
of January 22, 2002, relative to Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CV793260, under
which the Agency agreed to meet certain affordable housing obligations which are more
stringent than otherwise required under the Redevelopment Law, attached as Exhibit A
and incorporated into this Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement").
D. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.2 and 33334.3 and
the Settlement Agreement, the Agency has the obligation to establish a Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund") and to expend monies in the
Housing Fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the
community's supply of housing available at affordable housing cost to low and moderate
income households, lower income households, very low income households, and
extremely low income households.
E. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33125, the Agency has
authority to execute contracts necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers.
F. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33220(e), the City is
authorized to enter into this Agreement to assist the Agency in performing powers and
obligations under the Redevelopment Law.
ATTACHMENT A
426
2
394\01\941447.4
G. The tasks the Trust has agreed to undertake under this Agreement
support the Trust's corporate purposes and mission.
H. The Agency desires to contract with the Trust to provide Housing Funds to
the Trust for use by the Trust to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of
affordable housing in the Project Area or within the territorial jurisdiction of the City,
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Law, the Settlement
Agreement, the Implementation Plan, and the Housing Element of the General Plan of
the City of Cupertino (the "Housing Element").
I. The Housing Element includes an assessment of the existing and
projected housing needs of the community, including the City's regional fair share
allocation of the regional housing need. The housing needs assessment in the Housing
Element in effect as of the date of this Agreement indicates a need in the City for 171
housing units affordable to extremely low income households, 148 housing units
affordable to very low income households, 213 housing units affordable to lower income
households, and 185 housing units affordable to moderate income households, after
accounting for units approved for construction.
J. The parties desire that the Agency will provide Housing Fund monies to
the Trust for the Trust to utilize to finance Housing Fund-eligible activities to increase,
improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the
territorial jurisdiction of the City, consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the
Redevelopment Law, the Implementation Plan, the Settlement Agreement and the
Housing Element, as they currently exist or as they may be amended from time to time.
K. The parties have set forth in Exhibit B attached to and incorporated in this
Agreement by this reference, a list of potential projects and programs that the Trust may
undertake utilizing funds provided pursuant to this Agreement. Exhibit B in its entirety is
referred to in this Agreement as the "Affordable Housing Plan" and the projects and
programs listed in the Affordable Housing Plan from time to time are referred to
individually as an "Affordable Housing Project" or "Affordable Housing Program", as
applicable, and collectively as the "Affordable Housing Projects and Programs." The
Affordable Housing Plan set forth in Exhibit B is subject to modification as provided in
Section 2.2.
L. The Affordable Housing Projects and Programs are consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan, the Settlement Agreement, the Housing Element and the
Implementation Plan. Implementation of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs
will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area
and the provision of affordable housing in the community. The use of funds as provided
in this Agreement is authorized by the Redevelopment Law, and the Agency and City
Council have made all findings required under the Redevelopment Law for such use.
M. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the
Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
427
3
394\01\941447.4
because this Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism
for various affordable housing projects and programs, but does not commit funds to any
specific project or program, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be
completed prior to the commencement of any Affordable Housing Project or Affordable
Housing Program listed in the Affordable Housing Plan contained in Exhibit B.
N. The City will provide on-going monitoring and provide all required
reporting requirements to the State of California.
O. By approving and entering into this Agreement, the Agency has pledged a
portion of the tax increment revenue from the Project Area to fund the Affordable
Housing Plan. The obligations set forth in this Agreement are contractual obligations
that, if breached, will subject the parties to damages or other liabilities or remedies.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Trust, the City and the Agency agree as
follows:
ARTICLE 1
AGENCY GRANT
Section 1.1 Agency Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Agency hereby grants to the Trust, and the Trust hereby accepts from
the Agency, a grant (the "Grant") in an annual amount not to exceed the amounts set
forth in Sections 1.2 (a) and (b) for the applicable fiscal year. The Trust shall use the
Grant to complete the Affordable Housing Plan as further provided in Article 2.
Section 1.2 Grant Source. The sources of the Grant from the Agency to the
Trust consist of:
(a) All funds currently held by the Agency in the Housing Fund and not
previously encumbered by binding contract for other activities, projects, or programs, in
the amount One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for fiscal year 2010-11 (the "Available
Funds"); and
(b) All future tax increment revenue allocated to, made available to, or
otherwise received by the Agency or any Successor, to the extent such tax increment
revenue (1) is or would be required pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, the
Settlement Agreement and the Redevelopment Law in effect as of the date of this
Agreement to be deposited in the Housing Fund, and (2) is available to the Agency or
Successor after the Agency or Successor makes all necessary annual payments
required to be made with Housing Fund monies with respect to then existing debt
obligations of the Agency, including, without limitation, bonded indebtedness and written
agreements with other persons or entities, if any, in an amount not to exceed Two
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) annually for the next fifteen (15) fiscal years
commencing in fiscal year 2011-12 (the "Pledged Funds").
428
4
394\01\941447.4
As used in this Agreement, "tax increment revenue" means and includes taxes
allocated to, or made available to, or otherwise received by the Agency or a Successor
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 et seq. or other provision of the
Redevelopment Law, or pursuant to any applicable constitutional provision, statute, or
other provision of law now existing or adopted in the future to pay the debts and
obligations of the Agency.
As used in this Agreement, "Successor" includes any lawful successor of the
Agency, and/or any lawful successor to any powers and rights of the Agency, pursuant
to any applicable constitutional provision, statute or other provision of law now existing
or adopted in the future.
Section 1.3 Payment Procedure. The Agency shall pay the Available Funds
to the Trust within sixty (60) days of the date of this Agreement. The Agency shall pay
the Pledged Funds to the Trust within sixty (60) days after receipt of each installment of
tax increment revenue in an amount equal to the portion of such tax increment revenue
constituting Pledged Funds. Until needed to fund an Affordable Housing Project or
Affordable Housing Program, the Trust shall invest all Grant funds received from the
Agency in an investment vehicle acceptable to all parties, and shall apply all interest
earned thereon toward the cost of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs.
Section 1.4 Indebtedness of the Agency. The obligation of the Agency to pay
the Grant funds from the sources set forth in Section 1.2 to the Trust pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency incurred in carrying out the
Redevelopment Plan and a pledge of tax increment revenue received by the Agency or
Successor from the Project Area to repay such indebtedness under the provisions of
Article XVI, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of California, the Redevelopment
Law, and the Redevelopment Plan, or under any applicable constitutional provision,
statute, or other provision of law now existing or adopted in the future.
Section 1.5 Subordination. The parties agree that the obligation of the
Agency to make payments pursuant to this Agreement is subordinate to any obligation
of the Agency to utilize Housing Fund monies to pay debt service on tax increment
bonds, or any other loans or agreements, heretofore or hereafter issued and secured by
a pledge of and a lien upon tax increment revenue generated by the Agency in the
Project Area and required by Redevelopment Law and Settlement Agreement to be
deposited in the Agency's Housing Fund.
ARTICLE 2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Section 2.1 Use of Grant and Term. The Trust shall use the Grant exclusively
for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of
housing available at affordable housing cost to low and moderate income households,
lower income households, very low income households, and extremely low income
households in accordance with the requirements of the Redevelopment Law, the
429
5
394\01\941447.4
Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Trust shall
use the Grant to pay any costs which are eligible Housing Fund costs pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 et seq., including without limitation eligible
costs of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs shown in the Affordable
Housing Plan and reasonable staff, consultant and other administrative costs in
connection therewith (provided that administrative expenses will not exceed three
percent (3%) annually unless modified pursuant to Section 2.4). In addition, the Trust
understands and agrees that the Grant funds shall not pay for more than fifty percent
(50%) of the total development costs for any Affordable Housing Project. The Trust
shall expend the Grant funds and undertake the Affordable Housing Plan in accordance
with all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, laws and
regulations related to the permissible uses of Housing Fund monies, monitoring of
housing assisted with Housing Funds, statutorily-required findings by the Agency Board
and City Council, where applicable, prior to expenditures of Housing Funds, payment of
prevailing wages (to the extent applicable), non-discrimination, and all applicable
requirements of the Redevelopment Law, the Housing Element and the Settlement
Agreement. The Trust further understands and agrees that each Affordable Housing
Project funded with Grant proceeds must be subject to a restriction regulating certain of
the units in the project to affordable housing cost for specified income levels, in a form
to be provided and recorded by the Agency or its Successor, and effective for forty-five
(45) years for ownership housing and fifty-five (55) years for rental housing. The Trust
shall use the Grant funds for the various Affordable Housing Projects and Programs by
not later than the earlier of (a) fifteen (15) years from the date of this Agreement, which
date may be extended by written agreement of all the parties in the same manner as
provided for modification of the Affordable Housing Plan as set forth in Section 2.2; and
(b) the deadline for effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Effectiveness
Deadline"), as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan (the "Term"). Within ninety (90)
days following the City's fiscal year end (June 30th) throughout the Term of this
Agreement, the Trust agrees to provide the Agency and the City annual reports
regarding the amount of Grant funds unused to date, interest earned on Grant funds
during that preceding fiscal year and information on the use of the Grant funds to date
with specific details as reasonably requested by the City as needed for any reports
required under the Redevelopment Law or the Settlement Agreement.
Section 2.2 Consultation; Modification of Improvement Plan. The parties shall
confer periodically to establish priorities and timing for funding and completion of the
various Affordable Housing Projects and Programs, to review the scope and design of
each Affordable Housing Project and Program, and to determine any mutually
acceptable modifications in the cost estimates and budgets for the various Affordable
Housing Projects and Programs. The parties may modify the Affordable Housing Plan
from time to time: to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds; to
account for unexpected revenues, whether greater or lesser; to modify, add, or delete
an Affordable Housing Project or Program from the Affordable Housing Plan; to modify
the cost estimate for individual Affordable Housing Projects and Programs; to maintain
consistency with the City's General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan and the Settlement
Agreement; or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances, including without
limitation circumstances that may come to light as a result of subsequent environmental
430
6
394\01\941447.4
review required by CEQA, as further described in Section 2.3. The Affordable Housing
Plan may be modified by the Executive Director on behalf of the Trust, the City Manager
on behalf of the City and the Executive Director on behalf of the Agency; provided,
however, in no event shall the total Grant to be paid by the Agency to the Trust exceed
the Maximum Grant Amount without a formal amendment of this Agreement approved
by the Trust's board of directors, the City Council and the Agency Board; and, provided
further, however, that any addition of any Affordable Housing Project or Program to the
Affordable Housing Plan shall be conditioned upon the making of all required
Redevelopment Law findings and CEQA findings by the City Council and the Agency
Board in their policy discretion.
Section 2.3 CEQA Review. Prior to the approval, use of Grant funds, and
commencement of construction of any Affordable Housing Project or the implementation
of any Affordable Housing Program (other than preliminary feasibility work that is
exempt from the requirements of CEQA), all necessary environmental review required
by CEQA shall be completed. All Affordable Housing Projects and Programs to be
funded with Grant funds from the Agency pursuant to this Agreement must be
consistent with CEQA. This Agreement in no way limits the discretion of the Planning
Commission, the Agency, and City Council in completing environmental review of the
Affordable Housing Projects.
Section 2.4 Payment of Fees. The City shall provide any ongoing monitoring
of Affordable Housing Projects and the Trust's activities under this Agreement,
consultations regarding the Affordable Housing Plan and Programs under this
Agreement, and all reporting to the State of California as required under the
Redevelopment Law for as long as required under the Redevelopment Law, or any
successor provisions of law. The Trust shall pay the City an administration fee of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each of fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13
to cover these services. The Trust and the City may mutually agree in the future to
additional administrative fees or other payments to be paid to the Trust or to the City, to
the extent warranted at such times.
Section 2.5 Ongoing Trust Obligations. The Trust shall be responsible for
ongoing administration of the Housing Funds comprising the Grant. The Agency's grant
and the Trust's acceptance of the Grant shall not imply any ownership or responsibility
for the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs by the Agency or the City.
Section 2.6 Indemnity. The Trust shall indemnify, defend, and hold the
Agency, the City and their officers, board members, council members, agents, and
employees, harmless against all claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, expenses,
including without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, or liabilities made
against them which arise out of, or in connection with the Affordable Housing Projects
and Programs; provided, however, that this indemnity shall not extend to any claim
arising solely from the Agency's or City's negligence or the Agency's or City's negligent
failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement.
431
7
394\01\941447.4
ARTICLE 3
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3.1 Notices, Demands and Communications. Formal notices,
demands, and communications among the parties shall be sufficiently given if, and shall
not be deemed given unless, dispatched by certified mail, return receipt requested, or
delivered by an express delivery service with a receipt showing date of delivery, or hand
delivered with a receipt showing date of delivery, to the principal offices of the parties as
follows:
Agency: City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Attn: Executive Director
City: City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Attn: City Manager
Trust: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
95 S. Market St, Suite 610
San Jose, CA 95113
Attn: Executive Director
Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner
to such other addresses as the affected party may from time to time designate by mail
as provided in this Section. Delivery shall be deemed to have occurred at the time
indicated on the receipt for delivery or refusal of delivery.
Section 3.2 Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be interpreted or understood by any of the parties, or by any third persons, as
creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or
general partnership, or joint venture among the Agency, the City and the Trust or its
agents, employees or contractors, and the Trust shall at all times be deemed an
independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its
agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. The
Trust has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction,
compensation, and discharge of all persons assisting in the performance of services
under the Agreement. The Trust shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to
payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and
all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and shall be solely responsible
for its own acts and those of its agents and employees.
Section 3.3 No Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or
justify any claim against the Agency or the City by any person that the Trust may have
432
8
394\01\941447.4
employed or with whom the Trust may have contracted with respect to the Affordable
Housing Projects.
Section 3.4 Non-Liability of Officials. No member, official, employee or agent
of the Agency or the City shall be personally liable to the Trust or any successor in
interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or City for any amount
which may become due to the Trust or successor or on any obligation under the terms
of this Agreement.
Section 3.5 Actions of the Parties. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, whenever this Agreement calls for or permits a party's approval, consent, or
waiver, the written approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency's Executive Director, the
City's City Manager and the Trust's Executive Director (or their respective designees)
shall constitute the approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency, City and the Trust,
respectively, without further authorization required from the governing board of the
party; provided, however, that the person vested with such authority may seek such
further advice or authorization from the applicable governing board when she/he deems
it appropriate.
Section 3.6 Nondiscrimination.
(a) In Performance of Agreement. The Trust and its contractors,
subcontractors, agents, and employees shall not, because of the race, color, creed,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status,
source of income, age, or disability of any person, refuse to hire or employ the person,
or refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or bar or
discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to
employment, or discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions
or privileges of employment with respect to performance of this Agreement.
(b) With Respect to Use of the Affordable Housing Projects. The Trust
covenants by and for itself and its successors and assigns that there shall be no
discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of
race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, source of income, age, or disability in the sale, lease, sublease,
transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Affordable Housing Projects and
programs.
Section 3.7 Discretion Retained. The City's execution of this Agreement in no
way limits the discretion of the City in the permit and approval process in connection
with development of any Affordable Housing Project. In addition, the Agency retains the
right to cease providing funding to the Trust from the source identified in Section 1.2(b)
of this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties and provided
the Trust shall not be required to return any funds previously paid to the Trust under this
Agreement, except to the extent required by court order.
433
9
394\01\941447.4
Section 3.8 No Third Party Beneficiaries. No person or entity other than the
Agency, the City, the Trust and their permitted successors and assigns, shall have any
right of action under this Agreement.
Section 3.9 State Law. This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the
parties hereto, shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State
of California.
Section 3.10 Records. The Trust shall maintain complete and accurate
financial accounts, documents and records with respect to the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, and shall make same available to the Agency's or
City's authorized agents for copying and auditing upon reasonable prior notice. Such
accounts, documents and records shall be retained by the Trust for ten (10) years
following completion of any applicable Affordable Housing Project.
Section 3.11 Inspection of Documents. During the regular office hours and
upon reasonable prior notice, the City and the Agency, by their duly authorized
representatives, shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any books, records
or reports of the Trust pertaining to this Agreement.
Section 3.12 Additional Acts. The parties each agree to take such other and
additional actions and execute and deliver such other and additional documents as may
be reasonably requested by the other party for purposes of consummating the
transactions contemplated in this Agreement.
Section 3.13 Litigation Regarding Agreement Validity. In the event litigation is
initiated attacking the validity of this Agreement, each party shall in good faith defend
and seek to uphold the Agreement.
Section 3.14 Validity of Agreement. If any provisions of this Agreement, or the
application thereof to any person, party, transaction, or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to other persons,
parties, transactions, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
Section 3.15 Entire Agreement; Modification and Amendment. This Agreement
contains all of the agreements and understandings of the parties pertaining to the
subject matter contained herein and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous
agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. Except as otherwise
provided in Section 2.2, this Agreement cannot be amended or modified except by
written agreement of the parties.
Section 3.16 Defaults and Remedies. If any party breaches any other material
provision of this Agreement, one of the other parties shall first notify the breaching party
and the other party in writing of the purported breach or failure, giving the breaching
party thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cure or, if cure cannot be
accomplished within thirty (30) days, to commence to cure such breach, failure, or act.
In the event the breaching party does not then so cure within such thirty (30) days, or if
the breach or failure is of such a nature that it cannot be cured within thirty (30) days,
434
10
394\01\941447.4
the breaching party fails to commence to cure within such thirty (30) days and thereafter
diligently complete such cure within a reasonable time thereafter but in no event later
than one hundred twenty (120) days, then the non-breaching parties shall be afforded
all of their rights at law or in equity, by taking all or any of the following remedies: (a)
terminating in writing this Agreement (provided, however, that the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement shall survive such termination); (b) return of unused or
improperly used Grant funds; and (c) prosecuting an action for damages or specific
performance.
Section 3.17 Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest
and assigns of each of the parties to this Agreement, whether by agreement or
operation of law, and including, without limitation, any Successor to the Agency. Any
reference in this Agreement to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to
any successor, heir, administrator, executor or assign of such party who has acquired
an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, or under law.
Section 3.18 Time Of The Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance
of all duties and obligations under this Agreement.
435
11
394\01\941447.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth in
the opening paragraph of this Agreement.
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT
AGECNY
Approved as to Form
__________________________ ____________________________________
Agency Counsel _____________, Chairperson
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Approved as to Form
__________________________ ____________________________________
City Attorney _____________, City Manager
HOUSING TRUST OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
____________________________________
_____________, Executive Director
436
A-1
394\01\941447.4
EXHIBIT A
437
A-2
394\01\941447.4
438
A-3
394\01\941447.4
439
A-4
394\01\941447.4
440
A-5
394\01\941447.4
441
A-6
394\01\941447.4
442
A-7
394\01\941447.4
443
A-8
394\01\941447.4
444
A-9
394\01\941447.4
445
A-10
394\01\941447.4
446
B-1
394\01\941447.4
EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
I. Affordable Housing Projects and Programs.
A. Types of Projects
· Developer Loans for development of affordable rental housing
· First Time Homebuyer Program consistent with Redevelopment Law –
including down payment assistance, equity share or closing cost loans
· Transitional Housing to assist with homeless prevention
· Housing Rehabilitation consistent with Redevelopment Law
B. Required Income Levels
Pursuant to current Redevelopment Law and the Settlement Agreement, the
Housing Fund monies provided to the Trust under this Agreement must be
spent in the following percentages on the identified income levels, which
percentages may be modified from time to time as the City's Regional
Housing Needs Allocations are modified:
· 24% on Extremely Low Income Units
· 21% on Very Low Income Units
· 30% on Low Income Units
· 16% on Moderate, Low, Very Low or Extremely Low Income Units
447
1
394\01\941908.2
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino (“City”) has adopted the
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan”) for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment
Project Area (the “Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) is engaged in
various activities in its efforts to provide affordable housing and to remove the blighting conditions
that still remain in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goals of the Agency to eliminate blight and reduce physical
and economic blight and to provide affordable housing in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan
and Agency’s current Implementation Plan (the “Implementation Plan”), the City and Agency have
been working cooperatively regarding the development of affordable housing and certain public
improvements in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, due to the complexity of affordable housing projects with varying funding
sources, the Agency and the City desire to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (the
“Agreement”, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and Agency Secretary), with the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (the "Trust") through which the Agency shall provide
funding to the Trust from the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the “Housing
Fund”), the City shall provide monitoring and reports to the state and the Trust shall work with
developers to develop and provide funding for projects to increase, improve, and preserve the
supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the territorial jurisdiction of the City,
and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the
stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff
report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and
WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section
33100 et seq.; the "Law"), before the Agency can expend money from its Housing Fund outside
the area of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the City must make specified findings
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(g); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the
Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
because the Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism for
affordable housing projects, but does not commit funds to any specific affordable housing
ATTACHMENT B
448
2
394\01\941908.2
project, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed prior to the
commencement of any affordable housing project pursuant to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council
accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional
information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Cupertino Redevelopment
Agency as follows:
1. All the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. In compliance with Section 33334.2(g) of the Law, the Agency hereby finds that:
assistance to affordable housing projects described in the Agreement and located outside the Project
Area will be of benefit to the Redevelopment Plan, in that there is essentially no residential property
within the Project Area and providing the funds would be a multi-year investment that would
benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of affordable housing throughout the City of Cupertino.
This finding is further based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report incorporated in this
Resolution.
3. The Agency agrees to make the Agency expenditures as called for in the Agreement
for affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, subject to completion of any
environmental review required by CEQA prior to the commencement of any project pursuant to the
Agreement.
4. The Agency hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the Agency
Chairperson to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency for the funding and
completion of affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, substantially in the form
on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such revisions as are reasonably
determined necessary by the Agency signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to
have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the Agency signatory. The Agency
Executive Director is authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and
execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement.
449
3
394\01\941908.2
5. The Agency hereby approves and appropriates (to the extent not already
appropriated) the amounts necessary to fund the Agency's obligations under the Agreement as a
lawful expenditure of Agency funds under the Law. The Agency's current fiscal year budget is
hereby amended to the extent necessary to implement the foregoing appropriation.
6. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file Notices
of Exemption with respect to the Agreement in accordance with the applicable provisions of
CEQA.
7. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized to take such further actions as
may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agency’s obligations pursuant to this Resolution
and the Agreement.
8. The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
9 . This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino Redevelopment
Agency this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Agency
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________
Agency Secretary, Chairperson,
City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
450
1
394\01\941901.2
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino (“City”) has adopted the
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan”) for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment
Project Area (the “Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) is engaged in
various activities in its efforts to provide affordable housing and to remove the blighting conditions
that still remain in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goals of the Agency to eliminate blight and reduce physical
and economic blight and to provide affordable housing in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan
and Agency’s current Implementation Plan (the “Implementation Plan”), the City and Agency have
been working cooperatively regarding the development of affordable housing and certain public
improvements in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, due to the complexity of affordable housing projects with varying funding
sources, the Agency and the City desire to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (the
“Agreement”, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and Agency Secretary), with the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (the "Trust") through which the Agency shall provide
funding to the Trust from the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the “Housing
Fund”), the City shall provide monitoring and reports to the state and the Trust shall work with
developers to develop and provide funding for projects to increase, improve, and preserve the
supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the territorial jurisdiction of the City,
and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the
stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff
report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and
WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section
33100 et seq.; the "Law"), before the Agency can expend money from its Housing Fund outside
the area of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the City must make specified findings
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(g); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the
Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
because the Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism for
affordable housing projects, but does not commit funds to any specific affordable housing
ATTACHMENT C
451
2
394\01\941901.2
project, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed prior to the
commencement of any affordable housing project pursuant to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council
accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional
information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino
as follows:
1. All the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. In compliance with Section 33334.2(g) of the Law, the City Council hereby finds
that: assistance to affordable housing projects described in the Agreement and located outside the
Project Area will be of benefit to the Redevelopment Plan, in that there is essentially no residential
property within the Project Area and providing the funds would be a multi-year investment that
would benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of affordable housing throughout the City of
Cupertino. This finding is further based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report incorporated in
this Resolution.
3. The City Council consents to the Agency expenditures as called for in the
Agreement for the affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, subject to completion of
any environmental review required by CEQA prior to the commencement of any project pursuant to
the Agreement.
4. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the City
Manager to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the City for the funding and
completion of affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, substantially in the form
on file with the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, with such revisions as are reasonably
determined necessary by the City signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to
have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the City signatory. The City Manager is
authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other
documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement.
5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file Notices of Exemption
with respect to the Agreement in accordance with the applicable provisions of CEQA.
6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be
necessary or appropriate to carry out the City’s obligations pursuant to this Resolution and the
Agreement.
7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
8 . This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
452
3
394\01\941901.2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk, City of Cupertino Mayor, City of Cupertino
453
STAFF REPORT TO
BE DELIVERED ON
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
454
RDA RESOLUTION
TO BE DELIVERED
ON FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
455
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION TO
BE DELIVERED ON
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
456
AGREEMENT TO
BE DELIVERED ON
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
457
STAFF REPORT TO
BE DELIVERED ON
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
458
RESOLUTION TO
BE DELIVERED ON
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11
459