The URL can be used to link to this page

24. Matrix Management study of permit processOFFICE OF COMMUT41TY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 - planning®cuperdno.org CUPERRTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: rnQ'1 t 8 � a of o Application Summary: Review the Matrix management study of the permit process. Consider authorizing staff to move forward with recommended process enhancements and ordinance amendments, Application No. CP- 2010 -01, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that City Council authorize staff to proceed with the following recommended policy zoning amendments. More specifically, the Council should: • Provide additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process enhancements • Comment upon and prioritize the list of changes recommended by the Planning Commission • Direct staff to initiate public review process for the ordinance /policy amendments BACKGROUND In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the development permit process and operations. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency. Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment A). The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City's website. They then compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. Attachment B is a summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. 24 -1 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 2 The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13 (see Attachments C & D for staff report and draft minutes), April 27 (see Attachments E & F for staff report and draft minutes) and May 11, 2010 (see Attachment G for staff report). Specific recommendations of the Planning Commission are included in this report. DISCUSSION: Recommendation Categories Matrix's recommendations may be divided into three major categories: 1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments 2. infrastructure/ Technology Improvements 3. Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery 1. ORDINANCEi/POLICY AMENDMENTS A substantial amount of Matrix's recommendations focus on streamlining the City's development Review process. Matrix suggested that the City's ordinance be reviewed to allow a wider range of projects to be approved administratively (subject to codified performance standards) and at the Planning Commission level. Finally, there are opportunities to enhance and revise the City's Municipal code and various Specific/ Conceptual Plans to improve the readability and consistency. These are discussed later in this report. (a) Streamlining the Permit Process (i) Adjusting the review authority for projects Matrix identified that Cupertino has additional layers of approval when compared to cities of comparable size and recommends that the permit process should be streamlined. Staff conducted a high level comparison of approval authorities of comparable local cities with a reputation for efficiency such as Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment I). The Planning Commission reviewed the comparative review authority study and provided their recommendations (see Attachment H, recommendation column). The entire list of specific Planning Commission recommendations is provided in Attachment I. (ii) Reducing noticing requirements Matrix noted that the City's notification requirements often exceed the State's requirements for noticing. Occasionally, the cost of notification for a project far exceeds the cost of the application. Examples include: ■ R1 notification: The original Matrix recommendation was to stop sending out plan sets and only send out the mailed notice. However, staff and the Planning Commission note that these recommendations have to be balanced with community concerns regarding adequate noticing. The Commission also noted that any reduction in noticing plan sets should only be considered after a new online permitting and information system is implemented. 24 -2 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 3 ■ Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the City's website for more information, updates, etc. (b) ImproviggReadability and Consistency The recommendation is to conduct a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Specific staff recommendations include: • Codify the Planned Industrial and Office (MP /OP) zones in the Zoning Ordinance. This section is currently used but not codified. ■ Incorporate the West Valley indusixial Park Zoning area (ML -rc) into the Light Industrial (ML) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. • Create a new Commercial ordinance to include all commercial zones including General Commercial (CG) ordinance and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) uses and standards. • Clarify and cleanup definitions, permitted uses, parking ratios, daycare policies, etc. (c) SpecificlConceptual Plans Many of the city's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 1970's and 1980's. Since then, the General Plan has been updated three times. Planning Commission recommends updating the following Specific Plans as time permits to be consistent with the new General Plan with updated formats and graphics. ■ North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan ■ South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan ■ Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines ■ South Sunnyvale- Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan The estimated cost of updating each plan on a limited scale is between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on the scope of the project and outreach. 2. INFRASTRUCTURF,rrECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS (a) Online Permit System One of the high- priority recommendations in the Matrix report is the implementation of a new automated permit software system. The Planning Commission supports staffs efforts to :Implement a comprehensive upgrade to the permitting technology and recommends the following: • Implement a new permit system that will help improve information efficiency and provide benefit to permit system users • Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is necessary • Fees increases are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable savings in copying /printing /transportation costs 24 -3 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 4 (b) Infrastructure Improvements The Matrix Study recommends redesigning the permit counter area to improve customer service. The Planning Commission recommends remodeling the permit center to add a meeting place where staff can sit down with customers to discuss ideas /plans. 3. FEE AMENDMENTS /COST RECOVERY The Matrix study recommended a fee study to provide for cost - recovery for projects. The Planning Commission recommends evaluating the fee structure of the permit process to ensure that fees: ■ Are competitive with comparable markets, ■ Show a nexus in charging the fees associated with a particular application ■ Are not cost- prohibitive. • Are reduced to support affordable housing and green building projects, but in a revenue neutral manner. 4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS There are other miscellaneous recommendations made by Matrix relating to Planning Commission and City Council bylaws and communication. The Planning Commission made the following recommendations: • Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off -site retreat/ workshop • Consider Planning Commission & City Council off -site retreat /workshop when new members are elected/ appointed. NEXT STEPS Based on City Council direction to proceed with policy /ordinance /specific plan amendments/ updates, staff will bring back a schedule of the amendments/ updates based on the City Council's prioritization. These projects will then be incorporated into the Planning Commissions and City Council's Work Programs. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planne 5-r- Reviewed by: Approved by: ell vastava Community Development Director -.' avi W. Knapp City Manager 24 -4 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Matrix Consutlb-ig Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Perm it Process;' dated November 17, 2009 Attachment B Summary Table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Attachment D Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 13, 2010 Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 2010 Attachment F Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 27, 2010 Attachment G Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010 Attachment H Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities and Staff's recormendations Attachment I Summary of the Planning Commission comments and input Gk Planning kPDREPORT\CC\20101CP- 2010 -01 CC.doc 24 -5 Attachment A Management Study of the Permit Process CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA matrixua (:onsulflng group 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101 Palo Alto, California 94303 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858 -0509 November 17, 2009 24 -6 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT STAFFING 3. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT PROCESS 4. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM S. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT CENTER 6. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT ADMINISTRATION 7. ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPENDIX 1- PROFILE APPENDIX 2 - FOCUS GROUPS APPENDIX 3 - COMPARATIVE SURVEY APPENDIX 4 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 8 17 71 80 81 100 107 133 143 156 24 -7 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Stu of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page T 24 -8 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 (:ity 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 Cupe3 tino'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, alone with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They Matrbr Consulting Group Page 2 24 -9 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALFORNIA Ma Stu dy o f the Permit Pro 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 24 -10 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 ar 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 tie 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 24 -11 CITY OF CUPERnNO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 24 -12 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Means To A Nobler and Greater End.' 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 dernonstration 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. American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, The Development Review Process: A Means To A Nobler and Greater End, January 2005. Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 24 -13 C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 24 -14 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 24 -15 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 I 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 S ific 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 24 -16 2008109 (estimated based on 6 3 year Applications by Approval Level 2006107 2007108 month data ) Avera Planning Commission Application INT, M, TM, 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 1 116.7 Environmental Assessments 12 8 8 1 9.3 TOTAL 2771 177 1561 203.3 Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 24 -16 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 6,236 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 24 -17 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 24 -18 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 J` 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.) fc)r each of the Divisions four (4) building inspectors, the following table estimates the number of daily inspections stops: Year # of Inspections # of Inspection Stops ti mate # 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 92 24 -19 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix ConsuKing Group Page 13 24-20 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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. 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 24 -21 Hours # of Permits Reviewed 1,262.0 Avg. Hours to Process 4.1 Hours Required 5174.3 FTE AvailablIft 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 24 -21 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 95 24-22 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 proc(ms. Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 24 -23 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group page 17 24-24 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 ali:ernatives 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/MUPD — 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; Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 24-25 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 24-26 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 #fi: 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.. Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 24-27 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 24-28 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 3. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD MINOR PLANNING PERMITS OR RESIDENTS. NOT WRITE STAFF REPORTS FOR MAIL PLAN SETS TO ADJACENT 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 24 -29 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 24 -30 C17Y OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the P ermit Process conditions of approval. It is unnecessary. Recommendation #13: Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants subsequent to approval of a planning application. fi. 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 tonal 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 24 -31 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Pe rmit Process Type of Application Cycle Time Director's Minor Modifications / Temgorary 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 24 -32 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 compllexity 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 websilte 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 24-33 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 24-34 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNL4 Management Study of the Pennit Process 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 purpo:-,e 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 ireview 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 24-35 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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., Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 24-36 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 'f hese 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 24-37 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFCRNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (3) The Case Manager Should Most 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 24-38 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 regulation:;; 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 24 -39 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA M anagement Study of the Perm Process 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 staffs 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 24-40 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 cycle11 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, 131.1ilding and Engineering divisions should be held accountable for preparing and maintaining a schedule for processing of planning, Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 24 -41 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of th Permit P rocess 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 24-42 C/TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 informatiion 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 24-43 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 24-44 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 24-45 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 24-46 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Pe rmit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 24-47 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 staffs 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 24-48 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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; Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 24-49 CITY OF CUP,ERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 24-50 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o th P Process 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 appli(mtions) 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 utliized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering permits should be documented and posted to the (&"ity'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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 44 24 -51 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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.; Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 24-52 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 Divisrion 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: Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 24 -53 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 facade 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 24 -54 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 Diviision 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 "inter .pretations 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 Cifif's web site. These interpretations should be reviewed at least annually (and whenever the referenced regulation is modified or Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 24 -55 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 rmes: • Over the Counter small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 24-56 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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. o� less) within 5 working days • Standard Plan Check: initial review 'Nithin 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 1;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 type3 of permits that will be plan checked over- the - counter in these plan check objectives. Secondly, some types of minor residential Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 24-57 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Pe rmit Process 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. Balcon Remodel — Major SFD Addition SFD Accessory Building — Detached Accessible Ramps Fences wlCalculations. 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 51 24-58 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 fellows: • 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 unite to prompt the completion of those plan Matrix Consulting Group Page 52 24-59 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 53 24-60 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 54 24 -61 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 % Overthe- counter 2006/2007 1,069 1,306 45% 2007/2008 923 1,275 42% 2008/2009 1 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 Matrix Consulting Group page 55 24-62 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 po:-ition 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 56 24-63 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 57 24-64 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 58 24-65 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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). Matrix Consulting Group Page 59 24-66 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUIFORNL4 Management Study of the Permit Process 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 1 SOLARRES 51 13.6 1.1 1 SOLARCOMM 5 10.8 1.0 1 SHELLBLDG 42 82.5 1.9 1 SFDWLREM 8 25.6 1.3 1SFDWLNEW1 7 16.9 1.0 1 SFDWLDEM 103 41.4 1.1 1 SFDWLADDI 21 30.3 1.3 1 RPSS 8 32.4 1.5 1 RBSP 6 10.2 1.2 1 R3SFDW 454 73.5 1.7 1 R3SFDREM 173 23.0 1.3 1 R3SFDALT 5 19.8 1.4 1 R3SFDADD 662 48.5 1.5 -1 R3SFD 5 22.6 1.8 1 R1 APTRM 37 177.7 1.3 1 R1 APT 116 125.2 1.6 1 M TI 54 54.7 1.5 11 TI 7 16.1 1.3 1 GENRES 182 26.9 1.2 1 GENCOM 122 43.9 1.4 1E TI 11 29.7 1.8 1 COMMLTI 1 9.0 1.0 1 COMMLADD 4 10.01 1.0 1 CMAP2 1 2.01 1.0 1 CEAP6 5 37.0 1 1.4 Matrix Consulting Group Page 60 24-67 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 1 (2) Type # of Permits 9 of Days (Apply Date to Date Out ) # of Reviews 1 CEAP5 19 13.6 1.4 1 BOFF 16 45.7 1.9 1B TI 371 30.9 1.4 1A3 34 53.4 1.8 1 A TI 71 42.9 1.4 Average 33.2 1.3 Median 24.3 1.3 Matrix Consulting Group Page 61 24-68 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Care occurring, in what step of the process, and the organizational unit responsible • To trigger questions regarding the cauises 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 Builiding 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 Divisiion should improve the building permit plan check performance to most its stated plan check cycle time objectives. Matrix Consulting Group Page 62 24-69 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 S 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 remodelsladditions 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 63 24-70 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 64 24 -71 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 65 24-72 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 1 st Review # Date in Date out D s 1 212/09 212109 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 2119/09 6 10 10/20/08 10/28/08 8 11 1/5/09 1/13/09 a 12 3/2109 3/11109 9 13 312/09 3/11/09 9 14 11/12/08 11/21/08 9 15 10/8/08 10/22/08 14 16 2/2109 2117/09 15 17 1/9/09 1125/09 16 18 216/09 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) day 3. 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 66 24-73 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNL4 Management Study of the Permi Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 67 24-74 C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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, 200+3) — which summarizes the user fees for engineering, planning, building, and recreation • Maps and Data — which provides a cit�r 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 t'�e applicant's initial public hearing or the approval 1 disapproval of the application by siAff. Possible calendar date benchmarks for processing different types of permit applications are presented in the table below. Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 24-75 Proposed Cycle Time Objective (Calendar Type of Permit 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 24-75 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 69 24 -76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 aINare 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 70 24-77 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o t P erm i t P rocess 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 71 24-78 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 aixessible by the public and can limit the Matrix Consulting Group Page 72 24-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 73 24-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o the Permit Process 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 irtemal 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 Interactivo 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, inspector3 in the field should be able to access the City's permit database. They should be able to download a list of scheduled inspections, Matrix Consulting Group Page 74 24 -81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. S. 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 75 24-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 pen 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 76 24-83 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 77 24-84 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 plants 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 there annotations and comments provides the potential for 2417 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. ' Ma&& Consulting Group Page 78 24-85 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o t P e r m i t P rocess 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 79 24 -86 CITY OF CUPEERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 imn 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 80 24 -87 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit P rocess 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. I . 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: Matrix Consulting Group Page 81 24-88 Cl rY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 ti 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 #18: 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 979: The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor corrections to expedite the approval process. Matrix Consulting Group Page 82 24-89 CITY OF CUPER77NO, CALIFORNIA Management Stu o the P P rocess 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 83 24-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Depceirtment 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 Cibes 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page M 24 -91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 85 24 -92 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Proces 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 AMP 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 86 24-93 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process strongly considered as a requirement for advancement within the Planner job family. • The utilization of the current biweekly departmental staff meeting to increase staffs 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 87 24-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 c►f 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 DiAsion should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency. Matrix Consulting Group Page 88 24-95 CITY OF CUPER77NO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. S. 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." Matrix Consulting Group Page 89 24-96 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 checidists and requirements • Protocol for answering the phones, scheduling appointments • Policies for rejecting incomplete submittals • Process for fee calculations and collecting money • Procedures for pai*aging and routing plan submittals • Plan routing ma by e of project and department requiring review Matrix Consulting Group Page 90 24-97 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Proce 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 9180 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 91 24-98 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 92 24-99 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAU►FORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 93 24-100 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 informE.-d about the progress of the project. A project work plan should be completed before commencement of an advanced planning project. It should be reviewed wh:h 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 94 24 -101 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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, Matrix Consulfing Group Page 95 24-102 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o the Permit P rocess 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 advainced 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 96 24 -103 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Advantages Disadvantages • The current structure provides clear lines of • The lines of accountability and functional accountability, but at the City Planner level. cohesion are muddled in regards to the • The current approach to organizing long -range provision of advanced planning and current planning and current planning promotes planning below the level of City Planner. resource sharing, scalability (ability to manage • The spans of control are too narrow for the peaks and valleys), and adaptability (cross Senior Planners if the Senior Planners are to functional capability) since staff can be utilized be utilized as first -line supervisors. for both advanced planning and current • The "handoffs" far advanced planning projects planning. can be a problem given the absence of staff • The spans of control for the City Planner are dedicated to this function. reasonable, and not too broad. • 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. Matrix Consu/fing Group Page 97 24-104 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORW Management Study of the Permit Process • In this role, the Senior Planner mrould 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 UPDATIE 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 CI17Y 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 moming. This is unusual and not commonly found Matrix Consulting Group Page 98 24 -105 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process in Cuper ino'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 moming. 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 altematives 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 99 24-106 CITY OF CUPERTINO; CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 900 24-107 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Proces 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 901 24-108 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The Planning Division should designalte one individual, such as the City Planner, to serve as the facilitator to keep this anneal 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. I. 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 de-sign review regulations), listening to ideas Matrix Consulting Group Page 102 24 -109 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 staf). 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 Matrix Consulting Group page 103 24-110 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 hour a year. Matrix Consulting Group Page 104 24-111 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 105 24-112 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 1he 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 Byllaws 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 106 24-113 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 107 24-114 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Proces 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 Arbodst, 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 I 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 108 24-115 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 109 24-116 % Change 2005-06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008-09 05106 to Actual Actual Adopted Adopted 08109 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 $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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 109 24-116 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 lntem 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 Iositions 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 -To ora 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. Matrix Consuffing Group Page 110 24-117 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNM Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page III 24-118 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 connection 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 fora $100,000 loan portfolio. • Facilitate Mortgage Credit Certificate funding in the amount of $100,000. Matrix Consulting Group Page 112 24-119 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • 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: Matrix Consulting Group Page 113 24-120 CITY OFCUPERT111f0, CALIFORNG4 Management Study of the Permit Process • 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 cf 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 114 24-121 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study o the Permit Pr ocess 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). Matrix Consulting Group Page 115 24-122 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 2 Plan of Organization of the Administration Division Director ( Planning Division Cit j Planner (1) Economic Development & Housing Division Economic Develop ment/Redevelopment Manager (1) Building Division Building Official (1) Administrative Services Division Administrative Assistant (1) Administrative Clerk (2) Senior Office Assistant (2) Matrix Consulting Group Page 916 24-123 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 3 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Administrative Division Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Community 1.0 • Supervises the City Planner, Building Official, Economic Development Director 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 1.0 • Reports to the Community Development Director. Assistant • 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 117 24-124 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 tiling, 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 appmprial:e 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 Pentarnation 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 118 24-125 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 3 (3) Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Administrative Clerk 1.4 • 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. Matmr Consulting Group Page 119 24-126 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 4 Senior Planner (3) (1 vacant) Planning Intern (0.5 - part -time) Plan of Organization of the Planning Division City PIC (1) Assistant Planner (2) 0 budgeted; 1 temporary) Associate Planner (.5) Matrix Consulting Group Page 120 24 -127 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 • Reports to City Planner. (1 vacant) • Cary 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 spec 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 121 24-128 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 5 (2) Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Associate Planner 0.5 Reports jointly to City Planner and Economic Development / Redevei)pment Manager. • Has assigned counter duty in rotation with other City planners. • Assigned both a current and advanced planning case load. • Current Manning 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 2.0 Reports to one of the Senior Planners. (1 budgeted; 1 • Assigned to counter duty schedule in rotation with other unbudgeted and Planner". temporary) 0 Provides information and guidance to applicants submitting a variety of projects including: small residential, 2" story additiom;, 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 122 24-129 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 6 Workload For the Planning Division Application Workload By Type of Application / Permit Application Type 2006 2007 2008 Architectural Site Ap al 25 19 9 City Project Applications 3 4 2 Development Agreements 0 0 0 Director's Minor Modifications / Temrwra Use Permits 36 38 37 Environmental Assessments 20 10 10 Exceptions 14 11 17 General Plan Amendments 0 0 1 Inte retations 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 2006107 2007108 2008109 (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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 123 24-130 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 NAIP 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 0 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 plannBrs 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 Vailoo 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 • Subdivisk)n Map Act • California Environmental Quality Act Matrix Consu►ting Group Page 124 24-131 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 8 Plan of Organization of the Economic Development and Housing Division Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager (1} Associate Planner Senior Planner CDBG (5) 1 1 (1) Matrix Consulting Group Page 125 24-132 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 9 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Economic 1.0 Reports to the Director of Community Development. Development ! Directly supervises the Senior Planner CDBG and Redevelopment Associate Planner (half time assignment). Manager 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 1 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 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 recomrrn.ndation 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 inquired 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 1126 24-133 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 g uide is one recent example. Matrix Consulting Group Page 927 24-134 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Ma Study of the Permit P r o cess Exhibit 10 Plan of Organization of the Building Division Sr. Building Inspector (1) Building Inspector (6) Matrix Consulting Group Building {Official Plan Check Engineer Counter Technician (1 (1) Page 128 24-135 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 11 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff Of the Building Division Position Number of Description of Responsibilities Positions Bui ding 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, a roval of alternative methods/materials, etc. Building Inspection Senior Building 1.0 • Reports to the Building Official. Inspector • 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 129 24-136 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 11 (2) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff Of the Building Division Building Inspector 6.0 Primary rnsponsibility 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 end 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 msponsibility is reviewing building plans for small (remodel>, 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 meeti Counter Technician 1.0 • This position is vacant. Matrix Consulting Group Page 130 24-137 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA , Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 12 (1) Service Levels for the Building Division Characteristic Description Hours of Operation and Schedule 0 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 / Tumaround 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 andspecific expertise. Matrix Consulting Group Page 131 24-138 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 132 24 -139 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the P ermit Process 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). Matrbr Consulting Group Page 933 24-140 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Proce 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 1134 24-141 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 a -mails as a negative factor. Matrix Consulting Group Page 135 24-142 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 tum- 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 136 24-143 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 737 24-144 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 consistence 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 re:qulrements, 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 138 24-145 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 139 24-146 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 hour3 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 thi.; often made it difficult for Cupertino staff to set up interdepartmental meetings to review ;end 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 chuck. 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 riot anticipated through plan check. Despite these concerns, the participants seemed quite accepting of the pr6sent Fire Prevention system, and made no specific; recommendations for improvement. Matrix Consulting Group Page 140 24-147 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 1S 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 "absolutelyl" 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). Matrix Consulting Group Page 141 24-148 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Pro cess 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 142 24-149 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 Ci 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 •'*- 571 • The population of the cities ranged form a low of 46,934 for Dublin to a high of 73,932 for Mountain View. _ Matrbr Consulting Group Page 943 24-150 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • The geographical size of the cities rainged from a low of 10.9 square miles for Cuperfino to a high of 27.7 square mile=s 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 Plannin 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 de=dicating 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 144 24 -151 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 Divisions /Departments Meetings Committee Dublin Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire, As needed Police, Water District Mountain View Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire, Once a month Urban Fores Novato Yes Planning, Building Engineering As Needed San Ramon Yes Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Police, A Needed Building, Plannin Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, Engineerin 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. 0 Matrix Consulting Group Page 145 24-152 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process city Architectural Before or After the Planning Considers Types of Applications (Approved or Review Board Same Application Recommended) Dublin No N/A N / A Mountain Yes Before Single family structures on lots less View 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- Before 2-story residential development committee of with a FAR over 35% located In a the Planning single-family residential zoning Commission 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 146 24-153 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (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 pe rmits, 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 1147 24-154 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (7) Planning Applications Approved at the Staff Level The cities included in the comparatives 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. ci Applications Dublin No response Mountain View No response Novato Minor design review San Ramon Minor design review, minor exce lions Cupertino Minor desicin 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 care 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. 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 148 24-155 Processing (from receipt through City Case Manager Concept Architectural Review Board to Planning Commission and City Counci Dublin Yes Yes Mountain View Yes NIA Novato No NIA San Ramon Yes- Yes Cu erdno 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 148 24-155 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNL4 Management Study of the Permit Process 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 NIA Novato No NIA 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 Matrix Consulting Group Page 149 24-156 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 9 am to 12 noon Engineerin San Ramon Yes Planning, Building, 8 am to 5 pm, 3 days a En ineerin , and Fire week Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, and 7:30 am to 12 noon; 1 Engineering m 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 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. Matrbt Consulting Group Page 150 24-157 CITY OF CUPERTWO, CAUFORNLA Management Study o t P ermit Process (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 Staffin Dublin 0.0; outsourced Mountain View 90% Novato 2.5 San Ramon 2.0 Cu ertino 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. Matrix Consulting Group - Page 151 24-158 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Perm Process (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. Sari 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 Ta ets Dublin Yes 98% Mountain View Yes 95% Novato Yes 90% San Ramon Yes 95% Cupertino Yes 98% Matra Consulting Group Page 152 24-159 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 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 App roval 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 153 24-160 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA M anagement Study of the Permit Proc city Over- the - Counter Dublin Single trade permits, commercial signs w/o calcs, Mountain View residential bathroom repair, residential fireplace, Novato residential repair / in -kind, residential spa, residential San Ramon siglights 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 Fin.- Plan Reviewers are available at the counter). Overall, the types of building permit plans theit 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 Workin Da Dublin 100% Mountain View 100% Novato 100% San Ramon 100% Cupertino 100% Matrix Consulting Group Page 154 24-161 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The majority of the cities reported responding to inspection requests within the next working day. (90) 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 155 24-162 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process APPENDIX 4 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* Chapter 2 - Analysis of Permit Staffing Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle existing 1 current planning workloads. 8 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 2 plan checking, etc. 11 Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to building permit 3 plan checking in the Building Division. 14 Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the Building 4 Division's permit counter. 15 The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing authorized for 5 the permit plan check process, 16 Chapter 3 - Analysis of the Permit Process 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 6 standards. 17 The Planning Division should develop coded performance standards and requirements for these minor permits for 7 consideration and approval of the City Council. 17 The approval of these codified performance standards and requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the 8 conversion of these minor planning permits to permitted uses. 17 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 9 Council having the right of appeal. 21 The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for 10 minor permits. 22 The Planning Division should riot mail the plan sets for minor 11 permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed. 22 The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits 12 should be limited to one appeal. 23 Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants subsequent to 13 approval of a planning application. 23 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 14 timeframe required for the initial review. 24 Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should be published to the Department website and prominently displayed in 15 the Department's application materials. 24 Matrix Consulting Group Page 156 24-163 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number"' 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 16 Planning 'sidebar." 26 Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements with 17 applicants for high priority projects 27 Pre - application conferences should not be required for routine planning permit applications approved by the Community 18 Development Director. 28 The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written policy on planning application completeness and the basis for rejecting 19 incomplete applications. 29 Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for rejecting planning 20 applications as incomplete. 29 Planning application guides should be developed for each specific type of planning permit to include all of the City's requirements for 21 an applicant to achieve a complete submittal. 29 These planning permit application guides should be approximately 22 4 to 6 pages in length. 29 The case manager in the Planning Division should meet with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 23 30-day completeness review of the application. 31 The Planning Division should provide training to consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers regarding Its 24 planning permit submittal requirements. 31 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 25 particular problems meeting submittal requirements. 31 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 26 processing planning, building and engineering permit applications 33 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 27 the automated permit information system. 33 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 28 the automated permit information system. 34 The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be 29 integrated into their performance evaluation. 34 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by 30 their staff using the automated permit information system. 34 Matrix Consulting Group Page 157 24-164 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation page # Recommendation Numbers'' 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 31 staff in accordance with the cycle time objectives 34 The City should utilize the automated permit information system to generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track performance against cycle lima objectives and monitor the case workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of 32 these permits. 36 The Planning Division should fsatablish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30- 33 day initial completeness review and subsequent reviews. 39 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 34 accountable for meeting these guidelines. 39 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 35 conditions of approval or competing code requirements. 41 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 36 provided to the applicant once completed. 41 The authority of the case manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy developed by tike Planning Division and approved 37 by the Community Development Director. 42 The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering 38 permits should be documented and posted to the City's web site. 43 The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the 39 divisions and departments. 43 The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the review and processing of discn3tionary and administrative 40 applications by its own staff. 45 The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its web site 41 for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45 The Planning Division should develop design guidelines for multi- 42 family, commercial, and signs. 46 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 43 sites. 48 Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for the length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as 44 a performance guideline for all organizational units. 49 The Building Division should utilize the automated permit information system to assure tlhe status of each plan is readily 45 visible. 52 Matrix Consulting Group Page 158 24-165 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* 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 46 published by the Community Development Director. 53 The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of its building 47 permits over the Internet. 54 The Building Division should increase the number of building permits issued over - the - counter to 60% of all building permits 48 issued. 55 The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to Building 49 Technician. 55 The Building Technician position, when filled, should be utilized to provide over -the- counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous 50 building permits. 55 The Building Technician classification should be revised to require certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician within 12 months 51 of hire. 55 The Building Division should provide support, funding, and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC- certified Permit 52 Technician. 55 Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in 53 minor residential improvements. 58 Develop a "Home Improvement Center" web page on the Town's web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building 54 permit plan check and inspection process. 58 The Building Division should improve the building permit plan check 55 performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives. 59 The Building Division should reduce the number of divisions and 56 departments that are routed building permit plans. 63 The City should assign responsibility to the Building Division for 57 zoning clearance of simple building permits. 63 The Building Division should adopt a policy to accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request 58 service. 64 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for 59 those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67 The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to the Division's web site and identify these cycle time objectives in 60 the Division's application guides. 68 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for 61 those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan decking. 70 Chapter 4 - Analysis of the Automated Permit Information System All of the departments and divisions should utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building 62 permit, and engineering permit process. 71 Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the automated permit information system to support the work of these 63 departments and divisions. 71 Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the 64 automated permit information system. 71. Matrix Consulting Group Page 159 24-166 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* 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 65 information. 72 The automated permit information system should include the 66 capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice Response system. 73 The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response (NR) 67 System. 73 The automated permit information system should have wireless 68 capabilities. 74 The automated permit information system should have an 69 automated workflow capacity. 75 The automated permit information system should have the capacity 70 for online project management: and collaboration tools. 76 The automated permit information system should have the capacity 71 to interface with ESRI GIS. 76 All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and inspections should be archived in the automated permit information 72 system. 77 Architectural plans should be archived in the automated permit 73 information system once the permit is finalized 77 All of the divisions and departments that utilize the automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, 74 comments, and conditions in the system. 78 The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a 75 fully functional automated permit information system. 79 The City should acquire a fully developed commercial- off -the -shelf 76 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 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 78 hour. 81 The Planning Division should rmnduct a pilot program of providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor corrections to 79 expedite the approval process. 81 The City should develop a comprehensive "How -to Manual" or "Development Guide" for use by the public and publish this 80 document to their web site. 83 The Community Development Department should institute a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is distributed to the development community GDntaining code or interpretation updates, training information, and general discussion of relevant 81 .topics. 84 Matrix Consulting Group Page 160 24-167 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number"' 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, 82 subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes). 84 The Community Development Department should conduct an 83 annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey 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 84 and a 60 -day waiting period is put in place. 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 85 implementation. S5 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 86 certification to progress through the Planner job family. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering division -heads should 87 develop annual training programs for each employee in the division. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should provide additional training to increase their ability to make decisions regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building 88 odes to Increase consistency of interpretation among staff. 86 Provide not less that 44 -hours of job - related training annually for 89 each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. 86 Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign all employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their 90 presentation. Bring in outside industry training where appropriate. 86 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 91 decision and resolution. 86 The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at 92 least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency. 86 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 93 are appropriately calculated and assessed. 89 The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to its 94 building permits. 89 Matrix Consulting Group Page 169 24-168 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* 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. 95 The manual should be published to the Intranet. 90 96 The Planning Division should expand the annual work program. 92 The Planning Division should complete a project work plan prior to 97 commencement of an advanced planning project. 92 The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report regarding 98 the status of advanced planning projects. 94 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 99 Division, and providing a convenient summary of the project. 95 The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated 100 to advanced planning. 96 The City should change a zoning ordinance update fee to enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a surcharge to its 101 building permits. 96 The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead professionals within the Planning Division. This role: should be clarified in a written 102 division policy and procedure. 96 The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public 103 hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. 98 The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master 104 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 The City Council and the Planning Commission should conduct 106 joint meetings at least annualh►. 102 The City Council and Planning Commission should conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of any updating of the 107 Zoning Ordinance. 102 Planning Commission members should be provided with ongoing 108 training of no less than four hours a year. 102 The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be 109 provided with membership in the American Planning Association. 103 The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report 110 summarizing their activities and submit it to the City Council. 103 Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to manage Commission 111 meetings. 105 Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce the amount of time available to public speakers to the same amount as 112 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. Matrix Consulting Group Page 162 24 -169 Attachment B SUMMARY TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH STAFF COMMENTS N A 0 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments P g . No.* I, rrect r The workload table on page 10 does not include time required to serve the counter functions and Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle other miscellaneous tasks which amount to an 1 1 existing current planning workloads. additional1.OFTE 8 Cycle times noted on page 25 include multiple submittals. A more accurate measure of cycle The timelines for processing of planning permits by the time would be to count the time between when an City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential application is deemed complete and the approval time periods for review based upon project size and date for the project. It should be noted that this complexity and to differentiate between initial and re- distinction is harder to capture since the City's submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re- data management system is not currently able to submittals should be established at no more than one -half provide this information — a situation that can be 2 14 the timeframe required for the initial review. remedied with improved permitting software. 24 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 The Building Division should improve the building permit distinction. As noted on page 152, even with plan check performance to meet its stated plan check these numbers, the Building Division meets its 3 55 cycle time objectives Table on Pg 60 cycle time objectives 98% of the time. 59 t Cufrenl in Place ; Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and, when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for 1 other duties such as plan checking of residential interior 2 remodels, over - the - counter plan checking, etc. 11 Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to 2 3 building permit plan checking in the Building Division. 14 Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the 3 4 Building Division's permit counter. 15 The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing 4 5 authorized for the permit plan check process. 16 Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should Already posted with application forms be published to the Department website and prominently 5 15 displayed in the Department's application materials. 24 The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written Checklist included in application forms and 6 19 policy on planning application completeness and the customized for each application by project planner 29 Nc,. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments P9 ' No.* basis for rejecting incomplete applications. - Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff Ongoing assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for 7 20 rejecting planning applications as incomplete. 29 The case manager in the Planning Division should meet Ongoing with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 30 -day completeness review of the 8 23 application. 31 The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Ongoing Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be integrated into their performance 9 29 evaluation. 34 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering Included in review 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 10 31 cycle time objectives 34 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 11 33 subsequent reviews. 39 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 12 35 competing code requirements. 41 The case manager should ensure that all conditions of Applicant is informed of the staff recommendation approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that as well as all the conditions of approval ahead of each condition references the specific code or regulation time. Staff report is provided to applicant when that imposes / regulates the issues. Additionally, a copy the packet is ready for public review. of the staff report should be provided to the applicant 13 36 once completed. 41 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 14 37 Director_ 42 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 15 38 the City's web site. 43 The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of 16 39 approval by all of the divisions and departments. 43 No. Matrix - Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments P g . No.* The Planning Division should develop and utilize - checklists for the review and processing of discretionary 17 40 and administrative applications by its own staff. 45 The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its 18 41 web site for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45 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 19 44 organizational units. 49 The Building Division should utilize the automated permit information system to assure the status of each plan is 20 45 readily visible. 52 The Chief Building Official should be given the written Building Official already has authority to interface authority and responsibility to interface with other with other departments and agencies to resolve organizational units to resolve delays in processing delays in processing building permits building permit plans in a formal written policy published 21 46 by the Community Development Director. 53 We already keep routing to the minimum required. The Building Division should reduce the number of Routing is only done to departments that have divisions and departments that are routed building permit conditions of approval or review authority over 22 56 plans. projects. The Building Division should adopt a policy to We accommodate requests up to 7:OOAM based accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for on availability. 23 58 same day inspection request service. 64 Our current policy allows us to schedule appointments at the applicant's convenience and communicate through email in addition to having The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of the counter staffed from 7:30 -5:30 every day. providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor This allows us to provide better service than 24 79 corrections to expedite the approval process. having availability only during scheduled hours. 81 The City should communicate any new plan review and We currently do this with mailed notices, our inspection requirements to developers, contractors, website, flyers at the counter and newspaper architects, engineers, and the construction community notices. through issuance of information bulletins and a newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the new requirements, and show effective date of 25 85 implementation. 85 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 26 86 through the Planner job family. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering division -heads should develop annual training programs for each 27 87 employee in the division. 86 No. Rec n omm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments No.* 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 28 88 interpretation among staff. 86 Provide not less that 40 -hours of job - related training annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and 29 89 Engineering divisions. 86 The Building Division should implement quarterly training The City has a Pre - hearing Committee consisting sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building of departments and agencies involved in the Inspectors, the Plan Check Engineer, the Counter development process that discusses issues as Technician, and all employees involved in the they arise. 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 30 91 matters of concern for decision and resolution. 86 The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training 31 92 to achieve consistency. 86 The Planning Division prepares an annual work The Planning Division should expand the annual work program with the Planning Commission and 32 96 program. Council. 92 I he Planning Division should complete a project worK I he scope and schedule for large projects are plan prior to commencement of an advanced planning reviewed and approved by the Council 33 97 project. 92 The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report 34 98 regarding the status of advanced planning projects. 94 Our flat organizational setup allows us to handle a The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead large workload with a comparatively small staff of professionals within the Planning Division. This role 4.5 planners. We already utilize this system of should be clarified in a written division policy and having planners become "experts" on an issue 35 102 procedure. and train other staff. 96 The Planning Commission attends an annual conference that also serves as an opportunity for The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats discussion. Staff plans to add a retreat to the 36 105 with staff Planning Commission agenda for 2010 100 The Planning Commission attends a three -day Planning Commission members should be provided with annual conference and is provided additional 37 108 ongoing training of no less than four hours a ear. opportunities to train throughout the year. 102 The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be provided with membership in the American 38 109 Planning Association. 103 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No * Gan Be lmplementati Admmistrativeiy The Planning Division should separate the tentative application schedule from the 34 -page planning application form, and publish it separately to its first web 1 16 page for the Planning Division in the Planning "sidebar." 26 Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time 2 17 agreements with applicants for high priority projects 27 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 3 21 submittal: 29 These planning permit application guides should be 4 22 approximately 4 to 6 pages in length. 29 The Planning Division should provide training to consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers 5 24 regarding its planning permit submittal requirements. 31 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 6 25 problems meeting submittal requirements. 31 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by their staff using the automated permit 7 30 informations stem. 34 A formal written policy should be established for response The City has a policy of returning inquiries within times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from 24 -hour period. applicants that are received via email and /or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held accountable for 8 34 meeting these guidelines. 39 The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes and make 9 43 these available to the public on their web sites. 48 The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to We have a Counter Technician position that can 10 49 Building Technician. be renamed Building Technician 55 The Building Technician position, when filled, should be Already in the job description for the Counter utilized to provide over -the- counter plan checking of minor Technician 11 50 and miscellaneous building permits. 55 The Building Technician classification should be revised Already in the requirements for the Counter to require certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician 12 51 Technician within 12 months of hire. 55 No. Rec l omm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments No." The Building Division should provide support, funding, Same as above and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an 13 52 ICC- certified Permit Technician. 55 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 14 54 process. 58 The Engineering Division should develop application 15 59 guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67 The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to the Division's web site and identify these 16 60 cycle time objectives in the Division's application guides. 68 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead 17 61 for plan checking. 70 A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division Can open counter at lunch hour. Having on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at permanent staff at the counter not recommended the front counter during all hours of operation including since this would require additional staff, which 18 78 during the lunch hour. would be more expensive. 81 The City should develop a comprehensive "How -to Manual" or "Development Guide" for use by the public 19 80 and publish this document to their web site. 83 The Communitv Development Department should institute Can be implemented as an email fiv_ erlwebsite a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is resource distributed to the development community containing code or interpretation updates, training information, and 20 81 general discussion of relevant topics. 84 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 '21 82 building codes). 84 The Community Development Department should The City has survey cards at the Development conduct an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction Permit Center that people can fill out. In addition, 22 83 survey the City conducts periodic Godbe surveys. 84 Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign Staff has begun to identify items for training and all employees as presenters, and have them prepare plans to begin this shortly. outlines for their presentation. Bring in outside industry 23 90 training where appropriate. 86 A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all major work functions and services provided by the 24 95 Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. A copy of 90 No Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments P g . 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. The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and Already in the budget (position is vacant). Can be dedicated to advanced planning. implemented if workload indicates more staff is 25 100 needed. 96 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 26 99 summary of the project. 95 The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report summarizing their activities and submit it to the City 27 110 Council. 103 requires Couinc�ii Review #or Im,pletfi. htaflb.n Budget/Qrdmance) M�tnx No. Recomm: Matrix Re Staff "Comments N '* F. The City should streamline the process for minor Requires Ordinance change Streamline planning permits by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi - ministerial review and are subject 1 6 to codified performance standards. 17 The Planning Division should develop codified Requires Ordinance change Streamline performance standards and requirements for these minor permits for consideration and approval of the City 2 7 Council. 17 The approval of these codified performance standards Requires Ordinance change Streamline and requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the conversion of these minor planning 3 8 permits to permitted uses. 17 Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be Requires Ordinance change Streamline modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision- making authority for conditional use permits and 4 9 variances with the City Council having the right of appeal. 21 The staff of the Plannina Division should not write staff Requires policy change Streamline 5 10 reports for minor permits_ 22 The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for Requires Ordinance /policy change Streamline minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are 6 11 noticed. 22 The number of appeals that are possible for planning Requires Ordinance change Streamline 7 12 permits should be limited to one appeal. 23 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for We already implement this without our Infrastructure/Technology . the maintenance of case status information in the permitting system. A well- designed automated permit information system by managers, online permitting system (which requires supervisors, and staff assigned to processing planning, funding) will help automate many of the building and engineering permit applications. functions that currently need manual 8 26 checks. 33 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 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 9 27 updated in the automated permit informations stem. 33 Matrix. _. No. Recomm. ! Matrix Recommendation ' Staff, Comments Pg . NM Category . # The City should hold division -heads in Planning, Building Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 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 10 28 permit informations stem. 34 The City should utilize the automated permit information Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 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 11 32 permits. 36 The Planning Division should develop design guidelines Requires funding for Readability and Consistency 12 42 for multi-family, commercial, and signs. consultants /outreach 46 Our current online permitting system Infrastructure/Technology allows about 10% of our permits to be The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of processed. A more robust permitting its building permits over the Internet. system (which requires funding) will , increase the type and number of permits 13 47 that can be handled online. 54 The Building Division should increase the number of Same comment as above. It should be Infrastructure/Technology building permits issued over -the- counter to 60% of all noted that the complexity of the permit building permits issued. types will determine whether they can be 14 48 handled online. 55 All of the departments and divisions should utilize the Requires funding for new automated Infrastructure/Technology automated permit information system for all aspects of permitting system the planning, building permit, and engineering permit 15 62 process. 71 Modules, applications and reports should be developed Same as above Infrastructure/Technology within the automated permit information system to 16 63 support the work of these departments and divisions. 71 Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 17 64 use of the automated permit informations stem. 71 The City should utilize the automated permit information Same as above Infrastructure/Technology system to provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data through the Internet or for the 18 65 public and applicants to subscribe to information. 72 The automated permit information system should include Same as above Infrastructure/Technology the capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice 19a 66 Responses stem. 73 The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response Same as above Infrastructure/Technology OD (NR) System. 20 67 73 Ma - No:' Recomm MatrixRecommendation' Staff Commenlls Rg Category The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure /Technology 21 68 wireless capabilities. 74 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 22 69 an automated workflow capacity. 75 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology the capacity for online project management and 23 70 collaboration tools. 76 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 24 71 the capacity to interface with ESRI GIS. 76 All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan Same as above Infrastructure/Technology checks, and inspections should be archived in the 25 72 automated permit informations stem. 77 Architectural plans should be archived in the automated Same as above Infrastructure/Technology . 26 73 permit informations stem once the permit is finalized 77 All of the divisions and departments that utilize the Same as above Infrastructure/Technology automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, comments, and conditions in the 27 74 system. 78 The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity Same as above Infrastructure/Technology to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a fully functional automated permit 28 75 information system. Same as above 79 Infrastructure/Technology The City should acquire a fully developed commercial -off- 29 76 the -shelf automated permit informations stem. 79 The City should remodel the permit center. Requires funding Infrastructure/Technology 30 77 80 The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning, Requires funding for Fee Study Fees /Cost Recovery building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees are appropriately 31 93 calculated and assessed. 89 The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge Requires funding for Fee Study l=ees /Cost Recovery 32 94 to its building permits. 89 The City should charge a zoning or update fee to Requires funding for Fee Study Fees /Cost Recovery enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a 33 101 surcharge to its building permits. 96 The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives Council Policy Other A for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. 34 103 98 N oI 0 Matrx No Recomm. No.. Recornm Matrix Recommendation Staff Comnients Pg. No:" Category The City uses covenants to ensure that critical conditions of approval are recorded The Engineering Division should update the stormwater Requires funding for Stormwater Master Streamlining master plan in the next two years using a consulting Plan 1 13 35 104 engineering firm, 98 Pre - application conferences help The City Council and the Planning Commission should Council Policy 2 Other 36 106 conduct joint meetings at least annually. 102 Not recommended due to liability The City Council and Planning Commission should Council Policy Other Develop standard building permit plans for use by the typically need to be customized for a conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of 53 public in minor residential improvements. particular situation. 37 107 any updating of the Zoning Ordinance. Not recommended because many planning 102 applications have conditions of approval Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the Requires change to bylaws Other responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to done by a planner. This also allows 38 111 manage Commission meetings. 105 time instead of having one person follow Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce Requires change to bylaws /policy 4 Other the amount of time available to public speakers to the 39 112 same amount as that provided at City Council meetings. 105 N oI 0 63 Matrix„ No Recomm. Matrix Recommendation Staff' The City uses covenants to ensure that critical conditions of approval are recorded against the property to ensure that the Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants intent of a decision remains as properties 1 13 subsequent to approval of a planning application. change owners. Pre - application conferences should not be required Pre - application conferences help for routine planning permit applications approved by applicants provide complete applications 2 18 the Community Development Director. before submittals and reduce cycle times. Not recommended due to liability associated with providing plans, which Develop standard building permit plans for use by the typically need to be customized for a 3 53 public in minor residential improvements. particular situation. Not recommended because many planning applications have conditions of approval that require detailed review that is best The City should assign responsibility to the Building done by a planner. This also allows Division for zoning clearance of simple building multiple reviews to be done in a shorter permits. time instead of having one person follow up on all issues. 4 57 63 The City should require that any new ordinance and newspaper, mailed notices and our code requirements not previously imposed will not be website. In addition the ordinance goes enforced on current construction and future jobs until into effect 30 -days after the second the industry is informed and a 60 -day waiting period is reading. This provides more than 60 days 84 out in place. notice for potential applicants. 85 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. N A OD Attachment C CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planninj�gcuperti.no.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 Agenda Date: April 13, 2010 Application: CP- 2010 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input and ideas for implementing the recommendations in the Management Study of the Permit Process in the City of Cupertino, prepared by Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix Study), for the City Council's consideration. BACKGROUND In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the development permit process and operations. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency. Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment 1). The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City's website. They then compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. Attachment 2 is a summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. The recommendations fall in the following categories: • About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented and/ or require minimal adjustments. 24-182 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update April 13, 2010 Paae 2 • About 22 percent of the recommendations can be implemented administratively and are being currently being implemented • About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission review/ City Council action in the form of Ordinance/ Policy amendments or funding. • About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to inconsistencies with City policies/ department functions and /or potential liability concerns; and • About four percent of the recommendations were based on incorrect assumptions by the Consultant. DISCUSSION The discussion of this staff report will focus on the recommendations that require Planning Commission review /Council action involving either ordinance/ policy amendments and/or funding. These reconunendations have been divided into four main categories to provide a context for discussion: 1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments 2. Infrastructure/ Technology Improvement;, 3. Fee Amendments/ Cost Recovery 4. Other Misc. Recommendations 1. ORDINANCWPOLICY AMENDMENTS A substantial amount of Matrix's recommendations revolve around streamlining the City's development review process. Matrix suggested that the City's development review process should be adjusted to allow a wider range of projects to be approved administratively subject to codified performance standards. Further, evaluation should be made to reduce the amount of projects that require City Council review (i.e. such as Conditional Use Permits and Variances). Finally, there are opportunities to enhance and revise the City's Municipal Code and various Specific/ Conceptual Plans to improve the readability and consistency. (a) Streamlining_ the Permit Process (i) Adjusting the review) authority for projects The Matrix report notes that Cupertino's development process requires more levels of review when compared to sin:ular cities and recommends that the approval authority for projects be streamlined. Staff conducted a high -level review of approval authority for projects in three local cities that have a good reputation for efficiency: Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment 3). These cities also share similar community characteristics with Cupertino and often compete with Cupertino to attract 24 -183 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update April 13, 2010 Page 3 economic development including corporate headquarters, hotels and retail centers. The survey showed the following results: • Mountain View has the most efficient development approval system, followed by Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Cupertino's process is the most involved and is ranked last in the survey. • Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara allow staff level approval of development projects that can be approved with CEQA categorical exemptions. Typically, the threshold for a categorical exemption is infill projects on 5 acres or less, and in non infill areas non - residential projects of 10,000 square feet or 6 units. Cupertino requires Planning Commission review of all new development projects regardless of size and Council review of development over 5,000 square feet of commercial, 10,000 square feet of office/ industrial, and eight (8) residential units. Recommendations provided in Attachment 3 for the Planning Commission's considerations include adoption of the CEQA Categorical Exemption thresholds for staff level review. (ii) Reducing noticing requirements The Matrix report identifies that the City of Cupertino's noticing requirements often exceed State requirements. In some cases, the cost of noticing a project far exceeds the application fee. Some recommendations to reduce noticing requirements while still meeting the need for the public to be informed include: ■ Stop requiring R1 projects to mail plan sets to neighbors within a 300 -foot radius and provide a link to the City's website where the plans could be posted. In cases where projects would require expensive City -wide noticing, provide one mailed notice at the beginning of the project and provide a link to the project on the City's webpage where interested parties can go to get the latest information and also sign up to get regular emails when new material is posted. (b) Improving Readability and Consistency Staff recommends a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Specific staff recommendations include: ■ Codify the Planned Industrial and Office (MP /OP) zones in the Zoning Ordinance. This section is currently used but not codified. 24-184 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update April 13, 2010 Page 4 • Incorporate the West Valley industrial Park Zoning area (ML -rc) into the Light Industrial (ML) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. • Create a new Commercial ordinance to include all commercial zones including General Commercial (CG) ordinance anc' Neighborhood Commercial (CN) uses and standards. • Clarify and cleanup definitions, permitted uses, parking ratios, daycare policies, etc. The Planning Commission may provide additional input and suggestions to this list. Once the City Council authorizes the Ordinance enhancements and process framework, staff will bring back specific Ordinance revisions for the Planning Commissions consideration and recommendation to Council. (c) Specific/Conceptual Plans Many of the city's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 1970's and 1980's. Since then, the General Plan has been updated three times. These plans need to be updated, made consistent with the General Plan and enhanced with formats similar to the recently adopted Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff recommends updating the following Plans as time permits to be consistent with the new General Plan with updated formats and graphics: • North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan • South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan • Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines • South Sunnyvale- Saratoga Conceptual. Zoning Plan The estimated cost of updating each plan is between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on the scope of the project and outreach. 2. INFRASTRUCTURWTECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS One of the high - priority recommendations in the Matrix report is the implementation of a new automated permit software system. (a) Online Permit System While our current permitting system allows applicants to submit basic information online, it does not have features such as, online submission of applications and plan review. As a result, online permitting car;. only be offered for very small projects such as roofing tile replacement and water heater replacements that do not require plans. Additionally, Pentamation, our current software company, has moved to a new software platform for online permitting and reduced its support for the system we currently use. The combination of old software and reduced vendor support has resulted in increased staff time to troubleshoot and monitor even the small number of online permits (currently, about ten vendors use the system). Matrix recommends implementation of a new permitting systE,m for Planning, Building, and Engineering services. 24-185 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update April 13, 2010 PaL-e 5 A new online permitting system will increase customer service by allowing applicants to submit applications and plans online, staff to check plans electronically, and customers the ability to check comments and submit corrections at their convenience without making a trip to City Hall. It will have the added benefit of reducing copying costs and reducing the permitting process by eliminating the time taken to mail or deliver plans (see Attachment 4 for additional features of online permitting systems). When linked to GIS systems, such software can also allow customers to search for project information within a geographic area. Based on discussions with Matrix, permit software providers, our Information Technology Division and cities that have implemented such software, staff has estimated the cost of a new permitting system at about $500,000 (to be spread out over several years, which is typical for the City) with $50,000 in annual maintenance. N Infrastructure Improv_e_ments The Matrix Study also recommends redesigning the permit counter area to improve customer service. Some ideas include provision of a Help kiosk /computer where waiting customers can access online information related to City services. Another is to redesign the area to add a customer meeting place where staff can sit down with customers to discuss plans. The current layout does not allow this. The cost of improvements will depend on the scope of the project. Comments from the Commission on this issue will be forwarded to the Council. 3. FEE AMENDMENTS/COST RECOVERY As is common in other cities, Matrix recommends that the City incorporate the cost of long -range planning studies /project and the permit system into the development fee schedule. Long -range Planning Fees The City regularly spends an average of $100,000 to $200,000 annually on long -range studies and projects such as General Plan updates, Housing Elements, Specific Plans, Conceptual Plans and Master Plans to provide for additional development opportunities and keep the City's document current. The City Council has expressed an interest in recouping some of the costs for such projects. Many cities have included the cost of long -range studies in their development fee schedule. For example, Los Gatos adds a 10% surcharge on planning applications for advance planning projects and Cupertino formerly charged a Stevens Creek Specific Plan Fee to cover the cost of the preparation of the original Heart of the city Specific Plan. Staff is recommending incorporating about 25 % of the cost into the current fee schedule. Permit System Improvement Fees As mentioned previously, the cost of a new permitting system is about $500,000 with an annual maintenance fee of about $50,000. Staff is proposing to charge about 75% of that cost to permit users (to be spread out over a number of years). The Matrix Study had 24-186 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update April 13, 2010 Pave 6 recommended a technology fee of 4% since that was typical for cities such as Los Gatos, Santa Clara and Mountain View (proposed FY 2010 -11). The City Council will review the 2010 -11 fee schedule recommendations on April 20, 2010. 4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS There are other miscellaneous recommendations made by Matrix relating to Planning Commission and City Council bylaws and communication that the Commission may wish to comment on. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: .i i. . City Planner ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Approved by: iwj�& Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 Summary table o1 recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities Online Permitting; System Features G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT \pcCPreports \2010CPneport \CP - 2010 -01 PC4- I3- I0.doc 24-187 DRAFT Cupertino Planning Commission 18 ATTACHMENT D Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms. Giefer and Kaneda absent; to approve Application U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010-08 and EA- 2009 -11, with the added conditions that the separated sidewalk end with the new construction on Franco; and if not, replace the existing landscape that goes past that; that the second drive - through be allowed and that the applicant will work with staff to make it work as best as possible; and that Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the BMR fees be reduced or eliminated to encourage the development of the property; and that the applicant be given a credit for the gateway sign to be applied toward the public artwork. Chair Brophy declared a short recess. 4. CP- 2010 -01 Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services Citywide Location and organizational efficiency. Gary Chao, presented the staff report: • In 2009 the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the City's development review process including operations of the Planning Department, Building Department and Public Works. The process entailed interviewing customer focus groups, survey of city staffs, review of the development review process, and the permit data and city's website. They also did a comparative study of other comparable cities and also looked at common Best Management Practices in the industry. • The recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency fell in five categories as outlined in the staff report, Page 4 -1 and 4 -2. • The discussion will focus on recommendations from Matrix that require Planning Commission review /City Council action involving either ordinance /policy amendments and/or funding. The four categories are: (1) Ordinance/Policy Amendments; (2) Infrastructure/Technology Improvements; (3) Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery; and (4) Other Misc Recommendations. 1. Ordinance /Policy Amendments (a) Streamlining the Permit Process (i) Adjusting the Review Authority for Projects: • Matrix spent a great deal of time analyzing how the city's process could be streamlined. Their recommendation includes adjusting review authorities for projects; the study identified that the city's process is not on par with neighboring cities and is sometimes over - complicated and has identified areas in which they could make adjustments. Staff has done a comparative analysis with neighboring cities and has included the recommendations in the staff report. Staff is also recommending use of the CEQA categorical exemption thresholds to determine if a project requires staff level approval or going on to a higher body for review. Recommendations are detailed in Attachment 3 of the staff report. (ii) Reducing Noticing Requirements. • Matrix acknowledged that many of the notification requirements exceed the minimum State requirements; specifically staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider minimizing plans being sent to adjacent neighbors or those within 300 feet for their reviews, and looking at notifying the general public more efficiently when there is a larger item. It is also recommended not to mail R1 plan sets to neighbors within 300 feet radius, but provide a link to the City's website where the plans could be posted. 24-188 Cupertino Planning Commission April 13, 2010 (b) Improving Readability and Consistency • Staff recommends that a comprehensive review be done all the zoning ordinance, repetitions can be reduced and definitions added for clarification. More tables are being used as evidenced in the Heart of the City format and the sign ordinance, which provides an easier format to understand. Additional staff recommendations are detailed on Page 4- 4 of the staff report. (c) Specific/Conceptual Plans • Many of the City's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 70s and $0s and need to updated to be consistent with the General Plan and enhanced with formats similar to the recently adopted Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff recommends updating of the North DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan, South DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan, Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines, and South Sunnyvale- Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan be updated; each plan costing between $15K and $25K depending on the scope of the project and outreach. 2. Infrastructure/Technololty Improvements (a) Online Permit System • One of Matrix's high priority recommendations is the implementation of a new online permit system because the current system is deficient in that it requires a lot of support and maintenance on staff as different departments cannot jointly use and communicate through the system. A new system should be online based, fully integrated so that various departments and divisions can be using the same system to plan projects, communicate with developers, and applicants can look up their status real time and submit applications, review comments, and resubmit plans onEme. It also should have the ability to link with GIS to facilitate the comprehensive research by applicants and developers; all of which will lead to reduced costs and increase review efficiency. A new system will cost approximately $500,000 with a $15,000 annual maintenance fee. (b) Infrastructure Improvements • The Matrix Study also recommends redesign of the Planning Dept. permit counter area to improve customer service, including a kiosk or using technology to set up the lobby area so that people can use the self -help area, and adding a more comfortable and better interface for the public. Cost would depend on the final scope of the project. 3. Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery (a) Long -Range Planning Fees • Matrix recommends the City incorporate- a long -range planning fee into the development fee schedule. Staff is recommending incorporating approximately 25% of the cost into the current fee schedule in order to recoup some of the costs for such long -range studies and projects as General Plan updates, Housing Elements, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans and Master Plans. (b) Permit System Improvement Fees • Matrix recommends that a technology fire of 4% be implemented to charge permit users relative to fee recovery of fees necessary to support the new permit system. The permitting system will cost about $500 and staff proposes to charge approximately 75% of the cost to permit users to be spread over a number of years. The technology fee is consistent with surrounding jurisdictions 4. Other A isc. Recommendations • Miscellaneous recommendations by Matrix include Planning Commission and City Council bylaws, operational procedures, and communication with one another; summarized in their report. 24-189 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 April 13, 2010 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input and ideas for implementing the recommendations by Matrix and staff. Com. Miller: • Asked staff if they were suggesting for developments of subdivisions of 6 units or less, that it be staff level review and not go the Planning Commission or City Council. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said when they reviewed other cities and looked at how they divided staff, it runs the entire gamut. They compared cities that they compete economically with, such as Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View, where they look at review procedures that are not so much more onerous than the ones they have. Any CEQA exemptions tend to be approved at the staff level, done in a variety of ways. Mountain View is different in that all current projects are approved at staff level, and only ones that require tentative map, EIRs for rezoning or subdivision maps go the City Council. The project being discussed would be at staff level in Mountain View and would only go to Planning Commission if there was an appeal. In other cities it would depend on the CEQA exemption. In other cities, and what staff is recommending is maybe projects that are not going to have any CEQA impacts, could be the threshold for where the Planning Commission reviews it; perhaps a higher threshold for the City Council. Com. Miller: • Said that the function of the Planning Commission was, that they work out all the details so that the Council can make the higher level decisions, which is what staff recommends. Aard Shrivastava: • CIarified that the smaller projects of 5,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet don't need to go through three levels of review; there is the ability to design the system where neighborhood impacts are addressed. • Discussed Mountain View's process; they have a staff level hearing similar to Cupertino's for DRC, neighbors are noticed, who come and speak if they have any issues. The Mountain View process is different from all the other cities studied, because their Planning Commission only reviews General Plan amendments, rezoning, precise plans, conceptual plans; everything else is reviewed by staff. It only goes to the City Council, if it is bumped up because of an issue or it requires a tentative map, or any of those rezonings or other issues. She provided an example of Bed Bath and Beyond, Costco, and the Center at Charleston Road being approved at staff level. • She said that staff was not suggesting the Mountain View process at this time; something in- between would be a good choice. Cam. Miller: • Said some applicants and residents have voiced their concerns in a number of different areas of development; and he wanted to make sure their issues as well as staff s issues were addressed. One of the concerns is that the review process takes a very long time; some residents who were trying to either build new homes or do remodels gave up on the efforts after a year. He said he did not know if they were issues of the past or present, but he is sensitive to their concerns. He noted that the Toll Brothers project took 3 to 4 years to get approved. • He said other concerns heard from residents, is that sometimes responsiveness is not as good as they hoped for, either at the counter, or through emails or phone calls. It is challenging to get a response back from the city. From the staffs standpoint, he said he knew staff is 24-190 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 13, 2010 overworked and he was sensitive to the fact chat the Commission is onsite twice a month, but staff is working on this four times a month, every week either for the Planning Commission or City Council. It is a never - ending cycle and staff has a difficult job and he was sensitive to that. If the improvements staff is suggesting in terms of more staff level review will help them be more efficient, he said he supported it. Aarti Shrivastava: Said it made sense; they would put in time at one hearing or the other, but it would not increase their workload. Their focus is on how best they can streamline the review process while still making sure that neighborhood concerns and other concerns are addressed because that is important. Staff is recommending a medium range of changes; she said that it is correct that there are many instances where responsiveness could be better; staff considers it a process of continuous improvement; they don't see the Matrix report as the end of a process, and they are constantly looking at ways to internally review their processes and they have heard some compliments. They will also look at how the ordinance could be simplified; how the information can be arranged in a more readable way. Staffs focus has been if you need a table to explain the ordinance, then the ordinance should be the table; you shouldn't have to have documentation to explain the ordinance. Those are examples of how they simplify; and some of their notification recommendations have also been made based on that. Com. Miller: • Said the suggestions for notification were good ones as well. Also the sensitivity to the neighborhood is very important; they have gone overboard in making sure everybody is noticed and that there are public hearings. Said that when he joined the Planning Commission in 2003 it was very antagonistic between the; residents, City Council and staff; it was a very contentious time. Part of the reason it has changed is that they went overboard with disclosures, approvals and public hearings m opposed to meetings that aren't quite so public and their outreach efforts. He said they don't want to return to the past antagonism, but want to be more efficient and it is very challenging, • Said the suggestions about technology improvements are also very good; having more info on line, being able to reduce costs by not having; to produce numerous different sets of plans for each application are all good things. The concern is if you reduce costs but you are going to charge someone a percentage of a half million dollars plus a percentage of $50,000 a year, the overall costs will increase; said he had difficulty understanding how it could be considered an efficiency improvement, efficiency means lower cost, but in fact it is a higher cost. Aarti Shrivastava: Said it would be ideal if there was unlimited funding and the services were free. In talking with developers, they feel that two things are more important than money; time and the faster you can process something, and the more certainty you can put into the process in terms of how do you notify somebody, what kind of parking ratios; trying to take those up in the air things and tying them down so they know ups front what the issues are, are important. Staff if focusing on those two things. Staff feels there will be a cost savings in terms of the repeat submittal of applications when they do submit; that cost will be offset by the overhead of the technology cost. The result of the system will be a system that exponentially is better; they can submit things from their office, they don't have to come to City Hall to submit them; and they can pay for it online. Staff has seen presentations from three software companies to get an idea of the price range. Once a decision is made, it takes about 18 months to start implementing the system; once it is done they can look at the review comments online, look at the pictures. There will be a cost +ZWUIX Cupertino Planning Commission 22 April 13, 2010 tradeoff; there will not be a net savings because where you save in the submission of plans you will probably pay in terms of the overhead costs. The improvement will be in service. Com. Miller: • Said he would like to see and understand the exact dollar estimates; saying 25% or 75% of the cost over a period of years does not fully explain the numbers. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said presently they charge an overhead for the system that they use for Building, because only Building has that system. • When they put in the new system and spread the cost out for Public Works, Planning and Building, that cost will be a fixed cost spread out over a period of time. For this year for example it will likely result in an increase of about 3% in the fees; over time it would be a smaller percentage because it would be a fixed cost that doesn't go up; it won't be a 3% increase. When comparing other cities, they range from 4% to 10 %. Com. Miller: • There is also an offset and that is if you are also recommending that there is reduced DRC, Planning Commission and Council hearings, there is a reduction in fees because you are not having to go to those bodies. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could do a fee study once they start implementing it to see how much time is taken. In her experience in Mountain View there was a lot of work up front, they did have a hearing, there may not be three levels of hearings; for a project of this type it would have been two hearings; there may be some savings. • She noted that it is an area of increased government regulations; staff recently made a recommendation to approve the landscaping ordinance, and are not asking for a fee for that because they think that the city should absorb the cost. In all the review, she said she did not know what the savings will be but they will try to keep the cost down. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was shocked at contents the Matrix report; and felt it was a recommendation from an outside body who does not comprehend what goes on in Cupertino. She said she looked at the report as not having the public involved whatsoever which negated all the public input they worked so hard for in Cupertino to become a part of the building process, to understand the planning process and this has tremendous dangerous ramifications for her neighborhood who wound up in Cupertino because they needed protection that the County was not providing. • She said the city should not stop doing notifications for 300 feet; there are people on her street that do not have computer access; they cannot all get on the web; the deck issue shows a complete lack of understanding on Matrix' part about notification of second story decks in Cupertino. Notification is necessary as is filing of covenants. She said there are advantages to high technology, but human interaction is also needed; quality means human interaction. Chair Brophy: • Asked if they still need to mail plan sets to a 300 foot radius; in his experience the neighbors get anxious when they get a full set of plans and most who don't have a design background don't have an ability to read and understand them. b 24-192 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 13, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they were not planning to do away with the 300 foot notification; it is required. They would like to have the plans online so that people can zoom in and read them better; no other application requires plan sets to be mailed and staff felt it was too onerous for only Rl. Vice Chair Lee: • Said they should look at the ordinance, clean up the language; they have seen some daycare facilities and they have not provided a lot of guidance so they might be frustrated at that point; improve the readability as was done for the sign ordinance; with the technology, people could check the status of their permits online and that way the departments are interconnected. It is important to get a web based system. • Said she felt it was a good thing to continue with the noticing requirements, but not send the entire plan sets. In terms of streamlining reviewing authority, it is a good idea; perhaps a few more things can be done at the staff level; it would be better and staff will be able to resolve a lot of issues. The residents are comfortable now, they are emailing staff if they have questions, and staff can do a good job about helping to mitigate their concerns. Chair Brophy: • Thanked Com. Miller for urging the Commission to take advantage of the slowdown in the development process to use the opportunity to clean up some of the processes, some of the ordinances which have grown over the years; it is a good opportunity to deal with some of the issues. • Staff provided a informational report of th(,- applications from the last two years that the Planning Commission and DRC had processed and he recalled there were meetings that had very mundane and minute items that did not have a policy reason why they should be considering the application. • Said he was concerned that Matrix primari held focus groups with large developers and professional architects who are regular visitors to the Planning Dept. downstairs. He said the type of concerns he has heard are the problems that one -time users of the Planning and Building process have, the person building a house, the small businessman putting up a small expansion on a space, or building a small office, and that the process seemed overwhelming and endless. To the extent they can use this period to try to reduce the burden on those people and to the extent they can identify either changes in the review process for the smaller user, reduce in some cases to not having a review; one of the questions that comes up are things like conditional uses. In the past with the State holding a gun to their heads and that of the Council, they agreed that churches could have as a matter of right, permanent homeless shelters, yet the city require daycares and churches to be conditional uses. He said it struck him as a strange juxtaposition. • He suggested that since it is a difficult economic period, they could review the entire fee structure that applicants face in planning and building to get a sense of where they stand relative to adjoining communities; rather than arguing about BMR prices or technology fees that they deal with. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was a good point. She said she was involved with a fee study in 2003 and they looked at how many hours it took to review a typical application, what the overhead costs were; and compared it with other cities to see if Cupertino was in line with them. She said they have to remain competitive with other cities and cannot have costs over and above many other cities. Cupertino's fees are very reasonable. 24-193 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 April 13, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Said he would like to handle the fee issue as a complete package rather than partially, saying their BMRs are too high, too low, then moving onto other fees. If there is some way of making this the first element of their work with Matrix, she urged them to get it done as quickly as possible. Com. Miller: • Said it was an outstanding idea to review the fees and also staff's recommendation and see how they are. Aarti Shrivastava: Matrix was recommending a technology fee of 4 %, and based on their study and what they are looking at, staff would put it in the overhead costs, and Building puts in an overhead cost for their permitting system. It would be updated and since more than one department would be using it, they would spread that cost over the departments that use it. Staff recommends passing on not 100% of the costs, but only 75% because they understand there may be some efficiency in the elimination of paperwork. That will result in about a 3% increase; money would be saved in not having to copy plan sets several times. If you are paying park impact fees, BMR fees, school impact fees, those will not be charged the 3% fee; it is only a Building permit review, Planning review and Public Works review; all other fees will not be considered because that is not part of the review process; that is a separate issue entirely. It is an example of where they think it would be a good tradeoff. Chair Brophy: • Said it was important that everybody understand what all the fees are, what changes are made. At the risk of not being able to get it ready for the budget cycle, there won't be many people demanding permits in the next couple of months. He said he hoped they would have the opportunity to have a comprehensive look at the entire fee structure and would settle for a list of the fees. Aarti Shrivastava: • She said staff would provide an idea of how much PW Market paid in fees; keeping in mind that they would be talking about Planning fees, school impact, park and BMR, which are part of the fee structure. Not all of them come through this department; the park fees come through Public Works; the schools determine the school impact fees. • Staff discussed the fees paid by PW Market relative to the proposed new store. Said that staff is not recommending changing the BMR fees; recommendations regarding fees relate to the online permitting and advance planning- fees. Only the Planning and Building permit review fees will be subject to the online permitting overhead. Com. Miller: • Said they agree that what staff is proposing from a technology standpoint seems like it is worth the cost and the value; the value being more than the cost. Looking at it from the applicant's standpoint, he is not just looking at the Planning fees, but is looking at all the fees he has to pay. It would be helpful to understand all of it, to understand how to get an idea from the applicant's standpoint what is he looking at and they are doing to help him make things easier. • Some of the things staff is proposing by pulling more of the review at staff level instead of the City Council is going to help in terms of the overall fees. There is also one large implicit fee, which is the time cost of money and the longer it takes for someone to get through, he is paying carrying costs on his property and that is probably one of the biggest fees he has to contend with. 24-194 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 April 13, 2010 • He recommended that one more meeting be held on the application, to enable the Commission to absorb what staff has discussed, do more work on it, and get input from the two absent Commissioners Giefer and Kaneda. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she understood they wanted to see the entire gamut, and would send them a schedule; it is not something they are recommending changing at this point and they are not recommending big changes to the fee schedule. She asked for their comments and opinion of the online permitting cost and the advance planning cost, and if they feel it is a value, it is something that is worth looking at, since the Council is considering the fee schedule for the budget. Chair Brophy: • Given that the suggestion is to put the increase also on the building permit fees which are the big dollar ones; as far as the advance planning fees that is not a new fee, we are saying that some of that cost should be recouped through Planning and Building fees rather than through the General Fund revenues. Aarti Shrivastava: • Correct; and it is a similar argument on the online permitting system; the General Fund has to absorb the cost of all these systems. Chair Brophy: • The online permitting is a new thing and you are saying that we need to capture some or all of that cost now. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the requirement for the system is generated by permit users, it is a database for permits. Twenty -five percent of it provides some advantages to the people who pull permit because they get the direct benefit from any of those updates; 75% could be absorbed by the general public. It helps staff set up a fund to keep their systems updated and to assure people that there is a way to do that. The biggest value to the process is time and certainty. Chair Brophy: • Said he was uncomfortable with the lack of :information; and he would like to see the whole fee structure, not just the Planning side. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could provide the fee schedules. • Suggested that they forward it to the Planning; Commission for them to study it and see if they have any general recommendations; then staff can focus their Matrix discussion on how they can streamline the review process. If there are any additional recommendations on fees, staff can take that forward separately. Chair Brophy: • Said he would continue to support the mailing of the notification, mailing a sufficient set of plans, whether it is front or rear elevations, to adjoining neighbors as well, and relative to citywide noticing, one citywide noticing per project is adequate with notice as to where to find it. The practice of sending multiple citywide notices is excessive. In terms of giving them something to act on, if residents of the community feel differently, it will go to the Council and they can express their opinions at the Council meeting. 24-195 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 April 13, 2010 Vice Chair Lee: The report states that people can appeal twice and then the consulting group recommends limiting it to one appeal; how can people appeal twice? Pin Ghosh: • A staff level decision can be appealed once to Planning Commission where that decision is final; the Planning Commission's decision can then be appealed to City Council. Gary Chao: • The consultant is recommending looking at ways to come up with a threshold as to certain type of project; for example, the Planning Commission would be the final appeal body as opposed to somebody having to appeal everybody like the subcommittee, DRC, staff, Planning Commission, and have the experience of those type of hearings where the same conversation is repeated; and at the City Council there are another two attempts for reconsideration. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff hasn't made any specific recommendations to that point; she said they would focus on some things that have more value such as the appeal process; staff can look at what is required and what isn't. • If someone feels strongly enough about a Planning Commission decision that they want to appeal to City Council, those are rare, so it's not something to focus their energy on revising. Staff would prefer to expend their energy on the day -to -day that they see a lot of and how they can streamline that; things such as one year extensions for projects that are very typical. Gary Chao: • If someone is unhappy with a staff level decision they go to the Planning Commission; because it is an advisory to the City Council. They can appeal a Planning Commission decision to the City Council and must pay a $100 fee for that appeal. • Relative to the suggestion to do a cost recovery on the City Council appeal, she said they did a cost recovery review, it had come in high and the Council at the time said that if the decision goes in their favor, the $100 fee would be refunded. Many other cities require 50% of cost recovery review for all appeals. She said they do not have many cases that appeal to the Planning Commission and then City Council. • If the applicant doesn't like the Council's decision they can go in for a reconsideration so the Council can go through another hearing. There are several appeal levels. Corn. Miller: • Said he felt they should not shorten the appeal process; if people want to appeal, they should have that right. However, there is something to be said for having some relationship for the fee and the actual cost of doing that appeal. Chair Brophy: • He said on that issue he would defer to the Council for them to decide what to do because it is an emotional issue as well as an accounting issue. After the fee issue, at some point you are talking about the permit process and also talking about going through the zoning ordinance in looking for ways to clean it up to identify areas that may be unduly complex or unduly burdensome. Aarti Shrivastava: Said staff does not see it as a revolutionary ordinance change; there are many communities looking at form based zoning; the costs discussed are a very modest way of going through the 24-196 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 13, 2010 existing ordinance and just re- tabulating it. If they were to do anything different, she said she would recommend hiring somebody to help staff go through the economics of things and working everything out. Staff is recommending something really modest on a as -time- permits basis; ensuring that they are tabulating things, and defining things that are undefined. Chair Brophy: • One of the issues being discussed is about codifying the ordinance in a more readable and understandable form, and he said he thought they have unduly complex rules in terms of conditional uses, and complexities. Com. Miller: • Said he had been through some revisions of the RI ordinance as a Planning Commissioner and it is still just as challenging to read as ever. Ho questioned how effective the use of staff time is toward that; if staff has spare time. He said he: would categorize it as a lower priority. Chair Brophy: • Said he wasn't thinking about going back to R 1 or any of the residential zones. Com. Miller: • Said that they have been working on rewording in the past, which is either a very challenging task, or shortly after it gets done, it is changed again and becomes more convoluted. It is a good activity, but has minimal benefit if there are other things that need to be done that should be made a higher priority. Chair Brophy: • Said he was reacting especially in the case of small business people where he saw them struggling through the process in matters that don't affect the adjoining neighbors or don't affect the appearance of the community; and to the extent that they can simplify and perhaps eliminate some of the unduly complex rules of this is allowed; but something that is a little bit further away and slightly different, isn't. To the extent they can do that, he said he would prefer that it be viewed as a higher priority. Com. Miller: • Said that he understood it was just going through and cleaning up the existing language; if the proposal is to go through and streamlining things and clarifying the process, it is ' a different activity. Chair Brophy: • Said that cleaning up the language would be good, but they would survive with or without clean language. He said he would prefer to see, especially in the case of small users that don't have an affect on adjoining properties 'or minimal affect, some streamlining in some of the language. He said he felt that some of the hearings held in the last two years had a number of cases that struck him as being unduly nit picking in terms of taking up the Commission's time, staff s time and the whole rigmarole of a public hearing. Com. Miller: • Suggested having a document that explains step -by -step how to apply for whatever they are considering. An example is "If you want to apply for , Step 1 is this; If you want to apply for , Step 2 is this, etc. 24-197 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 April 13, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Said he felt that having a document that explains the 27 steps you need to take doesn't solve the problem; the problem is to reduce the number of steps, where they are not providing any larger public benefit to the community. Com. Miller: • Said that perhaps both are the solution. You provide a clear explanation; "this is your path through the process to help you understand the what has to happen next," and also reducing the path so it is a shorter path. Aarti Shrivastava: Said they were looking at doing both; they planned to work on the handouts internally, but would do it after the process is known, so that it doesn't have to be done twice, when amending it. If they were looking at an ordinance and reviewing it and revising some streamlining processes, at that time they would look at tabulating things; they would not go out and review ordinances for the sake of that. If they have an opportunity to look at it, they will try to simplify it; but are not going to change anything because consistency is important and every time you make little changes to things, we confuse people more. There is some value to keeping the rules the way they are; for simplifying it, that is fine; she said they are not going to recommend making any big shifts to any of those standards. Com. Miller: • Said his recommendation is to capture all the comments made and continue the item. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said their goal for the end of the next meeting was to have the Planning Commission do two things; specifically make comments on staff recommendations to say it is okay or not or something should be different; and additional comments because what they want to bring to the Council is a broad brush list of things that they will be looking at over time as time permits. They will not be able to tackle every section of the zoning ordinance or all of the conceptual plans at the same time. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee No Meeting. Housing Commission No report. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners Vice Chair Lee reported on the March meeting: • Parks and Rec: Pool at Cupertino Sports Center will be a tennis court; property at Mary Ave. may become a dog park; Library field will be a cricket field, known as Cricket Pitch; City Council approved it for funds, spending money for it and helping recover some of the maintenance costs. Library Commission: has been focusing to remedy the parking and traffic situation at the library. Options considered are to take away square footage from the library field and give it to 24-198 Attachment E OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ^ CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • pl< -inning@cuperti.n.o.org CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 Application: Applicant: Property Location: CP- 2010 -01 City of Cupertino Citywide Agenda Date: April 27, 2010 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide: • Comments on the list of changes recommended by staff, including the review authority (Attachment 1), and • Additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process enhancements. The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for final consideration. Once the Council provides direction on the issues to focus on, staff will bring the detailed discuss=ion ordinance/ process changes to the Planning Commission for consideration. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and continued this item (on a 3 -0 vote - Commissioners Giefer and Kaneda absent) to its April 27, 2010 meeting. At the hearing, the Planning Commissioners commented on the review process. The Commission directed staff to document - the issues for discussion at the next meeting. DISCUSSION The following is brief summary of the key items discussed by the Commission: • Review Process o Reduce length of review process 24-199 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations April 27, 2010 Page 2 • Improve responsiveness to applicant • Streamline the approval authority • Improve handouts for applicants • Allow uses to be permitted in some zones -- e.g. Daycares in churches should be allowed without a conditional use permit. • Notification • Sensitivity to neighborhood concerns should be considered in making changes • R1 notification: Don't send out plan sets but maybe just elevations • Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the City's website for more information, updates, etc. • Technology o A new permit system that will help enhance customer service and online plan review is important o Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is necessary o The increases in fees proposed are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable savings in copying /printing /transportation costs. • Appeals • Concerned about the appeal process (cost and time) • Second level of appeal could be on a cost recovery basis • Ordinance Amendments o Clean up the language and definitions • Provide additional guidance for specialized uses such as daycares • Improve the readability • Did not want to open up R1 Ordinance for rewording • Fees • Review fees to ensure that they are not cost - prohibitive. • Provide a copy of the comprehensive fee list. The comprehensive fee list is attached for reference (Attachment 2). The Developer Impact Fee Schedule for schools is attached for the Commission's review (Attachment 3). Also attached for the Planning Commission's reference are the Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 (Attachment 4) and the Matrix Report (Attachment 5). 24-200 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations April 27, 2010 Page 3 Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: G r o City Planner Approved by: /4� Qeldwi— — arti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities and Staff's recommendations Attachment 2 Comprehensive Fee Schedule for FY 2009 -2010 Attachment 3 Cupertino Union 'I')chool District and Fremont Union High School District Developer Impact Fee Schedule Attachment 4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Attachment 5 Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 G: � Planting � PDREPORT\ pc CP reports 12010 CPreport \ CP- 2070-07 PC 4- 27- 70.doc 24-201 DRAFT r Cupertino Planning Commission 3 ATTACHMENT F Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commented that for any future use of the Hampton apartment complex homes, or any future development that the complex has, she wanted to ensure if the property was ever redeveloped and had higher buildout there, that enough parking would remain on site because it does have excellent access to Highway 280 and Wolfe Road etc. She said obviously you would not want the extra parking out in the Apple lands over there. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0 -0; Com. Brophy absent; to approve Application M- 2010 -01 per the model resolution. 3. CP- 2010 -01 Review of they Management Study of the Permit Process and City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services and organizational efficiency. Continued from the April 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: May 18, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there was no formal staff presentation; comments provided previously by the Commissioners are provided in the staff report. Com. Giefer: • She said in reading the recommendation, the one thing that struck her is they want to improve their processes; but how is community involved in this. They have talked to developers and architects, people who have pulled permits. Out of one of the people who pulled permits, how many of them were residential vs. developers or house flippers, and how do they ensure that the community's voice is heard as part of this. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was difficult to get people to respond, and they tried to get a good cross section. They did a comparative study of how Cupertino compares with other studies; which pulled in people who had worked in multiple cities. They also got comments from residents but did not have the exact numbers. It is a good question and staff should be able to get an answer. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Clarified that Matrix conducted a focus group using a cross section of single - family, property owners.that had done projects to medium size business owners who had built their buildings, to large developers including architects, civil engineers, structural engineers and firms that have worked with the city. Matrix interviewed them and went over their opinion about the city's process. In addition Matrix also did an interview with staff members to go through the internal opinion to get input from folks who are working and using the system to see if there are any deficiencies or enhancements that could be made; and the comparative study of other industry practices in other cities similar to ours with similar characteristics comparing processes and seeing where the improvements can be made. Com. Giefer: • Said that having sat on the Planning Commission long enough and involved in several R1 reviews, what she heard loud and strong was that the community felt they didn't have a voice. She said that they have to have continuity in the background in terms of how they got to this point; and she felt it was lacking in the report. She said if she were a developer or somebody 24-202 Cupertino Planning Commission April 27, 2010 pulling permits, she would want to eliminate that straight away; that and the storyboards on the property. She reiterated her concern after reading the report, that the community's voice was not included. Said there were some recommendations in terms of reopening the RI and asked for more background information on how that fits in and what that review would be. Aard Shrivastava: • If you are discussing things such as second story balconies and the like, and changing processes a little, staff is looking for comments from the Planning Commission about what they thought about these ideas; that was not necessarily recommending these. She said they would concur with Com. Brophy where they have gone through an extensive process and made some decisions; it doesn't make sense to shake everything up and start over. • Regarding the plan sets, staff's experience has been the R1 is the only planning application that somebody needs to send plans sets to, most other projects don't do that. There are other options such as putting it on the website, where people can find the links; however the plan sets are small and they are difficult to read and some people do not understand them, and they come back to City Hall with questions; and the process is back where it started; hence it is not seen as very effective. Com. Giefer: • It is not known how many questions are eliminated and how many people you never hear from because they received the plans. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that was possible; they don't see a lot of difference from prior -to plan sets and post -plan sets in terms of the questions. To say they are eliminating 90% of the questions, usually it is people who don't understand the plan sets, and they are trying to find better ways of doing this, maybe the storyboard helps. • Said that the reference to the handouts to applicants include the Planning application packet. It is a voluminous packet with directions on what to complete, give information to staff; and one of things that staff would like to be able to do is spend more time on the packets, to make it easier to understand. • Said her personal opinion is if you have to create complex charts to explain the ordinance, then that should be the ordinance, and they shouldn't have to create a chart for it. All of the updates to ordinances have been charts because they are easier to understand. They are moving towards that, and if there is one thing they can do as part of this or of future processes, is not change the standards, but make it easier to rend the ordinance. • Matrix recommended a 4% technology fee because that number was commonly used; it includes microfiching plans to an online permit system. Costs for a system to process applications electronically range from $.5 million to $1.5 million for a city of Cupertino's size range, which includes the cost of the software as well as upgrading the server, hardware and staff training. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff if there was any thought of a potential savings of staff time. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff feels they can save on the time it takes to get from the architect to staff; because there is a cost to that. The estimated cost of printing out 7 sets, twice or three times is over 2 to 2.5% of the cost of an application. You are saving that money as well as time. The time that it takes to coordinate, that is where you save time, because now you know all the departments are going 24-203 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 27, 2010 to see this together, the applicant is going to be able to figure out why it is held back, why there is a hold on this project, he doesn't have to come to City Hall and make sure that he has appointment with a person who is reviewing his project; it is something he can look at online. • Said that the application can be monitored online; and if it takes two months to bring the bond down, that won't make the things faster, but they will get the information faster. With the system, staff's demands will go up because they are going to get more information online and they will be more demanding, but staff is okay with that because they think that is where they should be spending their time and answering their questions rather than chasing paper. • She said that likely not much time would be reduced, perhaps 4 days, 2 in getting things to them, and 2 days in getting things back; the remainder of the time would depend on how quickly the applicants respond. A lot of times that is the issue; staff owes them a quick response and they try to keep to those dates. But the little coordination that happens, is where you definitely save time. • Said they estimate 2% to 2.5% of the cost of the application would be saved by the applicant in terms of printing costs; delivery has not been added; the city doesn't print the plans, the applicant provides the plans to the city. The applicant doesn't have to make a trip down to City Hall unless he wants to, which is a benefit; it can be monitored online, send emails, and get answers on line; don't have to look around for people as the comments are online also. • Said that it allows simultaneous review by all the departments; it does allow you to tie it in and schedule inspections; it takes you from the front end of the Planning application all the way down to final occupancy. • She continued to explain the various features of the system, including the ability to compare drawings using Adobe software, fee structures, costs, etc. Aarti Shrivastava: That is not the Planning plan, but it is a Code Enforcement and they have to go through. Typically in a fee study„ the average number of hours taken for an application are estimated; that forms the basis of the fees. They also compare their costs to costs in comparable cities to understand how we compare, because it is important to stay competitive. This has been done twice in Cupertino, that is always something that gets brought up and the other place where the Council sometimes makes concessions are when they think there is a public benefit to certain applications where they want to waive reduced fees to a very low level, like appeals or such. It was done with solar as well; staff tries to make sure that occurs, but the reality of making sure that they have enough resources to have enough people to review projects, is important because the developers say that time is of the essence. Com Giefer: • Said she thought about the commentary about the politically charged nature in the city; and those kinds of things were spot on; but not sure they can necessarily influence that, and it is not anywhere in the recommendations that they tried to, which makes sense. Com. Kaneda: • Said as a member of the Planning Commission, he has experienced a politically charged atmosphere that can happen when somebody brings up a fairly small change to a house and a neighbor objects. It is not a Council thing, but is a resident in the community thing, but things happen where the same house in a similar neighborhood, in one pass it will pass with no problem, and in another case because a neighbors objects will get taken out. It has happened several times and is one area in this community he has seen a fair amount of inconsistency where the rules are not necessarily applied uniformly. 24-204 Cupertino Planning Commission April 27, 2010 Com. Giefer: • Under Comparison Chart for Permit Processes for Various Cities, one of the things that comes to the Planning Commission is cellular antennas; and I thought on one of the documents recommending change to that review process, wouldn't it be great if it went to the technology; was that part of the process as well as trying; to determine if there are other commissions or committees that should be involved in the decision making process. Aarti Shrivastava: Mountain View handles it differently in that they approve all current planning applications at staff level. At this point the recommendation wasn't for the TIC Committee, but was something you could recommend, review and see if that is something that could happen. They would like to be more involved in those decisions and usually it is a built outside that they are trying to decide if it makes sense. Said she did not know what their responsibilities and duties are; so that may or may not have to be revised. If that is their recommendation they can look at it; they already have parameters for improving cellular antennas in the Wireless Master Plan and if they meet those, it may be a simple discussion. Com Giefer: • Questioned why the report identified daycare, since some organizations had daycare and senior care on their facilities. Was the reason because there is more demand and there is more data on it? Aarti Shrivastava: Said that most of the applications are for straight day care /child care applications and they gave some examples of how that can be simplified. Mountain View for example has a number of uses they called out and they talk about some performance standards for those uses; instead of doing this repeatedly with applications, it bas some best practices. They could create such a document in the ordinance so that people are aware from the beginning what they need to do. Said that they could expand that to care facilities for children, special needs and elder care; but noted that sometimes the needs of child carp; may be different from elder care; for example there is the play area; so we could create something for both but then have different programs. Com. Giefer: • Said what was brought up was a good differentiator, you need more open space for kids to run around, whereas seniors don't need that. Com. Kaneda: • One of the recommendations was for the training for staff development in the Building Division, Engineering Division and Planning Division; what did they have in mind. Aarti Shrivastava: They need to be up to date on new codes coming in, need to know what is going on so that they can review plans, and make sure they are able to answer questions. Staff training is important because things change rapidly with rules and laws and you not only need to know what the laws are, but also need to know what an application needs to do in order to comply with those rules, because that is what get-; translated into something meaningful for the applicant. 24-205 Cupertino Planning Commission April 27, 2010 Com. Giefer: • Said that the Matrix report talks about the appeals process from the applicant's side, but did not capture the process from the community's side. In some neighborhoods is not acceptable to have a balcony, but in another neighborhood they are more receptive to it. Did they talk to the people who filed appeals to see how they felt the process worked? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she did not know if they talked to the people who filed appeals; staff provided a list to the consultant of residential people who had applied for residential projects; but generally stayed out of the focus groups because they felt it should be an independent discussion. Com. Giefer: • Said there is nothing in the verbatim that led her to believe that the community had been involved. There are two sides to it; she said they want to be as efficient as possible for developers who do business in the community, but don't want to alienate the residents. She said she did not see anything particularly worrisome in terms of Matrix's recommendations, but felt that some of the continuity and background on how they came to be there was lacking. Aard Shrivastava: She said they relayed that to the consultant; what they tried to do was to look for ways in which staff could become more efficient; that doesn't mean that all of these will work; you are trying to balance these against community interests and to the extent you that you have process without value, it bears looking at, but if we think we have process for a reason, then that needs to stay. Com Kaneda: • One thing about this report is you are benchmarking yourself against other similar cities and it looks like Cupertino is one of the best of the cities in this area as far as what the process is and how they do things, and we are looking at how we do business the way we do it today. • He said they are currently entering into a time when the building industry is changing quite radically compared to the last 50 or 100 years; and where both electronic permitting and electronic design is possible. In ten years there will likely be a requirement in California that all homes have to be zero energy and 20 years all commercial residences have to be zero energy and the goal is half of remodels are zero energy too. There are many changes happening, and he wondered how much Matrix tried to at least look at some of those changes coming down the road like an out -of- control train that you are not going to be able to avoid and say no to. Did they at least talk to staff about what the implications are for Cupertino, because some of those changes are very radical. Aarti Shrivastava: Said it was a good point; and said that Matrix tried to - address it by addressing training and addressing a process of online permitting which allows transfer of some of that information electronically where it actually has some real meaning. They are a management consultant and probably have some limitations in their ability to understand a lot of the future. The life of a permit system is about 10 years at which point you should migrate to different software or an updated software. After the system is working, in about 8 years they should be looking at what else they should be doing; because at some point it is not going to make sense to put money into this particular system or get to the next level. Relative to other information, training will be key, where they understand what some of the new information they will get from architects is going to mean and that is going to have more information, so you are not going to be looking at schedules because it is right there, such as 24-206 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 27, 2010 window, door, material schedules because they will all be in the plans • Said that the current permit system is between 12 to 15 years old, and does not anticipate things such as online permitting. The annual maintenance cost is similar to , the new system and depending on the customizing, it is about $30K to $50K per year. The cost was built into the Building fee schedule because only Building is using it; the proposal was to replace it with a new cost, but only 75% of it. Vice Chair Lee: • Somewhere in the report it said something about the building inspectors, that they would go to the site and would input all their findings and data into their laptops, and even print up a permit on the spot. Would that software and hardware be included in this, too; the whole revamping, the entire system? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they were still looking at what that would be and had built some of it in. It is emerging technology and people have talked about ore vs. the other, but staff feels comfortable that would be accommodated within the $500K they are discussing. • Public Works is working on a stormwater master plan; don't have information on whether we have one currently. The last time we did a fee study for Planning, Building and Public Works together was in 2003 and then updated a study only for Building and that was primarily because the last fee schedule was based on valuation and there was litigation that said you couldn't use valuation anymore, and you need to use a cost basis. It was changed in 2009, and some minor adjustments were made to reduce costs for solar permits in 2009. Gary Chao: • There is an Appendix in the Matrix report that summarizes in percentages the categories of the people who participated in the Matrix focus groups, but no list. Com. Miller: • It would be more helpful if we knew who they were. If the names are available; if it was intended as a blind study, then so be it. We have no idea who is in the focus groups, and it would be nice to know if it was a representative sample from our standpoint. Aarti Shrivastava: • We can certainly ask; but that doesn't meari we forget single - family residents / residence; many of our comments do speak to things we have heard from people who were sometimes frustrated and I think the inconsistency is a good point but is something that gets built into the public input part; and we do get it but on a particular feature of the home that hadn't gotten input in another part of town, we have to address it and so sometimes those get applied a little less consistently than one might like. • Page 133 in the Matrix report answers the questions about the makeup of the focus groups. 30% were developers, 30% were major landowners, building contractors, and 10% were professionals. Presently the applicant has to provide between 5 and 7 sets of every application; if that is found incomplete or they have to make changes, they have to give us a new set of 7, those are examples of what they would not get. If we went totally green and you had laptops, then you wouldn't have paper. Said that viewing it online would eliminate a lot of paper. She said they were not focused on a specific software package, but have surveyed cities that use online systems. Should the city decide to move forward on the system, there is a lot more research to be done. Ideally the Building Dept., Planning Dept., IT department should talk to each other so that we know what the pros and cons of the system are; we have done some preliminary homework to get to those numbers and get a sense that this is a system worth 24-207 Cupertino Planning Commission April 27, 2010 having, but beyond that, there is a lot more work to do. We estimate based on what we hear from other people; our new building official implemented a new online permitting system in the last place he worked in the County of Monterey; and he said it took him about 18 months once a decision was made to have a system, so having the RFP, having the RFQ, doing the work flow, getting the system designed and going online took about that long. Relative to the $50K maintenance fee, she said their goal was to make sure that they were able to make enough adjustments in a system selected without doing customs, because those are very expensive. In the current system everything is a custom, so you cannot change a lot; maintaining that, updating that, having some room for customs should you need some is a $30K to $50K cost and that is approximately what is now spent with the current system. Staff discussed/answered questions about annual fees involved with the system. Vice Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said that a description of life in Cupertino is basically building uses. Said she was concerned with who made up the focus groups. She said the building community are wonderful people; they build in Cupertino, build many homes; but she felt the document is how to make it easier to build whatever they want to in Cupertino and that is not the history of us, of Cupertino, the citizens who live here. • It is a two -way street and that is why we have such sticky wickets as extra notification of plan sets to neighbors; I have lived that for 10 years; that is the history of my neighborhood. The history of balconies, you don't want to wake up one morning and have the builder who lives in San Jose, building a home across the street with a balcony that looks into your master bedroom which is the reason for the noticing about that. • Covenants run with the land, the documents are attached to the title and there is no reason to toss them out. They need to explain why they are abandoning and throwing out everything that the public is aware of in this document. • Although the Matrix group likely did what they were asked to do, as a member of the public she said she did not like what the recommendations were; it is not Cupertino, the public was left out and she would like to have the focus group list shown. Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident: • Said it would be helpful to have the list of projects from the last two or three years that would denote how each would have been affected by the consultant's recommended level of reviews. • With regard to the focus group's comment that one of the two major problems is the city's politically charged atmosphere relative to development and growth; that was the result of the development and growth in the early 2000s. • The consultants do not recognize the importance of notification to this community and what the State requirements for noticing are. He said he was not sure that the $5,000+ postal cost for citywide noticing was cost effective; and he felt improvement was needed in that area. • The consultant is not familiar with the City Council meetings; in their recommendation No. 104 states that 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; he said there weren't too many early morning City Council meetings. • Also, the consultant is not familiar with the Planning Commission meetings; recommendation No. 111 suggests amending the Planning Commission by -laws to clarify the responsibility of the Planning Commission Chairperson to manage commission meetings. He said in the past, those meetings have been very well conducted. • Recommendation No. 112, is to amend the Planning Commission by -laws to reduce the amount of time available to public speakers to the same as that provided at the City Council 24-208 Cupertino Planning Commission I0 April 27, 2010 meetings. He said he was sure that the speaking time allotment is the same at both meetings. He said that the incorrect information in the report relates to the inadequacy of the consultant report. Vice Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Miller summarized his suggestion for goals: • Improve efficiency and reduce costs both for the city and the applicant. In that frame, it is a good goal to shorten approval time; it doesn't imply that the public hearings be shortened, but they should look for ways to reduce the amount of time between when an applicant first submits an application to when an approval or denial is obtained. • It is important in this day and age, when thinking about the number of commercial developments that have been approved and an, not getting built; and having sufficient revenue to run the city is becoming more and more challenging, with no end to that. Having desirable projects done in Cupertino that for example increase commercial development, where generally there is not disagreement in the city that commercial development is valuable; it provides more shopping locally in Cupertino so residents don't have to go out to other cities and at the same time, increases the city's sales tax revenues and also real estate tax revenues. • A goal of increasing customer satisfaction in doing business with Cupertino is important from the standpoint that they are competing with other neighboring cities in order to do a commercial development; an example is Sunnyvale Mall which compared to a few years ago, Sunnyvale Mall was going great guns and it was thought that Vallco was going to be a big success; and now both of them are not doing anything; whichever town gets their mall done first, it is clearly going to take business away from the other towns. • Despite the fact that we are friendly neighbors, we are also competitors, and getting a reputation for customer satisfaction, is a goal worth having in terms of that competition. Said when referring to commercial, he lumped it in terms of what is desirable in town; retail is desirable and there is certain office developments that are desirable also. • Another worthy goal is increasing flexibility and the ability to adjust the changing economic conditions, which is something they have been aware of in the last few years. • The last goal is to ensure that there is truly a nexus between the fees charged and the cost benefits that those fees are intended to provide. Com. Kaneda: • Said they were extraordinary goals. Vice Chair Lee: Said she wanted to add increase consistency among applicants; some applicants will question how someone else got it and they couldn't. It may be related to education, how to get there, training, more communication, training Building staff, training developers, just community training, and education. About one year ago this was done, the consultant was asked to look at organization, at our efficiency, look at what kind of things can make the process for getting permits easier, just the whole experience. Nowhere in the consulting; packet does it say this will decrease applicant expenses; can they actually decrease applicant expenses? She said she was no sure if the consultant had any recommendations on how to decrease their expenses. Com. Kaneda: • Relative to Com. Miller's comment about increasing efficiency, he said to him the assumption is if you can increase efficiency, you should save money, because time is money in this case. • One of the recommendations was related to keeping staffing level the same for building permit 24-209 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 27, 2010 plan checking. In meetings of the Santa Clara County Cities Association, the Green Building Ordinance, the Bay Area Climate Collaborative, and the Green Building Codes, one constant comment from city officials and also Building Green has a meeting of city officials in the Bay Area, is that as ordinances are developed that require buildings to be green, cities now potentially are in the position where they need to understand and check to make sure what is supposed to be built is in fact being built. Asked if the consultant was aware of what is going on, both at the State code level and also in this community looking at the recommendations of the Cities Association and the implication it could potentially have on staff time reviewing and /or inspecting buildings. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that she did not know if the consultant was completely focused on that; but he did address that in the training. Training is the key, and as more are hired in the future in terms of replacing to attrition, they will be looking more and more for those skills. Building inspectors will be sent to training, so they are familiar with the codes. • In talking to other Planning officials in the area, what we have heard is that they are going to rely a lot on self - certification to some extent and if LEEDS is a requirement, there is a process to do that. It will not mean they will advocate their responsibility in training inspectors, but they weren't planning at this point to have a very onerous process yet. • Said at this point they are not recommending the Palo Alto approach which is having a person on staff to certify everything. Cupertino has always been a very lean city in terms of that and relies on either self- certification or third party certifications, which is the case when doing geology, traffic, and anything else. Com. Kaneda: • If somebody is self - certifying in some of these other areas, is there any kind of check -back mechanism? Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the check -back mechanism, people will be trained to at least know how to pick out the obvious things. If somebody certifies at the Planning level, that this is going to be LEED silver, we will look for the basic stuff, but at the Building level, we might have our inspectors trained enough to question something. It would be the architect who would certify that this will meet building, and depending on the way we write up our ordinance, they will need to go through the certification process. At this point, it is very time consuming and not something the city wants to be in the business of, leave it up to the professionals. Com. Giefer presented objectives to consider: • Employing technology to reduce costs and streamline the process, support current and future green building requirements because this is going to change and the system will not be changed in the short term. • Said he was concerned that although he agreed that improving customer satisfaction should be part of their objective; we haven't objectively measured what that is today; and how do they know they have achieved that. Aarti Shrivastava: • In terms of customer satisfaction, Matrix has looked at time; how long it takes to get from beginning to end; and quality which is harder to quantify. The.focus groups tried to get to that, it would have been ideal to have more input because that would have given a better sense of not just how long do you take to get from beginning to end, but what the experience is. 24-210 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 27, 2414 Added that while the study is a point in time that provides some information, they see it as a continuous improvement process that won't end with this study. As they hear from people, they keep lists of those things and when there is time to go back and look at the ordinance, such as the sign ordinance, they build those into it to say these are some of the big sticking points, and here is how they can be addressed. It is their goal to keep track of things that do frustrate people and to .try to eliminate it to the extent possible, while still balancing the community's interest in being informed. Com. Giefer: • She said in the laundry list of objectives they have come up with, they need a goal that speaks to the community and ensures their involvement as well. Aarti Shrivastava: • While a lot of the measures can be very efficient, they should not forget that there is a community interest and it is very important for people to feel like they do have input into the process to the extent they can all be balanced. Com. Kaneda: • Assuming that this report is correct, Cupertino's permit process is one of the best in the Silicon Valley; he said he wouldn't say that someone: should strive to improve, but if it is already one of the best, try to ensure that it stays one of the best, not necessarily take great efforts to go for a 1% or 2% improvement. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it provides a good comparison which they are happy with; the fact that they have tried to compare cities, gives some idea of the people who responded to that question obviously had developed in a number of cities, so they might have been some of the larger developers. Com. Kaneda: • Said the key was to benchmark against other cities and make sure you they are one of the best. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said staff would attempt to keep it up. Com. Miller: • Said he was sensitive to the comments made: by Dr. Lum and Jennifer Griffin in terms of the importance of community input and in no way was intending to lessen that. • When he looked at the study, he thought it - was primarily focused on the processes that staff uses in managing both small and large applications, and they tend to think about applications as being the big developers coming in. The majority of the applications are Cupertino homeowners who are trying to do a remodel or something relative to their house and that is where a lot of staff time goes. To the extent they can improve that process for the residents, it is very important and the study does address that. • Said he went through a lot of the ideas with the objectives in mind and how they can improve the processes, not just for large developers but also for residents. Some did not make sense, such as the Council and the Planning Commission don't use the same timeframe for input or reduce noticing; he ignored that as being people who did not take the time to understand what is unique about Cupertino; they just had some boilerplate objectives that they added along with the specific ones that they came up with based on where they did interact with the community. • There were clearly some good ones, such as having the case manager manage the entire process and take on the responsibility of not necessarily resolving interdepartmental issues, but 24-211 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 at least bringing the resources together for homeowner, it is very daunting, and would be have someone help you work through that. Training applicants on the application process. Automating the submittal process. April 27, 2010 all of the departments. For an individual helpful to have a single point of contact, and Developing checklists was a good idea; having a checklist at the Planning Commission to go through when each particular project came in would be helpful also. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said many of the comments were things they already do. They have a checklist process in the application packet so that the applicant is able to go through that checklist and the planner sits down with them when they submit, and checks off what they have given. Com. Miller: • Said when he started on the Planning Commission, a workshop was help guiding the Commissioners through what happens in an application, what staff looks for, and what is important and what is not. It would be of value to have a similar workshop with staff, where the focus is on what staff does when an application comes in, and what do you look for, what's important and what is not important; and perhaps some staff recommendations to the Planning Commission in terms of when the application comes up here, what are you looking for from us, and what things do you think are really important that we make sure we touch on as we review this application at the Planning Commission level. • Said that when they were reviewing the first application this evening to eliminate the easement, the question came to mind as to why it had to go onto City Council. Aarti Shrivastava: Said it was an example of too much process, wherein the code currently states that if something was approved by the Council, even the smallest modification goes back to the Council. This differs from other cities where there are levels of modification and they get approved at various levels; if it is a large enough one where a substantial part of the project is changing, then it can go to the Council. She said it was an example of where they could look at a different way of doing things. Com. Miller: • Relative to Director's Minor Modifications, how much time, effort and process goes into that and how many of those on a percentage basis do you not approve for one reason or another. Aarti Shrivastava: Very few, primarily because when somebody comes in to the counter and tells us they want to do something; we give them some understanding of whether it meets the criteria or not, so right there, there is a sense of okay this is going to work or isn't, so they are not going to spend additional time on the project. If people want to still go ahead that is another issues, but they get a sense of ... here is why it doesn't meet code or here is why it does; we think that is important. Added that one thing unique to Cupertino, is that other cities have very costly pre - application process where people go through and they get to meet with all the other departments and get input prior to their applying. Cupertino provides that service for free, and many times it is multiple iterations of a project, so a lot of staff time does not get charged to a project, but they do spend a lot of time on these and that can include single family all the way through the larger ones; so that when a person does submit they have a complete packet and they know what they need to do. 24-212 Cupertino Planning Commission 14- April 27, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said he felt it was excellent that Cupertino is doing that; particularly the idea of the case manager giving feedback as early as possible. If you made a submittal and you have some major errors, you don't have to wait 30 days in order to figure out what they are and submit and wait another 3 0 days. Aarti Shrivastava: • She said that perfect streamlining is 30 days, but their goal is if you know there is a big problem don't wait for everybody's input, you collect it and send it in 30 days; it is more of a personal department goal, a city goal that we have; give that news as early as possible so that they are able to react to it and figure out solutions. Com. Kaneda: • He asked staff if they were saying that there is a significant amount of additional staff time that other cities don't have. Aarti Shrivastava: • Other cities charge, Cupertino does not charge for that. In terms of getting reimbursed for staff time, they spend a great deal of staff time: working with applicants prior to applications so that the application process is simple and smooth and the fees reflect only the application process, not the pre - application process. Man} times the cost is absorbed by the work that staff does; that is why there is such a lean staff. They work extremely hard; there are 3.5 planners now down to 2.5; for a city of 52,000 that is not a lot. • She said they are actually putting themselves in a position where they are getting less money than other cities. She said they did tell Matrix that; but they don't tell them what to put in the report; they merely give them the information. • She said that most large applicants know that Cupertino does not charge, while other cities do, because they do papers in other cities. Single family homeowners typically other cities do not have pre - application costs for single family homeowners. By working with them ahead of time, they give them a higher chance of getting an application through very quickly; we do the work ahead of time so when they do apply, it goes a lot smoother. They do not specifically tell developers, occasionally they mention it. • Said they do not get cost recovery for their tirrie spent; and it is not built into the overhead. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to cycle times, she said they need a lot of that; Planning applications they have State streamlining requirements. They often have tried to exceed that, and feel their pre - application process ensures that there is a very high rite of success and in terms of getting deemed complete which is always the trigger point, they try to ensure that you are complete when you apply; you have everything you need and that is how the checklist helps. • Cycle time refers to the time between getting an application and the applicant getting feedback and comments. • Said there was a specific cycle time for plan checking. Gary Chao: • For small projects, for Planning, we always go over the turnaround time; for Building plan check there is set cycle times, there are options for people to expedite their turnaround; there is over - the - counter; there is the normal two weeks, it is not the fault of the city, usually it is incomplete information or something similar. 24-213 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 April 27, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Noted that Matrix realized that they don't have a permitting system that is able to capture the nuances of what happens when somebody applies to the very end, when they get approval or a decision; because many times there is lag time between the time the applicant responds and our system now doesn't capture a lot of that, but we meet all state requirements and exceed that to a great extent. Com. Miller: • Referring to guidelines for commercial development, he said he thought it was important if setting up guidelines, they should also be looking at strategy for commercial development. A lot of time is spent on residential, and not nearly as much time on commercial development. • He said regular meeting with customers to get feedback and address issues was important. • How to Develop in the City: again just providing the training, whether it is an online document or something if someone hasn't been through the process. Go to the city website and follow directions that say "if you want to this, follow Step 1, Step 2, etc." It would be helpful to cut down the amount of time staff has to explain it to every individual. • Also, when he first joined the Planning Commission there was a joint meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission which was important from the standpoint that the Councils change every couple of years and very often there is the complaint that the Council and the Planning Commission are not on the same page. It is important; the Planning Commission works for the Council, they appoint the Commission and the Commission advises the Council; and it is important that they understand exactly where they are coming from. If there was some type of meeting where everybody understood to the extent that there is some kind of agreement on the Council or not, if they understood a little better here what they are looking for, it would be helpful. It should be held at least every other year. Vice Chair -Lee: • 1/3 of all the consultant's recommendations are practices already in place; and less than 1/3 can be implemented internally; the ones that stood out in my mind were customize applications, and also develop a home improvement center web page on our web site to help the do- it- yourselfers; more people are installing things by themselves. • Another thing that stood out that Com. Miller did not mention was make a how -to manual and publish it to the website, he also liked the idea of making a planning application guide for each type of planning permit. She said she liked the things that could be implemented internally. More than 1/3 of the recommendations that the consulting group wrote down, require City Council's review. The first one was the online permit and informational system; hence there are five reasons why she felt they should get it, perhaps not this year, but soon. • Said she liked the ability to go online and print out permits; the second thing is applicants are going to be able to submit plans over the internet. It makes sense, you can make a correction and the architect can send it to the city. • The applicant can view the department notes and their comments regarding the plans; and since the online system is going to be an automated work flow, the permit doesn't have to sit on a desk too long or get misplaced. • The interactive voice response system allows people to call in; applicants can call in and get information on the permit status or schedule an inspection or they can get their inspection results. The online permit system is an investment; it will not replace a full time employee, but the customers are out there and they expect certain things. Hopefully City Council can look into it and have the funds absorb some of the cost. • Relative to updating ordinances and specific plans, the report talked about their zoning ordinances; it needs to be more readable, clarify tables; it talked about having performance requirements for signs, fences, garages, etc. instead of having all the minor planning permits. 24 -214 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 27, 2010 She said it should be clarified. • The specific and conceptual plans were done vi the 80s and 90s, so they need to be updated. • Some Commissioners like the noticing requirements as is; sending a postcard with a link where the plans are available for viewing is acceptable. • Having interested parties sign up for a -lists and applications is already being done. • The last thing to weigh in on was the review authority, Attachment 1. City Council should strongly consider the following: not going to DRC any longer and go to the Community Development Director; duplex, fence exceptions and right now the extensions to subdivisions, they go to City Council; they can stop at the Planning Commission; there were 13 items you wanted to lower the authority; four can be lowered; RI exceptions, duplex, fence exceptions, and extensions to subdivisions. She said she was not on the Planning Commission long enough to offer comment on the remaining 9 items. • See if the City Council could look into the fee study. • Planning Commission input was requested on remodeling the permit center. She said there is something to be said for having a place for customers to sit down with each planner at their own work station; individual conference rooms are not necessary. • Those are all the things City Council should look into. All need money, findings and ordinance changes. Com. Giefer: • In the Matrix report there are some proposed cycle times that they are trying to achieve; how have they come up with the numbers? If you are referring to the proposed cycle time objective at the median, I assume it has to do with the median of the comparable cities, so I would like more definition on that. My question is how do we stack up in terms of cycle time for different processes compared to our neighboring cities. What does it take Sunnyvale to process an R1? Aarti Shrivastava: • The cities used were different from Sunnyvale and Mountain View; they used Petaluma as a comparable. She said they can find out the exact definition of median by what they meant. Com. Giefer: • Said she would like to have more comparative data on that, because if may be an objective they can meet or beat. If it is unachievable, they need to understand that. Aarti Shrivastava: • Page 65 No. 20, responding to Page 68 they say the engineering division is meeting their cycle time objectives for plan checking building permit plans in 5 to 10 days, so throughout this Matrix report they are reviewing building, engineering, etc. Com. Miller: • Said that one of the comments about the online system was, the biggest challenge was getting people to do the input which is true. Unless there is an effective process for entering the data it is not going to be of very much value. Com. Giefer: • Said that in general, when looking at th-s plans associated with the Director's Minor Modifications received, it is difficult to review plans online because one is looking at a full architectural sheet on an 11x17 terminal so some of the definition is lost. She said she was not a fan of the online review and did not feel that one could do a proper review online. 24-215 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 April 27, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that larger terminals would be available for staff who are reviewing the plan sets. Vice Chair Lee: She reviewed some of Chair Brophy's comments, including that he would like to have the opportunity to identify regulations that provide limited or no public benefits to adjoining property owners or the community at large, and to modify them accordingly. He also was interested in who was in the focus group and said he would like to review the fee structure also. He said it would be useful to see if the fee structure might better support their efforts to support both affordable housing as well as the objectives of the upcoming Green Building Code revisions. He suggested avoiding getting into areas that had been subject to extensive review and controversy in the past, such as density, FAR Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4 -0 -0, Com. Brophy absent; to continue Application CP- 2010 -01 to the next Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee No Meeting. Housing Commission No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners Planning Commission meeting.. April meeting report provided at previous Economic Development Committee No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Written report submitted. Adiournment: • The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 11, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 24 -216 Attachment G OFFICE OF COMMUNI71 Y DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (40P) 777 -3333 - planning9cupertulo.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. AL Application: Applicant: Property Location: Agenda Date: May 11, 2010 CP- 2010 -01 City of Cupertino 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 organi2.ational efficiency. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide: • Comments on the list of changes recommended by staff, including the review authority (Attachment 1), and • Additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process enhancements. The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Once the Council provides direction on issues to focus on, staff will bring the detailed discussion ordinance/ process changes to the Planning Commission for consideration. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this item (Giefer /Kaneda absent on April 1-3th and Brophy absent on April 27tb). The Commission continued the item to its Mw. 11, 2010 meeting in order to have a full Commission to provide final comments. The Commission also directed staff to document the issues for discussion for its next meeting. DISCUSSION Please find the following summary of the Commission comments and inputs expressed at the previous hearings: 24 -217 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010 Paee 2 • Review Process o Reduce length of review process • Improve customer satisfaction for commercial developers • Shorten /Streamline approval time • Improve responsiveness • Increase consistency • Support current and emerging green building practices/ measures • Provide the Planning Commission with a checklist of items that the Planning Staff looks at to educate the Commission • Step by step instructional aid for the public about the planning process • Guidelines and strategies to help commercial developers • Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off -site retreat/ workshop • Consider Planning Commission & City Council off-site retreat/ workshop when new members are elected/ appointed • Customize application forms to have a separate form for each type of application • Develop Planning Application Guides for each permit type • Develop a self help Home Improvement Center webpage • Develop "How To" manuals for the website • Remodel permit center to enhance the lobby area and places to sit while having conversations with planners • Identify and eliminate obsolete or meaningless regulations • Allow more uses to be permitted various zones - e.g. Daycares in churches should be allowed without a conditional use permit • Notification • Consider sensitivity to neighborhood concerns when making changes • R1 notification: Don't send out plan sets but maybe just elevations and/or weblink o Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the City's website for more information, updates, etc • Technology • Implement a new permit system that will help improve efficiency and provide benefit to permit system users • Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is necessary o Fees increases proposed are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable savings in copying /printing /transportation costs o Concerns about reviewing plans electronically on a smaller monitor /screen 24-218 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010 Page 3 • Appeals • Concerned about the appeal process (cost and time) • Second level of appeal could be on a cost recovery basis • Fees • Show nexus for all fees charged • Review fees to ensure that they are not cost - prohibitive • Conduct a fee study Other questions • Focus Group Participants The Planning Commission requested to see the list of participants in the Focus Group studies conducted by the Matrix. Matrix has confirmed that the study performed was a "blind focus group study" designed to facilitate candid answers, consequently the participants were assured anonymity. • Maintenance Costs for Permit System The Planning Commission also requested information on the annual maintenance costs for a permit system. The maintenance cost for a permit system covers support and maintenance for the existing system and for upgrades to the system including any customizations to the base system. • Cycle Times The Planning Commission inquired how the recommended cycle times in the study were derived. According to Matrix, the suggested cycle times for the various permits were based on industry standards established by Matrix's analysis of other well managed cities such as Sunnyvale or San Ramon. A copy of the City of Sunnyvale's project cycle times (Attachment 2) was provided by Matrix. It should be noted that Cuperiino's cycle times (Attachment 3) are 2 weeks shorter for projects reviewed by the Planning Commission and at least an additional two weeks shorter for projects reviewed by the City Council. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner 24 -219 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010 Page 4 Reviewed by: Approved by: AV AID Gary hao� City Plann Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities and Staff's recommendations Attachment 2 City of Sunnyvale's cycle times Attachment 3 City of Cupertino's cycle times G:\Ptannittg`PDREPORT \pc CP reports12010 CPreport�CP- 2010 -01 PC5- 11- IO.doc 24-220 COMPARISON CHART OF PERMIT a jCESSES FOR VARIOUS CITIES ATTACHMENT t H Abbreviations: CC - Council PC - Planning Commission DRC - Design Review Committee CDD /ZA - Staff (Director, Zoning Administrator or Administrative Hearing Officer) NOTES: * Projects that are typically exempt: additions or new construction of upto 10,000 s.f. and development on property of less than 5 acres that have no significant environmental impacts. ^ Sunnyvale approves all categorically exempt projects at staff level except projects exempt under Class 32 of the Categorical Exemptions under CEQA - development on property of less than 5 acres in urbanized areas with no environmental impact. 1. For concurrent applications in which one application requires review by a higher decision - making body, the final action shall be made by the higher decision making body with a recommendation from the other approval authority. 2. Projects that the CDD deems controversial or complicated may be referred to a higher decision-making body. ATTACHMENT I Summary of the Planning Commission comments and input • Review Process • Reduce length of review process • Improve customer satisfaction for commercial developers • Shorten/ Streamline approval time • Improve responsiveness • Increase consistency • Support current and emerging green building practices/ measures • Provide the Planning Commission with a checklist of items that the Planning Staff looks at to educate the Commission • Step by step instructional aid for the public about the planning process • Guidelines and strategies to help commercial developers • Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off -site retreat /workshop • Consider Planning Commission & City Council off -site retreat /workshop when new members are elected/ appointed • Customize application forms to have a separate form for each type of application • Develop Planning Application Guides for each permit type • Develop a self help Home Improvement Center webpage • Develop Do- it- yourself "How To" manuals and make these available on the website o Remodel permit center to enhance the lobby area and places to sit while having conversations with planners o Identify and eliminate obsolete or meaningless regulations o Allow more uses to be permitted various zones - e.g. Daycares in churches should be allowed without a conditional use permit • Nntifir•ntinn • Consider sensitivity to neighborhood concerns when making changes • R1 notification: Send out reduced plan sets including site plan, elevations, privacy protection planting plans and web link to the full plan set. However, this should only be implemented after a new online permitting system is installed and fully tested. • Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the City's website for more information, updates, etc • Technology o Supports staff's efforts to implement a comprehensive upgrade to the permitting system technology that will help improve efficiency and provide 24-222 benefit to permit system users • Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is necessary • Fees increases proposed are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable savings in copying/ prig ting/ transportation costs • Concerns about reviewing plans electronically on a smaller monitor/ screen • Appeals • Concerned about the appeal process (cost and time) • Second level of appeal could be on a cost recovery basis • Fees • Show nexus for all fees charged • Review fees to ensure that they are not cost - prohibitive • Conduct a fee study o Review fee structure to support affordable housing and green building projects in a revenue neutral manner 24-223 EXHIBITS BEGIN HE =RE , s it CP- 2010 -01 Q , r < (, € _ E i "(, z`% was asked to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the development review process encompassing the operations of Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments ❑ Interview Focus Groups -. three groups ❑ Survey of City staff ❑ Review of the development review process, permit data and the City's website ❑ Comparative study of other comparable Cities and best management practices in the industry ❑ Recommendations to the City 71 ' e • Implemented and / or require minimal adjustments - 35% • Can be implemented administratively and are currently being implemented - 22% • Should not be considered either due to inconsistency with the City Policies /department functions and /or- Totentia.l liability concerns - 4% • Based on incorrect assumptions by the consultant - 4% 1 r F ' 1 1. Ordinance /Policy Amendments 2. Infrastructure/Technology Improvements 3. Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery 4. Other Misc. Recommendations Streamlining the Permit Process P : . 3 o R1 notification - Any reduction in notification should only be considered after a new online permitting and information system is implemented. Should include site plan, elevations, and privacy protection planting plans ❑ Projects of Citywide significance - Provide one City wide notice with links to the City's ‘vebsite for more information, updates, etc. t: _�i.. i�,t:fl ._ F _ �¢ � _c_i <_�..t3��` g�KY � {`�:. 9- 2 _ - - - .F-ip,g 4 ' 1%4 , H"°4 N- If Streamlining the Permit Process Fr id( edtc Le pLmflin pr - -. •1_ ‘1 Lenk Cncrned cd: ,, t wnJ time ecornI e\ „_1 , re1 '4) 1.--- Readability and Consistency A r ; 0 " , _ 1,7 3 77-7, r Policy Amendmens Specific/Conceptual Plans , LC: in - :1ic SnuU Id bu 3„ir • N. De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Plan • S. De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Plan • Nlonta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines • S. Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan L_ L;<2 o en th ce e e peiject 1 3„ , 3„.1 '2 2 3 - v <,< 4 177(.7 ! Dfarri 5 el ;Ls the - perm 4 ,,,,,„ , ,,,, 4-1.1 irflp ir / 1. Ls_ .L ‘_,.._, ,..,_ ,—,,—. ,_. -- T ,,, i-,- -, -, LI - ,rici: cA 1°' (CONTD) : L.e.,, _, ,., :„_., .L ,,, ,..._.. , , ,,_, ,-, L ; C'H ri. r I hd 17 ern i L c_ :Lil dr t ,i ()ye cusL,..Tner SeitiV '102 J Help kiosk 1J Add customer meeting place i) . th , 4 .i.a.z i_ L, — . - , _ ei . .."-- ,,„,..„...-, , , 8 „..----. „„ ..,i,..,_,,,),,,, inc.,,„::,,,-- 1pl, -- \,./ ,, ?; 4-- L t 1 :::'; , 0 / '\---- sii — ' -- .i co st -' - f e e -4-- study to a SI: - Ntltrix recommen ree : ,. _ f recovery f projects , to ,, m , ,-!, i-_,,4",--, --,„, , , Commission recommends .„_„, ÷ 1, ,_,,,,,,,,.,_ ._ ensure: Li Fees are competitive with comparable markets Li Show a nexus between all tees charged Lj Are not cost-prohibitive Lj Are reduced to support affordable housing and green building projects, but in a revenue neutral manner 5 ;, ,- .�t•�a ir .a °«,-�' ...s,t'f� `z��•'aa��.e�� rse.Y �.o��.�: -.�. e.,'�: �'��r.... �rA;,:?��x„r�,,,�,'s"�..�.�•�, �`,��> ?�,��.L�i'.,saa�.��!• ;.. '- .; ' ka °� ; f y /` /"i C" ". � ,/'"d . '" n /„; g , a q dtr • j, i v u1 . E`_ -- rec . f,,, [ I i e ` x.._ i '' , , Co u9/ Sc: 1. Provide additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process enhancements 2. Comment upon and prioritize list of recommendations made by the Planning Commission 3. Authorize staff to initiate public review process with the recommended policy/ ordinance amendments 6 Cc 5/1 #aq By personal hand delivery to the Cupertino City Clerk, • F[ © u May 17, 2010 From: MAY 1 8 2010 Keith E. Murphy, Cupertino's Against Rezoning - CARe 10159 East Estates Drive CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone /FAX: 408 - 252 -6503 Email: KeithDDL527 @aol.com To: ( "' iffr City Clerk ,'' City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA, 95014 Further Attention of: Cupertino City Attorney, Cupertino City Manager, Cupertino City Council, Planning Commission, DRC and Community Development Director RE: Public Records Requests, State of California Government Code §6250 et seq. Mesdames /Sir, I write on behalf of Cupertino's Against Rezoning (CARe) and the general public at large to request the disclosure of the following public records held in the possession, custody, or control of the City of Cupertino, contained in any of its departments, by any of it's employees, appointed agents, representatives, consultants, public officials, including; the Cupertino City Council, all Cupertino Commissions, the City Attorney, the City Manager, the Executive Administration, the Community Development Director and the Matrix Consultant Group, pursuant to State of California Government: Code §6250 et seq.: Regarding application number CP- 2010 -01, Applicant, City of Cupertino, Consultant, Matrix Group Consultants. In 2008, the City Council directed staff to provide a comprehensive organization and management review and analysis of the City's development process and operations. The Matrix Consulting Group was selected and completed their report in November 2009. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency. I would like to know the total $ cost for the services contracted for, and then provided from Matrix Consultant Group for doing this review, and then for any future costs for any additional work or follow up which might be required. CARe is greatly concerned by the general public's lack of fair and timely access, its lack of facilitated participation by Matrix, and for the general public's denial of there due - process by 1 Matrix, including the lack of adequate public noticing of scheduled public hearings, hearings held which discriminated selective stake Folders from inclusion & participation. Please describe any documentation describing these who were denied attending these focus groups, the public hearings which might impact the city's building permit process and by fully expected consequence, impacting all stake holders in our city, acknowledged or not by Matrix. Matrix's lack of openness and transparency, is shown by the biased public noticing to both selectively contact specific participants to populate Matrix Consultant Group's stake holder pool, all those who would be officially recognized as stake holders or participants and who's concerns would be heard and acted on. Then please describe any documents which specifically discuss how stake holders or participants were chosen or excluded from the Mai:rix focus groups, as the Planning Commission requested to see the list of actual par :icipants in the Focus Group studies conducted by the Matrix Consultants, as Matrix has recently confirmed to staff that the study it performed was a blind focus group study, one purposely designed to facilitate candid answers from the selected participants, consequently the participants were assured anonymity by the Matrix Consultant Group. (see: Planning Commission Staff Report, Agenda Item 4, May 11, 2010) I am requesting, on the part of all CARe members and the general public at large, all public documents, including email, letters, notes or reports which discuss any contracts between Cupertino public official's and Matrix Consulting Group, 2008 -2010 time frames, regarding the permit policy review and for all proposals coming from that review, specifically: a.) All documents showing directions given by the City of Cupertino to Matrix Consultant Group as to the specific type of review and then what form the focus group study would be designed, developed and then publically held to identify and facilitate opportunities and enhancements to the City's permit services and organizational efficiency and then what analytical methods would be used to analyze that collected data by Matrix Consultant Group. b.) All documents showing discussions between public officials and Matrix Consultant Group regarding its assurances for the unbiased inclusion of all types of stake holders and for their ability to take equal part in the focus groups, then any documents discussing why anonymity was required, beyond Matrix's already stated purpose, one of needing a carrot to solicit candid answers from participants. Please show any documents which identified stakeholders or participants who voiced fears of retaliation by either city staff, elected officials, or from the general public at large, or if this concern was raised by Matrix Consultant Group themselves, as prophylactic measure, and if so, why did they feel the need to raise this issue and impose mitigation? c.) All documents which list any sources of; 1.) Individual names, 2.) Business names, 3.) Property owner names, 2 4.) Special interests representative names, 5.) community group names deemed by either the City of Cupertino and /or Matrix Consultant Group to be included in the "pool of stake holders" and then specifically asked to participate in the Matrix focus group meetings and Matrix's study, these same stakeholders or participants who then anonymously proposed both administrative and legislative changes impacting all stake holders located in the City of Cupertino, except poitively for those stake holders or participants who were granted anonymity and then can not be identified for having any potential conflict of interests, any which they might have with either Cupertino's public officials or the Matrix Consulting Group. d.) All documents which discuss: 1.) any individuals name, 2.) any community groups name, 3.) any types of businesses by name, 4.) any types of property owners by name, or 5.)any types of special interest by name who were requested to be excluded form the Matrix focus groups and study, specifically or inadvertently identified for exclusion for any purpose , if even by administrative neglect, describing all explanations for these individuals or groups prophylactic exclusion. 6.)All documents, sign in sheets, notes, electronic recordings or references made to any focus group stake holders by name — including all transient unscheduled attendees to the focus group meetings of any type — and which identify anyone who attended the three scheduled focus group meetings or any additional meetings held by Matrix Consultant Group for any reason. 7.)Any documents showing any additional meetings held in addition to the 3 focus group meetings, any which took place between Matrix Consultant Group with: 1.) any one in the Matrix's focus group stake holder pool, 2.) any one who Matrix had not chosen to participate at the focus groups, or 3.) any meeting held with any stake holders who declined to participate at the official focus group meetings, or 4.)with any stake holder who had expressed any conflict of interest (of any type) with public officials or Matrix Consulting Group - as identified by the stake holder themselves, or by city staff, or by elected representatives, or by Matrix Consultant Group themselves. 8.)Any documents discussing or describing either actual or potential conflict of interests (of any type) between city public officials and identified stake holders or participants of the focus groups; any conflicts which were identified by either Matrix Consultant Group, or by any stake holder or participant, and then if any of the conflicted stake holders or participants played a role in the request & application of anonymity being granted i:o the participant or stake holders, by the Matrix Consultant Group, including documents showing if information about any perceived or actual conflicts (of any type) which were disclosed to any public official, for any reason. 3 9.)Any documents detailing all City of Cupertino public officials who attended the Matrix focus group meetings, or additional private meetings, any which clearly identify the date of there attendance, and which describe if any attending public officials were granted anonymity for any purpose, and did the stake holders or participants attending the focus group meetings know Cupertino public officials were in attendance and there anonymity was compromised? 10.) Please describe the Matrix Consultant Groups anonymity policy which was enforce at the time of contractual agreements with the City of Cupertino for the 2008/2009 period for both the study and focus groups and then for the any additional type of meeting which the Matrix Consultant Group had with any stake holders or participants, officially identified or not, with in the same 2008/2009 time frames. Please identify available documents by each question which they might address, then describe where the documents are located, then describe which documents can be made available for review in person first and then outline the costs for reproducing each available type of document. Thank you. r tfi'-tik Keith Murphy May 17, 2010 (4- pages) 4 cc 5/18/10 a�f Kimberly Smith From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:23 AM To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fw: URGENT - Letter from CCC •. Please Present to City Council Meeting on 4/18/2010 Attachments: CupertinoDocReq.pdf Original Message From: Bern Steves, Esq. < bernsteves @californiabizlaw.com> To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc: City Clerk Sent: Tue May 18 00:43:49 2010 Subject: URGENT - Letter from CCC - Please Present to City Council Meeting on 4/18/2010 Madam /Gentlemen, Please see attachment. Thank you. rate lt !IQ Bern STEVES, Esq.` Managing Attorney BUSINESS LAW OFFICE Cell: 650 215 0888 Tel.: 408 253 6911 Fax: 408 715 2556 E -mail: bernsteves Ocaliforniabizlaw.com CALIFORNIA BUSINESS LAW OFFICE 19925 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE: This message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may contain privileged and confidential information which may not be read, made known to others, or used, by any other person. If you have received this message in error, kindly let us know by return e-mail or other means. THANK YOU. R A j @ a:6 Linda Lagergren From: mchowcsr @gmail.com on behalf of marolyn chow [mchowl @pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:12 PM To: City Council; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: Matrix proposal Mayor Wang, Councilman Wong, Councilman Mahoney, Council Santoro, and Councilman Chang, With regard to the myriad proposals in the Matrix report being considered for the first time by the Cupertino City Council this evening, Agenda Item 24, I would request that this item be tabled for further study. At a time when the Community is only beginning to recover from an era of Big Government distrust over the handling of development projects, now is the time to encourage active participation by the electorate rather than discourage involvement by further limiting transparency. For the Matrix report to have any credibility to Cupertino's City Council and Planning Commission, the participants and sources must be disclosed, else at could have simply been drawn from air. Please exercise your fiduciary duty to protect the community and the dollars spent by our local government. The recommendations of limited participation and limited public notification, elimination of review processes contained in the Matrix report tell me that big development is setting the foundation for slam -dunk City approvals when the opportunity arises, before the public realizes what's happening. The humongous ugly developments at the corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza are constant reminders of ramrod government, closed door deals. resulting in distrust of City government, initiatives and referenda being brought: a black time for the City and for the citizens. Let's not repeat this disastrous experience again! Respectfully, Marolyn Chow, Resident r 1