.05 CP-2010-01 Permit Review process OFFICE OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT
' ' � CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVEN'JE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
� u P��T � N'� (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • plannin�@cupertino.or�
PLANNING COMM] SSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. J Agenda Date: November 9, 2010
Application: CP-2010-01
Applicant: City of Cupertinc
Property Location: Citywide
Application Summary: Review of the Vlanagement Study of the Permit Process and
opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's development permit services and
organizational efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Con provide:
• Comments on the list of recommendf�d changes, to the permit process and public
engagement policy (see Attachments 1,1A and 15); and
• Provide any additional modifications and/or recommendations related to permit
process enhancements.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Grou�� was asked to conduct a comprehensive
organization and management analysi:� of the development permit process and
operations. The objective of the analysis v�as to identify opportunities for enhancing the
quality of the City's permit services an�i improve organizational efficiency. Matrix
began their research in March 2009 and c��mpleted the study on November 5, 2009 (see
Attachment 2).
The study used a variety of sources for it:; analysis including: customer focus groups, a
survey of City staff, and a review of th � development process, permit data and the
City's website. Matrix then compared Cu pertino's permit processes and organizational
framework with other comparable cities a nd best management practices in the industry.
A list of recommendations was presentE d to improve the City's permit process and
organizational efficiency.
The recommendations fall in the followin�; categories:
• About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented.
;�—�
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010
Page 2
• About 22 percent of the recommendati �ns are being currently being implemented by
staff.
• About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission review/City
Council action in the form of Ordinance/Policy amendments or funding.
• About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to
inconsistencies with City policies/ de��artment functions and/ or potential liability
concerns; and
• About four percent of the recommend��tions were based on incorrect assumptions by
the Corisultant.
Attachment 3 is a summary table of recc mmendations in the Matrix report with staff
comments.
The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010
(see Attachments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8& 9 for staff reports and minutes). The City Council
reviewed the item on May 18, 2010 (se � Attachments 10 & 11 for staff report and
minutes).
The Council reviewed the recommendatic�ns of the Planning Commission and directed
staff to:
1. Conduct additional workshops for the community to collect feedback regarding the
permit process;
2. Send notices to all applicants, propez ty owners, and developers who got permits
from the City in the last five years. I:z addition, place appropriate notices in local
newspapers.
Approximately 5,300 notices were mailec to invite permittees and property owners to
participate in workshops on the developrlent permit process. In addition, notices were
placed in the Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene and the City's website.
Two group workshops were held - one c�n July 28, 2010 and another on September 8,
2010. The first meeting was focused on cc�llecting comments on the main themes of the
Matrix Report. At the second meeting, w��rkshop attendees were given an opportunity
to provide their opinion about the levels oE approval for different types of projects.
Group Workshop #1
Nineteen residents and property ownei s(including four Planning Commissioners)
attended the group workshop on July 23, 2010. At the first meeting, the grou� was
asked to comment on three main categories indentified from the Matrix Report,
streamlining, technology and communic,�tion. The attendees were provided with six
key recommendations made by Matrix in each category for discussion (see Attachment
12). Participants were also given an oppc►rtunity at the end of the meeting to have an
open discussion on all items that were not covered by the three main categories.
Comments from the group are summarized in Attachment 13.
�i-2
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project (tecommendations November 9, 2010
Page 3
Group Worksho� #2
Twenty eight community members �.nd developers (including two Planning
Commissioners and one Councilmember) attended the September 8th group workshop.
The attendees were provided with han�outs that compared Cupertino's approval
authority with three neighboring cities: Mc�untain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see
Attachment 14). Each category was discus �ed and following the discussion participants
were asked to indicate on the handout what their opinion was. The results of this
exercise have been tallied and are sumrr arized in Attachment 15 and the comments
from the group have been summarized in .�ttachment 16.
The main points brought up by the groups at the workshops were:
• The majority of the group agreed ihat the development process needs to be
streamlined.
• A comprehensive online permitting s��stem is key to streamlining both processing
and tracking projects.
• An overwhelming majority of the grcup members agreed that while streamlining
approval processes is desirable, they did not want a reduction in the level of public
engagement that the current processes �llow.
Also, staff has reviewed the input to see if there are discrepancies or legal requirements
that would require changes to the recomn►endations provided in the group workshops.
In cases where changes have been proposed, staff has noted the change.
A chart is attached that shows projects approved between 2006 and 2009 (see
Attachment 1�. It compares how the ��roject would have been reviewed per the
workshop attendees' recommendation, staff's recommendations, and the current
ordinance requirements.
Following the two group workshops, staff has compiled the input received at the group
workshops into the following categories:
1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments
2. Infrastructure/Technology ImprovemEnts
DISCUSSION
The following is a compilation of input received at the group workshops. In cases
where staff has made a different reccmmendation or where staff has provided
additional recommendations, they are spe�:ifically noted in each section.
1. ORDINANCF/POLICY AMENDMENTS
Based on the results of the group workshc�ps, staff has attached its recommendations in
Attachment 1.
A. Streamlining A�?proval AuthoritU:
The comments from the first group wc�rkshop and the results of the tally of the
responses from the second group woikshop indicates support for reducing the
��-3
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project [�ecommendations November 9, 2010
Page 4
thresholds of the approval level for prcjects that are smaller and do not have far
reaching impacts. The majority of thE group discussion included the following
concepts:
• The City Council should review all prcjects that are "outside the box" of regulations
- i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan or Zoning. Staff notes that these
projects, Ordinance amendments, and Te;ltative Maps are required to be reviewed by the
City Council per State law. Staff would like to add a recommendation that any project that
requires an Environmental Impact Report ��EIR) should also be reviewed by Council.
• Projects that fit "within the "box" of thE� existing General Plan, zoning and other City
regulations should be approved at the ]'lanning Commission level.
• Projects that are small and do not cau:;e impacts should be reviewed by staff. Staff
notes that such projects could include thos�� that are exempt under California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and would not have an environmental impact. Projects that typically
are exempt under CEQA include new con:;truction with six units or less and 10,000 square
feet or less of new non-residential devel�pment or additions, fa�ade improvements, site
improvements including landscaping, rEplacement or reconstruction of non-residential
buildings, etc. Staff would additionally like to recommend that any project that uses the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) infill exemption (Section 15332 of
Categorical Exemptions of CEQA) require Planning Commission approval.l
• A number of residents expressed co ncern about reducing thresholds of project
approval and recommended enhancin g public noticing in case the thresholds are
reduced.
• A few residents commented if thresholds of approval were reduced, appeal fees
should also be lowered or eliminated to remove deterrents to their right to appeal a
lower level decision. The current ap��eal fee is set at $162 and is refunded if the
appeal is upheld.
• Single Family (R1) Ordinance - While th�� Planning Commissi�n had indicated at their
meeting on April 27, 2010, that they d:.d not want to review amendments to the R1
Ordinance, it is important to note th�.t some workshop attendees brought up the
issue that R1 requirements were onero xs. The two story permit application involves
the following three steps:
o Design Review
o Story Poles - expensive and not alw ays effective if not properly installed
o Noticing -financially burdensome a nd could cause potential security issues since
entire plan sets with floor plans hav e to be mailed
While staff does not have specifi� reco�nmendations, the Planning Commission may
have comments or recommendations tY�ey wish the Council to consider.
1 The In-fill Development Exemption under CEQ�, is used typically for larger developments that are on
urbanized sites of up to 5 acres in size. Since � uch projects may be larger than what other CEQA
exemptions allow, staff recommends that they be rE�viewed by the Planning Commission.
c,_4
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010
Page 5
B. Communication:
The group workshop attendees discussed �:he issue of noticing at length. Some members
of the community who have previously �btained permits from the City felt that the
requirements were onerous. Other commtinity members liked the improvements made
by the City over the years to increase noticing and wanted to retain them. The
participants additionally commented that any process streamlining should not result in
reduction of public noticing and input.
In response to the comments received in :he group workshops, staff is recommending
an enhanced public engagement process b;�sed on the following key principles:
• A participation process must ensure th;�t a participant's time is well spent.
• A participation process must be focu �ed and participants' needs should be fully
aired and considered.
• Project and participation expectations rnust be clear from the start.
Staff has reviewed past projects where n otification was enhanced and would like to
recommend a consistent policy for project,; where expectations for the applicant as well
as neighbors/residents would be clear f:�om the start. A draft concept of this new
public engagement process policy - Advise, Collaborate, Team up (ACT) is shown in
Attachment 1, with further details of current policy and proposed changes in
Attachment 1A. The recommended ACT l'ublic Engagement Process has the following
levels of engagement:
• Advise - Staff is recommending enharcing noticing for all projects by requiring on-
site signage, and providing link;� on the City's website. The specific
recommendations are provided in Attachment 1A. Additionally, to make project
signs on the site providing notice of development proposals easily recognizable,
staff is proposing a draft sign and �tandards based on a review of signs and
standards in San Jose and Mountain Vi �w (see Attachment 18).
• Collaborate - This level incorporates e�thanced notification for projects that have the
potential to crea�e neighborhood im��acts. Staff is suggesting a threshold of 25
residential units, 25,000 square feet of retail/commercial use and 50,000 square feet
of office/industrial use since project:� at this level have the potential to create
neighborhood level impacts. Project� at this level would be required to expand
noticing to 500 feet and have a neigllborhood meeting. The public engagement
process at this level allows for dialogue between all parties and helps to discuss
solutions that could be brought to deci::ion-makers for their consideration.
• Team Up - This is the highest level of ��ublic engagement for projects with city-wide
implications. Staff recommends this l �vel for large projects such as major General
Plan amendments and zoning and Planned Development/Use permits that require
an EIR. Projects at this level .would require expanded or city-wide noticing and
focus groups/ workshops. Examples o: where the City has used this process include
the South Vallco Master Plan and the I��orth Vallco Master Plan.
E-5
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010
Page 6
Staff would also like to note that we a��e working on improving inter-departmental
communication. Internal processes that can be improved upon by simple policy changes
are also being evaluated and instituted. F.�rthermore, efforts are being made to prepare
additional manuals and how-to guides to help homeowners, contractors and developers
get the best information possible on prep �ration of application submittal materials and
requirements/ processes.
C. Improving Readabilitu and Consistenc�
In order to improve consistency between various City documents and improve
readability of documents, staff recommen�is the following:
• Review existing conceptual plans ��nd area plans to make older documents
consistent with the General Plan and to update them with new graphics. No
amendments to the plans are propos��d as part of this review. An administrative
update with new graphics is expected �o cost about $5,000-7,500 per document.
• Review the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce
repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where
this was done.
Staff notes that we are currently working on a number of Council work program items
and that the above-mentioned tasks will be done on a long-term basis as time permits.
2. INFRASTRUCTURF./TECHNOLOGY IMPRO VEMENTS:
Many workshop attendees indicated s�rong support for a comprehensive online
permitting system (see Attachment 13). S��ven of the 15 attendees at the first workshop
indicated support for the acquisition anc� implementation of an online permit system
where they could submit applications, track the progress online and obtain permits
online without having to submit paper plans. Based on the preliminary discussion,
while many of the attendees supported the idea of instituting a technology fee of
roughly 4% in order to cover some of thE� costs of acquiring a new permitting system,
some attendees wanted to keep access to �►aper plans.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission comments ancl recommendations will be forwarded to City
Council for consideration. Once the Council provides direction on issues to focus on,
staff will bring related ordinance amE ndments to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate P1annE�r
Reviewed by: Approved by:
, ; •
� Gary C ao �✓ Aarti S vastava
� City Planner � Community Development Director
;i-6
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Recommended Approval Authority and Public Engagement
Process (ACT)
Attachment 1A Current and pioposed noticing requirements
Attachment 2 Matrix Consul�ing Group's report titled, "Management St��cdy
of the Permit Pr��cess," dated November 17, 2009
Attachment 3 Summary tabl � of recommendations in the Matrix report
with staff con�uner.ts
Attachment 4 Planning Convnission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010
Attachment 5 Planning Corrunission minutes from Apri113, 2010 meeting
Attachment 6 Plaruzing Corrunission Staff Report dated Apri127, 2010
Attachment 7 Planning Com�nission minutes from Apri127, 2010 meeting
Attachment 8 Planning Corrunission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010
Attachment 9 Planning Con minutes from May 11, 2010 meeting
Attachment 10 City Council St aff Report dated May 18, 2010
Attachment 11 City Council rrinutes from May 18, 2010 meeting
Attachment 12 Handouts to Ju ly 28, 2010 group workshop attendees
Attachment 13 Summarized r otes and analysis from July 28, 2010 group
workshop
Attachment 14 Handouts to SE�ptember 8, 2010 group workshop attendees
Attachment 15 Tally of Apprc�val Authority from September 8, 2010 group
workshop anc: comparison of current level of approval
authority and group recommendation to the cities of
Mountain Viev�, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
Attachment 16 Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop
Attachment 17 Comparison oE approval authority on projects approved
between 2006 a nd 2009 and group recommendations.
Attachment 18 Draft standards and example for on-site signage related to
development p roposals.
G: � Planning � PDREPORT � pc CP reports � 2010 CPreport ��;P-2010-01 PC 11-09-10.doc
;j-7
�� c� : �����: � � ��«. �� � ,� � � � ; .� _ - ����'
� � ���, � � �� _ ���
__ �
LEVELS OF E�IGA�EMENT
Cupertino
Public Engagement
Process
ACT
. �`'` �.
��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•
♦ �
�� Q�ASIC PRINCIP'LES QF PU BLIC �
■ �
� ENGaGEIi�E�1T
■
�❖ A participation process must ensure ■
� that a artici ant's time is well s ent. �
� , p p p �
�❖ A participation process must be �
■ focused and participants' needs should �
� be f ully aired and considered. ■
�❖ Pro ject and participation expectations �
� �
� must be clear f rom the start. �
��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t�
�-_
�:
F �;.
� �:.
� :�
�� .:
❖ Inform the public •:• Legal advertisements
❖ Listen to and consider concerns in ❖ Legal notices
� the decision. ❖ Public hearings
._
�❖ Enhance outreach and information ❖ Newspaper ads/Cupertino Scene (as
Q dissemination needed
❖ Website
❖ Site si na e
�❖ Work with the public to ensure ❖ For pro jects >_25 units; 25,000 sq, f t.
� that concerns nnd solutions are retail/commercial/50,000 sq. ft.
� incorporated in the report to office/industrial
� decision-makers. ❖ Neiqhborhood notice (500' min.)
— -
�j ❖ Neiqhborhood meetin�s
-
j❖ Look to the public for input in ❖ City-wide postcards
� formulating project alternatives ❖ Focus groups /Workshops
� and solutions f or decision-makers
cu
� to consider.
Pro ject Type Publ ic Engagement Pol icy �ACT)
Advise Callaborate Team Up
General Plan Amendment - Ma �or ✓ ,,/
General Plan Amendment - Minor ✓ �/
Zonin Amendment >5 acres ✓ ✓ �,/
Zonin Amendment 1-5 acres �/ �/
Zonin Amendment < 1 Qcre ✓ �/
Zonin Amendment - Minor ✓
Tentative Ma >_ 5 arcels ✓
Parcel Ma < 5 arcels ✓
Planned Develo ment Permit - Ma'or ✓ ✓
Planned Develo ment Permit - Minor ✓
ConditionQl Use Permit - Ma'or - ✓ �/
ConditionQl Use Permit - Minor ✓
ArchitecturQl and Site A roval PC ✓ �/
Architectural and Site A roval DRC ✓
Ma'or Amendment ✓ �/
Variance/Exce tion ✓ �/
1. "Collaborate" level >_ 25 units; 25,OOOsq.ft. retnil/commercial; 50,000 office/industrial.
2. A I I EIRs to be processed at "Team Up" level.
..
�::
� ���,
PROJEcT co�TExT
N
tn
V
�
�o
a
L
O
.�
�
L
�
�
Collaborate
(Neighborhood)
Attachment 1
... ....... ............. ... .
Team Up
(City-wide/Area-wide)
- __ ___ _ _. __ :. _ . _ . _ _ __. _ ___ _ ' ............ ........... ... ....................................................... .................. ............ ....................................................:
Advise Collaborate
(Ad jacent/Radius) (Neighborhood)
Low
Community Impact
tvoTE Current and proposed approval authority and noti�i� requirements are further detailed in Attnchment lA.
High
PROPOSED PROCESS (GROUP WORKSHOPS) ATTACHMENT 1A
Project Type
CC /PC /Adm
in.
Proposed Noticing
radius (unless
requiring Collaborate
or Team Up approach)
Public Engagement Policy (ACT)
Advise
Collaborate (min.
500' radius
Team Up
(One City -wide
General Plan Amendment - Major'
CC
399=
✓
✓
General Plan Amendment - Minor
CC
399 1000'
✓
✓
Zoning Amendment ( >5 acres)
CC
499 1000 ,
✓
✓
Zoning Amendment (1 -5 acres)
CC
399-
✓
✓
✓'
Zoning Amendment (< 1 acre)
CC
399- 500'
✓
✓
✓'
Zoning Amendment - Minor
CC
300'
✓
Tentative Map (>- 5 parcels)
CC
300'
✓
✓
✓
Parcel Ma (< 5 parcels)
AG Admin.
300'
✓
Development Agreement
CC
300'
✓
✓
✓
Planned Development Permit - Major 1
GG PC
399- 500'
✓
✓
✓
Planned Development Permit - Minor 2
RG Admin.
300'
✓
Conditional Use Permit - Major 3
PC /Admin. 3
3007
✓
,/6
V /7
Conditional Use Permit - Min 3
PC /Admin. 3
300'
✓
Architectural and Site Approval (PC)
PC
Adjacent /1000' 4
✓
V /6
✓7
Architectural and Site Approval (0146)
( Admin )
i �" Admin.
Adjacent
✓
Major Amendment
PC /CC
300'
✓
✓
✓
Yard Interpretation
P Admin.
Adjacent
✓
`
Variance/ Exception - PC /CC
PC /CC
3G4 500'
✓
✓
✓'
Variance/ Exception - DIR
Admin.
300'
✓
Sign Exceptions
0
Admin. PC
Adjacent /300' 8
✓
Sign and Fence Exceptions
DRC Admin.
Adjacent
✓
R1 Exceptions
DRC
300'
✓
R1 Ordinance permits
Admin.
Adjacent /300'
✓
Tree Removal
Admin. /PC 9
300'
✓
Extensions
6 IIP
Admin
None to
✓
NOTES:
1. Major >_ ; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial /office /industrial non - residential; e+g4 six residential units.
2. Minor (CEQA Exempt) < ; 10,000 sq.ft. commercial /office /industrial non - residential; e494 six residential units.
3. Conditional Use Permits - Major /Minor determined by size of project as noted above. Approval body determined by use per ordinance.
4. 1000' requirement for wireless and personal communications facilities.
5. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of requirement.
jF
6. Collaborate Level - 25 units; 25,000 square feet retail /commercial; 50,000 office /industrial. Min. noticing radius - 500%
7. All EIRs to be processed at Team Up level and approved by City Council.
8. Exceptions for Readerboard and Freeway Oriented signs approved by Planning Commission.
9. Heritage Tree Removals to be approved by Planning Commission.
10. One year extensions approved on consent with no noticing.
5 -91of1
Attachment 2
Management Study of the Permit Process
CITY OF CUPER'TINO, CALIFORNIA
.
���t� ����
���n��f1 ��� �r��p
721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101
Palo Alto, :.alifomia 94303
v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509
November 17, 2009
:i-10
Table oi� Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT STAFFING 8
3. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT PROCESS 17
4. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT I NFORMATION SYSTEM 71
5. ANALY515 OF THE PERMIT CENTER 80
6. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT ADMINISTRATION S1
7. ANALY515 OF THE PLANNING CaMMI5Sl1)N AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 100
APPENDIX 1- PROFILE 107
APPENDIX 2- FOCUS GROUPS 133
APPENDIX 3- COMPARATIVE SURVEY 143
APPENDIX 4- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDA�IONS 156
:i-11
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the Permit Proce
1. EXECUI"IVE SUMMARY
The report, which follows, pre:�ents the results of the organization and
management analysis of the permit process conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group.
This first chapter introduces the aralysis — outlining principal objectives and how
the analysis was conducted, and the exec�utive summary.
1. AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE.3.
The project team conducted a c��mprehensive organization and management
analysis of the permit process in Cupert no including the existing operations, process,
service levels, and staffing levels. The �►nalysis was to be fact based and include all
aspects of service provision by the City. 1he 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 i� meeting this scope is portrayed below.
• Develop an in-depth understand',ng of the key issues impacting the permit
process. The Matrix Consulting Group conducted interviews with City staff
involved in the permit process a': 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 division:� involved in the permit process. The Niatrix
Consulting Group conducted interiiews with City staff and other key staff in the
City to document the current orgar�ization of services, the structure and functions
of the Department, budgets, work oad data, management systems, inventory of
the infrastructure, etc.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
;�-12
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORN/A
Managem S of the Permit Proces
• Conduct a comparison of the perr�it processes, program, and practices to `best
management practices.'
• Conduct focus groups to elicit fE�edback from customers of the City's permit
processes regarding the adequacy of the levels of service provided by the City.
• Evaluate the staffing, organizatior� structure, and service levels in the divisions
involved in the permit process. Th s included interviews with key staff to develop
an understanding of the curren: service delivery model, evaluation of the
adequacy of current service levels work practices, work planning and scheduling
systems, productivity and staffinc� levels, the plan of organization, and asset
management.
The objective of this assessment was tc identify opportunities for improvement in the
operational and economic efficiency of t ie City in the delivery of permit services and
practicable opportunities for enhancing th � quality of its product and services.
2. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS VIEWED CUPERTINO'S PERMIT PROCESS
AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICC�N VALLEY.
As part of the management study c�f 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 C �pertino's permitting process and to assess
overall customer satisfaction.
Overall, the response of the pa ticipants in the focus groups regarding the
Cupertino permitting process was quite Fositive. 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 reasonab eness, the focus grou�+ participants ranked
Cupertino among the top three cities, � long with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
5-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu o t P erm it Proce
generally felt that Cupertino was substantially better than San Jose, Menlo Park and
Palo Alto, and slightly better than Mounta n View, Milpitas and Fremont.
The "small town atmosphere" v�as cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff
members were generally available whe i needed, and they exhibited a friendly and
positive attitude. Most participants knev� staff members of all departments by name,
and they appreciated the fact that, for a iy given project, they generally dealt with the
same planner, plan checke�, inspector ar d engineer throughout the entire process. The
word "excellent was used several times in describing the attitude and professionalism
of staff.
The groups were nearly unanimo� s, however, in identifying two major problems
with the Cupertino permitting process: (1) lack of an effective automated on-line
permitting information system, and (2) th�; 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- �riendly automated/on-line system. They cited
hand-written applications, difficulties in checking the status of an application, and delays
in receiving staff comments and correctio is as problems that could be solved by such a
system.
While the politically charged atinosphere 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 dev��lopment industry. Participants recognized the
sharp division of opinion within the comrr�unity-at-large with regard to development and
growth, which division was reflected witfiin the City Council and between the Council
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
��-14
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORIYIA
Management Study of t Permi Pr ocess
and the Planning Commission. The resu t 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 portraye�i below.
• The City Council co�ducts an ann�ial goal setting session to establish the annual
work program for the City — includir�g items related to the land use planning of the
City.
• The Planning Commission membE:rs are provided the opportunity to attend the
annual League of Califomia's Cities Planner Institute. Newly appointed
Commission members are provideci an orientation by City staff.
• Staff reports provide a discussion of the staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission and identified, where ;�ppropriate, alternatives to be considered.
'• Planning Commission meetings are televised and prior meetings are archived
and available for viewing of the Cifir's web site.
• The Planning Division is the sole �oint of contact for the applicant. All planning
permit applications are submitted :o the Planning Division counter in the permit
center and routed to other division:. by the Division.
• Building permit plan checks for zor�ing compliance are typicalty completed by the
Planning Division on the same da:� (or within one business day) of receipt from
the Building Division.
• All major planning ordinances anci regulations, including the general plan, the
zoning ordinance, and design guicelines are available on-line through the City's
web site. Additionally, Planning ��ommission agendas (current and p�ior) and
minutes are available to the public �n the website.
• The Building Official conducts w�ekly training with inspections personnel to
upda±e on new codes, convey codE� interpretations, e±c.
• Over-the-counter building permit ��lan check service is generally available for
very small residential projects (2 �0 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
��-15
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stu dy of the Permit Process
staff in less than thirty (30) minut�:s. Commercial over-the-counter plan checks
are made only on Tuesdays, Wedriesdays and Thursdays, between the hours of
1:30 and 2:30 p.m. Fire District staif 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 businE;ss days).
• A one-stop shop exists for submitt�.l 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 assi��ned to general geographical locations and
conduct all types of inspections witiin their respective area.
• Inspectors utilize hand-held device� to record and upload inspection results.
• The Building Division allows the phased permits such as foundation-only permits.
• The Engineering Division publishE;s commercial and residential guides on-line
that identify how the development process works (including cycle times), �nd the
types of information that need to bE: submitted, and to whom.
These strengths provide a sound basis fo� further enhancements.
4. AGENDA FOR iiVIPROVEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
In developing recommendations fc�r 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 thz permitting process, is reflected in a publication of
the American Planning Association en�:itled The Development Review Process: A
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
:i-16
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy of the Permit Process
Means To A Nobler and Greater End.' Tt�e publication indicated that to be the "best of
the best", a City's permitting process nee�s to deliver:
• Predictability including clear exp�:ctations, no surprises, and a clear decision
process with decision points;
• Fair treatment with rules that are t�e same for everyone with the offering of trust
to applicants by the City and the �emonstration of trustworthy behavior by the
City;
• Accurate and accessible inform��tion that is easy to find and understand, with
clear applicant requirements and standards;
• Timely processing that establ shes early tentative dates for hearings,
guaranteed review turnaround tirries. And published commission and council
meeting dates;
• Reasonable and fair costs for aF�plication 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 tha': 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 ��f implementation for the recommendations �
contained within this report for the review ��nd approval of the City Manager.
The recommendations contained within the report are summarized in the
appendix.
' American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, The Deve/opment Review Process: A Means To A
Nobler and Greater End, January 2005.
Matrix Consulfing Group Page 6
;i-17
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management S of the Permit Process
� The principal opportunities for imp - ovement that apply to all aspects of the permit
process address the City's need for belter technology management accountability, a
streamlined process, enhanced traininc� 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 th� 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 engi ieering permits.
(2) Clarity of regulations - Strive f�r clear and understandable regulations that
provide developers real guidance and direction at the very conception of their
project (e.g., Heart of the City Spe�;ific Plan).
(3) Simplification of the permit pr��cess - 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 b}� the Matrix Consulting Group.
(4) Accountability — Develop and deploy management controls and reporting
systems that enable the City M�jnager to hold the Community Development
Director, Public Works Director, ard Planning, Building, and Engineering division-
heads accountable for meeting cyc:le time objectives for plan checking.
(5) Training - Staff development in tfie Building Division, Engineering Division, and
Planning Division so that the stafP has the necessary set of skills to effectively
serve the applicant and the comm��nity.
* * d � * * ,t
The chapters that follow present these re�:ommendations in more detail.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
i-18
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Manageme St of the Permit Process
2. ANALYSIS OF� PERMIT STAFFING
This chapter presents an analysis c�f the staffing requirements for the Community
Development Department and the Engine��ring 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 functio;� to
determine the appropriateness of existing staffing levels. The first table below outlines
the estimated hours available by a currei�t planner for review activities — assumptions
are made regarding time spent on non-pl�inning functions such as leave time (vacation,
sick, holidays), training, and staff meeting:;.
Element Hours
Total Annual Hours 2,080
Holida s 88
Vacation 80
Sick Leave $�
Trainin 80
Staff Meetin s 8 hours er month 96
Administrative Duties/Pro'ects 8 hours er montt� 96
Total Annual Available Hours Per F'�E to Conduct Reviews 1,560
These assumptions show that eac h full-time employee has, on average, 1,560
hours per year to devote to planning acti�iities. Since the City has made a decision to
have employees involved in both current planning and advanced ptanning, a portion of
these hours would be allocated to the adv3nced planning and current planning.
The following tables outlines the current workload experienced by the City of
Cupertino over the last three years. Wc�rkload has clearly been declining, a pattern
found in Califomia 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
:i-19
C/TY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORNIA
Manageme Sfudy of the Permit Process
approval level (to show the workload a: sociated with applications considered at the
staff, Planning Commission, Design Review and City Council approval levels.
Application Workload
By Type of A��plication / Permit
3 Year
A lication T e 2006 2007 2008 Avera e
Architectural Site A roval 25 19 9 17.7
Ci Pro'ect A lications 3 4 2 3.0
Develo ment A reements 0 0 0 0.0
Directors Minor Modifications / �
Tem ora Use Permits 36 38 37 37.0
Environmental Assessments 20 10 10 13.3
Exce tions 14 11 17 14.0
General Plan Amendments 0 0 1 0.3
Inte retations 0 1 0 0.3
Minor Residential Permit 38 34 37 36.3
Modified/Amended 7 3 5 5.0
Munici al Code Amendment 3 1 4 2•7
R-1 Desi n Review 62 44 32 46.0
S ecific Plan Amendments 1 0 1 0.7
Tentative Ma 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
Zonin 6 0 1 2•3
Applicati on Workload
Sorted by Approval L�vel
2008 / 09
(estimated
based on 6 3 year
A lications b A roval Level 2006 / 0 � 2007 / OS month data Avera e
Planning Commission Application
INT, M, TM, V 26 8 12 15.3
City Council Applications (CP, GP,
MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z 34 32 32 32.7
Design Review Committee
A lications ASA, EXC 45 29 14 29.3
Staff Level DIR, R, RM 160 100 90 116.7
Environmental Assessments 12 8 8 9•3
TOTAL 277 177 156 203.3
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 9
;i-20
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
The project team evaluated staffin�� levels based upon the 2008 workload. The
following table summarizes the annual workload for current planning functions based
upon 2008 and applying an estimated nurnber of hours per review for each category of
application based upon user fee studies c;onducted by the project team with significant
increases in the staff hours per type of pe�mit made for Cupertino based upon the staff-
intensive permit processes used by the Ci1y for these types of permits.
A lication T e 2008 W�rkload Hours to Review Hours Re uired
Minor Architectural Site A roval 5 24 120
Ma'or Architectural Site A roval • 4 32 128
Ci Pro'ect A lications 2 30 60
Directors Minor Modifications /
Tem ora Use Permits 37 16 592
Environmental Assessments 10 60 600
Exce tions 17 32 544
MinorResidential Permit 37 32 1,184
Modified/Amended 5 32 160
Munici al C�de Amendment 4 200 800
R-1 Desi n Review 32 32 1,024
S ecfic Plan Amendments 1 300 300
Tentative Ma 2 32 64
Tree Removal Permit 16 10 160
Minor Use Permit 2 40 80
Ma'or Use Permit 2 120 240
Variance 1 32 32
Zonin 1 150 150
TOTAL 6,238
Important pints to note regarding the data �resented in the table are presented below.
• There is an estimated nee� for 6, 238 hours of current planning activity or the
equivalent of almost 4.0 full-time equivalent professional planners.
• Additional staff hours would be rE�quired for the coverage of the counter and
building permits. This should not t�e a significant amount of hours beyond that
required for the planning permit woikload.
• In evaluating this balance of worklc�ad to available staff, it should be recognized
that the City Planner shoutd not allc�cate more than one-half of his available work
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
��-21
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy of the Permit Process
hours to current or to long-range planning workload; the remainder should be
allocated to management of the Di��ision.
• This would suggest that only 5.0 fi�ll-time equivalent positions authorized for the
Planning Division are actually av,3ilable for processing planning permits. This
excludes the temporary and unbud �eted Assistant Planner position.
The workload data clearly indicaies that the Planning Division has adequate
number of authorized positions to deal re:�ponsively 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 no: 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 IN SPECTORS IN THE BUILDING DIVISION IS
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT GIVEI�I CURRENT INSPECTION WORKLOAD.
The primary objective of the Buildir�g Inspectors is to conduct building permit field
inspections to ensure commercial and residential construction projects are being
conducted to various codes and standarcls. Inspectors spend the majority of their time
in the field, with the following outlining a fi�pical day:
• 6:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2-hour window to customers, etc.
• 7:30 to 11:30: conduct field �tops �nd inspections
• 11:30 to 12:30: lunch
• 12:30 to 4:00: conduct field stops �nd inspections
• 4:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field inspections using the Palm
Pilot and Pentamation
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 11
5-22
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
The project team analyzed worklo� d data to determine the number of inspections
and amount of time spent on inspectio is for staff within this Division. The level of
inspections workload within the Divisior� has fluctuated over the last three years -
averaging approximately 22,120 total insF�ections per year based on data obtained from
the City, as shown below for the past thre� fiscal years:
Year Number of Ins ections
2006 / 2007 24,816
2007 / 2008 20,147
2008 / 2009 21,398
It is important to note these figure� represent the total number of inspections, not
inspection "stops". Typically, each insE�ection stop includes a multiple number of
inspections. Based on our experience �NOrking 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 ii�spection stops in FY 2007 / 2008, and an
estimated 7,169 inspection stops in FY 2(�08 / 2009.
The benchmark utilized by the pr��ject 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 pzr year (or 1,664 available hours per
employee after leaves, training time, et�;.) for each of the Divisions four (4) building
inspectors, the following tab(e estimate� t�e number of daily i�spections stops:
# of Inspection # of Daily Stops /
# of In::pection Stops per Day Inspector @(3.5
Year # of ins ections Sto s 1=stimate Estimate Ins ectors -
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 12
�-23
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of #he Permit Process
Based on this assessment, there are opportunities to reallocate resources and
enhance the utilization of Division buildin � inspectors. As overall development activity
fluctuates in the City, this directly impacis 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 E3UILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECKING AND
COUNTER SERVICES IN THE E�UILDING DIVISION IS SUFFICIENT GIVEN
. EXISTING WORKLOAD.
The Building Division allocates oi�e Building Inspector to review and process
over-the-counter plan check application �(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 �omes, major tenant improvements, etc.) The
Counter Technician utilizes a routing sheE�t during the intake process that includes:
• Basic contact information;
• Project description and number; ard
• Routing sheet (for other departmerts such as public works, fire department, etc.)
Overall, the application review process involves knowledge and activities
associated with the uniform building co�ies, national electronic codes, plumbing and
mechanical codes, energy and Title 24, �ending 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 Consulfing Group Page 13
;i-24
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stu dy o f 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 1he fotlowing:
• Building Division: 2(1 dedicated front-counter building inspector and 1 plan
check engineer, and other building inspectors as back-up when necessary)
• Planning Qivision: 5 full-time plus �'. intems
• Public Works: 3 technician and en��ineering positions
• Fire: 2 offsite positions (with desigi�ated 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 studiE�s 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, d�mos, etc.). Based on this data, the following
table estimates the staffing requirements for the building permit plan check process.
Hours
# of Permits Reviewed 1,262.0
Av . Hours to Process 4.1
Hours Re uired 5,174.3
FTE Availabili Availabfe Hours er Staff 1,560.0
FTEs Re uired 3.3
As shown above, over 5,000 h��urs are utilized to review building permit
applications, or approximately 3.3 full-time equivalent positions. Given the number of
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
!i-25
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
personnel allocated for possible building permit application review, as well as the
number of contractors being utilize to cc�mplete 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 Biiilding Division.
(2) Building Division Staffing Level�: for the Front-Counter Are Appropriate.
, The full time Building Inspector pc�sitions serve as the primary points of contact
for the front counter, provide public information, respond to inquiries regarding
application status and timing, intake apF�lications 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. - "he administrative support positions primarily
assist with the processing of new permit application submittals, includi�g data entry of
project application information, creation of project files, coordination of sending and
receiving plars 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 pi�imary contacts.
The Building Division's staffing level for its permit intake and processing function
is consistent with jurisdictions of similar ��ermit 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 aF►plication using a paper-based system.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
;i-26
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy o f the Permit Process
• The Office Specialist position then inputs the handwritten application information
into the Division's permit informatic�n system (Pentamation)
Although existing staffing levels for the Division's permit counter are adequate for
existing workload, an improved permit inf�rmation 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 fbcus group participants' perception that plan
check turnaround time is more than satisf�ctory. �
Recommendation #4: Continue the a���quate level of staffing dedicated to the
Building Division's permit counter. �
4. THE AMOUNT OF STAFF AUTH DRIZED FOR THE ENGINEERING DIVISION
FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND EN�INEERING PERMITS IS
APPROPRIATE.
Currently, the Engineering Divisi �n 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 Eng neering Division for review and approval.
The level of staffing allocated to the Division is sufficient for permit plan checking
of engineering permits, building permits, ��nd planning permits.
Recommendation #5: The Engineerii�g Division should maintain the staffing
authorized for the permit plan check p��ocess.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
!i-27
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management S of the Permit Process
3. ANALYSIS OF 1"HE PERMIT PROCESS
This chapter presents an analysis of the permit process including planning,
building, and engineering permits. The arialysis identifies opportunities to (1) streamline
the process for minor permits, and (2) enl�ance the management of the process.
Overall, the City's permit process for minor planning permits and minor building
permits is much more complicated thar necessary and than that found in the City's
peers. The recommendations of the projE�ct 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 tt�e permit system is the regulatory framework.
The zoning ordinance is the regulator� framewark that drives the planning permit
process. There are a number of tradec�ffs in the development a�d 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, thE�re are a number of lessons to be learned from
other cities. These lessons include str king the right balance between discretionary
review and "as-of-right" development.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
5-28
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 Develc�pment Director is authorized to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny minor pl�inning permits, the minor permit process is
complicated, more so than other comparible cities. Cupertino, for example, requires a
planning permit for:
- Construction of a two-story residen�;e; it is not an "as-of-righY' permit;
• All new or expanded second story decks for single family residences with views
into neighboring residential side or i•ear yards;
• Changing a wood fence to a wro��ght iron fence in front of a fifteen (15) unit
residential project; and
• Minor landscaping and exterior enfiancements for a condominium project.
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the process for minor planning
permits be streamlined. There are severa altematives to streamline the minor planning
permit process. These alternatives are presented below.
• Increase the types and extent of rninor projects approved at the Director-level.
This could include:
— R2/R3/ML/PD — minor archit�ctural and site modifica±ions
— Sign, fence, deck, R1 excep1;ions;
— R1 front yard interpretation;
— Tandem garage review;
— Minor building less than 5,G00 square feet including
commercial/office�ndustrial and four (4) residential units or less —
equivalent to a Director's Arc:hitectural and Site Application; and
— Minor use permits.
• Increase the approval authority of tl�e Planning Commission;
Matrix Consulfing Group Page 18
;i-29
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Sfudy of the Permit Process
• Reduce projects requiring City C��uncil 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 Developme nt Director with limitations with specific
performance-based development �tandards).
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 c�n be considered based upon neighborhood
concerns expressed at public hearings, and appropriate conditions of approval then
applied to minimize impacts. The reasoris 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 addr�ssed with per�ormance standards. These
performance standards are designed to d �al 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 de��elopment patterns and activities within a
community, as expressed in planning policies.
The Matrix Consulting Group recc�mmends a new "limited" designation concept
ttiat would impose standards and perforrr�ance requirements that recognize the types of
uses and the project conditions that geierate adverse effects while streamlining the
minor planning permit process.
The use of performance standarjs would simplify the use regulations, avoid
extensive reliance on minor planning pf:rmits, and streamline approvals by deeming
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 19
;i-30
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
such uses permitted subject to codifi�:d performance standards. These codified
performance standards would need to be :ailored 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 ��r Director's Review). No discretionary review
and no conditions of approval; subj �ct to codified performance standards.
• Quasi-ministerial review (e.g., tree removal permit). Discretionary review for
CEQA document; conditions of a��proval may be required; subject to codified
performance standards. No conditi�ms of approval or public hearing; approved by
the Community Development Director
The Matrix Consulting Group bE:lieves that the City's processing of minor
planning permits should be streamlined, using performance standards. The process
should be streamlined so that these ty �es 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 o� the types of residential development that occur within the Citjr
(single-family and multi-family) and the d�velopment of performance standards for this
type of development.
Recommendation #6: The City should streamline the process for minor planning
permits by increasing the number of p��rmitted uses that require quasi-ministerial
review and are subject to codified perfc�rmance standards.
Recomnn�ndation #7: The Planning Division should develop codified pprformance
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 shou d be sequenced to the conversion of these
minor planning permits to permitted us es.
Matrix Consulfing Group Page 20
:i-31
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manageme S of the Permit Process
2.. THE PLANNING COMMISSIO�1 SHOULD BE THE FINAL APPROVAL
AUTHORITY FOR CONDITIONAL. USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES.
Section 19.124.060 of fhe City's z�ming ordinance provides that upon receipt of a
recommendation of the Planning Commi �sion pursuant to Section 19.124.050, the City
Council may approve, modify, or disa��prove the recommendation of the Planning
Commission for conditional use permits and variances.
�
This is a highly unusual level of �ipproval for these types of permits. In each of
the peer cities included in the comp� rative survey, the zoning administrator was
approving conditional use permits and variances. None of the peer cities required the
approval of a Planning Commission and �� City Council.
This process is also unusual in tf;at 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 Flanning commission that was envisioned when
these commissions were originally creat�:d in the United States: to provide for a public
hearing for land use decisions to enab e the input of adjacent property owners and
consideration of that input in land use dec;isions.
Recommendation #9: Section 19.12�•.060 of the zoning ordinance should be
modified. The Planning Commissic n 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
5-32
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNiA
Management Study of the Permit Process
3. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHC�ULD NOT WRITE STAFF REPORTS FOR
MINOR PLANNING PERMITS OR MAIL PLAN SETS TO ADJACENT
RESIDENTS.
With or without the streamlining �f 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 Divisi��n 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-lanciscape 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 sunroc�m that is setback 17' from the rear property
line.
This is an inefficient use of the ti �ne of the staff of the Planning Division. Staff
should document the findings and conditions of approval for these minor permits
into the automated permit inforrr ation 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 r�ot mail the plan sets for minor permits to
those adjacent property owner:� 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 rriinor planning permits should be simpler than
the process used for major planning p�:rmits. At the present time, the difference is
indistinguishable. Second story residenti� I decks are being treated as if they were major
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
5-33
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management S of fh Permit Process
land development. While the impact on arid interest of adjacent property owners should
not be ignored, the process should be s'mplified to reflect the scope of the proposed
development.
Recommendation #10: The staff of th�: 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 REG�►RDING 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 apF�eal process not utilized in peer cities.
The appeal process should be mo�jified so that only one appeal is possible. The
City Council itself, however, should cortinue to be able to appeal decisions to the
Council-level itself.
Recommendation #12: The number c�f appeals that are possible for planning
permits should be limited to one appea 1.
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 app ication.
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 1�a87 decision, Anza Parking Corp. vs. City of
Burlingame (1987), courts have determi ied that conditions of approval "run with the
land." As a consequence, most cities hav�: discontinued requiring of the recording of the
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
;i-34
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
conditions of approvai. It is unnecessary.
Recommendation #13: Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants
subsequent to approval of a planning application.
6. THE CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES FOR PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE
REDUCED.
The Planning Division does not utilize a set of established plan review cycle
objectives that differ based upon the nature of the application. The Division is following
the statutory requirements that are in pl��ce 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 util zing the Pentamation system for tracking of
plan review actions and the existing d��tabase that is utilized only captures initial
application date and date of final actior� (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 compl �te, date of first and subsequent reviews (if
applicable), or dates for individual reviews completed by other departments.
The following table summarizes thE� total processing times for various application
types processed in calendar year 2008, based �pon the project t�am's review and
analysis of the available data in the Planning Division database. This table shows the
average time, in calendar days, from the clate of submittal to the date of decision (either
approval or denial). The database alsc� groups items together in broad categories
making evaluation of subsets of applicatioiis by type more difficult.
Matrix Consulting Group Page Z4
��-35
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
Type of Application C cle Time
Directors Minor Modifications / Tem ora Use 35.0
Exce tion A lications 17.0
R-1 Desi n Review 45.1
Minor Residential Permit 32.0
Tree Removal 32.7
The Matrix Consulting Group reco that differential plan review times be
established based upon the size and complexity of the application submission as follow.
Possible calendar date targets for proc��ssing different types of applications, based
upon the experience of progressive citi��s and counties, are presented in the table
below.
The City should establish cycle tiine objectives for all planning applications for
the length of time -- in calendar days -- reauired to process applications from the date of
submittaf to the date of the applicant's initial public hearing or the approval / disapproval
of the application by staff (for those api�lications subject to administrative approval).
Possible calendar date benchmarks i�or processing different types of planning
applications are presented in the table below.
A lication T e Review Times in Calendar Da s
Architectural Site A roval 90
Director's Minor Modifications / Tem ora Use 30
Exce tion A lications 30 .
Minor Residential Permits 30
R-1 Desi n Review 30
Minor Residential Permit 30
Tree Removal 7
Conditional use ermit 60
Variance 60
Parcel Ma 60
These possible targets for processing applications are based upon the project
team's experience, and should be r�:viewed by the City Planner, Community
Development Director, and the City Man �ger, modified as necessary, and adopted by
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
.'i-36
�
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Managemenf Study of the P Pr o � ess
the City Council. Within these processin�� times, differential time periods for review for
the first submission and re-reviews sh��uld also be established. Typically, the re-
submittal plan review timeframe should t�e 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 p��blic education effort and the availability of
application guides that identify, in det 3i1, submittal requirements and that provide
guidance to the applicant.
Case managers accepting appli�:ations must conduct a thorough review to
ensure that applications are complete (I�ave all required elements for a review to be
conducted) or to inform the applicant of tFie 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 cc�mplexity and to differentiate between initial
and re-submittal reviews. Plan revie�w timeframes for re-submittai$ should be
established at no more than one-half tlie timeframe required for the initial review.
Recommendation #15: Adopted �yclQ time objectives for planning permits should
be published �� the Department website and prominently displayed in the
Department's application materials.
7. TtiE PLANNING DIVISION SH�)ULD MAKE THE TENTATIVE PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATIOIV SCHEDU LE MORE VISIBLE ON ITS WEB PAGE.
The Planning Division has developed a tentative application schedule for
planning permits. However, this schedul�: is "hidden" in a 34-page planning application
form.
The Division should separate thi� 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 "sideba�' should contain a link to the tentative application schedule.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
5-37
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o t he Permi Process
Recommendation #16: The Planninc� Division should separate the tentative
application schedule from the 34-pag�� planning application form, and publish it
separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the Planning
"sidebar."
8. DEVELOP AND ADOPT PLAN�IING 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 a:� the City competes against its peers for
� commercial development.
A tool that the Cupertino could ut lize 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-bindir g and typically are limited to 2-pages in length.
The City could choose, for examp(e, to oifer cycle time agreements for:
• Commercial projects in the City's c:ommercial 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 ��nits or more.
The City should discuss and decide the types of �rojects that should be afforded cycle
time agreements and the exact conterit of the agreement. Cycle time agreements
should include basic project information and a schedule for processing of the planning .
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 27
5-38
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
permit plan that includes a schedule for ti City and for the applicant.
Recommendation #17: Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements
with applicants for high priority projeci:s.
9. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ALL OF THE PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO GO '�HROUGH A PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW.
At the present time, a pre-application conference is required prior to submittal on
all planning permit applications. The pu �pose of the pre-application conference is to
determine if the application is ready for ;�ubmittal. The applicant is required to call the
case manager to schedule a time for t ie review of their application materials. The
Planning Division recommends that th�; 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 architect�iral and site review permits. It should not be
utilized for routine planning permit �pplications approved by the Community
Development Director, for example. Tf�e applicant should be able to submit an
application in the permit center without prf:-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
rouiine planning permit applications <<pproved by the Community Development
Director.
10. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOIJLD 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
�-39
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
incomplete thirty days after submittal. Tre 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 rejectinc� the application if incomplete, the essential
submittal requirements for each type of application to be deemed complete, timelines
for all divisions / departments involved i � the 30-day completeness review to provide
comments back to the Planning Division, �tc.
, Recommendation #19: The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written
policy on planning application cornpleteness and the basis for rejecting
incomplete applications.
Recommendation #20: Training shoulsl 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 Shoulcl Be Tailored For Each Typ� ofi Planning
Permit and Include All Of The City's Requirements For An Applicant To
Achieve A Complete Submittal.
The Planning Division has devE�loped 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. 1t contains a list of
all fees charged by the Planning Depart�nent. 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 tc► be customized to each type of permit (i.e.,
Matrix Consulfing Group Page 29
!i-40
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Sfu dy of the Permit Process
conditional use permit, variance, etc.). Ti guides should define the required submittal
and application information for the applic;ant to aid in the development of a complete
application for each specific type of perm t. These application guides should not be 34-
pages long. These guides should be apprc�ximately 4 to 6 pages in length.
The City Planner should assemble a team of staff for those divisions /
departments involved in the planning Fermit 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 ttiat 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 hill: ide exception applications, tentative maps,
variances, and the CEQA initial study. ThE:se checklists should be expanded to included
each application type, and be integrated �r�ith the application guide itself for each type of
permit, which is not the case at the presei�t time.
Recommendation #21: Planning applic,ation guides should be developed for each
specific type of planning permit to in�;lude all of the City's requirements for an
applicant to achieve a complete submittal.
Recommendation #22: These planni��g permit application guides should be
approximately 4 to 6 pages in length.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
;i-41
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o the P P.- ocess
(3) The Case Manager Should Meet With The Applicant To Discuss issues That
Have Been Found During The Initial Thirty-Day Completeness Review Of
The Application
Applicants for planning permit a�plications, 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 appli�cant face-to-face about basic problems, if any, with the application being
deemed complete, preliminary environrr ental findings, basic conditions that might be
imposed, and timing for processing of rhe 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 h��ve, and what problems the conditions might
cause.
Recommendation #23: The case manager in the Planning Division should meet
with the applicant to discuss issues tF�at have been found during the initial 30-day
completeness review of the applicatioii.
(4) The Planning Division Should Provide Training To Consulting Planners,
ArchitQCts, Engineers And D�:velopers Regarding Its Planning Permit
Submittal Reguirzments.
The Planning Division should be ��roactive and periodically meet with consulting
planners, archit�cts, engineers, and witti 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 als�� occur after each submittal when consulting
planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application
and when they encountered particular F�roblems meeting submittal requirements. The
� Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 31
5-42
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
training of the consulting planners, arctiitects, engineers and developers should be
viewed as an ongoing responsibility, alrr�ost like preventive medicine. The intent is to
prevent a recurring pattern of incomplete :�ubmittals.
It is in the Division's best interest:� 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 Plannin g Division should provide training to
consulting planners, architects, engirn�ers and developers regarding its planning
permit submittal requirements.
Recommendation #25: The Planning I)ivision should provide training after each
submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the
development of the application and H�hen they encountered particular problems
meeting submittal requirements.
11. UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED PEF:MIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MANAGE
THE PLANNING, BUIL�ING, AVD ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION
PROCESS.
There are a number of important objectives for the City in the management of the
planning, building, and engineering pE�rmit process. These objectives include the
following:
• Consistent interpretation of regulations;
• Clear communication of the proce:;s and the requirements;
• The predictability of the process;
• Staff responsiveness;
• Consistency; and
• Accountability for decisions and th � management of the process.
The automated permit informati�m system, when fully deployed, should be
utilized to enhance the accountability for management of the process. The approach to
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
5-43
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t P e r m i t P rocess
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 monitoririg and maintenance of planning, building, and
engineering permit cases could be improved by effective case management,
supervision, and monitoring using an autc,mated permit information system including:
• Improving management's ability tc� track project staff's progress;
• Improving staff's ability to track coricurrent project developments; and
• Improving the ability of management to manage workload within their division.
Accurate data on workload, by Fermit type, cyclical variances in activity, and
workload activity by team and by plannei• are all essential management tools. With this
information, management can make irformed, I�gical decisions regarding staffing,
budgeting, procedures, ard organization�il structure.
This will necessitate managers, s�ipervisors, 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 citie:� face in the deployment of these systems.
Recommendation #26: Develop and aclopt a written City policy and procedure for
the maintenance of case status inforr�ation in the automated permit information
system by managers, supervisors, ai�d staff assigned to processing planning,
building and engineering permit applic:ations.
Recommendation #27: Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure that
assigns responsibility to the division-I�eads for assuring ongoing maintenance of
case status information in the autoniated permit inforr�ation system and that
requires the division-heads to audit tlie 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
;i-44
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Ma n ag emen t Study of fhe Permit Process
(2) Track And Monitor The Succ:ess Or Failure Of Staff Assigned To
Processing Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications In
Meeting Cycle Time Objectives.
The City, once it has established c�/cle time objectives for planning, building, and
engineering permit applications, should ui ilize 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 gaug�; 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 thro� gh 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 shoulcl hold division-heads in Planning, Building
and Engineering accountable for tracM:ing and monitoring the success or failure
of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular management
information reports generated on a monthly basis by the automated permit
information system.
Recommendation #29: The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be
integrated into their performance evaluation.
(3) The Division-Heads Should Be Held Accountable For Formally Planning
and Scheduling Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications
Processed By Their Staff Using the Automated Permit Information System.
The division-heads in the Planning Building and Engineering divisions should be
held accountable for preparing and main1:aining a schedule for processing of planning,
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
;i-45
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
building, and engineering permit applicaticros 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 ��bjectives established by the City;
• To utilize the proposed automated permitting systems to ease the tracking of the
timeliness of the processing of E�lanning permit applications and enable the
division-heads to hold their staff ac;ountable; and
• To generate data sufficient to as:;ist in the assessment of the performance of
these staff in comparison to those c;ycle time objectives;
Major elements of the system are K resented below.
• The division-heads vwould 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 �pplication, and (2) set overall staff hours
allocated to the staff for process ng the application. The division-head would
review the most recent open case nventory report and note the workload of their
plan checking staff. Cases would t�en be assigned as appropriate. The division-
head would then enter the cycle tinie target dates and the name of the staff in the
automated permit information systE m.
• When projects are first assigned, the staff to whom the permit application is
assigned would review the calend�ir day and staff hour target established for the
case. If the staff believe that the t3rgets are unreasonable after a review of the
application, those staff should disc�ss them with the division-head and negotiate
appropriate changes.
• The automated permit information :�ystem 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 b� helc accountable for the ongo;ng maintenance of
this open case inventory and the complet!on of the processing of permits in accordance
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
;�-46
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
with the cycle time objectives. The planning and scheduling system should be utilized
ta
• Evaluate employee performance;
• Balance workload among different :�taff; and
• Quantify the anticipated completiori date of various applications given all work in
progress.
The planning and scheduling s��stem should be designed to manage the
workload including reviewing actual progress versus scheduled deadlines and facilitate
the shifting of work assignment and scl�edules in the face of changing priorities or
workload.
Recommendation #30: The division-heads in Planning, Building and Engineering
should formally plan and schedule tfie permit applications processed by their
staff using the automated permit inforn�ation 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
a�cordance with the cycle time objecti�ies.
(4) GenQrate Ongoing Monthly Management Information Reports Using the
Automated Permit Information S ystem 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, B�ilding 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
intemal operations. After several disc:ussions with management and staff, we
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
�-47
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the P erm i t Pr ocess
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 �ermits. The Matrix Consulting Group believes
it is imperative that management be pro� ided with reliable case information to manage,
direct and enhance the operations and th � processing of permits.
Once these- initial management ir�formation reports are implemented and used
routinely. These management reports fccus more on staff performance and workload
monitoring necessary for managem�ent t� 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 tim� objei:tives and monitor the case workload and
performance for staff assigned to th� �irocessing of these permits.
12. THE ROLE OF T�Y.E CASE MA�ir�,GER IN THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD
BE CLARIFIED.
The City currently utilizes a q��asi-case manager approach in processing
planning permit applications in which tl�e assigned case planner takes the lead in
shepherding the application through the planning process. The purpose of this case
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 37
�-48
C►TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the P Pr o c ess
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 oi these duties is necessary.
There are three key aspects of case management that leading organizations use
to support an organized approach to per�nit administration. These are: (1) providing a
single point of contact for applicants, (2) having dedicated project managers, and (3)
monitoring internal timelines. These are d�;scribed 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 ��uestions regarding permit application, review,
and issuance.
• Dedicated Case Managers — Siinilar 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 c;ontact, in that the project managers take a!�
active role in managing the permit ��pplication through the permit process.
• Monitoring Internal Timelines - �re the approaches used to monitor the
time it takes to process a permit frcm the time of permit application.
The case manager in the Planninc Division should be responsible for managing
all aspects of a planning permit applicatio� submitted to the Planning Division, including
being the single point of contact for applications submitted, monitoring intemal timelines
and each reviewer (whether within the Pl�inning Division or external to it), and taki�g an
active role in r�anaging 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 divi� ions/departments that are conducting reviews.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
,�-49
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
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 frorri all reviewing entities but particularly from
Planning, Engineering, Fire and Building.
While the Planning Division alreaciy utilizes a quasi-case manager system, the
parameters and authority of the case mar ager should be clarified and defined in writing.
The parameters or authority of the prc ject or case manager should include those
aspects defined in the following paragrapi�s.
(1) The Case Manager Should Be f:esponsible for Making Sure the Applicant
Gets to a Clear Decision Point in Accordance with Adopted Timelines.
The case manager position is dE:signed to make sure that the review of the
permit application submitted to the P anning Division proceeds in a timely and
predictable fashion. The current process �tilized by the Planning Division for processing
development permits includes the followir g:
• Applicants have available, under t�e current process, the ability to attend a pre-
submittal meeting with represent��tives of the various reviewing Departments.
Submission requirements and the general conception of the proposed
development are discussed. .
• Once an application is submitte�, it is assigned to a current planner who
becomes the "project manager" for that project.
• Development plans are routed to :�everal departments, including Building, Public
Works/Engineering, etc. Reviewi �g divisions / dep�rtments 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 ��n division / departmeni comments, it is the
applicant's responsibility to worlc out issues with individual departments /
divisions.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
,�-50
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t P Pr ocess
While the initial stages of this process are consistent with a good case manager
system, the latter stages lack clear guidE�lines, and sometimes follow-through, on how
quickly divisions / departments should re:�pond to revisions made by the applicant and
when an ultimate decision will be made. �rhe case manager from the Planning Division
assigned to the project should facilitate tie 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 c�se 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 a�plicants with reviewing departments/divisions
or the assigned planner. To remedy thi� , all interactions with an applicant should be
noted in a Planning Division policy regar�iing timeframes for responding to inquiries on
projects (i.e. - within 24 hours) should b� established. If a formal response cannot be
given to the applicant within the estat�lished 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 a II submissions by applicants and establish
clear timelines at each step. This �ro�ild include the 30-day initial completeness
review and subsequent reviews.
Recommendation #34: A formal writter� policy should be established for response
times by Planning Division sta�f 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
:i-51
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
(2) The Case Manager Should B�� Responsible for Complete and Timely
Communication Among the Mulii-Disciplinary Team.
The case manager should make sure communication occurs among the multi-
disciplinary team, and that complex iss��es 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 ;�pproval 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 �onducting the review; and
• Staff reports often contained cor�ditions of approval that differed from those
previously discussed between stafi� and the applicant.
While the case manager is not e;:pected to be the technical expert on reviews
conducted by other Departments, the project manager project manager should lead any
discussions that focus on resolving confli�:ting 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 condition � of approval distributed to applicants clearly
identify the code or regulation that impcses the condition to prevent conditions being
imposed that are "personal preferenc�:s". To ensure that there is no lack �f
understanding between the applicant arid staff, all conditions of approval should be
documented in writing and provided to ti applicant. Additionally, a copy of the staff's
draft report should be provided to the apE�licant 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 41
�-52
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stu dy of th Permit Process
Recommendation #35: The case plannE�r 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 man��ger should ensure that all conditions of
approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition
references the specific code or regul:�tion 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 t�y the Planning Division, and approved by the
Community Development Director. The r�sponsibility and authority, in addition to that
previously identified, should include:
• Conducting pre-application meetinc�s and reviews as appropriate;
• Collecting and integrating commen�:s from other divisions and departments;
• Resolving inter-division or inter-�iepartmental problems, s�ch as conflicting
conditions of approval;
• Assuring that the conditions of approval suggested b� other divisions or
departments are reasonable, specific to the project under review (and not blanket
conditions of approval that are inaFplicable), and reference specific regulations;
• Analyzing the application in regar�is to compliance with zoning regulations and
the general plan;
• Coordinating citizen input and com �nents;
• Working with the applicant to r:solve problems and revise the project as
appropriate;
• Managing the processing of the Fermit application in accordance with adopted
timelines and seeing that they are inet;
• Promptly reviewing and issuing n��tifications of omissions or problems with the
project;
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
5-53
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stud of the Permit Process
• Coordinating with key decision mal;ers;
• Signing the staff reports; and
• Following up on enforcement of co �ditions.
The role of the case manager s iould be that of a team leader; if there are
problems with one of the members of th�: team, it would not be the role of the project
manager to resolve this problem dire�;tly with that member, but rather with the
supervisor of that member of the tearri. 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 shoulcl 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 �� team leader for a multi-disciplinary team who
is responsible for keeping the review of �i permit application on track, who makes sure
issues involving conflicting code or r�gulatory issues are resolved, who charts a clear
course for the applicant through the rE�view process, and who makes sure issues
regarding the application are identified ea - ly in the review process.
Recommendation #37: The authority of the case manager should be clearly
spelled out in a written policy dev�loped by the Planning Division and approved
by the Community Deveioprr��nt Director.
13. THE CONDiTIONS OF APPROV.AL UTILIZED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS
AND DEPARTMENTS IN THE I�EVIEW OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND
ENGINEERING PERMITS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED.
In the experience of the Matrix Cor�sulting Group, one of the primary methods for
assuring consistency in the completion o�� plan check activities, whether it is a building
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
� —54
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Pep►nit Process
permit plan check, final development perr�it 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 oi` this effort.
Other divisions and departments i �volved in the permit activities should follow
suit and develop, in writing, their own :�tandard conditions of approval. This would
include Engineering, Fire Prevention, a nd Building. These standard conditions of
approval (related to land development a�plications) 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 ��rom them when applying for permits. They
should be developed in "plain English� sc� they are suitable for use by both seasoned
developers and individual citizens undert�king a small project or who do not routinely
utilize the planning process.
The Planning Division should take lead respons;bility in facilitating and publicizing
the development of these standard conditions of approval by all of the divisions and
departments.
Recommenslation #38: The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions
and departments in the review of pl�,nning, building, and engineering permits
should be docun�ented and posted to tlie City's vy�b site.
Recommendation #39: The Planning [)ivision should take lead responsibility in
facilitating the development of these viritten conditions of approval by all of the
divisions and dppartments.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
�-55
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORN/A
Management Study o f the Permit Proces
14. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND UTILIZE A FULL RANGE
OF CHECKLISTS FOR THE RE:VIEW AND PROCESSING OF PLANNING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY ITS OWN STAFF.
To increase consistent applicatior� 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 sf�ould 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 CE��A 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 apF�lication for a common series of compliance
factors with the Zoning Ordinance and GE:neral Plan. Given the various modifications to
the Zoning Ordinance that take place o��er 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 rE�gulations. These checklists should be posted
on the departmental web site when ava lable; and when completed as part of a plan
review, should become a part of the appli�;ation file.
For example, for a preliminary de��elopment 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, corripliance with requirements for drainage,
downstream sanitary sewer analysis, traffic impact analysis, etc.;
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
;i-56
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu o f t he 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 t uilding permit plan check.
The checklists should be utilized iri all project reviews to ensure consistency and
completeness of the reviews conducte d. 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 m�ist be met, and generally detail the type and
level of detail of the information necessar� for submittal in order to gain approval.
Recommendation #40: The Plannir�g Division should develop and utilize
checklists for the review and processing of discretionary and administrative
applications by its own staff.
Recommendation #41: The Planning I)ivision should publish its checklists to its
web site fior u�e by those individuals s ubmitting plans.
15. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVEL�P MULTI-FAMILY,
COIVIMERC�AL AND SIGN DESIC�N 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 r�eeded for staff, the Design Review Committee
and other decision-makers to properly E:vaivate development proposals. The City has
developed residential design guidelines, but other design guidelines either have not
been developed (multi-fiamily) or not fully developed (signs).
There are a number of issues that would need to be considered in the
development of commercial design guidE�lines, for example, such as the following:
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
5-57
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manag ement 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 tf�e 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 siructure'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 sc�ile? The design guidelines should provide a
richness of architectural fa�ade dE�pth and detail, provide a unified design around
all sides of the building, avoid blai�k walls and service areas that are visible from
adjacent streets and projects, a id utilize high quality building materials and
details,
• Are the guidelines easy to understand and based upon transparent rationale?
• Do the guidelines work to ensi�re that the beauty of commercial areas is
preserved with consideration ��f structure placement, use of materials,
landscaping, exterior lighting, etc?
• Can the design guidelines be craited to make the review process proceed more
efficiently?
The commercial design guidelines shc�uld cover a number of topics including the
fiollowing:
• Site planning;
• Site layout, development pattern, I�uilding orientation, etc.;
• Relationship to surrounding develc�pment;
. • Vehicular and pedestrian access �.nd circulation;
• Parking;
• Landscaping and screening;
• Lighting;
• Hotels and motels (building materials, internal circulation, building form, building
architecture, etc.); and
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 47
�-58
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Manage S 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 maint�iining a requisite degree of design flexibility to
allow and encourage creative site and building design.
Recommendation #42: The Planning [)ivision should develop design guidelines
for multi-family, commercial, and signs.
16. CODE INTERPRETATIONS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED AND PUBLISHED
TO THE PLANNING, BUILDlN(�, AND ENGINEERING DIVISION'S WEB
SITES.
Another tool to help the Planning Building, and Engineering divisions achieve
consistency in plan checking is an "irterpretations log" that records how various
provisions of the zoning ordinance, sul�division ordinance, and building codes are
interpreted and applied in cases where the application of certain regulations is not
entirely clear.
Interviews with personnel within tre Planning Division indicate that a number of
code interpretations have already been c ocumented and are contained within a binder
in the office for use by staff. Howeve �, 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 Eng neering divisions should begin documenting
code interpretations of the zoning ordinarice, subdivision ordinance, and building codes
and publish these interpretations on the City's web site. These interpretations should
be reviewed at least annually (and wheriever the referenced regulation is modified or
Matrix Consu/tir►g Group Page 48
�-59
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA
Management Study of the P erm i t Proces
adjusted) to ensure continued applicat�ility. Only interpretations that are not "site
specific" should be included.
Recommendation #43: The Planning, 13uilding, and Engineering divisions should
document interpretations of the zoni ng ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and
building codes and make these availaE�le 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 systeniatically collected and monitored.
• On-going processing time perform�ince is visible to all concerned parties.
The City should utilize the automated permit information system so that these
conditions can be met and control exe rcised 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 tfie time required for processing building permit
plans are presented in the sections below.
(1) Revise the Cycle Time Goals far the Length of Time Required to Process
Building Permit Plans to Serve as a Perforr:�ance Guideline for All
Organizational Units.
The Building Division has already adopted cycle time goals for building permit
plan checking. These goals include the fo lowing:
These cycle times include:
Residentia/ Plan Review Cycle Times:
• Over the Counter: small projects (:?50 sq. it. or less) within 30 minutes
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
��-6�
CITY OF CUPERT►NO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
• Express Plan Check: medium sizecl projects (500 sq. ft. or less) within 5 business
days
• Standard Plan Check: initial revievr 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.
Commercia/ P/an Review Cyc/e Times
• Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30
• Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (10,000 sq. ft. or less) within 5
working days
• Standard Plan Check: initial reviE;w within 10 working days, rechecks within 5
working days
• Large / Major Projects: minimum 4 weeks.
There are a number of problems with these cycle time objectives. First, these
goals do not identify the types of permits that should be plan checked over-the-counter.
The Residential Plan Review Process Workbook, for example, merely states that "this
process is for very small residential projec;ts (250 sq. ft. or less) that ca� be re�•iewed by
Building Department staff in less than thirty (30) minutes. It does not specify the specific
types of permits that can be approvec! 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 :�uch as electrical lights, HVAC replacements,
reroofs, sewer line replacement, water heater replacement, kit�hen remodel, new
windows, po�able spas, solar syst�ms, d�;cks,
The Division should clarify those fi�pes of permits that will be plan checked over-
the-counter in these plan check objectiv�;s. Secondly, some types of minor residential
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
;�-61
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIIA
Managemenf Study of the Permit Process
remodel projects and additions should t�e plan checked in less than five (5) working
days. Examples of these types of permits are presented in the table below.
Balcon
Remodel — Ma'or SFD
Addition SFD
Accesso Buildin — Detached
Accessible Ram s
Fences w/Calculations.
Gara e — Detached SFD
Patio Enclosure SFD
Third, the commercial cycle time go��ls the plan check cycle goals for tenant
improvements are too long based upon tf�e experience of the firm with other cities.
The Building Division should revi:;e 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
bui�ding 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 commer�;ial shells by Building, Planning, Fire, and
Engineering.
• These benchmarks should be est��blished as a joint effort by each of these units.
Ultimately, however, the Chief B� ilding Official needs to review these targets to
determine whether processing tarc�ets are not unacceptably long.
• ThP benchmarks need to be diff�:rentiated according to the type of plan being
processed and its complexity. Tf�e target for processing a plan for a residential
interior remodel should be differert than that of a custom single-family residence.
• These benchmarks should be designed to enable the Chief Building Official to
hold each organizational unit invclved in the plan checking process accountable
for the length of time the unit take:� to review and approve plans.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 51
5-62
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Sfudy of t P erm i t P rocess
The attainment of these benchm��rks 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 thE;se 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 proc:ess building permit plans to serve as a
perFormance guideline for all organizational units.
(2) Utilize the Automated Permit Ir�formation System to Assure the Status of
Each Plan Check Is Readily Visible.
The automated permit informatio i system should be used to make visible the
amount of calendar time required to ch��ck building permit plans and enable an easy
comparison with targets for processing lhese plans. The specific objectives related to
the system include:
• To establish a process whereby :�pecific calendar da#a targets are set for each
building permit plan.
• To generate data sufficient to ;�ssess the performance of each division or
department (Planning, Building, E:ngineering, Fire, etc.) in comparison to those
targets.
• To enable automated feedback to the Chief Building Official when plan checking
by these divisions exceeds target: .
Major elements of the system are as follows:
• The Building Division would enter the appropriate data for processing each
building permit plan including the divisions to which the plan is distributed, the
date of distribution, and the due d��tes.
• The Division would enter the actu��l date the plans were returned by all units after
completing the plan check.
• The Chief Building Official, or hi �/ her designee, on a weekly basis — would
access the system to determine which plans are still being checked and
exceeded the targets. The Senior Plans Examiner would then contact the
manager or supervisor of those units to prompt the completion of those plan
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
5-63
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
checks.
• The Division would utilize the autc�mated permit information system to generate
reports regarding actual processinc� time versus targets.
The automated permit information system should be the tool which the Division
utilizes to manage the plan check procE;ss and assure the time required to process
building permit plans consistently meet tai•gets.
Recommendation #45: The Building D vision should utilize the automated permit
information system to assure the status of each plan is readily visible.
(3) The Chief Building Official Sh��uld Be Given the Written Authority and
Responsibility to Interface witli Other Organizational Units to Resolve
Delays in Processing Building P+�rmit 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 prio�ities 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 thesf; units to prompt the completion of the plan
check if the guidelines for completi��n are exceeded.
This authority and responsibilit�� should be clearly spelled out to other
organizational units involved in processing building permit plans by the Community
Development Director.
Recommendation #46: The Chief Bui Iding 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 Consu/ting Group Page 53
!i-64
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORN/A
Management Sfudy of th 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 pl �n review and permitting programs;
• Ability to increase services to the pi�blic; and,
• Ability to increase customer service to the public.
The following are summaries of imF�rovement opportunities in the plan review and
permitting programs of the Building and S��fety Division.
(1) The Extent of Building Permits Provided On-line Should Be Expanded.
Permits that do not require a plan c:heck, such as single trade permits (i.e., water
heater change-out, furnace change-out, �e-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, suc:h as buying products from a web site, this
activity involves credit card processing arid the printing of a permit. On-line processing
of permit applications can be as basic �s automating only the front-end information
collection process or as complete as fi�ll 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 tec:hnology. 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 �;omplete a permit application via the Intemet.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
!i-65
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
Appiicants, for example, can complete or-line forms and hit a"send" button to transmit
the application to the City's permit datab �se. The on-line system can process, review,
approve, and stores completed permits. l"he permit system then generates a permit for
the applicant. Applicants can pay for perrr�its using a credit card.
The Division should expand this feature In the first month — mid-September to mid-
October — 10% of the building permits wei issued on-line.
The objective of the Division shou d 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, �as lines, irrigation sprinklers, sewer lines, tub
and shower replace/repair, water hea�:ers, water piping, water service lines, air
conditioning, chimney, electrical panes, iurnace, 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 Di vision should issue not less than 20% of its
building permits over the Internet. �
(2) Expand the Extent of Building P�;rmits Issued Over-the-Counter.
For the past several fiscal years, tt�e Division has plan checked from 42% to 45%
of the building permit applications over-th�:-counter, as noted below.
Year # of Over-the-Count�;r # of Other Plan % Over-the-Counter
Plan Checks Checks
2006 / 2007 1,OEi9 1,306 45%
2007 / 2008 9:!3 1,275 42%
2008 / 2009 1,1(14 1,104 43%
The best practice iar�et for this practice is 50% to 75°/a of total building permits being
checked over the counter.
The project team does not expect lhat over-the-counter building permits would be
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
;i-66
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o f the Permit Process
issued for such permits as new multi-f��mily, new commercial, or new single family.
However, the project team does expect tnat 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 iss��ed over-the-counter, the following restrictions
should apply:
• There will be no storage of hazard��us 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 :;hould be exempted pending plans examiner
� verification;
• The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations or
modification to fire-rated walls; anc
• The application does not require aiiy special Planning, or Fire Distri�t processing.
The project team should expect tf�at the Division should be able to increase the
number of building permits issued ovei�-the-counter from 42% to 45% of total plan
checks to 60% using these criteria.
The Counter Technician, when ttie position is filled, should be utilized for the plan
checking and issuance of these types of ininor and miscellaneous building permits. This
assignment should recognize the imFact of this additional skill and knowledge
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 56
i-67
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stu dy of t h e Permit Process
requirements. The Counter Technician s iould 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 wc uld increase the responsibility of the Counter
Technician and will also benefit the Div sion by enabling the Division to enhance the
Building Inspector assigned to counter duty to plan checking of residential and
commercial plans of a more significani nature, such as tenant improvements. This
reassignment could be achieved by the fc�llowing method:
• The Division should provide the suppor�, funding, and work hours necessary for
the Counter Technician to obtain certification as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician.
• The Building Official should functicm as a team leader for the Counter Technician
and train the incumbent in the performance of plan checking of minor and
miscellaneous building permit plar s.
• 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 son�e of the quality expertise will only occur with
practice. A comfort level can be �chieved by realizing that support by the Plan
Check Engineer is available.
This method will produce quality perforrriing Counter Technician that is fully capable of
plan checking miscellaneous and minor t►uilding permit plans.
Recommendation #48: The Building Division should increase the number of
building permits issued over-the-courter ta SO% of all buil�iing permits issued.
Recommendation #49: The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to
Building Technician.
Recommendation #50: The Building '�echnician position, when filled, should be
utilized to provide over-the-counter ��lan checking of minor and miscellaneous
building permits.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
5-68
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
Recommendation: #51 The Building T��chnician classification should be revised
to require certification as an ICC-certif ed Permit Technician within 12 months of
hire.
Recommendation #52: The Building Clivision should provide support, funding,
and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC-certified Permit
Technician.
(3) Develop Standard Plans For Us;e By The Public In The Construction Of
Minor Residential Improvements.
A number of residents in Cupertinc� and other communities are do-it-yourselfers
in terms of constructing minor retaining w��lls, residential patio covers, detached storage
sheds, and outdoor fireplaces. In other instances, residents will pull building permits
rather than their contractors for constructicro such as spas.
The City should assist these "do it yourselfers" meet building permit plan check
requirements by developing standard plar�s. These standard plans, if utilized by the "do
it yourselfers" in applying fior their buildinc� permit, would allow avoiding the retention of
an architect or designer for the preparaticm of these plans, as long as the homeowner
utilized these standard plans.
In addition, the Buildir�g Division sliould develop a"Home Improvement Cente�'
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: Devel�p a"Horne Improvement Center" web page on the
Town's web site to assist the homeorvner navigate through the building permit
plan check and inspection process.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
��-69
CITY OF CUPERT►NO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy o f t he Permit Process
(4) The Division Has Developed a P�umber of Cycle Time Objectives for Plan
Review, But Actual Cycle Time E �cceeds the Objectives.
The Division has established cycle times for both residential and commercial plan
reviews. This information is identified wii hin the guidebooks published by the Division
and available on the Division's web site.
The project team analyzed plan cf�eck 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 fi�llowing exhibit shows the calculation of the
number of days between the "date out" a id 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 typss in terms of volume (excludin�� single trade permits), the average days from
"application date" to "date out" was 40 d��ys. The data provided does not allow for the
calculation of elapsed time between re-su �mittals.
Additionally, it is a challenge for thE� Division, given current technology limitations,
to identify and publish more comprehens ve data that will allow the project team or the
Division to better manage its cycle time p�:rformance. However, based on this available
data, actual cyc�e times are generally Icnger than the cycle time objectives (e.g., for
large projects the cycfe time objective is :?8 days, however, the average for all types of
permit applications is 33 days).
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
;i-7 0
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management St udy of the Permit Process
Exhibit 1 (1)
Building Division Plan Check Cycle Time
# of Days (Apply Date
T e # of Permits 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-NEW 1 237 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
1SHELLBLDG 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
1 E TI 11 29.7 1.8
1 COMMLTI 1 9.0 1.0
1 COMMLADD 4 10:0 1.0
1 CMAP2 1 2.0 1.0
1 CEAP6 5 37.0 1.4
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
!i-71
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Man agemenf Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 1 (2)
# of Days (Apply Date
T e # of Permits to Date Out # of Reviews
1 CEAP5 19 13.6 1.4
1 BOFF 16 45.7 1.9
1 B TI 371 30.9 1.4
1 A3 : 4 53.4 1.8
1ATI i1 42.9 1.4
Avera e 33.2 1.3
Median 24.3 1.3
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
5-72
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t he Per7nit Process
The project team also calculated the cycle time from the application date to the
actual permit "issue date," and found th�� average number of days was 68, while the
median number of days between applicalion date and the permit issuance date was 54
days. This suggests that once the Buildir�g 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 aiid 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 pla is versus the targets.
The information contained in this rE:port would be used for several purposes:
• To identify where processing delays are occurring, in what step of the process,
and the organizational unit respon:;ible
• To trigger questions regarding the causes of the delays so that corrective action
can be take
• To provide a more reliable and readily available record on what happened to
each building permit plan.
It should be underscored that the ��cheduling and monitoring system proposed is
not intended to replace the responsibility and accountability of staff in other
organizational units who actually plan ch�:ck the building permit plans. This system has
been designed only to provide import�int and more accurate, comprehensive and
uniform information regarding the plan cFecking of building permit plans and to pinpoint
the manager that owns the process: the Building Official. Without this information and
this ownership, it is virtually impossible to control the number of days required for
processing of these building permit plans.
Recommendation #55: The Building Division should improve the building permit
plan check performance to meet its st��ted plan check cycle time objectives.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
�-7 3
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
(5) Reduce The Number Of Organiz:3tional 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 patterrs used in other cities. For example:
• Single-family additions are route�i to the Planning Division, the Engineering
Division, Building Division, Sanitar��, and Fire Prevention;
• Patios and decks are routed to the Planning Division and Building Division; and
• Tenant improvements are routed te the Planning Division, Building Division,
Sanitary, and Fire Prevention.
Other cities have reallocated responsibility for zoning clearance with their
Building Division. This eliminates the neE�d for building permit plan checking of simpler
building permit plans by the Planning Di�iision 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 1=ire Department for plan checking,if located in
the Hillside District Overlay.
The Ci#y should take steps to rediice the number of divisions / departments that
plan check building permit plans. The � roject team recommends the City review the
routing of buifding permit plans to assess if all organizational units need to review these
plans. For example, the City could consicler the following:
• The Ci#y should eliminate the roui.ing for single-family remodels/additions to the
Planning Division, Fire Preventio �, 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
!i-74
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manage S tudy 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 ihe automated permit information system, the
responsibility for zoning clearance shoul�i be reassigned to the Building Division. The
automated permit information system s iould 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 develc�pment standards (e.g., setbacks) for the
applications. This transition should not cccur until the Building Division staff has been
trained in the use of the system, and Builciing 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 shoi�ld assign responsibility to the Building
Division for zoning clearance of simple building permits.
19. CONTRACTORS SHOU�D BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE BUILDING
INSPECTIONS UP TO 7:00 A�IA OF THE DAY OF THE REQUESTED
INSPECTION.
The leading industry practice for c:ustomers 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 th listing of requested inspections at the end of
the aftemoon
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 64
��-75
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
• The Senior Building inspector thE�n reviews and manually assigns the various
inspections staff based on geogr�iphical location, workload, areas of interest /
expertise, etc.
• The Senior Building Inspector th�:n prints the master copy and distributes to
inspections staff in the morning printing a specific copy for each building
inspector.
• The Building Inspector staff ther� determines the windows of time they will
conduct the inspection (typically �-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 thes�� staff to respond to telephone inquiries about
time window.
Because of these processes, the � bility 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 mor� automated processes in order to better
accommodate same-day inspection requE:sts.
Recomrnendation #58: The Building Division should adopt a policy to
accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request
service.
20. TH� E�IGINEERING DIVISION IS MEETING THEIR CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVE
FOR PLAN CHECKING BUILDINi3 PERMIT PLANS IN 5 TO 10 DAYS.
The project team obtained Engir eering 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 bf;low.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
, �-7 6
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manageme St of the Permif Process
1st Review
# Date In Date out Da s
1 2/2/C 9 2/2/09 0
2 10/15/C 8 10/16/08 1
3 10/20/C 8 10/21 /08 1
4 10/23/C 8 10/27/08 4
5 11 /14/C 8 11 /18/08 4
6 10/16/C 8 10/21 /08 5
7 10/7/C 8 10/13/08 6
8 11 /19/C 8 11 /25/08 6
9 2/13/C 9 2h 9/09 6
10 10/20/C 8 10/28/08 8
11 1/5/C 9 1/13/09 8
12 3/2/C 9 3/11 /09 9
13 3/2/C 9 3/11 /09 9
14 11 /12/C �8 11 /21 /08 9
15 10/8/C�8 10/22/08 14
16 2/2/C�9 2/17/09 15
17 1 /9/( �9 1 /25/09 16
18 2/6/( i9 2/23/09 17
19 12/16/( i8 1/9/09 24
Avera e 9
Median 8
As shown above, the average nun�ber of days for this sample was nine (9) days
of review time, with a median of eight (8) �ays. It is important to note, however, that this
was just a sampling of over 159 buildir�g permit reviews conducted over a 3-month
period, including the following:
Plan T e Number
Arch 108
Arch / IMP 2
Arch / RGP �
IMP 43
Parcel Ma 3
RGP �
Structural �
3-Month Total 159
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
5-77
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Sfudy o t P Process
Annualized, the Engineering D vision conducts approximately 636 permit
application plan checks that are routed fi�om the Community Development Department,
which equates to approximately 12 per week, or 2.5 per day. Based on this
assessment, the Engineering Division sl�ould better track the intake dates of building
permits being routed from the Communi'.y Development Department, and continuously
monitor their cycle time performance of rE�views.
21. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION :�HOULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES
FOR ENGINEERING PERMITS.
The Engineering Division has ar� important role in the planning and building
permit processes. In these instances, tie Division is most often not the lead in the
process: the Community Development DE;partment 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 servic;e 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 musi be submitted with the application such as
grading plan, preliminary IandscaFe and irrigation plan, etc.
• A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements
• General grading notes / condition� of approval
In each of #hese instances, tFie 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
5-78
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M 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 :he following:
• Engineering Standards - which ii�cludes guidelines as the City of Cupertino
Standard Details, the Best Management Practice Plan Sheet, and Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Stre<<ms (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, �008) — which summarizes the user fees for
engineering, planning, building, anci recreation
• Maps and Data — which provides a city map guide and a Water Service Boundary
Map
• Permit Applications — which allow users to download various types of
applications, including an encroac�ment permit, grading permit, permit parking,
streamside modification, and block party / special event permit.
The Engineering Division should a so 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 c�f the applicant's initial public hearing or the
approval / disapproval of the application by staff. Possible calendar date benchmarks for
processing different types of permit applications are presented in the table below.
Proposed Cycle Time Objective (Calendar
T e of Permit Da s At The Median
Tentative maps / Parcel Maps 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 10 calendar da s for rechecks
Final Subdivision Map Improvement Plans 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 10 calendar da s for rechecks
Final Parcel Map I�provement Plans 14 calendar days to complete for the first plan
check, and 7 calendar da s for rechecks
Grading Plans 14 calendar days to complete the first check, and
7 calendar da s for rechecks.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 68
;i-7 9
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t P e r m i t P rocess
For the Engineering Division to set cycle time objectives from the date of submittal of
the application, as opposed to the da1.e 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 tie 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 b�ilding permit review, however, this should be
stated in the residential development c�uidebook and the commercial development
guidebook, as well as made available on ihe Division web-site.
Recommendation #60: The Engineerii�g Division should publish its cycle time
objectives to the Divi�ion's web site ��nd identify these cycle time objectives in
the Division's application guides.
23. THE ENGINEERING DIVI�ION S FlaULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES
FOR ENGIN��RING PERMITS.
The Engineering Division has an important role in the planning and building
permit processes. In these instances, ttie 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, improveme^t plans, utility joint �:rench 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 ��ermit
�
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
;i-80
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CAUFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process ,
• The required material that must be submitted with the application such as
grading plan, preliminary IandscapE� and irrigation plan, etc.
• A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements
• General grading notes / conditions �f 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 C ivision is the lead for plan checking.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 70
��-81
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Perm Process
4. ANALYSIS OF TF�E AUTOMATED PERMIT
INFORMA'�ION 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 ttie system.
1. ALL OF THE CITY'S DIVISIONS ,AND DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED
IN THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS SHOULD UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED
PERMtT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MEET ALL OF THEIR PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS.
It is apparent that not all of the di��isions 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 �iutomated permit information system..
The City will be making a sig �ificant 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 �ind tracking of permits;
• Inspections scheduling and tracking;
• Workflow management;
• Fee calculation and collection;
• Customer communications througti web-based customer services;
• Telephone-based voice response :�ervices; and
• Inter- and intra-departmental comriunication and management.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
�)-82
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o t Permit Process
All of the departments and divisior�s 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 systerr for all aspects of the planning, building
permit, and engineering permit proces:�.
Recommendation #63: Modules, appli cations and reports should be developed
within the automated permit informal ion system to support the work of these
departments and divisions.
Recommendation #64: Training shoulci be provided to staff as appropriate in the
use of the automated permit informatic�n system.
2. THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ACCESS TO
THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM OVER THE INTERNET.
Automating the permit process op �ns the door for customer self-service. Simple
e-permitting capabilities allow citizens and businesses to use both the Intemet and the
telephone to check the status of thE:ir permit application or comment on new
development projects. The use ef st��ndard 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 autoniated permit information system through the
Internet. This capacity would make iriformation from the City's permit database
accessible via the Internet by permit app icants, residents, and other interested parties.
In this instance, the City's web site woulci 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 ariy computer with Internet access. The City can
control the amount of information that is accessible by the public and can limit the
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 72
5-83
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
amount of users by incorporating passwoi�d 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 telephon � and walk-in traffic and allows applicants and
city residents to review this information e�en 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 exarr ple, en�bles citizens to access development
activity in their neighborhood through 3 marriage of their permitting software and
geographical information system. The C ty's Web site contains "What's Happening In
My Neighborhood."
Recommendation #65: The City should utilize the automated permit information
system to �rovide the capacity for th�: public and for applicants to access data
through the Internet or for the public aiid applicants to subscribe to infortnation.
3. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD INCLUDE THE
CAPACITY TO INTERFACE WITFI AN INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE.
Interactive Voice Response systerns (IVR) systems are used widely throughout
the customer service industry. When c�lling a bank, credit card company or utility
company, mos: customers interact with �in automated voice system before reaching a
live person. An IVR system is available �4 hours a day and can simultaneously handle
multiple callers. When connected to an ��utomated permit system, IVR enables permit
applicants and other interested parties to receive information such as permit status and
the expected date of completion, sched!�le an inspection, or obtain the results of an
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
;i-84
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of fhe Permit Process
inspection.
An IVR system can be programme�� 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 fo maintaining the system and providing back-
up customer service when callers indicate the need to speak directly with Permit
Center/counter staff or other city staff. Both internal and external customers use the IVR
at any time, night or day.
An IVR system is a"black box" (a self-contained computing system that can be
plugged into other systems) that interfaces with a host computer(s) and telephone
system through various communications ��rotocols. Calls come into the system through
the telephone switch or are routed by an ��utomated 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 Interac:tive Voice Response system.
Recommendation #67: The City shou Id acquire an Interactive Voice Response
(IVR) System.
4. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT IIJFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HA��E
WIRELESS CAPABILITIES.
Using a handheld computer, inspe:,tors in the field should be able to access the
City's permit database. They should be at�le to download a list of scheduled inspections,
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
;i-85
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o t P Proc
enter inspection results, and even print a certificate using a small, wireless printer.
Inspectors should also be able to collect iiiformation 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 usE:d in field.
Recommendation #68: The automatesi permit information system should have
wireless capabilities.
5. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPABILITY FOR AUTOMATED WORKFLOW.
Complex planning and building �ermits cften have to be routed to several
employees at different departments and ciivisions within the City. Automating the permit
process using the automated permit infc rmation 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 encompas:� 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 autom<ited permit information system should
have an automated workflow capacity.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 75
;i-86
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Manegement Study o t Permit Process
6. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPACITY FOR ONLINE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION
TOOLS.
The City should host project man �gement and collaborative Web tools on their
own Web site. Both city employees and extemal 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 checkir�g staff on complex projects involving a large
number of plans and details.
Recommendation #70: The automated permit information system should have the
capacity for online project managemei�t and collaboration tools.
7. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INF ORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE
CAPACITY FOR INTERFACI�IG WITH GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (GIS).
GIS links maps of an area with ir�formation 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 ��hotographs, land coordinates) from various
departments and agencies (such as watE�r, electric, gas, land use) to graphically display
data in any combination, for many purpo:�es. For permitting, GIS can be used to search
fcr addresses and features such as pole:�, 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
5-87
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o t Permif Process
Recommendation #71: The automated permit information system should have the
capacity to interface with ESRI GIS.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND ARCHITI=CTURAL PLANS SHOULD BE STORED IN
PERMITS PLUS.
Document management tools within the automated permit information system will
offer the capacity to transform paper ��ocuments into digital documents and files,
allowing staff to store, manage, and acce�s documents and applicants and the public to
access these documents using a standar� interface — the automated permit information
system. Using these document managerrient tools, any information associated with the
permit process is digital and indexed �:o 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 perrnit information.
The City should accomplish this goal using a number of approaches. These
approaches are presented in the paragraK�hs below.
• All documents created by st�iff regarding permits, plan checks, and
inspections should be archivE�d in the automated permit information
system so that they can be stored and located more easily and efficiently.
The automated permit informatic,n system will have the capacity to store
electronic documents (such as tho:�e created by Microsoft Word or Excel), legacy
documents imaged or scanned fr��m paper or microfiche, and documents and
images from databases. In additior , city staff can scan non-electronic documents
to add them to the document management database.
• The City should scan arch':tectural 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
�i-8$
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management S tudy o f ? he Permit Process
counties have already taken this st�:p.
• Architectural plans that are scai�ned should be archived in the automated
permit information system. All plans should be labeled and archived for future
reference. There are a number o�` public agencies that are not only archiving
these architectural plans, but also - eceiving these plans from applicants over the
I ntern et.
Recommendation #72: All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan
checks, and inspections should be arc:hived in the automated permit information
system.
Recommendation #73: Architectural plans should be archived in the automated
permit information system once the permit is finalized.
9. PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT ANNOTATIONS, CORRECTIONS AND
COMMENTS SHOULD BE S'�ORED IN THE AUTOMATED PERMIT
INFORMATION SYSTEM.
Once planning and building pE�rmits are plan checked, annotations and
comments could be added within the �utomated permit information system, shared
among the review team, and forwarded tc� the applicant. This is an essential element of
the automated permit information systein: to facilitate collaboration, integration, and
cooperation among staff, applicants, ar�;hitects, and the neighborhoods. Use of the
automated permit information system for these annotations and comments provides the
potential for 24/7 access to staff, applicants, architects, and the neighborhoods.
The City should fully utilize the c;apacity of the automated permit information
system storing comments and correctioiis. All of the divisions and departments that
utilize the automated permit informalion 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 syste m.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
;i-89
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o the P Pr
10. THE CITY SHOULD ACQUIRE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL COMMERCIAL-OFF-
THE-SHELF AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
The City is now working with Pent��mation to develop a fully functional automated
permit information system. This process has been ongoing for several years and the
automated permit information system h 3s not yet reached its full development and
conclusion. The Planning Division is stil using a Microsoft Access database to track
� permit applications, while the Engine�ring Division is using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet to track permit applications. Various features of the Pentamation permit
system have yet to be irnplemented.
The Matrix Consulting Group recornmends that the City provide Pentamation with
the opportunity to identify the total installE�d cost for the development and deployment of
a fully functional automated permit inform �tion system.
Regardless of that effort, the M��trix Consulting Group believes that the City
should acquire a fully developed commeicial-off-the-shelf automated permit information
system. Given the costs of the Peniamation permit system to-date, the Matrix
Consulting Group believes that the City �NOUId be better served by acquiring a system
that has already been fully developecl 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 shoulcl provide Pentamation with the opportunity
to identify the total installed cost for i,he development and deployment of a fully
functional automated permit informatic►n system.
Recommendation #76: The City shoul�� acquire a fully developed commercial-off-
the-shelf automated permit informatiori system.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 79
;i-90
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o the P erm i t Pr ocess
5. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT CENTER
The Matrix Consuiting Group evaluates permit centers from the context of
sufficient space for receiving and servinc customers; sit-down counters for customers;
computers that customers can access for application preparation and review of zoning,
building materials, reading material; map �(general plan/zoning) available for customer
access; application guides and forms; toy:� for children; etc.
1. THE CITY SHOULD REMODEL TIiE 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 ��f permit center customers, the lobby is too
small. A few of our recommendations can help this.
• There is an absence of sit-down wc>rk 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 rec:ommends that the City remodel the permit
center. The permit center should providE� sit-down counters for customers, computers
that customers can access, better acces � to small conference rooms for staff to meet
with applicants and discuss their applicati�ms, etc.
Recommendation #77: The City should remodel the permit center.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
:�-91
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stu dy o f the Permit Process
6. ANALYSIS OF PE:RMIT ADMINISTRATION
This chapter presents an analysi:� of the administrative practices of the permit
process such as staff training, customer ;:ervice in the permit center, etc.
1. A GREATER FOCUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON ENSURING THE
AVAILABILITY OF PLANNERS '(O SERVE THE FRONT COUNTER DURING
ALL HOURS OF OPERATIONS ��ND INCREASE THE SERVICES PROVIDED
TO THE PUBLIC ON A WALK-IN BASIS.
At the present time, all planners ai•e assigned (on a rotating basis) to works shifts
at the front counter. The staff member a:�signed 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 E�ffective in utilizing stafF time and freeing them
up to work on projects at their desk, sc�me issues with this approach were identified
including periodic inability to locate the p!anner in a timely manner, and the wait time for
customers during the loca#ion of the pl��nner by the receptionist in the permit center.
Additionally, the counter is not staffed during lunch hours as the entire Cifiy organization
takes a coordinated lunch period and sE;rvices to the public (at the permit center) are
closed from noon to 1:00 p.m. While thi:; apprcach typically works well for staff, it often
eliminates a key time period for many � pplicants who may need or desire to conduct
permit processing during their lunch peric�d.
The Division should provide a�3reater focus on ensuring that a planner is
available during all hours of operation, iricluding the lunch hour, to address issues and
answer questions at the front counter. T�is can be easily accomplished through efforts
such as the following:
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
5-92
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
• Rotating lunch hours so that front �;ounter service can be provided throughout ail
hours of operations; and
• Increasing the time spent at the frcnt 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 act vities when an applicant is not present.
This approach will increase the ��vailability of staff to handle customer issues
promptly, and eliminate the perception, sf�ared with the project team, that Planning staff
is not always readily available or easily lo�;ated to handle counter functions.
Additionally, the project team recc�mmends that the Planning and Development
Department institute a set schedule for E�roviding review of minor corrections over the
counter to expedite the approval proces:;. This can be undertaken on a pilot basis to
determine the usefulness to the applicant� and gauge the workload that is generated by
this approach. Individual planners assigned to current planning should have a set
number of hours, on a recurring weekly I�asis, 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 applicanis when they qualify to utilize this service by
noting this when comments are issued for a particular plan review.
Recommendation #78: A greater focus should be placed by "the Planning Division
on ensuring availability of a professiorial staff member at the front ��unter during
all hours of operation including during the lunch hour.
Recommendation #79: The Planning [livision should conduct a pilot program of
providing scheduled hours for "walk ii�" reviews of minor corrections to expedite
the approval process.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 82
;i-93
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
2. SEVERAL COMMUNITY OUTRE�►CH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS SHOULD
BE UNDERTAKEN TO EDUCAT'= 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 tc� ensure that frequent, timely, and meaningful
dialogue is undertaken. These interac;tions should be designed to increase the
customer's understanding of existing F�rocedures and policies, and to provide a
mechanism for staff to receive ongc�ing feedback regarding issues from the
development community. The follc�wing sections outline some specific
recommendations.
(1) A"How to Develop in the City of Cupertino" Guide Should Be Developed.
A comprehensive how to guide shc uld 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 auc iences and not just those that work within ihe
development arena on a daily basis. The �ity currertly 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 ':han a simple recitation of the ordinances, but
clearty explain the steps of the process, how to comply and appropriately submit an
application, and identify the review that w ll be conducted by staff. Within this document,
it would be appropriate to include copies c►f checklists for each phase of the process that
clearly identify to the applicant the infor�nation that must be submitted and why it is
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
;i-94
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALlFORN/A
Management Stud o the P Pr oce s s
required. A section that clearly outline:� the review time standards that have been
adopted by the City should also be included within the document.
Another critical component of th�� 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 shc�uld develop a comprehensive "How-to
Manual" or "Development Guide" for u:�e by the public and publish this document
to their web site.
(2) The Level of Ongoing Dialogu�� Between the Community Development
Department and the Development Community Should Be Increased.
The Community Development D��partment should focus on increasing the
amount and type of communication, dialogue and interaction with the development
community in a proactive manner — not siinply 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, c��de interpretations, a discussion of emerging
issues, or an informational discussion cf a particular policy or requirement. These
newslett�rs should be posted on the c;ity's web site and emailed directly to all
individuals who sign-up to receive them.
Additionally, at least annually, the �ommunity Development Department should
host a meeting with the development con�munity 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 approac:h utilize a one and a half hour to finro-hour
meeting that is focused on a specific topic and held in a community center.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
5-95
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o t P Pro cess
Finally, the Community Developr�ent Department should conduct an annual
survey of the development community to evaluate the Community Development
Department's level of performance. This c;an 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 resp�nd online and if so, hard copy forms of the
survey should be available in the pem�it center. Additionally, comment postcards
should be made available to all applicar ts 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 develoF�ed a customer satisfaction survey; the Matrix
Consulting Group has provided a copy to the Community Development Department.
Recommendation #81: The Communit�r 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 Communifir Development Department should conduct
at least an annual meeting to eng�ge tlie 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 Communifi► Development Department should conduct
an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey.
(3) New (;rdir�ance and Code Rec�uirements Should Be Implemented After
Communication With The Develc�pment Community.
When Building Inspectors bring new infor�nation 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
;i-96
CITY OF CUPERT/NO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
corrections. On other occasions they ma�r 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 shoul�i require that any new ordinance and code
requirements not previously impo:�ed 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 shou Id communicate any new plan review and
inspection requirements to developei•s, contractors, architects, engineers, and
the construction community through issuance of information bulletins and a
newsletter. Distribute information bull�:tins describing the new requirements, and
show effective date of implementation.
3. ADDITIONAL TRAINING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO STAFF OF THE
PLANNING, BUILDING, AND EN(iINEERING 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 regarc ing 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 A�CP certificatior
available from the American Planning Association. This is the nationally
recognized certification for profes;;ional planners, and it ensures that staff stay
both current in the planning profe�sion and maintain a broad understanding of
applicable planning techniques ancl practices, including emerging and developing
aspects of the profession. AchiE;vement of the AICP certification should be
Metrix Consulting Group Page 86
:i-97
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy of t h e Permit Process
strongly considered as a requirernent for advancement within the Planner job
family.
• The utilization of the current bi-weekly departmental staff meeting to
increase staff s understanding of difficult compliance issues related to
implementation of the General F'lan 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 tl�e lowest appropriate level in the organization.
This will also have an added benefit of increasing consistency among staff. Staff
who have attended external trai�iing sessions should also share the training
information received during these ��epartmental staff meetings.
• Coordinating the training that staff attend annually to ensure that the
limited training funds are most ��ffectively utilized. Priority should be given to
ensuring that all staff attend suffcient training in order to maintain their AICP
certification. Additionally, trainin5 should be coordinated so that staff attend a
variety of training sessions and ��enerally do not all attend the same training
session (which may be appropriatE: on certain topics).
An enhanced focus on these arE:as of training will increase and maintain the
professional knowledge and skills of the F�lanning professionals in the City.
Sending individual Building Inspectors to classes presented outside of the City is
also encouraged. It is equally importani that the staff share the information received
� from seminars and classes, and that all agree on the use ofi each subject. Individual
Building Inspectors that receive information learned from outside the organization need
to verify how it is going to be utilized ir� the City through team learning and sharing.
Placing priority on training, sharing of information, and agreeme;�t on interpretations
should contribute to the issue of consiste icy.
Coordination and consistency cai� be enhanced by periodic meetings between
� fire inspectors, Plan rheck Engineer, Bi�ilding Inspectors, Counter Technician, and all
personnel who participate in the devE�lopment process, to review operations and
contribute to efficient delivery of servi ces. Involving everyone who serves in the
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
5-98
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of t Perm P rocess
development process will assure that all 3ood ideas are heard and will allow everyone
to participate and take advantage of res��lution of all matters. If consensus cannot be
achieved, supervision and management rnay have to make decisions and publish their
findings. This kind of effort will give all pei 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 achievemerit of this certification to progress through
the Planner job family.
Recommendation #87: The Planning, Building and Engineering division-heads
should develop annual training prograrns for each employee in the division.
Recommendation #88: The Planning, 13uilding and Engineering divisions should
provide additional training to increase+ their ability to make decisions regarding
subdivision ordinance, zoning ordiriance, and building codes to increase
consistency of interpretation among staff.
Recommendation #89: Provide not I��ss that 40-hours of job-related training
annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions.
Recommendation #90: Establish and ��ublish quarterly trair�ing agendas. Assign
all employees as presenters, and have them prepare ovtlines for th�ir
presentation. Bring in outside industry tr�ining where appropriate.
Recommendation #91: The Building Division should implement quarterly training
sessions with Fire Prevention Inspec�:ors, Building Inspectors, the Plan Check
Engineer, the CountQr Te�hnician, and all employees invoived in t�i� development
process (Planning, Engineering, Fire Prevention, etc.) to review operations,
eliminate overlap or duplication, and in�prove coordination for efficient deliyery of
services. Allow each disciplin� to prE:sent matters of concern for decision and
resolution.
Recommendation #92: The Building Division should involve tt�e L�istrict Fire
Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
��-99
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M 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 c�oal of covering 100% of their current planning
processes through related fees, the City r as not undertaken a fee s#udy of the planning
land development fees in recent years. �T'he fees associated with the building permits
were last reviewed in 2007. The best p�actice is to undertake a comprehensive fee
analysis at least every five years.
The City should ensure that all pls�nning, 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 significantl�� and should requ�re an additional expenditure
vvithin the�range of $10,000 to no more th�in $15,000.
Recor�mendation #93: The City of C��pertino should ensure that all planning,
building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next
review of development fee sched�iles is conducted to ensure fees are
apuropriately calculated and assessed.
5. T�l� CITY SHOULD CHARGE A �"ECHNOLOGY FEE TO PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION
SYSTEM AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
A key tenet of the City's developm�:nt 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 service:� funded by governmental funds incorporating
defined budgets, specific goals, and mea� urable milestones."
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
5-100
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Stu dy of the Permit Process
The City should charge a technol��gy 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 sy:;tems, the accessory technologies such as
wireless devices, the ongoing licensing fees, and the replacement funding for the
system. The funding should also be ut lized to deploy the geographic information
system within the Community Developmert Department.
Other cities, such as Sacrament�� and Culver City, already charge such a
technology fee. In both instances, it amour�ts to a 4°/a surcharge.
Recommendation #94: The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to
its building permits.
6. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEhT DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING
DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR PERMIT PROCESSING.
The division-heads in the Planninc�, 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 procf;sses, direction about when and where to get
help, and any other necessary resources and references (software manuals, important
phone numbers, etc.). Examples ofi iterris to be included in the manual are shown
below.
Function F'olicies and Procedure Information
Permit Processing • Overview of pr�cesses required from start to finish on application
submittals
• Application sut�mittal checklists and requirements
• Protocol for answering the phones, scheduling appointments
• Policies for rejE;cting incomplete submittals
• Process for fee� calculations and collecting money
• Procedures for packaging and routing plan submittals
• Plan routin m 3trix b e of ro'ect and department re uirin review
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
5-101
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the P Pr o c ess
Function Policies and Procedure Information
Plan Review • Plan Review �:hecktists
• Case manage ment duties for plan review staff
• Cycle review �.imes by type of project
• Customer ser✓ice goals such as response times for email and phone
inquiries
• Frequently A�ked Questions
• Common Coce interpretations ,
• Policies regar�ing communication with customers about vacation and
9/80 schedule s
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 Di��ision's operations. In addition, it provides the
division-heads a method for standardizing operating procedures and developing
measures of accountability for those pr�cedures for staff. The division-heads should
also work closely with lead workers, supe rvisors 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 ADVAN��ED PLANNING SHOULD BE IMPROVED.
The Planning Division already de relops an annual work program for advanced
planning projects for each fiscal year. F�or example, the advanced work program for
fiscal year 2009-10 includes the develoE�ment of a green building policy / sustainable
land use policy, a long-term assessmeni of the City's jobs / housing balance, etc. The
annual work prc�ram includes a bar cFart schedule for each project include� in the
annual work program.
This is a good step. Addition �I improvements are required to enhance
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
5-102
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
accountability.
(1) The Annual Work Program Should be Expanded.
The annual work program should �e expanded. The program should be include
such information as the following:
• A description of the project (alread�i included in the existing program);
• The priority of the project (already included in the existing program);
• A summary of previous work perfoi med on the project;
• The tasks to be performed for the ��roject 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
project�;
• The month-by-month allocation of :�taff hours by planner;
• The proposed consulting budget f��r the project, if appropriate) in the next fiscal
year including the source of f��nding, 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 B e Prepared Prior to the Initiation of Each
Advanced Planning Project.
At the inception of a project, the pn�ject may be loosely defined. For example, the
initial request may be for a zoning ordin��nce amendment that presents legal or policy
issues. If potential project issues are idE:ntified early, the City Planner can determine
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
� -103
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA
Management Study o t P erm it Pro cess
whether altematives need to be developed to achieve the desired result. If the project is
not adequately defined, the estimated tirne requirements are likely to be understated.
The projects should be formally defined, iii writing, via a project work plan.
This project work plan is, in essenc:e, 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 incli�ding a narrative summary description of the
project;
• The project objectives;
• The planning process to be utilizeci that would be utilized (such as the tasks and
activities involved in the study sta - tup, data collection an analysis, development
of study alternatives, environment� I assessment, and final study report);
• The study data needs and sources (maps, soil studies, etc.);
• A budget covering the project man;�gement or Planning Division staffing including
the staff costs, consulting costs arid other related costs such as traffic analysis,
environmental impact report prepai�ation, 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 coordinatior� by
outside agency with whom coordir ation will be required in the completion of the
advanced planning project, the nat��re of the coordination, and the key contacts;
• The preliminary schedule for comp eting the advanced plan�ing project
• A document control procedure a id record-keeping system including contract
documents;
• Project team organizational struct�ire and staffing levels required throughout the
advanced planning project, including the estimated staffing required in terms of
person hours required for each taslc; and
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
5 -104
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Ma nagement 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 informed about the progress of the project.
A project work plan should be com �leted before commencement of an advanced
planning project. It should be reviewed with the Planning Commission prior to the
commencement of the project.
Recommendation #97: The Planning Division should complete a project work
plan prior to commencement of an adv,3nced planning project.
(3) A Quarterly Report Should Be Prepared Reporting Progress Against the
Project Work Plan
The Planning Division should preFare a quarterly narrative statement regarding
each advanced planning project. The following information should be included in this
status report.
• The advanced planning project nan�e;
• The project manager assigned to tF�e project;
• A comparison of actual project cosis to date versus planned including
— Budget for the project incl� ding 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 schE;dule to date versus planned including:
— The date the advanced pl��nning project was scheduled to begin and
actually begun; and
— Tt�e current status of the F�roject containing ex�lanations such as 30°/a
complete.
These should be simple reports. The reports should be published quarterly, on-
line on the Internet. Each project should �e presented on a single line with information
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 94
5-105
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Managemenf Study of t P P rocess
regarding the project number, project titlE;, project description, budget amount, current
balance, the project manager, the date f��r compietion, and comments (e.g., project is
50% complete).
Recommendation #98: The Planning t)ivision should publish a quarterly report
regarding the status of advanced plann ing 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 ��nd bad aspects of the completed project,
transmitting that information to the st�ff of the Advanced Planning Section, and
providing a convenient summary of the pr��ject.
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 rhe project.
• Costs — planned vers;as actual with an identification of reasons for the variances;
• The staff hours allocated to the pro ect - 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 Commissic�ns and City Council;
• Comments and discussion regardii�g the project as necessary inciud�ng unusual
conditions encountered during the ��roject.
This report should be circulated to �:he other staff within the Planning Division, the
City Planner, and the Community DeveloFment Director.
Recommendation #99: At the completi��n of an advanced planning project, a final
report should be published good an d bad aspects of the completed project,
Matrix Consulting Group Page 95
5-106
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
transmitting that information to the staFF of the Planning Division, and providing a
convenient summary of the project.
(5) The Vacant Senior Planner Po:�ition Should be Filled and Dedicated to
� Ad�ranced Planning.
Regardless of the project managernent practices for advanced planning, the City
needs to dedicate staff to advanced planr ing. At the present time, the Planning Division
is allocated a temporary Assistant Pl��nner position. There is sufficient ongoing
advanced planning workload to warrant a full-time authorized position. The vacant
. Senior Planner position should be filled ar�d dedicated to advanced planning.
To help pay for the costs of advan:,ed 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 advancej planning.
Recommendation #100: The vacant SE�nior Planner position should be filled and
dedicated to advanced planning.
Recommendation #101: The �ity should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to
enable the fo�cal sustaina�ility of a�ivanced planning as a surcharge to its
building permits.
8. THE SENlJR PLANOVERS SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS LEAD
PROFESSIOiVALS IN THE PLAN��ING DIVISION.
In evaluating the current plan c�f organization for the Planning Division in
comparison to the principles noted abo��e, a number of issues are apparent. These
issues, presented as advantages and dis��dvantages, are presented in the table below.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 96
� —107
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o f the Permit Process
Advanta es Disadvanta es
• 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-rang � provision of advanced planning and current
planning and current planning promotes planning below the level of City Planner.
resource sharing, scalability (ability to manag�: • 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 utilize�i be utilized as first-line supervisors.
for both advanced planning and current • The °handoffs" for 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 assc�ciated with it as noted previously.
The Matrix Consulting Group recoinmends a modified plan of organization for the
Division that provides for career growth ior the Senior Planners by utilizing these three
Senior Planners as lead professionals foi� distinct services within the Division. Important
points to note regarding the proposed rolE; of the Senior Planners are presented below.
• The City Planner would contir�ue as the division-head for the Planning
Division.
• The Three Senior Planners wc�uld be responsible for taking the lead a
distinct function. One of the Sei�ior Planners should take the lead for Current
Planning, the other should take th�: lead for Advanced Planning, and the third for
CEQA. These three Senior Planr�ers would be the lead practitioners in these
areas.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 97
5-108
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
• In this role, the Senior Plannei• would be responsible for being a lead
professional for a team of other professionals. This team could include
Assistant and Associate Planners cr staff from other divisions, as appropriate.
These three Senior Planner positions should be trained and utilized as lead
professionals.
Recommendation #102: The Senior Ptanners should be utilized as lead
professionals within the Planning Di�iision. This role should be clarified in a
written division policy and procedure.
9. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD UPDATE THE STORMWATER
MASTER PLAN.
The stormwater master plan was E�repared 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 projE;cts 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 usinc� a consulting engineering firm.
10. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI _ SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO AVOID CONDUCTING
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CITI' COUNCIL MEETINGS IN THE EARLY
MORNING.
� A number of different types of pl;�nning permits require the consideration and
decision of the City Council. This inclu�es 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 proce�s found that the decisions made by the City
Council sometimes occur in the early morning. This is unusual and not commonly found
Matrix Consulting Group Page 98
5-109
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALlFORNIA
Management Study of the Pe P
in Cupertino's peer cities. The decisions made in the early morning by the City Council
defeat the purpose of pubfic hearings since few members of the public can afford to
participate in the public process in the eai�ly moming.
The Mayor and the City Mariager 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. Implemeniation of these alternatives would enable viable
public comment and participation.
Recommendation #104: The Mayor an�i City Manager should develop alternatives
for the consideration of the City� Council to avoid conducting public hearings for
City Council meetings in the early moriiing. .
Matrix Consulting Group Page 99
5•-110
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA �
Manag S of the Permit Process
7. ANALYSIS OF THE PL.ANNING COMMISSION AND
DESIGN REVIIEW COMMITTEE
This section presents an analy:�is 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 Con�mission and the Design Review Committee.
The Planning Commission is appointed t�y 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 Pl��nning Commission and includes members of
the Planning Commission acting on behali of the full Commission.
1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AIVD DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SHOULD
CONDUCT AN ANNUAL RETREAT WITH STAFF.
The staff of the Community Devel �pment Department Planning Division should
conduct a retreat with the Planning Con�mission 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 di�cuss strategic issues such as the annual wo�k
program, for example. One city's annual retreat agenda for its Planning Commission
consisted of the following:
• The Commissions' role in implemeriting City Council policy;
• Revi�w of variances and planned unit developments zoning regulations; and
- The code enforcement process, co��rdination with Planning and case studies.
Other cities utilize these annual retreats to discuss zoning regulations, the
Matrix Consulting Group Page 100
5-111
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t P Process
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 comi ig year. Similar topics should be covered with
the Design Review Committee to ensuie 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 Commissioi� and Committee. An important part of the
annual retreat is to define the relationsh p 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 staif and, similarly, what expectations staff has of
the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Without discussing the
expectations each has of the other, misur derstandings can result. This, in turn, can lead
to publicly aired disagreements on c�itica planning issues that reflect poorly on ttie City
as a whole.
To enhance the working relationships between the Planning Commission and the
City Council, the Planning Division sh��uld conduct joint retreat sessions with the
Planning Commission and the City Couricil annual.ly. 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 followE�d through the retreat to ensure an orderly and
comprehensive session.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 101
5-112
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M S of the Permit Process
The Planning Division should desic�nate one individual, such as the City Planner,
to serve as the facilitator to keep this �innual 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 Plannii�g Commission should conduct annual
retreats with staff.
2. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD C ONDUCT 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 ��nd the Planning Commission speak from the
same basis on a common vision for the ci�:y and development activities.
The Commission and the City Cou�cil 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 extensior of the City Council in �implementing land
development within the City of Cupertino. It is criticai that all �ntities are proceeding in
their review and approval (or denia!) with 3 common vision and understanding of what is
trying to be achieved. .
In addition, these meetings are a good time to discuss potential changes (at a
high level) in the Zoning Ordinance utilized by the City. This session can include a joint
visioning exercise between the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide
guidance to staff in making changes iri the enabling ordinances and setting work
priorities for the coming year. By cor�ducting this joint visioning exercise for the
updating of the zoning ordinance (and thE� design review regulations), listening to ideas
Matrix Consulting Group Page 102
v� 113
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o t P Process
(and complaints) about a range of neighl�orhood 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 iiicorporates 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 Cou �cil and the Planning Commission should
conduct joint meetings at least annually.
Recommendatior� #107: The City Cc�uncil and Planning Commission should
conduct a joint visioning exercise eariy in the process of any updating of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. COMMISSION MEMBERS SH�)ULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONGOING
ANNUAL TRAINING AND EDUC�,TIONAL RESOURCES.
The Planning Division should provide members of the Planning Commission with
ongoing training. This issue is so import;�nt that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee
have passed legislation in the past few years that mandates orientation for new
Planning Commissioners and continuing �:ducation for these commissioners (as well as
staf�. This training ensures that memt�ers serving on this critical commission are
provided a common base of knowledge of the planning profession and the enabling
ordinances and regulations adopted by th � City of Cupertino.
The ongoing training that shoul�i be provided by the Planning Division to
commission members should include sucl� topics as the following:
• The legal basis for the Commissior�;
• The duties, roles and responsibilities of the Commission, including the kinds of
decisions that the Commission m��kes, and the required legal basis for making
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 103
5-114
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management St udy 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 Commi:�sion and City Council have considered;
• The comprehensive plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and any design guidelines that
have been developed by the C ty, 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 c�f noticing and at Commission and City Council
meetings;
• Environmental regulations and environmental issues;
- Sources of funding for the Planninc� Division and the most recent adopted annual
budget for the division — both rever�ues and expenditures;
• The most recent advanced plannirig work program adopted by the City Council;
and .
• Publications available from the Pla�ining Division.
In addition, each member of the F'lanning Commission should be provided with
membership in the American Planning A�sociation. The American Planning Association
provides information specifically for Planr ing Commissioners including a Commissioner
newsletter, a CD-ROM and video traininc� package series for planning commissioners,
audio training packages, a planning cominissioner training resource center, a planners
book service and a series of retreats �t the annual American Planning Association
annual conference, the monthly Planninc� 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 h��urs a year.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 104
5-1 15
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t Permit Proce
Recommendation #109: The membei•s of the Planning Commission should
continue to be provided with membersFiip 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 comrriunications and interaction, the City Planning
Commission, with the assistance of staff irom the Planning Division, should prepare an
annual report. This report should be form��lly submitted to the City Council.
The report should outline the acti�ities performed by the Planning Commission
including information such as:
• Workload data, including the numEer 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 identifi �d 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 MEI=TINGS.
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 impleinent 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
5�-116
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of t P erm it Pr ocess
• Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Clarify the Responsibility of the
Chairperson To Manage Comrnission Meetings. The clarification of the
responsibility of the chairperson :;hould include presiding over all commission
deliberations and having the auth��rity to preserve order, enforcing rules of the
commission, assuring commission meetings are conducted in accordance with
commission bylaws, and determinirig the commission order of business.
The bylaws should clarify th �t one of the main duties of the chairperson is
to preside over meetings of commi �sion and ensure these meetings are well-run,
prompt, that its membership is rE:spectful of each other and staff, that these
meetings do not consistently encl 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 assur� 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 �:he Planning Commission bylaws to clarify
the responsibility of the Planr ing Commission chairperson to manage
Commission meetings.
• Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Reduce the Amount of Time
Available to Public Speakers to the Same Amount As Provided by the City
Council. The amount of time provided for applicants, appellants, and the public
should be the same for the Plarning Commission as the public. The issues
considered by the City Council a equally as serious and complex as those
before the Planning Commissior . 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 avail��ble to public speakers to the same amount
as that provided at City Council ineetings.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 106
5-117
C1TY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORNIA
Managem S of the Permit Process
APPENDI�; 1 - PROFILE
This section of the profile provides organizational and operational information for
the resources allocated to the City p�;rmit process, including the Administrative,
Planning, Economic Development and Housing, and Building Divisions of the
Community Development Department, an�� the Engineering Division of the Public Works
Department.
The information in this profile is b��sed upon interviews conducted with Division
personnel, collection of workload stati�tics from various information management
systems, and review of budget and other clocumentation, and is organized as follows:
• Administrative Division;
• Planning Division;
• Economic Development and Housir�g Division; � .
• Building Division; and
• Public Works Engineering Division.
For each of these areas, the projec:t team provides the organizational structures,
the key roles and responsibilities of staff irivolved in the permit process, and a summary
of workload and service levels where available.
1. THE ADMINISTRATION SERVICE� DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 6 POSITIONS.
The Administrative Services provides overall direction to the Community
Development Department and general ad �ninistrative support to the department's other
divisions (the Planning Division, Economic: Development and Housing Division, and the
Building Division). Its activities include st��ff support to top and mid-level management,
and the Planning Commission, Design �eview Commission, Environmental Review
Matrix Consulting Group Page 107
5�-1 18
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the P e r m i f P rocess
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 deE�artment in the areas of budget management,
purchasing and personnel recruitm��nts;
• Monitors contracts and payments 1or professional consultants (such as Arborist,
Architectural Advisor, and Geologist) hired by the department; and
• Oversees and monitors work plan items of the department's different programs
including completion of the annual �NOrk 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 Ftetail, and California Pizza Kitchen.
• E-Services: Implementation of e�hanced E-Services including online building
permitting and inspection sched aling, on-line issuance of basic permitting
functions, and redesign of website.
• Housing: Implement various affoi�dable housing efforts including: develop and
encourage development of housinc� opportunities fo� Gupertino workers, creation
of a teacher housing assistance o;rogram, and implementation of Cleo Avenue
Affordable Housing.
• Economic �evelopment / Rede���lopment: Several Council priorities were
established including:
- Encourage, retain and suppc�rt health environment for retail growth.
- Consider retail in reviewing r�ew developments.
• Planning: Specific projects ado��ted 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
5-119
. CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
- Preparation of Historic Presf;rvation Policy.
- Develop policy for tree toppi ig 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 classific��tion is presented in the table below.
Class Title Number of Authorized Positions
Director of Communi Develo ment 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 cfiapter. The following table outlines the overall
budget, by division, for the Community Development Department.
% Change
2005-06 2006-07 2007,-08 2008-09 05/06 to
Actual Actual Ado ted Ado ted 08/09
Administration $209,148 $194,E�06 $211,184 $265,068 26.7%
Planning $1,024,561 $1,166,E�23 $1,674,265 $1,750,428 70.8%
Housing $1,394,794 $375,��68 $555,828 $740,553 �6.9%
Buildin $2,438,731 $2,230,i32 $2,107,466 $2,365,653 -3.0%
TOTAL $5,067,234 $3,967,��29 $4,548,743 $5,121,702 1.1 %
As noted in the chart above, the o✓erall budget for the Community Development
Department has increased only 1.1 % ovE�r the last four years. A review of the budget
detail shows that the major areas of cha ige during this time period are the amount of
funds allocated for contractual services ar�d special projects.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 109
5-120
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M anagement Study o t P erm i t P rocess
2. THE PLANNING DIVISION IS AU'(HORIZED 5.5 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING
POSITIONS.
The Planning Division is respor�sible 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 [)ivision is authorized 5.5 full-time equivalent
professional planning positions. One of th�:se positions - A Senior Planner - is vacant; a
temporary Assistant Planner position has been authorized. Important points to note
concerning the plan of organization are pr�sented below.
• The Planning Division is organized in one section. All planners carry both an
advanced planning and a current pianning workload. Senior Planner typically are
assigned those projects that are n�ore complex, have unique characteristics, or
are otherwise more difficult. The Assistant and Associate Planners handle more
routine applications.
• The City Planner serves as the �ivision-head for the Planning Division, and
reports to the Community Develc�pment 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 share� between the Planning Division and the
Economic Development and Housirig Division.
• ThP Planning Intem works 24 ho� rs per week and is responsible for handling
counter functions, processing of simple planning applications, and special
projects as assigned.
• Daily counter / phone duties are shs�red between two planners.
• The authorized Planning Division staffing is presented in the table below.
Class Title Nurnber of Authorized Number of Vacant
Positions Positions
Ci Planner 1.0 0
Senior Planner 3.0 1
Associate Planner 0.5 0
Assistant Planner 1.0 0
Assistant Planner - Tem ora 1.0
TOTAL 6.5 1
The table shows 6.5 positions; or e of these 6.5 positions is a 1.0 temporary
Assistant Planner.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 110
5--121
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o t he Permit Process
The roles and responsibilities of ttie staff assigned to the Planning Division are
presented in the fourth exhibit at the end c�f this chapter.
The fifth exhibit presented at the er�d of this chapter presents the workload for the
Planning Division, while the sixth exhibii presents service levels and other important
operational characteristics for the Plannin�3 Division.
The Planning Division supports three commissions: the Planning
Commission, the Design Review Commi �sion (a subset of the Planning Commission)
and the Environmental Review Comrnission. The make up and roles of the
Commissions are presented in the paragr�phs below.
• Planning Commission. The Plaiining Commission consists of five members
appointed by the City Council to c;arry out a variety of assigned and delegated
functions. State law sets out the major areas over which the Planning
Commission has authority, either �s a decision-making or advisory body to the
City Council. The Commission is responsible for recommending various
development policies to the City (;ouncil, and once adopted in the form of the
City's General Plan or other ordin;3nces (such as sign ordinance), for reviewing
development applications for thE:ir conformance to the adopted plans and
policies. The Commission acts �s 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 devel��pment applications (Conditional Use Permits,
Development Plan Review Permit:>, etc.), variances from the zoning regulations
and for the environmental assessn�ent 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 Plan �ing Commission. An altemate 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 thA Planning Commission's workload by addressi�g design revizw
responsibilities and incorporatinc professional architectural advice into the
process.
• Environmental Review Commiti:ee. The Environmental Review Commission
consists of the following membE:rs: one City council person, one Planning
Matrix Consulting Group Page 111
5-122
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
Commission, the City Manager, th�� Director of Public Works and the Director of
Community Development (or their designated altematives). The Chair of the
Committee may appoint one at-larc e nonvoting citizen member to the committee.
The Environmental Review Cornmission is responsible for reviewing all
discretionary projects, not otherwi� e exempted from environmental assessment,
for evaluation under the Californi� 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 env ronment.
3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI' AND HOUSING QIVISION IS AUTHORIZED
2.5 EMPLOYEES.
The Economic Development and Redevelopment Division is responsible for
managing the City's overall economi�: development efforts (including business
attraction, retention and assistance), CDBG administration, housing programs and
related services. Primary goals related to housing include:
• Encourage a balanced communifi� by improving local availability of affordable
housing opportunities; and
• Maintain existing housing through �:orrection 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 Con:�olidated Plan to HUD.
• Coordinate the Request for Propcsals process for CDBG funds and Affordable
Housing Funds annually. Present CDBG proposals to the Housing Commission
for their recommendation to the Cit� Council.
• Develop and monitor contracts witf all CDBG sub-recipients on a quarterly basis.
• Present funding applications and c;oordinate meetings of the Cupertino Housing
Commission. Conduct quarterly rnonitoring 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 Rehat�ilitation Program loan collections, payoffs,
foreclosures and program income for a$100,000 Ioan portfolio.
• Facilitate Mortgage Credit Certificate funding in the amount of $100,000.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 112
5-123
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORN/A
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 e id 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 Pla iner CDBG, is responsible for administration
and oversight of all CDBG, public s��rvice and housing programs.
• The Division shares an Associate Planner with the Planning Division. While
stafFng is shown as split 50% Eetween the two Divisions, current planning
functions take priority over non-plar�ning activities. �
• The authorized Economic Deve opment and Housing Division staffing is
presented in the table below.
Class Title Number of Authorized
Positions
Economic Develo ment/Redevelo ment Vlana er 1
Senior Planner CDBG 1
Associate Planner .5
TOTAL 2.5
The eighth exhibit at the end of this chaptE�r presents the roles and responsibilities of the
staff of the Division.
3. THE BUILDING DIVISION IS ALL()CATED 10,0 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS
The Building Division safeguards the health and safety of residents, workers, and
visitors to the City of Cupertino through ttie administration and enforcement of building
codes and ordinances adopted by the c:ity, by providing field inspections and plan
checking, and overall regulating the desi5n, construction, use, occupancy, location and
maintenance of all buildings and structure:�. The Division service objectives include:
Matrix Consulting Group Page 113
5�-124
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNlA
Management Study o t Permit Pro
• Assist customers in meeting their dE;adlines 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 ai•e presented below.
• The personnel of the Division are F�rimarily organized within building inspections
and plan checking.
• The authorized Building Division staffing is presented in the table below:
Ctass Title Number of Authorized Positions
Buildin Official 1
Senior Buildin Ins ector 1
Buildin Ins ector 6
Plan Check En ineer 1
Counter Technician 1
• The Building Official is the overall manager of the Division, providing general
guidance and leadership and reprE;sents the Division in meetings with elected
City officials, executives, and the community.
• The administrative support is resFonsible for routing plans and entering data
regarding permit applications and inspections into the computer application.
• The Building Inspection section i:� responsible for conducting required field
inspections at various peints of rE;sidential and commercial b!.iiiding projects,
address citizen complaints, enfc�rce building codes, conduct community
education, etc.
• The Plan Check section is responsible for reviewing residential and commercial
building, remodel, and tenant imprc�vement plans for conformance to State and
Municipal building codes.
The key roles and responsibilities or the personnel assigned to the Building
Division are presented in an exhibit at ttie end of this profile. Other exhibits for the
Division presents senrice level information.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 114
5--125
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
, Management Study of t P e r m i t Proce
4. THE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ALLOCATES
APPROXIMATELY 1.25 FULL= �IME 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 (witt�in the same office space) with the following
positions providing some level of invclvement in the building permit approval process:
• The Assistant Director of Public Works oversees the review of building and
discretionary permits (encroachmE;nt, 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 rouied the plans from the Building Division and
enters the information into an exc:el spreadsheet for tracking purposes. This
position will route to an engineer foi• review.
• Engineer positions provide all the E�ermit review (1 position is dedicated, 1 other
position to a much lesser extent), F�rocessing the drawings, conducting site visits
utilizing field checklists, reviewing plans, spending time with developers and
owners to make sure public works i�sues 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 DevE;lopment for approximately 636 permits (or 53
per week).
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 115
5--126
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Managem Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 2
Plan of Organization of the
Administration Division
Director
(1)
Pl:inning Division
City Planner
(1)
Econ��mic Development
8 F ousing Division
Economic DeveloE�ment/Redevelopment Manager
(1)
Biiilding Division
E�uilding Official
��)
Administr�tive Services Division
Admi�istrative Assistant
��)
Adminisirative Clerk
�2)
Senior Ofiice Assistant
(2 )
� Matrix Consulting Group Page 116
5�-127
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Perm P roce s s
Exhibit 3 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
StafF of the Administrative Division
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Community 1.0 • Supe vises the City Planner, Building Officia�, Economic
Development Director Deve opmenURedevelopment Manager, and the
Admiiiistrative Assistant.
• ReprE:sent the City in development and land use matters.
• Plans, organizes, controls, and evaluates the work activities
of the Community Development Department.
• Rese:3rch, analyze and recommend policies for development
and I�ind use matters.
• Implements and monitors long-term plans, goals and
objec:ives focused on achieving the Department's mission
and C�ity Council priorities and annual workplan.
• Direc�s the development of and monitors performance against
the arinual department budget.
• Participate in numerous public meetings including City
Coun ;il meetings and Planning Commission meetings.
• Over� ees the development, implementation and evaluation of
plans policies, systems and procedures to achieve the
Depa tment's goals, objectives and work standards
• Provicies leadership to develop and retain highly competent,
service-oriented staff through selection, training and day-to-
day rr anagement practices that support the Department's
missicm and values
Administrative 1.0 • Repoits to the Community Development Director.
Assistant • Assis's the Community Development Director by providing
admir istrative and technical support in the planning, direction
and o�eration of the department.
• Serves as Office Manager and supervisor for all
Admiriistrative support staff. Assigns, prioritizes and
evalu,�tes work efforts of assigned staff.
• Oversees departmental records retention program.
• Assisis with department budget development and ongoing
admir istration and monitoring of budget.
• PerFoims all accounts payable and payroll functions for the
Depaitment.
• Mana��es on-going and project specific contracts for extemal
consultants and resources (i.e. - architectural/design
consultant, arborist resources, geologisUsoils consultant,
traffic consultant, and environmental assessments.
• Handl�s bond processing, recordkeeping and tracking.
• Mana��es Planning Commission agenda process including
draftirg Director's report.
• Drafts Development Activity Report.
• Oversees and updates departmental website.
• Serve � as ro'ect mana er for eGov im lementation.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 117
5--128
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALlFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 3 (2)
Position � Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Senior Office Assistant 2.0 • Provi�ies back up support to administrative staff assigned to
the P anning Division, including the front lobby counter to help
with r�inor questions about plan check, issue permits and
collect fee balances.
• Proce ssing the plan checks, including data entry, checking for
fees, routing them to different departments based on scope
off wc�rk, filing the charts, etc.)
• Other general administrative duties include filing, scanning
and niicrofilming, printing out the daily schedule, handling
phonE; calls, and consensus reports.
• One :�r. Office Assistant assigned to serve as receptionist /
front �;ounter staff.
• Enter� applications into permitting software, accepts and
processes permit payments, and issues receipt to applicant.
• Answ�rs incoming calls and walk-ins and directs to
apprcpriate division / staff member.
• Cond �cts research of ermits as re uested.
Administrative Clerk 1.0 • Reports to the Administrative Assistant.
• Provic es administrative support to Planning staff including
prepa �ation and distribution of agenda packets for Planning
Comniission (PC), Design Review Commission (DRC), and
Envirc�nmental Review Commission (ERC).
• Prepares minutes of DRC and ERC meetings.
• Handl �s noticing of property owners within applicable radius
for pl� nning applications. .
� • Assists in entering new planning applications into Planning
Database.
• Coordinates efforts befinreen IT and Pentamation on
implernentation of planning module and e-services.
• Respc�nsible for developing reports from data maintained in
Penta �nation utilizing Cognos.
• Overs�es records storage and retention efforts of Community
Devel��pment Department.
• Performs application and permit electronic filing program
includ ng indexing and organizing of microfilm that has been
conve�ted to electronic format. Conducts scanning of
recore s.
• Maint�iins all planning application files (paper copies).
• Provices backu for issuance of buildin ermits.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 118
5--129
CITY�OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Managem S of the Permit Process
Exhibit 3 (3)
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Administrative Clerk 1.0 • Take� 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.).
• Delivf;ring documents to planners and the respective
Depa tments, including Public Works, Fire, and Sanitation
• Processing address changes and sending out letters to the
affect�d agencies (Assesso►'s Office, utilities, school districts,
etc.) c�f the change, and sending out letters for expired
permits
• Printiiig out the master inspection log report on a daily basis
and updating it to include the assigned inspector and time of
inspe :tion.
• Enterng into Pentamation the field inspection results and
comrr�ents, if any.
• Other general administrative duties such as ordering supplies,
handii�g customer phone calls, handling the Quarterly
Constvction Tax report, etc.
• Answ�;rs phones and assists callers directly or by transferring
them 10 a ro riate staff member.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 119
5--130
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA
Management Study of t P e r m i t Pr ocess
Exhibit 4
Plan of Organization of the
Planning Division
City Planner
(1)
Senior Planner Assistant Planner Associate Planner
�3) �2) (•5)
(1 vacant) (1 b�dgeted;
1 ten�porary)
Planning Intern
(0.5 - part-time)
Matrix Consulting Group Page 120
5-131
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management S tudy of the Permit Process
Exhibit 5 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Planning Division
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
City Planner 1.0 • Marages the Planning Division including supervision of all
planning staff (6.1 full time equivalents).
• Ens �res current planning operations meet all federal, state,
and local rules and regulations for processing times, public
disc osure, compliance with codes, environmental
assE;ssments, etc.
• Coordinates divisions efforts with other agencies (including
Fire and Health) and adjoining communities.
• Maiiitains a small current planning workload as necessary.
• Rev ews all work of assigned staff including staff reports,
adrrinistrative approvals, etc.
• Res�onsible for case assignments to planners.
• Dratts policies and procedures related to current and
adv.�nced planning and ensures the adherence of the
Divi:�ion to adopted policies and procedures. �
• Dev �lops goals and objectives for the Division, and
mor itors performance.
• One Senior Planner supervises work efforts of the
coniracted Assistant Planner and the Plannin Intem.
Senior Planner 3.0 • Rep�rts to City Planner.
(1 vacant) • Cany both a current planning and advanced planning
worl:load. Generally assigned more complex current
planning projects.
• Con�ucts zoning studies; analyzes land use issues;
reccmmends resolutions to land use problems; directs
proFosed ordinances through review process.
• Rev ews assigned planning applications to ensure
compliance with General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific
Plar s, and City Development Standards. Ensures
appiopriate environmental reviews are conducted.
• Sen�es as case manager for planning applications and
coordinates review with other departments and extemal
ageiicies. Prepares staff reports to Planning Commission
and City Council for assigned projects.
• Coo�dinates development review meetings with reviewing
dep:�rtments/agencies and applicants.
• Assists with development of special and specific plans.
• Perfxm building permit plan checks for zoning compliance.
• Manages, supervises or prepares reports for special
planning projects and studies.
• Han jles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
comolaints received. Conducts investigations and works
with residents to reach com liance.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 121
� 5-132
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t he P Proc
Exhibit 5 (2)
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Associate Planner 0.5 • Repc�rts jointty to City Planner and Economic Development /
RedE�velopment Manager.
• Has 3ssigned counter duty in rotation with other City
planriers.
• Assic�ned both a current and advanced planning case load.
• Curr�;nt planning work activities include review and
proc�:ssing of applications for single family applications,
building permit plan check approvals (for zoning
com��liance), basic residential and non-residential
• appli;ations.
• Hanclles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
comE�laints received. Conducts investigations and works
with - esidents to reach compliance.
• Conclucts tree removal permit reviews — conducts site visits
and �;oordinates with arborist to determine appropriateness
of re� uest.
Assistant Planner 2.0 • Repc�rts to one of the Senior Planners.
(1 budgeted; 1 • Assic�ned to counter duty schedule in rotation with other
unbudgeted and Plan �ers.
temporary) • Prov des information and guidance to applicants submitting
a variety of projects including: small residential, 2" story
additions, processing of covenants, and building permit plan
checks (zoning compliance),
• Ens� res applications meet City codes and requirements
inclu jing compliance with Zoning Ordinance and standard
conditions of approval. Where required develops staff
repo ts, issuance of public notices, and development of
staff recommendation for approval/denial.
• DevE�loping Historical Ordinance for consideration by the
City �ouncil.
• Hanclles zoning code enforcement cases based upon
comE�laints received. Conducts investigations and works
with - esidents to reach com liance.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 122
5 -133
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 6
_ Workload
For the Planning Division
Application Workload
By Type of A��plication / Permit
A lication T e 2006 2007 2008
Architectural Site A roval 25 19 9
Ci Pro'ect A lications 3 4 2
Develo ment A reements 0 0 0
Director's Minor Modifications
/ Tem ora Use Permits 36 38 37
Environmental Assessments 20 10 10
Exce tions 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
Munici al Code Amendment 3 1 4
R-1 Desi n Review 62 44 32
S ecific Plan Amendments 1 0 1
Tentative Ma 12 12 2
Tree Removal Permit 17 14 16
Use Permit 14 11 4
Variance 2 3 1
Zonin 6 0 1
TOTAL 260 205 179
Applicat on Workload
Sorted by Approval Level
2008/09 (6
A lications b A roval Level 2006/07 2007/08 months
Plannin Commission A lication INT, M, TM, V 26 8 6
Ci Council A lications CP, GP, MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z 34 32 16
Desi n Review Committee A lications ASA, EX�� 45 29 7
Staff Level DIR, R, RM 160 100 45
Environmental Assessments 12 8 4
TOTAL 277 177 78
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 123
5�-134
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 7
Service Levels
For the Planning Division
Characteristic Descri tion
Hours of Operation and Schedule • OfficE; hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
throu�h Thursday, and Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
OfficE; closed from Noon to 1:00 p.m. daily.
• Individual work hours for each Planner varies. Some staff
are on AWP schedule which includes every other Friday off
and c�thers are on a traditional work schedule. Starting and
endir times va to rovide office and counter covera e.
Coverage Area • For all processing of discretionary and adminEstrative permit
appli�:ations assuring the applications meet the
requi�ements of the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
• Staff provide support to Planning Commission,
Environmental Review Commission, and Design Review
Comrnission.
• All pl 3nners have assigned counter duty shifts. Counter
servi�;e is provided in finro shifts: 7:30 a.m. to Noon and 1:00
p.m. to 5:30. Planners have pagers so they do not remain
at co �nter unless customer is present.
• ResFonsible forthe preparation and maintenance of the
GenE�ral Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any Specific or Area
Plan:;.
• Specific and Master Plans overseen include:
- Heart of the City Specific Plan
- N. De Anza Blvd. Specific Plan
- South Vallco Master Plan
- North Vallco Master Plan
- Wireless Facilities Master Plan
Training and Cert�cation ' • The ��lanning series classification descriptions do not
require AICP certification.
• Ther�: are three AICP certified members on staff.
Codes Administered and Enforced • GenE:ral Plan
• Zonirig ordinance
• Sign Ordinance
• Subcivision Map Act
• Califc�mia Environmental Quali Act
Matrix Consulting Group Page 124
5 -135
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of fhe Permit Process
Exhibit 8
Pian of Organization of the
Economic Development and Housing Division
Economic Jevelopment /
Redevelopment Manager
(1)
Associate Planner Senior Planner CDBG
(.5) (1)
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 125
5--136
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manage Study of the Permit Process
Exhibit 9 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Economic: Development and Housing Division
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Economic 1.0 • Reports to the Director of Community Development.
Development / • Direc:ly supervises the Senior Planner CDBG and
Redevelopment Asso�;iate Planner (half time assignment).
Manager • Over.;ees the City's economic development and
rede�elopment activities including recruitment/retention
effort�, identification of available space for business
locati �ns/relocations.
• Mainiains, compiles and/or analyzes data regarding -
community demographics.
• Over.aees City TIF district.
• ServE:s as liaison with variety of organizations and
comniittees including Chamber of Commerce and
Econ �mic Development Committee.
• Conducts City branding/marketing efforts.
• Develops various publications and brochures including
Rest�iurant Guide.
• Develops and maintains redevelopment plan for the City.
• Over.�ees City's CDBG and housing programs.
• Draft:� / updates relevant sections of General Plan and
assis:s with development of specific plans (i.e. — Heart of
the Ci Plan .
Senior Planner CDBG 1.0 •. Reperts to Economic Development / Redevelopment
Man� ger.
• Over.�ees the City's CDBG program (including public
servi�;e grant allocations); assisting with development of
staff :�ecommendation to CDBG Committee for action and
recor�mendation to City Council.
• ServE;s as staff liaison to Housing Commission.
• PerFcrms all grant administration functions and sub-
recip�ent monitoring for allocated funds.
• Over.�ees and coordinates funds allocated to affordable
hous ng received from Housing Mitigation fee charged on
new �ievelopments.
• Enteis required data into HUD's IDIS system and prepared
requE:sts for fund drawdowns.
• Responsible for development of Housing Element of the
Gene ral plan. Coordinates and oversees efforts of
cons��ltant.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 126
5 -137
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORN/A
Man Study of the Permit Proces�
Exhibit 9 (2)
Roles and Responsibilities of the
Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division
Associate Planner 0.5 • Rep �rts to both City Planner and Economic Development /
Red :velopment Manager.
• PreF economic data and analysis to support Economic
Dev�:lopment efforts.
• Con jucts data analysis on sales tax receipts generated —
rest��urant program.
• Wor<s on special projects as assigned (i.e. — preferred
cate�er list).
• Dev�:lops a variety of reports and broctwres as requested
to s�ipport programs and efforts of the Division. Dining
uids is one recent exam le.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 127
5-138
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of fhe Permit Process
Exhibit 10
Plan of Organization of the
Building Division
Buildir�g Official �
(1)
Sr. Building Inspector Plan Check Engineer Counter Technician
(1) (1) (1)
E
Building
Irspector
(6)
Matrix Consulting Group Page 128
5-139
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNlA
Management Study of t he Permit Proces
Exhibit 11 (1)
Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff
Of the Building Division
Position Number of Description of Responsibilities
Positions
Buildin Divi:�ion Administration
Building Official 1.0 • Serve�s as Chief Building Code Official for the City of
Cupertino.
• Over:sees operation of the Building Division including
perfo mance of the building inspectors, plan check staff, and
perm t processing.
• Deve ops and monitors the budget for the Division.
• Conducts selective plan reviews for complex, high-profile or
othernrise difficult projects.
• Assigns, evaluates and monitors work activities of assigned
staff.
• Resp�nsible for making all final City decisions regarding code
a lic:abili , a roval of altemative methods/materials, etc.
Buildir Ins ection
Senior Building 1.0 • Reports to the Building Official.
Inspector • Conducts inspections on complex, sensitive or problematic
proje�;ts.
• ServE:s as working supervisor for Field Inspectors and
counier plan check personnel. Assigns and evaluates work
activi�:ies.
• Prep��res daily inspection schedule and assignment of
inspections to inspectors.
• Conducts non-structural building permit plan checks (tenant
imprcvements, small additions with conventional framing).
• Handles some code interpretation issues.
• Handles customer com laints.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 129
5-140
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manage St udy of the Permit Process
Exhibit 11 (2)
Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff
Of the Building Division
Building Inspector 6.0 • Primary responsibility is conducting inspections for projects at
vario�s stages requiring a building permit (construction and
remoclels) that affect a structure's electrical, plumbing, and /
or me�hanical systems, including initial inspection and any
nece�sary follow up for re-inspections, writing correction
notices, issuing permits, etc.
• Respcmding to citizen complaints and addressing building
code �riolations (including those resulting from proactive
enforc:ement).
• Answ�:ring questions and providing education to developers,
contr.ctors, architects and the general community regarding
buildirig and development, including non-point source
envirc nmental initiatives, etc.
• 1 pos tion is assigned to the front counter and is responsible
for the: intake, review, routing and / or approval of over-the-
count�:r plan checks, express plan checks, standard plan
checks, and lar e/ma'or ro'ects.
Plan Check
Plan Check Engineer 1.0 • Prim�ry responsibility is reviewing buildi�g plans for small
(remodels, minor additions), mid-size (larger additions,
signifi ;ant remodels), and large (major tenant improvements,
new Fomes) p�ojects.
• Verify ng that plans for construction or alteration to
comrrercial, residential, and industrial structures comply with
State and municipal codes and ordinances.
• Work:: with architects, engineers, and contractors to address
questions and issues regarding structural design, zoning,
gradir g, energy standards, etc.
• Other duties include checking plans over the counter for
smallc:r ro'ects and attendin develo ment meetin s.
CounterTechnician 1.0 • This �osition is vacant.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 130
5 -141
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALlFORNIA
Management Study o f fhe Permit Process
Exhibit 12 (1)
Service Levels for the
Building Division
Characteristic Descri tion
Hours of Operation and Schedule • Coui�ter operation is open between 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM
(clo�ed between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM)
• Builcling 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
phorie, with customers given a 2-hour window.
• To s�hedule an inspection for the next day requires the
insp�:ction to be requested by 3:00 PM the previous day.
• Insp �ctors provide on-call roofing inspections for tear-off
and pl -wood nail and will be there within an hour.
Service / Tumaround Targets Residential Plan Review Cycle Times:
• Ove � the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within
30 niinutes
• Expiess Plan Check: medium sized projects (500 sq. ft. or
less; within 5 business days
• Stardard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days,
secc nd review within 5 working days
• Large / Major Projects: apartments and subdivisions (over
10 units) is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Comme rcial Plan Review Cycle Times;
• Ove - the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday,
Wec nesday, and Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30 (these
are ihe hours when Fire Plan Reviewers are available at
the counter).
• Expiess Plan Check: medium sized p�ojects (10,000 sq. ft.
or less) within 5 working days
• Stardard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days,
rechecks within 5 working days
• Larce / Ma'or Pro'ects: minimum 4 weeks.
Coverage Area • Builciing Inspector work schedule is M-F from 6:30 AM to
4:30 PM, and typically work schedule is as follows:
- 3:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2-hour
nrindow 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
- •�:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field
nspections using the palm pilot and Pentamation
• Per.�onnel are combination inspectors and generally
perform all types of inspections.
• Builjing inspectors are not generally assigned to one of
five "regions" but are reassigned, as needed, based upon
worcload and s ecific ex ertise.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 131
5-142
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o f the Permit Process
Exhibit 12 (2)
Characteristic Descri tion
Training and Certification • Teani conducts staff meetings each Tuesday from 730 —
900 fx building code updates, training, etc.
• Build n Ins ector osition re uire an ICBO certification.
Codes Administered and Enforced • Late:.t approved by the State of Califomia
Matrix Consulting Group Page 132
5-143
CITY OF CUPERTlNO, CALIFORN/A
Management Stud of th Permit Process
APPENDIX 2 - FOCUS GROUPS
As part of the management study c►f the permitting process, the Matrix Consuiting
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 C��pertino's permitting process and to assess
overall customer satisfaction.
Participants in the three focus groups included developers (30°/a), major
landowners / businesses (30%), contract�rs (10%), and professionals (e.g., architects)
(30%). Almost all of the participants h� d worked with Planning, Building and Public
Works/Engineering; one participant had worked only with Planning. They were selected
based upon their knowledge and experierce with the City's permitting process.
The focus groups were intended to elicit views and opinions on positive and
negative aspects of relevant developm�:nt service activities and to seek ideas for
change that would improve and streamlinf; the process.
In considering the results, the re��der must bear in mind that unlike technical
research and statistics, the views expressed by individuals are subjective and may
reflect personal biases. In addition, ther�: will be conflicting perspectives between the
developer, residents and businesses surn�unding the proposed development, the City's
permit staff. These conflicting perspectivE:s are inevitable in a democratic society, and
result in compromise. Not everyone will c�et everything they want, and sometimes this
generates negative perspectives (i.e., cievelopers believe staff are too regulatory;
residents feel that staff are too friendly to cievelopers).
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 933
5•-144
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Pe P rocess
Nonetheless, these perspectives are important as the objective material because
it is these people, with their feelings and Frejudices, 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 "cc�rrect": rather each response is accepted as a
perception, recognizing that perception i� reality to the person holding the perception.
The reader should also be aware that alth��ugh the participants were questioned on both
positive and negative aspects of the procE;ss, 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 parti�:ipants 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 r,earby communitif;s. With respect to staff attitude, helpfulness,
accessibility and reasonableness, the foci�s 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, Milpita:� and Fremont.
The "small town atmosphere" v�as cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff
members were generally available wheri needed, and they exhibited a friendly and
positive attitude. Most participants kne�n� staff members of all departments by name,
and they appreciated the fact that, for ariy given project, they generally dealt with the
same planner, plan checker, inspector an � engineer throughout the entire process. The
Matrix Consulting Group Page 134
5-145
ClTY 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 (Z) thE� City's politically-charged atmosphere relative
to development and growth.
Participants felt that Cupertino agged far behind adjacent jurisdictions in
providing an efficient, reliable and user-friendly automated/on-line system. They cited
hand-written applications, difficulties in ch �cking the status of an application, and delays
in receiving staff comments and correctioiis as problems that could be solved by such a
system.
While the politically charged atrnosphere was not part and parcel of the
permitting system, it is a major determiiiant of the overall perception of Cupertino's
attitude toward development and the devE;lopment industry. Participants recognized the
sharp division of opinion within the community-at-large with regard to development and
growth, which division was reflected witt the City Council and between the Council
and the Planning Commission. The result of this atmosphere for developers was less
predictability, greater risk, greater frustrati��n and unanticipated time delays.
2. PLANNING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS FRIENDLY AND HELPFUL, BUT
CAUZiOUS AND SUBJECTIVE
The Planning staff was complimenled on its professionalism, its friendliness, and
its sincere effort to be helpful. Focus gro��p participants found planners to be generally
accessible, particularly at the permit coui�ter. Some focus group participants cited the
slow response to telephone calls and e-m��ils as a negative factor.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 135
5--146
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Managemenf Sfudy o t Permit Pr
Most participants felt that plannE;rs tried to anticipate the reactions of the
Planning Commission and City Council tc� a proposed project, and advised developers
accordingly. Some felt that this advice w��s merely a cover to "push their own agenda."
One participant noted that the "ebb a id flow of public opinion� makes it nearly
impossible to predict Planning Commissio� 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 meE:tings with the public to be useful.
Most participants saw plan rev ew tum-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 ur�necessary 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 turr-�round time in Cupertino suffered relative to
other communities.
On the negative side, some focus �3roup participants felt that Cupertino planners
are too rigid, exercising less of a"how c:an we make this workn attitude than staff of
other City departments. This caution an � 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 in#erpret3tion of the code.
On the other hand, some partic pants found Cupertino planners to be too
subjective. This was particularly true with regard to architectural and landscape design
review. The feeling was that recommenc ations and conditions of approval were often
Matrix Consulting Group Page 136
5�-147
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORNIA
Management Study o t P Process
based upon the individual planner's ta�te and prejudices, rather than upon sound
principles of design. Required plan chaiiges at times appear arbitrary, based upon
opinion rather than upon code. Some de✓elopers 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 �n�ith staff. "Where is the nexus between the
required plan change and the alleged neg 3tive impact?" asked one developer.
Recommended Improvements:
The focus group participants offered ni�merous recommended improvements for
Planning, more than for any other departrrient. They are listed below in no particular
order of priority.
• The Planning Commission shoulc hold public "study sessions" on potentially
controversiai projects well before the formal public hearing. This would expose
community concerns early in the �rocess and allow developers to anticipate the
Planning Commission's major issuE:s with the project.
• In their communication with developers, planners should always emphasize facts
over opinions. For instance, inste;�d of saying "There's no way City Council will
ever approve that!", they should rE�port 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 addre:�sed.
• Planning managers should nurture a department culture which consistently
produces the best profession� l recommendations as opposed to the
recommendations that will most li cely satisfy the Planning Commission or City
Council, and be prepared to supp��rt and defend those recommenda►ions in the
public forum.
• Applicants should be given the o��portunity to review and comment on a draft
staff report on their project befo it is released to the public. This would
eliminate factual errors in the rE port (and discussion of them at the public
hearing) and allow for negotiation c�n conditions of approval.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 937
5-148
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process �
3. BUILDING STAFF IS VIEWED AS KNOWLEDGEABLE, REASONABLE, AND
EXHIBITING A PROBLEM-SOLVI�IG ATTITUDE
Focus group participants expressed a very positive perception of the Building
function in Cupertino --- "one of the best �round." Building staff were seen as friendly,
always accommodating, accessible, and v� illing to "sort through the gray areas° to come
up with a reasonable solution. �
Participant's felt that the consistei�cy 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 rc�utinely referred to the Building Official for
resclution. 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 �:he Cupertino Building staff places unusually
strong emphasis on Title 24 accessibility requirements, and that the interpretation of
these requirements was noticeably less flexible than interpretation of the overall building
code. Inspectors were charged with enfoicing 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 be ng sued over Title 24 and were therefore
unwilling to take reasonable risk in interpreting the requirements.
Building inspectors are generally sE;en to be helpful, reasonable and consistent.
They almost always show up on the job wFien they say they will. A developer noted one
Matrix Consulting Group Page 138
5 -149
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o t P Process
exception; the developer lost a whole clay's work when an inspection request was
apparently not properly entered into tt�e system. It was reported that inspectors
occasionally give oral direction rather thar 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 checN;ers, and delegate to them responsibility for
ruling on similar issues when they �irise.
• Applicants should be permitted to substitute pages in approved plans when minor
modifications are made, rather thar� 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 ��ccurately logged into the system.
4. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS PROFESSIONAL
AND HELPFUL
Focus group participants had limit�:d, 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 siow response time of public utilities.
Engineering codes and guidelines are corsistently interpreted.
One participant expressed con�:em that traffic engineering requirements
appeared to lack sufficient nexus to the ai�ticipated project impacts. This was likened to
alleged similar subjectivity and personal bias in the recommendations of the Planning
staff.
Matrix Consulfing Group Page 139
5-150
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Perm Pr ocess
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 C ara 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 hc urs at the public counter.
Focus group participants felt that ihe 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 ihis often made it difficult for Cupertino staff to
set up interdepartmental meetings to review and comment on development applications,
adding delay to the process. One develo��er indicated that he somewhat overcame the
accessibility problem by meeting with Fii�e 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 chec�. The groups noted, however, "huge
swings" in the priorities of Fire Preventi�n wiih changes in the Fire Marshall. The
current Fire Marshall is a firefighter, as o�posed to a codes person, and relies heavily
upon his inspection staff to discover viol;�tions requiring correction. As a result, field
inspection often requires changes that wei�e not anticipate� through plan check.
Despite these concerns, the particiF►ants seemed quite accepting of the present
Fire Prevention system, and made no spe�;ific recommendations for improvement.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 140
5 -151
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Managem Study of the Permit Process
6. THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC C)EVELOPMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PERMITTING PROCESS IS NOT (;LEARLY 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 reali:�e that Economic Development was available
to assist them navigate through the develc�pment permitting process.
7. THE CREATION OF AN EFFICIE�JT AND USER-FRIENDLY ON-LINE PERMIT
PROCESSING AND TRACKING :�YSTEM IS VIEWED AS THE SINGLE MOST
NEEDED IMPROVEMENT
The focus group participants had r umerous negative comments about the public
counter, noting that it is "dungeon-like," "uninviting," and "with the Wizard behind the
wall!" Nevertheless, none thought that riodernization of the public counter should be
high priority for the expenditure of limited f��nds. Rather, they unanimo�sly agreed that
any available resources should be directE�d toward the acquisition of a user-friendly on-
line permit information system.
When asked if they would utilize �►n on-line system, focus group participants
responded with a resounding "absolutely!� They felt that such a system should, at a
minimum, offer its public users the followii�g on-line operations:
� Per�nit application;
• Inspection request scheduling;
• Status of application within the sys�,em; and
• Comments of various department:; on the application as they are completed by
each department (i.e., not withheld until all departments had completed their
review).
Matrix Consu/fing Group Page 141
5-152
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORN/A
Manag Study of the Permit Process
The focus group participants felt that Cupertino lags far behind other Silicon
Valley communities in not having an autc�mated, on-line permit information system. In
their opinion, this is the single most impo�tant improvement that the City could make to
its development permitting process.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 142
5•-153
ClTY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
APPENDIX 3 - C011APARATIVE SURVEY
This chapter presents the results o�� the comparative survey conducted as part of
the management study of the Community Development Department. Seven cities were
selected for this comparative survey. The :ities 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 ��opulation and estimated geographical size
(square miles) of the city for each of the fcur responding cities and Cupertino.
Ci 2008 Po �ulation Estimated Size of the Ci
Dublin 46,fi34 12.6
Mountain View 73,�i32 12.2
Novato 52,i'37 27.7
San Ramon 59,(i02 11.6
Cu ertino 55,��51 10.9
Important points to note concerninc the data presented in the table are presented
below.
• The population of the cities rangecl form a low of 46,934 for Dublin to a high of
73,932 for Mountain View.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 143
5-154
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of t P Pr
• The geographical size of the citie:� ranged from a low of 10.9 square miles for
Cupertino to a high of 27.7 square �niles for Novato.
2. PLANNING DIVISIONS
The first section of the surve�� asked questions regarding the planning
department / division. The following sec:tions 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, ��resents a summary of the responses among
the comparative cities.
Ci � Staff Allocated to Advanced Staff Allocated to Current
Plannin Plannin
Dublin 1.0 6.0
Mountain View 2.0 8.0
Novato 1.5 8.5
San Ramon 1.5 2.5
Cu ertino 1.0 4.5
Important points to note concerning the d��ta contained in the table are presented below.
• The number of staff allocated to ��dvanced 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 cf dedicating staff to Advanced Planning on a
full-time basis. Novato and Mountain Vie�nr indicated that these cities dedicated staff to
Advanced Planning. Dublin, San Ramc�n, and Cupertino did not dedicate staff to
Advanced Planning.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 144
5 -155
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
(3) Interdepartmental Development 12eview Committee
The cities were asked if an interde�artmental committee is utilized to review and
critique planning permit applications afte� submittal, the departments or divisions that
participate, and how the Committee meEts. The table, below, presents a summary of
the responses from the cities.
Interdepartmental
C �� Committee Divisions/Departments Meetings
Dublin Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire,
Police, �Vater District As needed
Mountain View Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire, Once a month
Urban F�rest
Novato Yes Planninc , Buildin , En ineerin As Needed
San Ramon Yes Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Police, � q Needed
Buildin Plannin
Cu ertino Yes Planninc�, Buildin , En ineerin
All of the cities use an interdepaitmental development review committee. The
most commonly included divisions / departments were Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Building.
(4) Architectural Review Board
Information was requested reg�rding the role and responsibilities of the
Architectural Review Board including wi ether the c�tie� had an Architectural Review
Board, whether the Board considers �in application before or after the Planning
Commission, and the types of applicatic�ns requiring the approval of the Board. The
following table presents a summary of infc�rmation gathered.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 145
5-156
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Manageme St of the Permit Process
Architectural Before or Afte� the Types of Applications (Approved or
City Planning I;onsiders
Review Board Same A lication Recommended)
Dublin No N, A N/ A
Mountain Yes Bef�re 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 Beiore All commercial, office, industrial and
most residential construction.
San Ramon Yes Beiore All new construction, including signs,
but excludin TI's
Cupertino Yes; a sub- Belore Z-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, rr�inor development
proposals located in a Plannad
Development zone, minor
modifications and exc�ptior�s to
buildings, la�dscaping, signs, and
lighting for new development,
redevelopment, or modification in
such zones where such review is
re uir�d.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 146
�,-157
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M anage m e nt S 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.
Ci Formal Desi n Guidelines
Dublin Yes
Mountain View Yes
Novato Yes
San Ramon Yes
Cu ertino Yes
All of the cities have developed formal design guidelines. Mountain View has developed
� design guidelines for small lot developme�t, row houses, and town houses,
(6) Role of A Zoning Administrator
The cities were asked if a zoni�g administrator is utilized and the type of
applications approved by a zoning admin strator. The table, below, presents a summary
of the responses of the cities.
Ci �onin Administra�:or? A lications
Dublin Yes Conditional use ermits and variances
Mountain View Yes Conditional use permit, density bonus, sign
permits, sign programs, variances, temporary
use ermits
Novato Yes Temporary use permits, use permits and
variances
San Ramon Yes Use permits, variances, home occupation
ermits, arcel ma s
Cu ertino No N/ A
All of the cities, with the exception of Cup��rtino, utilize a zoning administrator to approve
/ deny a variety of planning permits i�cluding conditional use permits, variances,
temporary use permits, etc.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 147
5 -158
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA �
Management Stu dy o f th Permit Process
(7) Planning Applications Approved at the Staff Level
The cities included in the comparaiive survey were asked to provide information
in regards to the types of application that �nay be approved at the staff level. The table,
below, presents a summary of the respon� es of the cities.
C� A lications
Dublin No res onse
Mountain View No res onse
Novato Minor desi n review
San Ramon Minor desi n review, minor exce tions
Cu ertino Minor desi n review, exce tions
All of the cities empower staff to approve minor planning permit applications at staff
level.
(8) Use of the Case Mar�ager Conce ot
The cities were asked if they use a case manager concept in processing planning
permit applications, and his / her resporisibility in managing the processing of these
applications. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities.
Processing (from receipt through
�ity Case ManagE�r Concept Architectural Review Board to
Planning Commission an� City
Council
Dublin Ye:� Yes
Mountain View Ye:� N/A
Novato Nc N/A
San Ramon Yes- Yes
Cu ertino Ye:: 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 clivisions / departments that are involved in the
processing of planning permits had dev�:loped written conditions of approval, written
Matrix Consulting Group Page 148
5-159
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study of the Perm P
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.
C �� Written Conditions c�f Written Correction Internet Availability
A roval Checklists
Dublin Yes No No
Mountain View Yes No No
Novato Yes Yes No
San Ramon Yes Yes No
Cu ertino Yes Yes No
All of the cities have written conditions oi 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 tc� the Planning Division's web site.
(10) Cycle Time Objectives For the Pi•ocessing of Planning Permits.
The cities were asked if they h�ive 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, belo�v, presents a summary of the responses of the
cities.
City Proces.�ing Targets How Successful in Meeting
Tar ets
Dublin No N/A
Mountain View No N/A
Novato No N/A
San Ramon Yes 90%
Cu ertino Yes 90%
Only two cities reported having prccessing targets: San Ramon and Cupertino.
(11) One-Stop Permit Center
The cities �vere requested to provi�ie inforr^ation regarding their one-stop center
for development permits. The cities were also asked what functions were co-located at
Matrix Consulting Group Page 149
5--160
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the Permit Process
the one-stop center and the hours the cer�ter was open for business. The table, below,
presents a summary of the responses of tF e cities.
Ci One�to Center Functions Co-located Hours of O erations
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
En ineerin
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
En ineerin m to 5 m
The following points present a suminary of information in the table above.
• All of the cities report having one-st�p centers except Dublin.
• Those cities with one-stop centers co-located Planning and Building in each
instance, and Planning, Building, ai�d 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. BJILDINt's AND SAFETY DIVISIOIV
The cities were asked to provide iiiformation regarding their building and safety
division. The following sections provide a:�ummary of the responses.
(1) Valuation and Number of Permits
The cities were asked to provide tl�e total building permit valuation and the total
number of building permits. The table, bel��w, presents a summary of the responses.
Ci Total Buildin Permit Valuation
Dublin � $306,000,000
Mountain View No Res onse
Novato $78,000,000 -
San Ramon $65,300,000
Cu ertino $222,500,000
Overall, the total building permit valuatic�n ranged from a low of $65,000,000 in San
Ramon to a high of $306,.000,000 in Dublin.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 150
5-161
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study o f he P Process
(2) Staffing Levels
The cities were asked to provide the number of plan checking staff authorized for
building permit plan checking. The table, k elow, presents a summary of the responses.
Ci Total Sta�n
Dublin 0.0; outsourced
Mountain View
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 Dubi n(all plan checking that cannot be approved
over-the-counter is outsourced) to 2.5 staif in Novato.
(3) Utilization of Plan Check Consultants
The cities were asked to indicate ttie proportion of their building permit plans that
were plan checked by consulting plan chF;ckers. The table, below, presents a summary
of the responses among the comparative :ities.
Ci % Of Permits Ptans Checked bv Consultants .
Dublin �
Mountain View 90 %
Novato 30% to 40%
San Ramon �
Cu ertino �%
Dublin had the highest proporti�m of permits that �r�ere outsourced: 50%.
Mountain View, San Ramon, and Cuperti�o all had little to none of their buifding permit
plan checking outsourced.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 151
' 5-162
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Study of the Permit Process
(4) Plan Checking of Simple Buildin�� Permits Plan
The cities were asked to describe alternatives for plan checking building permit
plans including the proportion of their b�ilding permit plans checked over the counter
that require plan checking (excluding PAEP permits), whether partial permits were
issued, and requirements for plan checkiiig of retrofit window replacements. The table,
below, presents a summary of the respon:�es among the comparative cities.
City Over the Counter Partial Pertnits Retrofit �ndow
Re lacement
Dublin 10% No / rarel Yes
Mountain View 10% Yes No
Novato 20% Yes Yes
San Ramon >50% Yes Yes
Cu ertino 44% Yes Yes
Important points to recognize conceming the data contained in the table are presented
in the paragraphs below.
• Most of the cities reported that 10% to 25% of their building permit plans were
plan checked over the counter. San Ramon plan checked over 50% of its
building permit plans over-the-courter..
• Dublin was the only city that did no�: issue partial permits.
• Only Mountain View did not rE;quire building permits for retroft rvindow
replacements in which the framing �ras not altered.
(5) Plan Chzck Cycle Time Targets
The cities were asked if they had developed cycle time targets for the b�ilding
permit plan checking, the cycle time in terms of days or weeks, and the degree of
success in meeting those targets.
Ci Proces.sin i ar ets Tar ets
Dublin Yes 98%
Mountain View Yes 95%
Novato Yes 90%
San Ramon Yes 95%
Cu ertino Yes 98%
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 152
5-163
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o the Permit Process
As the table indicates, all of the cities h�ve adopted cycle time objectives for building
permit plan checking. All of the cities are �ighly successful in meeting these objectives.
For Cupertino, it is not possible to deterrnine the success rate in meeting these cycle
time objectives given the limitations in tF�e 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 c ivisions / departments that are involved in the
processing of building permits had devE�loped written conditions of approval, written
correction lists, and whether these condit ons 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.
C �� Written Conditions ��f Written Correction Internet Availability
A roval Checklists
Dublin Yes No No
Mountain View Yes No No
Novato Partial Yes No �
San Ramon Yes No No
Cu ertino Yes Yes No
All of the cities have written conditions cf 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 appro�al or correction lists to the Building Division's
web site.
(7) 8uildi�g Permit Plans Approval:�
The cities were asked to identify tFie type of building permit plans that were plan
checked over the counter. The following table presents a summary of the information
gathered.
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 153
5-164
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the Permit Process
Ci Over-the-Counter
Dublin Single trade permits, commercial signs w/o caics,
residential bathroom repair, residential fireplace,
residential repair / in-kind, residential spa, residential
s li hts
Mountain View Single trade and minor building permits including
kitchen / bath remodels without structural
modifications
Novato Sin le trade ermits and kitchen and bath remodels.
San Ramon Residential improvements and minor tenant
im rovements
Cupertino Residential: Over the Counter: small projects (250
sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes
Commercial: Over the Counter. less than 30 minutes
only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
between 1:30 and 2:30 (these are the hours when
Fire Plan Reviewers are available at the counter .
Overall, the types of building permit plans that were plan checked over-the-counter was
not extensive besides single trade permits.
(8) Combination Building Inspectors
The cities were asked about their utilization of combination inspectors. The
following table presents a summary of the information gathered.
C� Combination Ins ectors
Dublin Yes
Mountain View Yes
N ovato Yes
San Ramon Yes
Cu ertino Yes
All of the cities use combination inspector:� as a normal practice.
(9) Percentage Of Building Inspectic�n Requests Responded To The Next Day
The cities �Iso provided re�pon:�es regarding the percentage of inspection
requests that were inspected the next worlcing day.
C �� % Of Inspection Requests Inspected the Next
Workin Da
Dublin 100%
Mountain View 100%
Novato 100%
San Ramon 100%
Cu ertino 100%
Matrix Consulting Group Page 154
5-165
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
M Sfudy of the Permit Process
The majority of the cities reported responding to inspection requests within the
next working day.
(10) Use of A Case Manager For Building Permits
The cities were asked if a case m��nager was utilized for processing of building
permits. The following table presents a su►nmary of the information gathered.
C� Case Mana er
Dublin No
Mountain View No
Novato No
San Ramon No
Cu ertino Yes
Only Cupertino uses a"case manager" co�icept in its Building Division.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 155
5-166
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management Study o t P Proce
APPENDIX 4- SUMMAR'�( 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 B�iilding Inspectors for other duties such
as plan checking of residertial interior remodels, over-the-counter
2 plan checking, etc. 11
Continue with the staffing IE;vels that are allocated to building permit
3 plan checking in the Buildir g Division. 14
Continue the adequate levE:l of staffing dedicated to the Building
4 Division's permit counter. 15
The Engineering Division s�ould maintain the staffing authorized for
5 the permit plan check proc�;ss. 16
Chapter 3- Analysi s of the Permit Process
The City should streamline the process for minor planning permits
by increasing the number cf permitted uses that require quasi-
ministerial review and are :�ubject to codifi�d performance
6 standards. 17
The Ptanning Division sho�dd develop codified performance
standards and requirements for these minor permits for
7 consideration and approval of the City Council. 17
The approval of these codi� ied performance standards and
requirements by the City C�uncil should be sequenced to the
8 conversion of these minor ��lanning permits to permitted uses. 17
Section 19.124.060 of the ::oning ordinance should be modified.
The Planning Commission should be the final decision-making
authority for conditional us�; permits and variances with the City
9 Council having the right of 3ppeal. 21
The staff of the Planning D vision should not write staff reports for
10 minor permits. 22
The Planning Division sho�ild not mail the plan sets for minor
11 permits to those adjacent Froperty owners that are noticed. 22
The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits
12 should be limited to one aFpeal. 23
Eliminate the requirement ior a filing of covenants subsequent to
13 approval of a planning app ication. 23
The timelines for processirg of planning permits by the City should
be reviewed and revised tc provide differential time periods for
review based upon project size and complexity and to differentiate
between initial and re-subniittal reviews. Plan review timeframes
for re-submittals should be established at no more tha.^. ore-half the
14 timeframe required for the nitial review. 24
Adopted cycle time objecti��es for planning permits should be
published to the Departmeiit website and prominently displayed in
15 the Department's appticaticm materials. 24
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 156
5-167
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORN/A
Management Study of the P Pr ocess
Recommendation Pa9e
# Re�commendation Number*
The Planning Division sho�dd 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 plannirg permit cycle time agreements with
17 applicants for high priority ��rojects 27
Pre-application conferences should not be required for routine
planning permit applicatiors approved by the Community
18 Development Director. 28
The Planning Division shoiild 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 regarciing the basis for rejecting planning
20 applications as incomplete. 29
Planning application guide � 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 apFlication guides should be approximately
22 4 to 6 pages in length. 29
The case manager in the F'lanning Division should meet with the
applicant to discuss issue� that have been found during the initial
23 30-day completeness revie:w of the application. 31
The Planning Division sho��ld provide training to consulting
planners, architects, engin�ers and developers regarding its
24 planning permit submittal requirements. 31
The Planning Division sho��ld provide training after each submittal
when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in
the development of the ap �lication and when they encountered
25 particular problems meetirg submittal requirements. 31
Develop and adopt a writtE�n City policy and procedure for the
maintenance of case status information in the automated permit
information system by mar�agers, supervisors, and staff assigned to
26 processing planning, build ng and engineering permit applications 33
Develop and adopt a writtE:n City policy and procedure that assigns
responsibility to the divisio�-heads for assuring ongoing
maintenance of case status information in the automated permit
information system and thc�t requires the division-heads to audit the
caseload assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active,
is inactive as a result of aF plicant inaction and should be
terminated, or has been cl �sed and the case should be updated in
27 the automated permit information system. 33
The City should hold divisi�n-heads in Planning, Building and
Engineering accountable f�r tracking and monitoring the success or
failure of their staff in mee� ing cycle time objectives through regular
management information reports generated on a monthly basis by
28 the automated permit information system. �
The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Engineering
divisions to consistently m �et the cycle time objectives should be
2g integrated into their perFonnance evaluation. �
The division-heads in Plarning, Building and Engineering should
formally plan and schedulE: the permit applications processed by
30 their staff using the autom ated permit information system. 34
Matrix Consu/ting Group Page 157
5-168
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORNIA
Management Study of the P e r m i t Pr ocess
Recommendation pa
# RE+commendation Number*
The division-heads in Planiiing, Building and Engineering should be
held accountable for the or going maintenance of this open case
inventory and the completicm of the processing of permits by their
31 staff in accordance with thE� cycle time objectives � 34
The City should utilize the ;jutomated permit information system to
generate ongoing monthly ranagement information reports to track
performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case
workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of
32 these permits. 36
The Planning Division sho� Id establish 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 re�riew and subsequent reviews. 39
A formal written policy sho�ild 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 th�;se guidelines. 39
The case planner in. the PI� nning Division should serve as the
project manager and be re:;ponsible for the communication among
the multi-disciplinary team ;jnd the resolution of conflicting
35 conditions of approval or cc�mpeting code requirements. 41
The case manager should �:nsure that all conditions of approval are
provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition
references the specific cod�: or regulation that imposes / regulates
the issues. Additionally, a �;opy of the staff report should be
36 provided to the applicant or�ce completed. 41
The authority of the case manager should be ctearly spelled out in
a written policy developed t�y the Planning Division and approved
37 by the Community Develop�nent Director. 42
The conditions of approval �tilized by all of the divisions and
departments in the review c�f planning, building, and engineering
38 permits should be documer ted 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 shou d develop and utilize checklists for the
review and processing of discretionary and administrative
40 applications by its own staff. 45
The Planning Division shou d publish its checklists to its web site
41 for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45
The Planning Division shou d develop design guidelines for multi-
42 family, commercial, and sig is. 46
The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document
interpretations of the zoninc ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and
building codes and make th �se available to the public on their web
43 sites. � 48
Revise the building permit F lan check cycle time goals for the
length of time required to pr�cess building permit plans to serve as
44 a perf'ormance guideline for all organizational units. 49
The Building Division shoulcl utilize the automated permit
information system to assur� the status of each plan is readily
45 visible. 52
Matrix Consulting Group Page 158
5--169
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Management S tudy o f the Permit Process
Recommendation Page
# R��commendation Number*
The Chief Building Official should be given the written authority and
responsibility to interface viith other organizational units to resolve
delays in processing building permit plans in a foRnal written policy
46 published by the Commun ty Development Director. 53
The Building Division sho� Id issue not less than 20% of its building
47 permits over the Intemet. �
The Building Division sho� Id increase the number of building
permits issued over-the-cc unter to 60% of all building permits
48 issued. 5 �
The Counter Technician p��sition should be reclassified to Building
49 Technician. 55
The Building Technician p��sition, when filled, should be utilized to
provide over-the-counter � lan checking of minor and miscellaneous
50 building permits. 5�
The Building Technician classification should be revised to require
certification as an ICC-cer:ified Permit Technician within 12 months
51 of hire. 55
The Building Division sho� Id 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 improverients. 5$
Develop a"Home Improvement Cente�' web page on the Town's
web site to assist the hom �owner navigate through the building
54 permit plan check and ins{�ection process. 5$
The Building Division sho�ild improve the building permit plan check
55 performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives. 59
The Building Division sho�ild reduce the number of divisions and
56 departments that are route:d building permit plans. 63
The City shoula assign re:�ponsibility to the Building Division for
57 zoning clearance of simplE; building permits. 63
The Building Division shoi;ld adopt a policy to accommodate
inspection requests up to '�:00 AM for same day inspectien request
58 service. �
The Engineering Division :�hould develop application guides for
59 those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67
The Engineering Division :�hould publish its cyclz time objectives to
the Division's web site ancl identify these cycle time objectives in
60 the Division's �pplication c�uides. 68
The Engineering Division �hould develop application guides for
61 those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan checking. 70
Ch�p:�r 4- Analysis oi ihe Automated Perm � Information System
All of the departments anc divisions should utilize the automated
permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building
62 permit, and engineering p�:rmit process. ��
Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the
automated permit informa:ion system to support the work of these
63 departments and divisions. ��
Training should be providE;d to staff as appropriate in the use of the
64. automated permit informa:ion system. 71
Matrix Consulting Group Page 159
5-170
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Sfudy of the Permit Process
Recommendation Page
# Recommendation Numberi'
The City should utilize the <<utomated permit information system to
provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data
through the Intemet or for t!ie public and applicants to subscribe to
65 information. 72
The automated permit information system should include the
66 capacity to interface with ari Interactive Voice Response system. 73
The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
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 managerrent 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 t�e archived in the automated permit
73 information system once tha permit is finalized 77
All of the divisions and dep 3rtments that utilize the automated
permit information system :�hould enter and store their annotations,
74 comments, and conditions n the system. 78
The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify
the total installed cost for tt e development and deployment of a
75 fully functional automated F�ermit information system. 79
The City should acquire a f�lly developed commercial-off-the-shelf
76 automated permit informati �n 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 te placed by the Pfanning Division on
ensuring availability of a professional staff member at the front
counter during all hours ��f operation including during the lunch
78 hour. 8�
The Planning Division sho� Id conduct a pilot program of providing
scheduled hours for "walk i�" reviews of minor corrections to
79 expedite the approval proc�:ss. $�
The City should develop a:omprehensive "How-to Manual" or
"De��elopment Guide" for u:�e h� the public and publish this
80 document to their web site. 83
The Community Developm :nt Department should institute a
periodic (two to four times ��er year) newsletter that is distributed to
the development communiiy containing code or interprztation
updates, training informatic n, and general discussion of relevant
81 topics. �
Matrix Consulting Group Page 160
5-171
C1TY OF CUPERTINO, CAL/FORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
Recommendation Pa9e
# Ri:commendation Number*
The Community Developrrent Department should conduct at least
an annual meeting to eng�ge the development community in a
discussion of general issuE:s regarding permit matters in Cupertino,
solicit input regarding servi ce levels, and seek input regarding
potential changes to the er�abling legislation (general plan,
82 subdivision ordinance, zor.ing ordinance, and building codes). 84
The Community Developrrent Department should conduct an
83 annual and ongoing custorner satisfaction survey 84
The City should require th��t any new ordinance and code
requirements not previous�y imposed will not be enforced on
current construction and f�ture 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 develope��, 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. 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
86 certification to progress thiough the Planner job family. 86
The Planning, Building anci Engineering division-heads should
87 develop annual training pn�grams fo� each employee in the division. 86
The Planning, Building anci Engineering divisions should provide
additional training to incre��se their ability to make decisions
regarding subdivision ordiiiance, zoning ordinance, and building
88 codes to increase consiste ncy of interpretation among staff. 86
Provide not less that 40-hcwrs of job-related training annually for .
89 each employee of the Plar�ning, Building and Engineering divisions. 86
Establish and publish quaiterly training agendas. Assign all
employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their
90 presentation. Bring in out:�ide industry training where appropriate. 86
The Building Division sho� Id implement quarterly training sessions
with Fire Prevention Inspe �tors, Building Inspectors, the Plan
Check Engineer, the Courter Technician, and all employees
involved in the developme�t 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 concem for
91 decision and resolution. 86
The Building Division sho� Id involve the District Fire Inspectors, at
92 least monthly, in the buildi ig code training to achieve consistency. 86
The City of Cupertino sho�ild 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 fiees
93 are appropriately calculatEd and assessed. 89
The City should charge a lechnology fee as a surcharge to its
94 building permits. 89
Matrix Consulting Group Page 161
5-172
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
M Study of the Permit Process
Recommendation Page
# Recommendation Number*
A comprehensive desk ma�wal should be developed for all major
work functions and service:; provided by the Planning, Building and
Engineering divisions. A copy of the manual should be available to
each employee, and updat�:d at a minimum on an annual basis.
95 The manual should be pub�ished to the Intranet. 90
96 The Planning Division sho� Id expand the annual work program. 92
The Planning Division shoi�ld complete a project work plan prior to
97 commencement of an adv2nced planning project. 92
The Planning Division sho� Id publish a quarterly report regarding
98 the status of advanced plarining projects. 94
At the completion of an ad��anced planning project, a final report
should be published good �ind bad aspects of the completed
project, transmitting that iniormation to the staff of the Planning
99 Division, and providing a ccmvenient summary of the project. 95
The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated
100 to advanced planning. 96
The City should charge a z�ning ordinance update fee to enable
the fiscal sustainability of a�vanced planning as a surcharge to its
101 building permits. 96
The Senior Planners shoul�j be utilized as lead professionals within
the Planning Division. This role should be clarified in a written
102 division policy and proced� re. 96
The Mayor and City Manac er should develop altematives for the
consideration of the City C�wncil to avoid conducting public
103 hearings for City Council rr eetings in the earfy moming. 98
The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master
104 plan in the next two years �ising a cons�lting engineering firm. 98
Chapter 7- Analysis of the Plannin� 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 anniially. 102
The City Council and Planriing Commission should conduct a joint
visioning exercise early in ihe process of any updating of the
107 Zoning Ordinance. 102
Planning Commission menibers should be provided with ongoing
108 training of no less than fou - hours a year. 102
The members of the Plann ng 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 activitie� and submit it to the City Council. 103
Amend the Planning Comriission bylaws to clarify the responsibility �
of the Planning Commissicn chairperson to manage Commission
111 meetings. 105
Amend the bylaws of the Flanning Commission to reduce the
amount of time available tc public speakers to the same amount as
112 that provided at City Counc:il meetings. 105
* The page number reference indicates �:he page where the discussion regarding the
recommendation commences, not necessarily the actual page location of the
recommendation itself.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 162
5-173
Ct7
�.+
_
�
�
_
G�
�
� �
Q a Z � � rn r- v � co v a�
N � � � � r- N N
�
� �
Z � -p (Q (6 �,O � I � C
W "d C C N� C N N N� �_ � � �
� � ul O Q' �+ L Q .. � � (Q N N t p � }, .L � .� Q
_ C r--� � U 3��(� � y � �--. Q c�� � N 3 N C U
+' N (B �
� O� � ��� N" N ��� C� 1 J � �_C � tn O
C C Q � � N � � . � � p � � � U N � "�' j � Qj ' N � Q..
� ,� � - j � � -p p � ` C N t6 � c � � V � � p � � ` �,
t_ 3 � o
u� c U � O �
U N O � (6 V �p � (6 C � U +�, C O "� � .«• C�j 'fn �• O "-- �
+-+ � � L C � N ' cA " � �. � � C
1 , G� � � V � � � � 4J G .,��—• •"= � V ~ �+ � ~ U � > � � � O
1� � `_ O � N � � Q� � N N � � •C ip V � �, N �� � � �
� � V � � N � � �' ' (6 � Q 0 :i C N C � � � V V U
Q O (0 � Y �� L O L �� I C��� N� N Q � o • �Q'
(� �- +... !n Q U �, U tA U ��,, C � O � � U � � o C • � � Q � �-
� , c � (�0 U � 'o '= O '� � � "a � ° - - L O � ca
'^ R ' � � � O � O � �: `- N � � � � '� � Q � � m � � � U
V/ �
� � N O W � O V N � � � � C � �� � N (0 O � +� � N �
� p L N � N �- (� �
T � ° c � o � � 'o cv � � • � � F- � � 3 � c � � � �
i■ �� ca p c Q N� Q� � C.L � rn� p N�� � � o
� o � � � N � c � '� ta � 3 � � i0 � � N a � � � � �
�. (O O �
�c � tn N � ip � O � � c � � � � �. � � � O � � � in .N
� �. ` O � . � C t, +�+ O t�9 ` p +• � � � �. � � - Q +��' �+�+ '+' C i, "O �G E
L o �� �,� ���� ����� � �
._ .
ai � � � � � � � � � � o � � c.� ; � � � � Y � c�.� � � N
� ;` H� o c�o U u�i ���� n. � F�— c�a �°_ 3 v�i n�� c� Q U c�i
Z
0 � �
� c� �, � ' L � �, �
� � � . �' � �
c' �� � a ° � �� ��
Q � � L,[ � L L
Q �,:. � >, � p � � _ � � � � O � � � • � ui � �
Q �-' (6 � � (6 � � C � V , �h N � • � .� � � •" � (6 +� �
L t ����� N C C C- > O� ..... >� N � �� Q' C
Z � � � � N � � � � L' � � c � O � V L � a,� � � (�
W C� �, � , �n � .� � 5 � L � a. a� }, � �
= a�i �- ° � c � ° � � � v � � � � � � � � � � � � _ c
� � c� �o'o��E� �� ��� c�,a°"
� � � '� Q � � ° c � � N o c"n � a � � m c �� Y c��u � � o �
c �' � � a�i c �'-'iv o�� �� rnr ��� � c� n.a�= a� E
� .cn -� � cn o � � � :_. �- •- .� � c v +� � �.. � � �
O � o �p Q- � � �- � �' � , C � N � � m U � � C . N � -p U p � � - �� p O
U E Y O � 3 � � •- � O Q � � � O� O C�� N C
V .j `p m "a � ( '� •N � � � � C � U `' � C N � N � > E C � O
W 3 C C � +.. � � � � O � .- � Y > �.. 'C N p �
� p �v� � � � �- (,_.,d O O � � � C � m U � }' C w . U cv � � �
� � �-� �CCn ��F- �vi�� �� E.a a��� �_
x �� �a��a�caa�� �n� :�,�o�� �` ���a�
. � — •— � �
� ��� o3,a��a�� c�u, ���� �� �°� >a�o� aco
�a�» �' � � �L�� v�� � a�a�a�'u�
O � �� °'� � o vi � •� o��—. � n a� �° a�i c a�� E��> c
d �-. o L �- � 3 � � � � c -a � � � �. � o c �- }' o � � ' c
W � � N � � C •� � N � N � � N tn > � � N •� N O � '� '�' � C
J �� c�-�a�,�`�� ��°"° �L�°�3a`��'c��.�'�'c�
M '� V � p '� X (0 N N � � � � � � � � � � � � N � � � (0 O
W � � � L Q N ��.. _ � � U +.-� : N � � � C C C � � � C � .Q
Q �
� � +� (� � Q � � � m � � ,� � �J � � � � � � � � Q � � ,U
H � .� � � � � � � � � U � � � � O '� O � � � "� N .N � O
cA a I (� .� o c�n vi � F- n � � 3 0� U� U m�— c� Q� 1—
�
� �
� x �
Q + � � � � c� ch v� �n � rn
G �
� �
G �
� o
V♦ Z c- N M �-- N M d' � CO
i
5�-174
�
� O � c- N M M
a Z N M c� M M `7 d' �t d' �i'
C ,�
O
� O �
'p N L
� � �
� � C
N
O > •V
�on,3
N � a�•�
r �
_ ��o�
d
� , ���.�
E ,� c�
C +• p > �
'� �' O a'
U o � L �
� � o
c� �o.Na
� � ����
.� �� a�
� � .N���
�
a� � � � cc�o��
(0 — fn U
-� U � (6
O O � � Q. � � �"
� � 0 C � N ��
Q � �� i�
. � �N � W � V �� � � f s � Y `V O Q � �� N � � � O
u� u� � � �\ �... c � � I- � S � -a o L � o �, .c � o � � � �, �
co E°� �� ���3 °c��i u�i c o c��cpc�o �c�a� �'L�aio =o
°- cn � a�i � _c U � � � � u� .o "-' �,: o ca � U ca �- �>_ � Q � -
` � a�� ca a� �'.� o � a� �`� �� � � o -' ��?��Q a�a. o ��-a u� c�
>(p O� O V L � C C C L i_ � N N "� � L � Q U� j �'� C C p�
� � N � � �i � � � -� � O (O � E c�4 � j L � "� (0 C _. � C (d N � N Y � � Q V �
a7 � .«' > � 'a �' N C p) � � "a � � � � (n `- �' � � L N � � � >. � •� � N � �
C vi � � � C � .> � Q � � O '� � {' � 0 (B � — �i "a = � "O � >, O �7 � � � �
O C �C � '� � � m � .� p��p � ( � � N ..�� � N . Q (6 ,C � � �O � "� C (D �C N "� L (U
' a o � � o � � � � E � c � o ca � � � c � ;cn . n Q- ca � � � Q " � �. � >, � � � � �
- ca � �o c� p ._. cn ai � � � p c� c . p � s i > ,� c� �.- � � :._ - a � p � � c9 � a� � �
= v � � � � � � o . � � �.. • �: � � <n o ... c � c� vi � � � Q c� � �
d N � N � �c C � � � L � c0 "� � ci O "� v) N ' � N � � j � .«- O � c
� Q � � � � 7 � C � . � m . ,-' � � O � t ) � � �, O � Q fl- � � � UJ � N p � Y ��,. fB
� � O � cn � . � � � � � � p � � � �- � ( 7 � G � � � cn C c0 � • N p C � N "_' � � "p O C
N �' N C � Q. � �fn +. C `� (II ' "� tn (� �= C � '� L (p �' � �
O .... � "'' O N � � C � �� � � 7 � � t= c0 N � C N � �, N � U � •� - � � .O
� Q � � ' � �- � p � � � � Q O � � � U '_� d � � O � "d � � � � � O >, � � � � �7 •�
� U N (a ,.. >, +. L "� +. � O N "a a � O tn �
� o 'oV.�� N c � . c o� a� c� c rn cni3 �� rnc`��� � a� � c�a c Q� � n�
,.., .- ..c � .. � c o
r c �- � � o � c�a c � C O c � N •� � � ci N � N � V � � -�a � � � N � � � c Y 'u� � �
�a - a� a� `° � � ° u .� Q -� c�i � � :� �� � v� c� � �. rn � ;� � a� �> � a� � s 3 Q ..- � �� � �> � .�
� m � a. � c �.N � c� c� � a� � a� µ- a� co c � o� a� ,� o�. �� � o
:� -a �'� cu ca � .� � � �� c�'v °-a�i� �� ' a�i c � p °� c �c� �� o cv � c � n.�� a� ca
U � s C c? :_. -v O � U'� � rn Q- c c) ` o �p o N���+ c � rn L
� O � (�0 � fl.. � O � u) C L C O � � � � T j �, Q E ' � � U � � �, � L ` � '� O � p� � C ..�
�aj � o — � Q '_ � � � � � p N � � C cn � U .�? C cB "a N � O � � � c � � �
` N� N�� �'_' L� O cn � Q.0 � m�. c) ��� C C N C O��� O L '� �� cn C C �
� � � C � � "' N � N � '''' ? � O � � t0 .� � .s= � � •p � � � � > 0 � �n 0 � 'v p O O � N �• � � >
�n C � j U � �,U (d C j � "a � c/� � � a. � U z} � V Q � � U O � .� � � (0 N •� V U 'a C U � w . O
�(A �� �(n � N � 'C N �.N (a � O ,��, 0 V N •� Q- �� � N � � � � L Q U � .� U � � '> � � � � � � 'U
� F- (a � I- ?i 'O (U I- W O N F- � O a U F- �(B :� u�i F- ��.. ���U F- fB �� O O F- v�i � � H ca u� .�.. H�(d
�
K �
� � N N N M M c'7 M M � M
� V
d
�
O p � N M d' � CO
Z I� 00 d� � � �-- � r � c
5-175
a' o v � � � � � o o'�o o�o �
aZ
�
V � � Z� C �
'� � �� N N �' �> L L
N p � > > R' � �p >' C � ` �
tA �� � S� U� N� 0� Q
C� �- L � C '� � O
� �, � c. � � ��,, (�
O O � L'L. a. � C�`- � N� tn
� � � � N � C - a � O j .0 � U �
>
� � • U � C�� I� �� � O � N� O C
�'' � � N � � � }' N V N M � V 'd C
d � p) Q N� � t: O� C � ��� cB
� � � � (6 .� _� +.� C . 0 � .� `
� � � � O � � � � U .� M � ,L � �
C) �'tn� C�� � a ' ?i Q� ��� L �
w N C� '''' �(6 �� � fU L �> 3 V
� �� Q� � C O a' �� m� O 0 N �
fn � � ' O � a; �+� O � � � �
Q7 � N � ?+ f6 Z' O � +' � � � "� (A
U � O �C C �«- � � .� Q. y � tn 7 (U �, �
�"O � �O O �:_ (p +�
Q � �- � (n (n � : � � � V ��., ?� j � �
m L • C � � p ��,, C � • � ` � 7 � � � � � f/j
� p fn L- C:._ V C � (� 7 C �� � y�
=p 7+ (6 '+. " � R � > U' � � V C U(n V
. � � � � C 'p Q � � � a. � � N > ?� � �.
m � "a � � �U � � O O N �U � I"' L > � C
L � ,�
� � O � � � � O O � � L �
(� � � ^ • � � � C C y �� �
C O � ' � � ca
� � � p) � _ -p Q � L, C � O � O p) � � � � � � � � � L
� Q }, ' � m U
N U� �� � Q ' c0 � s �' � vi �- �� Q L. N > V�(U U � � O � c0
— u `�- � c � o, � c� N� a� >, �. �, fl- 3 � co p �� o a� o Q �
:� c�,u ��,�.� �ca �o�� �� �,o .��� ; � c� �N�
�� v, °��= r- o a� "� o� � ,,o o. �, c� c� � a•� o '> o
� � O C V � >, � � N � � � � �' ` C N c I � �" � V fl- � � cn � � � c � c � �
w+ � � � ;� � U � '- � > C � � � �. C � O tp _ O V C +_� "� � � p O � �
IC U7 � � � p) � • � V � 7 C' +� C 3 ��.. � �' � � 7 � L +-' � �
C � � � � N N � � � � � � � � � � O �' � � � � � �. (�A � � ,�,. � � � U � �
N� c0 � N j �t c0 `- 0 U� �_�• V "O �> A �� U O N O
� � V � � � U O � 'N N '� � N � +.-, � N C� i � � O c � O � � � �U �C � � � Q
��°v� a� c`.v w,� �ca�c ��, z��a� o �a��� '�
� Q C � �- � � ''-� O � N L (p (I � � � L � N N � Y � � � � �
o �- 0 �� ao c� -� � N � > � E �� z , �'N � o ca ��y � � 3 �Q �-cn—w.�
a� � Eo t�
d o�� o���-� � o N �� c � o o� �; `� o���� °� E os ��U� ���c��a
� .� U � � � � p � — � c� — � C L � �, C C w � O � `�- p (� .. �
x N � — N � L •� � (n � V :� `� � > (n � U� •� � � � N � C � � •C � N � +J Q m � ,O
c .� c � � N � � cn o •- � � � �. V c � � � � N •- N c � � c • c � .�
�, O > �p O �. Q- � �- � +. Q C N � � � C O -p "� � L � +. (B � O N L
R �(n � � � f0 � •� � �. � � (D �� Q � ��n � � O � � O � � `.`- U � N '� � �
� �
� • tn � p •- (a fn U' � :� U � N Q � C N � C '� "
� > � � > � � N � � > � C � � Q � > N %'. .� � � � � - p '� .� U +`. C � C O � > � m Q �
� � —� p> --° ` '= � �� C � a � �� �� m C cn � O �".' � a� ' O t
�o °�L�"' � c a�cn °��� � E� �� co� c �� ° o���� a�i c "'' o °"� c �� ma� c
�� u� .� �� ° � � w ° c o .�L� m c� ° Q o = `° z; � c N � c�i� c N � � '� c � � � � � �� a� a�
c «- c � �«- co � :� � � >, c� . � = cv c °� p >..o �' ' � � a� �, a� � � }' � � a�
(B .� � (6 � � �,O N � (0 L ''= N � U � C - E "� c C +� ±' "'' U L N N � ! U • C L (B �
� � c� d (n !n � N C C� � — U O C � � C� Q tlj � �� � � a. � � U � � � � i � U ' L a O
� � ��'> c c� � o� �� ca�� �.N c Q � �� a��� L a� �--� 0 3 3 c �o ��—
.� ..0 C L � N � (D L � �«- � L � �'� L > � .L U (p � � O � � i � � � � � � � � L �
I— � c� I— 3��� o I— .S � H co o�� � � c� cn I— � � f— .E ca �.. c c._ Q Q Q L �.. I— �n a�
#
K �
�, � o r- v �n co co ao rn �n co ti
cv � v v �r v d' �n � ti o0 0o ao
� v
d -
Q.'
� f� 00 � O �- N c+� '� t[) Cfl f�
Z � r- � N N N N N N N N
5--176
� O N M
p� � Cp CO CO CO N N � CO O O O
a Z 00 CO 00 00 O� � � d� c- c- c-
m � � L
� � O
C Y � .� •�
�, � �. � - p 0 � � A
N (0 O L C � � c� +� � � �
ln N 3-C (� N � N 7 C r--I i C
N
� +�-. N � Ul L - � •N C � � Q
O � N C C N_ ��>+ N N O O O.� "� �
�"O C. 0 �p�U � (A f� � C Q�
+, � N (U c!. � C cn p (0 L O (B N
N � O N � � u � O � � � - tn � � � N N � �
r.+ > � � � � (� � � � � - C � (� � C "a �'
� O'� U N� t0 N � N.N N N tn N' j �
� V� N (0�. �-+�+ Q � �' �" N(��� � 0�
�"d Q� N Vl (6 C Q
� � U � �" C ) � � � >, = � � O � O . O
C �� N � � �� p }, cn
U � � � �- �C j -� � V � � �tn � fn � N � L
(n (n fA r--�
� L�� c c -� a� �p �� p c c. c
� p R �> � V '� p m o� m c
r ��� 'cna �Q o�������-�N�a��c�v
� a cv o ?� � °' N 3 � � �' ° � � E ° � o
� c� a� s � a � c�o c�°� �� o� a�`i c�n
N � c � . � � � � � � � � �
� � � � '� -?�. � N � �C � �p O '� V C V '� � ;._•
�� � N C �-"a � p� Q C � C.� � V G
�-+ Q •- (0 E = O N .� C (9 � (n C N �
(� �- � N d � � ( U � � �i (6 � � a � � C � (6 �
N'a > C) � � Q._ .� C � O
� ,� N � L � O L > � �� (�D C � O � � � C
I- o� y F- c. U I- � O�� s c� I- �� a I- ca o
� � � �,�, c
��c p � � Q m o•� cv .� c�i
3 � �
�. a�
c�
o E � �° � �-�° �- � � Y ,� � ° ` `
� c rn�' �c a��c �'� � c�n a � � � E
a,� �� �- o,L � o� N �b 3 a� � � o� �a �� - - ° Q
� =' ' � , tn C � L- � C �- � U � U -�p R Q N � . � -� ul � � � N O �
� ;Q p C � m � - � � (p ``� �- C •� p C U N � � � � C � � y
•� c� N 0 � � � � O � � C � O O j V C (0 � � N I- �' � Q- � �
� > ` aj � C � 0� U � •L � � N � p � � > � cn U U � � O .0
O � � U u�i � C � � � � N � •� � � "D s N � �'� � � a � � � N �
R . m � � N � � � Q L � � � � Q N � � = Q. C � C N '; c "� � L � �
� N � � .� � � N Q � � � O C � � > � (L O � .� � •N � 'N � s � � �
W C � w �- cn O
� 'p) U�� O L Q' C�p� p � �` � fa O � k U O �� 7 m" � ` C U �
� � C O tn u) '~ .� C u) C N p U C C C a "O C �- U �� c G � m
p W p :� � � � -p � W � '� � U � •N -p � � � N � � -� � � cn � � � �
c� -a > o � �- �c �, a� ' � - � � > c � u � �� �.
� c�o ° c' ��� L o .� a�i � Q d.� o � a� c � � � c�n � � a� 3 ' � a�i c��v �
� �..o_ � o • N -
• L ° v � i • c_ ° � � � °' v i � � U N N � � ¢ o c � c c '�°-, � o ° v� � c N o ° c � � c
,... � -o � E c oa c •- o . � � L �._ �E >.o
= a }. a� = c � cv � rn �. >
�'� �a �.n � w' �'�n •�' � a m o� c ��•� c� .� �> p o �>_ c�o c� a_ o N o ���
m p�� c�o cn � ?'p�p� �� n.� � Z cp � c C � �� � 3 � U �� v�i � o
°' •= °' c � v � � � � � � � `°_ c � o u�i ° m � ° �' �' ° m � a cn co � o •� a`� � v�i
c�a� 000c�3vi����='�� �c '��- �c `oc�ai • c U� �oQ
�� � � � � ��•� � � � co E o � � o a o > c �.o � � 'c.�� � �� m � a�
� � ?, �• o'� n. �� �. a� R� �- co v� m ca c a� � c
�.o ��� �v cm.o v ��-° a�i Qa�i �m "t a�a Q-� a,� cn'�� � d u �c•� E�'c
a��>'����c' a: a��• a�� a�`��o� �� �° �
.� � � � �- ° c c � � N a� � � � N � -� N -� ° L � ° � I�- a � � F- 3 d o F��- ° a
F- � o.� a. ca W�- v� � F- � a o� E I- �� I- F- a I- �
�
.x E
L� 00 � �- N CO I� 00
N � �
� O � � � � � � � O O O O
� v
d
�
� QO O� O � N c'7 � �n CO I� c0
Z N N M M M C'7 M M C7 C") M
5�-177
�
a 0 Cfl f� � � � c- t7 � CO tf1 l.f) l(�
Z N N N N c"') c) M M � � � �
C �
L (6
i �' U
�
� � � L
N L C �
� '--' 7 C
'� C O 7
.� � V U
c u �
y - O � L
�+ � Q. C � �
� � C cv O L.
d '
� ` � •V C O
� V C O rn
� � .C.C'+. C
C "" L L U �- N
U o �� � �
� � � �
� o �v� �
n. �=o �
� �. �
ca - v o m
�•° U- .�
�Q c�a��� ��
a� � •- -
�':' �� >m>..� �>,:�
� U o � c� c - o c
+�+ � L � � � U N U
�r' F-N ��QF- QF-
N';;:
• � L m tA � - O O
• U fn C tn +-� �
� � � � �= �' U � � 0 (� L O � Q � N
a N 3� fA O U � � � N N U._' �n �� fA Y � � � >
d' .? � � U � � � � > C � � L .� '_ � � N � � (6 � O m �
C , ' � `� U7 � � Y Q � Q -�p � � � � � � Q � � V � C V � � L C � =
�:+. a� N � ' Q �� � �, E c� �.L � W c0 Q, o��O f O� U u� Y ��
! � •� � � ` O � O O m � � a� +. w U �, O > C 'tn N � � N V -� �
�" �- � °�� � � � � � � ca 5.S a��i ° � � E � a� � `o o ?� � � u� �� �a
c a� � �, .•_. > ca �� �n � c c; ca � a� � � � � � .n — � o
o � � n� � � `o �� a� a`�i �� � ��c � a� �_ �a� •N�L � � mo� �� � � � �
� � � }� /� U L � > � } n �� y� � }� � � n• C � C � � � � � 3 � �y � �.�+•
V W (� m N�L V ��..� � �� � W�.. {j N� Cl L C_ " �� ��.� � �.0 C� L O � Q � L
i � � N �,, � C L � }, 'd '�._ "� � O � �� . ++ fn . � Qj C L � � • � N
� m � �- �- � � V � > C � > L N G .�' � N � � p � s C O C � � . 3 N • (B U
�' � d� v�i C � � � O c � � c O N .� O N > � -y m � � � +. � � •� N � .,_, � � � � V ' �
� � � M ,�, •- � � � .� �,O �_. � a fn N Q- C 'D � C) �"a .� � � (6 � C N — C O O � � � U O
� C�'' -� N t O � � � � y U .c - a U = -a (B � C �_ C = m � � > � W � � � � tA � N v�
v �.� u> � � cn u� �� -�� a� � fl- �� c) c V.� � cn _ � _ r- c� p p � co c t
G� p • .� �}' � Q U �' N O=� p�"'' �, rt; � t4 cA O C� O c ��� Q Q� c U��
-�� � � � � C � "� �- � -� N L � .0 � •-- (O � 7 L O > L (n (B fA � 7 � '- � C
� � � � Q � (6 � m Q � N � L � += � � d C � N Ul � � � C C C L "� C � O
K � Q. �•�? �. �- !- "� " S1 A' U�.0 m O (9 (6 fQ C E
. � � Q C � C (0 C 7 N C y C � � V � � � C �.. � � U U > � .V
� '^ O n,
�� � � � , C � � � C L W • (n .� � C � W �� � N � L � - Q � � C � � � C Q � O [—
� � N � tU C Q (Q � (Q (� � O .� �- C .N O L N � . E � � • � L (6 L � L
� >'D C Q '''' p„ �, fl- �'' >� C>�> 3�. � Q� � Q� � C 7� �� O U• V V�� V V�
� (6 'a � N O �7' � � C �, t6 � ..-. C • C (6 p m Q'_ � • � "� O � � �
p� E a �. c� o,� m � c— � c• � � ��>. �. v� a� c� ' u� a� a� ���� f- �> � 1- �
° c'N ° a�� u�i ��� �c � �'Q� �'� � c�v c? � �v� cn L��'> ��� o�� c�i rn° c�u rna�i�3
c�. Qc c — 3 c£�o� c p �,c—�..a�cn.
� C C L (6 (II O(B C�
C . O O ` � � �w. � � C � � � .O G) �tn O N .� � a � �+� � C . ] � 'D O V "� N ,(�
� �' a'' O �" C U E f�0 p (� _ C (� � � �"' £" �> � N (0 � .Q C C � � •� (9 O �� u7 � • U
d U c�� � � N �� '� � � � O � � � a. � � .0 ci � � N � � u� . c ��-, a. � � � U � C� N � CO � �c
� 'Q'Q � j � C � �� � � �- � � (p � � •� Q .L1 � O U � p � Q C N � U Q N N � N •N - p � � U
L Q Q(0 � � Q� 7 L L p� L 7 C Q i� L� � C�� Q� �� O�� L 7 L�, C� ��
F- cv c� � m a cn � u� F- co � � L F- u� a� cn c F- cn n._ Q:� c� � E I- � u� ,.. H m I- � ca F- �. H
�k
.
,X �
L� � N �' �l ) O V c'7 � O �
� 0 � � N ' N N C`1 c7 M �T V u) �
� �.
�
i
� O � N
Z c- N ('7 �' lf� Cf 7 f� • 00 � � c- �
5-•178
� 0 � 00 f� OO O � ('r � �7 � Cfl O
a Z t.C) lC) CO CO I� CO OC 00 0� 00 00 �
C �
� O
� C
� L � � '= (6
� L � � a �
� 3 � Q � N .0
� � � O C � .�
,; O �
� � � ; � L (0
N� N A N 7��
_ ,�, _ v-. Q O O
Ul O �
— N
w'' � C C �(9 L;�, � fn
G� 7 � O � .•-• C O�
� � � � � � U � �
L j '� � (� c„) �+
� C O�> � � Q� a'' �
U � •- � � p C
U ?�.�� co �a�
� , `- y � � -° � °- � � N
m a � a� „_, '
� � � � x � Z r � � �
..� - a� a� � �. � c �.
��� E �nL� �
� o�' Q ����.c
c N �
�.. 3 � L N p � �
cn u�i �•`� � �� � U U c o
cv Q��� �a� i �- =�w'
a� °` �� U �U�c
� C � U � � N � ` � � t0
(p � N . C O (D � L N � +-.
� U n v� 3 U �- n. ... c� n
c �-' rn a� cn
u� � � o� c � a� c �- ,�
-° � � � .� - o � L o
�c � � a_�i a� �� � a_�i '>� � '� c m °�� • u� � o �� u� -°�
� `° ° ° o �•� � � o � � � c o � • c �. �� " Q �� a
: � � � v }. L �„ -� �. � a , a� • �- - �,,_, c o - a a� � � °� � c a � �- c � °
C � � (p N (6 �' � �.+ C � +-• C � � i Q � L • � � � L � Q. . C � � � � N � ' � �
7 C (II p� a U tn V� p,U tn � � Q� � N.«-. � 0 " C C-O p) O� (II Q N N- Q
� � Cp fl.. •> fn . Q . C �+ +• '+� d C C � �-' = Y L � p � L N N y,,, (6 (�j � � � � � � �
� � � c0 • C Q. O U C V Q. O cd + r c � � cn � V � cn � � •V � � � � N � � � -� -� �
C a � � C � � 'tn � � — � tn d. � � N -� +� c � A � C m O � � � (9 � L. � � � � > O
o Q o 3 `� o-> �-'> �0 °- >_ � oi N�= � � � c c°n +, N c � N c0 .... o � a:�n
�, � �- i � � op N � � op � c � v� v>s: � � � � E � o � �n � E a�a� c � n>
� cn c � �c � � «- o � c � � p • p a •- � o c > • � a
� N �� c O � > N .� � � > N >, �u� � � o C � � � � �� � � }' � c .� � � cv c�n �c � � � �
_ -� V � L � � C N L , • ,
� > C (� � '� � � Q- � .� � � � w � � � ' � >, p � N � V � N � •� � V � � �p` tn Z 'C
� p� +. O C -p V -p tn a V � O � Q- �N S? Q � U+� � �� N�.. � � � �� T� ��
� �- N � C L � � � � � > 7 � � Q L � � '" ;-' Q C � C C � "6 � (n � N C . C ` � j � C
o -aF-�� °� a� n � 3� 3�s 3 Q�— o � �� � � � � � � � coU� � � o a� �i o c -�•
� . � .c �. �, �, � � � o �a � � f: � � Q � � � � .c c co � c E ° c' � a? � � � � c
o�� >�~ �E �' c c�, �•� �� m Q c c� nE a— �-� >.<n c n.o ���- ca w
� N =p � O .N � O y • O p � ' O ,.., "a � •� O N - O +. � � � O C }' � � � N O - �" N � '� � c a
•L � � I- �- tn a .� � .N .� 'N .N � � — � � � � �i > � > � O > (6 � �' > � ' > � N N �n p � O c
�, � m }, � (0 � > L > > � > L � � .� � > Q. () � O N .� � � (d � O L � , Q � � -� V N
� 'u� a� �� o c �� 0 p,� �� . N.� �, s� N z3 p o_ � o� c�o E� a� cn ° ��a .n � n. � c�
>� L � a� rn� � rn� ca N� > >,�'� a� cn,� u� c? �o '� c n.�•` �° �'��
� o� o��� •� o•L� a�.` o� ��� ���s' � o�- Q� � c�� �'� c• �� c ��,� ��`.
��-�_ � �� � o � a�� � � o � o= '' �� ° � � � � c � a� �'>-� � f° � � L a� a� om
c � � _ � � � .-. � .. O � Y L O � V — � L C � � � � � � .... N �- N V -p O � � � j, p � � �
C ;� � N L � � C cn � � � V � •� ,.r N � O . U � ,C � (6 � � rn _ � V � � � p `� � � ` _
� � � Q 3 � uj � � Q7 � � � � � � � c � ,� = 1] 0 "� � L � U Q..0 C � � p j , cn Q tn Q O C
� c�0 � O t� ��n C u� C�. •� � cn � f0 N O N' 3 O� O t�, U � O"O "� �<n C U ��� � � C�'� 'C
m y � > � O V � � � N � � � � � � •` N C Z3 N � +`r � C N � j (B (Q � C � � � � � � �, .� � � (�
L � U N p L � � � L � V L � `' � c � � L @ {- t �-.� O N L O N � � O � � � O � tn = � � —
F- ca U 0 f- � I- F- o � I- a� � Q o s��� c i I- ca a � I- �� ���- fl- � I- � cn W ca o.. Q c� �
*k
x
�� N d' � O � 00 C� � N M O �
�� � � � CO CO I� C� CO 00 0� � d�
� V
d
�
0 M � tn CO f� 00 C) O r N M d'
Z c- e- � � � r- c- N N N N N
5-179
* M
a � � � � �
Z �
�
�
C �
U�
�
��
c �
� o
� �
N �
r � �
_ �
E O .�
��
� � .c
O 0
U °- c�o
� � o
� ��
� � 3 �
��
a� :a
� a�
� c
� � �
co a� a
� Q a�
Q .� c
� � c a� � U
� � w � �
c �.
c � a� 'c �
ca � co ca •,_. s � � �
o }. �
� � � � � o o c o
— c
�, N `� 'p � C U f0 }=
O � � � Q O � � �
Q F- � �- fn a--' (Q �
G � ln � � � � � N �
� � N p C(6 L p 'O f0 tn
:ir L f0 � C � `� > fl- -p
1C U �
.Q (� N (9 -� . C � � C
= N fB }; C fl- C+' fl Q(D
°� ° �� O ��� --°�
� �. � c ::. � a� a � c �
E ° ���o�� c �>
p � c� n. � to rn•- c ��
C1 - (0 � i � � � � o � �
� j C t � - (9 � � ,� O �.
C Q
�� Y C C f�A C'�''' tn �
'` � � � @ N � � � � N ' �
� � � � a C O � "J C O � �
N �
� � C
� � C N 'C > O � � C � � N
.`
L � .Q � (6 � � 0 � � fl7
tn (0 � (n � Q � Q Q- �-. � �
��� � p L N� O C 7
C"� � U� U f� � y -- fp (d N-
N�"� � V N� Q � � d� C
� 7 �"� � Q�� � � Q�
N Q L� N }, � 0 f�,,U �.0 � O
�� u� I- - a Q L c� u� cn F- � U
�t
x � �
rn °
R p ° � �
� v
d
�
o � � ti
Z N N N
5-180
� a
0 0
0 0
c c
�' ` c c c c c c c � �
a� �
a� E E E � E � E �
� a�i a a� a�i a� a� a� � �
�. � L L L L L L L �.., ,y
V � � � � � � �
U U
� ��..
� �
� �
w �
C C
�
�
Z ti ti ti � N N c'7 c'7 M
. �"' r � �1 N N N c') M
' �
a
,;
: �
� � � �
� �
d o '� �
� � �.��o�
�a�� c
c � ��L��
� �•����
,, , O � rn a� o� rn >, a� u � 3 u� �
� � c c c � � c ! ��
a� � ca co cu cv cv ����°
� � c�i � � � � � � c 3 � o�
' m U c�i c�i c�i c.�.� L v v �¢���
�. ,,.., c c c c � c c �� �
� w- ca co c� cn co co Q� v� Q- � �
� � c c c c � c c �.. � a� v >
E ��-�
+, tn � - a � � •o a � . >, � - iu �o
° O O O O n. O O �'�' - � cv
;� u� v� v� cn cn cn �n ��' a`� 3 rn v�
� N N N N � � � N;_, �- p� c N co
d 7 � � � � � � (6 � C •� O V �
Q � �' � � � Q' a' � � _ � � � �
E � � � � � � � � QOw� UC�
.....�.��. L . -���� .. .
O L
�' . .. V 0 � 1 a � � 0 Q� Q�
'� N C � � � U � � +., > - N
d �� � "� � � � � f 2 f6 �+. � N m � � }. U��
. ;«. � � � � �. 16 v� tn � C � � � � cB ca � �
> c4 � f6 "O � �._, Y "� ` C � L �. � O � �
� �- � � N , . -_ A. C � � L � i � � � � C U � � (0 V O O "a ' � � � cn
� Q cB L (6 � � � � - ��- � (0 O �. m Q O rn .� � fD � � �
c � -� +. U �. � Q L � a 1- � � � Q � (0 �- - C � tn -p � !n
._ � O � � `p � � 'a � � � N .�?� ... ct7 c �" • c � � � �' c � � cB � c6 C � C
� L` � �,,,_, � V� p V"a cn �- O Q�i p "a C c "� N+ �� V N tn p
Q C p N �� r- C O. C C���� � N O `� � p� N p � L (�0 �(B N� U.
� Q .a � O O ,� O s -p L �+ � • +� �, +� C � •-' V � O �
U �+ � E .� V � � u) � C L C +� � y � � (U �' � � U (9 �' O N >, � � += N
N ca N�> Q ca �— � cn p t n � — N � U� �, U U•� N�n L� U Y �
L � U C� O� O p U(n � C •t a � � O (n Q O p� Q.. �- O> V C�.. w C-a O
= O N ui � L � � C � O O -� �n � �. O Q `� +. a. p„ •- p � • - � , �
•� �/� L � � -� � �. Q� � �-- � � C `� � Y Q Q � � (n � (� � 4- . � � � �
'� .. . � : Q++'` L� � � Q. Q. 0 �H � .N � s � � O � � � � � � � }, � � O (� � 3 �
� � � a'�� -_�v � a�i>,�c ���`? N � a�i c`v o U� c�� U� �� o a�.v ��
p �" c c��' °Eo' > c� ..., ccBOC� co cQcna�
N C(6 �"a O N � 3 �� O�+��,.� �+-� cpw tn• Q O
� � � •- � p � � a U '�n � � >, i) � o •-, .c " � � ca cn �- � �, � .� � � U �
� � E `� .� � C O L � � U ... C ) p� cn � -° .�.. � • L a) rn � � L - � .. � � w c �
x � U �N V N �n O V � > cn ,� � `p :�. .� � � � tn � 3 � � (a . c � � � N +. p N (�B
� a�i �� � c�a .� m � v�i ', o � ° �� � Cj � � o o a�i ,� cv � � � a� co u� �co � � � � � E
�v �� �� �� � �� � � ° � � t° n .�� °-- no' n c �o � Qo o cn � o
� `�u�a�L �>�� {-��- o�°� a.� >' m� o�='�•� onrn�'�n ���
� �� ��, c °��' E a'a c' �.� �� a- c�v c�� a�i c� � o �> m c�L a�
� � m O O � � ,� , C � - �. p� ;«-. L 7 "Q �p Q -p � (O "� (n Ul O L
��� Q c V V j�'� Q c6 �,� ,� � c � O c� vi � � N c�� p cB "
cn a. `- "a C c` O.L 'a � E- � p� C � �� N'� L C C p O� Y 'O c
>, � c0 � _ Q U � � "a � C ) � � L � � }' N O (0 � � +J .-. �
N C(6 y- 7 +--� � C� � Q C.., uJ Q•N p� � N� >��
�' C L "_ � E ,�? ' Q � A � C ^` � C � 0 <) � } / ( � a Q - p � 1 � 7 � O (� � � \/ � O tn .� � N N a'' c0 N
. . U ��� � a � C � L W � 4� N t� � L L3� L W � � L.� � L ^` L � U � y�
� u� o o�� ����. cz o o � �� E o a�� � �� �.��'� ca
L � N � L � � � L C N N � � N (7 � � t �C O � � � � � Q.� � � �N � � �N . � �
� n. �}. F- a� U I- cv cn n cA � ,. H � f- E c F- � ��... cv v� � �� co ._ � c� . �. �
": E
L o �- c� co �
+�' o�# co I` ao c A
� � � .- N N
' � d
�
', O
Z r- N M • t t1� CD f� 00 O�
�, �, V �, > >, �, �+ A A A
� � �
O O � O O O O O O O O
O O N O O O O O O O O
� � 'N C C C C C C C C
i� L C L L L L L t L L
�' a�i a�i �j a a�i a�i a a�i a�i a a
� H � -� � � � C ~ C C �
� � � �
�.. � � ca � � � � � � � �
� �'"� '� U U U U U U U U
U � � � � � L L L L L
� � � L L L
� � � � � � � � � � �
� � � �1- V w � �'��" � �
� �
� V"' � � �
� � � C C C C � C � �
� - N � _ � � � �
L.L
#
� .
Z l,(') � !-' l- N c'� M
M <� t7 l�C) � f� I� I� I� f� I`
�
a
� �
a� �
� m � � E � v
� c= �
� o _ '3 Q � a >. io
.� o
u��i`�'�� ��� �
� C � � +.. O
.� � � Q- � � � r- � �
C � N�. C dj O s (�
� = Q � y- � . C � T ..r
> .«-. N 3
E ��� uJ C C C'x L �
� � L � O 0 � -p O � � �i `
V p ( V O � p �'� �� u, � C O
O �
� �� c o E� a��- � E c a�i a� a� a� a� a�
" � � �oo�Qc�i�.� o 'o 0 0 0
tn o o c � � � a� E ,r a� • �, � � � � �
� � � � c o � � � N � ,� 'a � .� co ca cu cu c6
�n � � � � (a t�n� � � � t � � 3 "O � � N N c�4 c�4 (B
N
� � �����n���� a������ a� a� a� a� a�
E E � �� o c.� .r �.,r �� a� � a � E E E E �
� � � o �— o�, c.� co R o n��� co c� c� ca ca
cn cn � c� O ia �. cn .S � U. c���� cn cn cn c� cn
� � � � o N � O ••-. N � o � � N
� L E � '++ � .� C O � ��;`= fl- U) .� N L L U C
• � � +_. � (6 (0 �, � N O O � ''' ''"' � � � N � � � C O
mca�oE ����o - c� �� �va� >°•°— v ` �
�'���� c�c�.� °' c �u E°� .��'� ���?Q-v� �
�rn�- �.�'ca�°�' � � �co ��°c �a..�o�...��ca �> �
� � c ° � � v� ° � � � c o -� � �L � �, � � N � Q � � a� .�?
�_.� C ... E (9 Y U �tn (n � "-' � � � -� tn C Q �- +� � .? O
Q a�� a-. >. N(� N O� � � «�-. �J � �� � C N� p Q. fl- ��� V �
�' c� E a�i� °'� c 3°' �� o a� c r�i� � o°� �:«..� a� N' >.� >
� ul t .� � �tn � ?, (d N � O � C .-: cn � t � N N � t17 � � � � � � � Ul � �.
� � � � �� � � � V � N � t�n � U N 'N �``� � O 'C t�n O � � �� O � N
N
(0
� L �� C�, � �� N'� "d C tn ''-' C L ' �� Q. C� � C �� � U N t6 +'
G � � � � ,� j � � ��.. � � � C +� � C ;� � . � +. .� � U �. fn � � �
� C E C N C� � L C �D � '� � "� O L�' �'a N a V y.Q �+_ C
°— �� � o cY o.rn o.� �L � > � � � � E � � a� n�,� °�3 cv
C� cn �, ... � � N' U � L U O+� O � � � c �- N?? � t (0 +� C
� •� � � � � � � � N C N � � � N c �n "p 'D (� � Q (p a � > +-' V N � � V �
�C "a � � � � (n � � � C � > � N � O p� � .� � � -� � � � � c • � �
'L � V � N C N N O 0 � � O � O � � � C C C � ,�- � •N �, � � � ` C �
� O N .� L � C +' � � _C n '� O fA � f� . c�n u � �.-. � � (II � � � � N � � Q � E CO
� � �� �� o � � o � L > � �� � > � � � ��� � �Y-� E�� c � i .� . a�-�
� C L � +' '"' 'a � Q tA � � � L � = •'= tV `- -� O O O � > (p � O tn �
� � .0 p O � f6 � � � � �+- — ,-� � O
o a� � a� E o a� �> a� �''� rnn �� � ��� °- c�o a�. ro s n.° ca ca� u� � a�i
� a� �' �-' c L� rn��. c� c � a� a� -a - a .� � v� cn � E a� u� }'
cn c� v� a� o u� p o�� �� � v c ��- Q- � a� c N�� c� ��' � ��° c �>, >,
� °� � > °� • c � c'''v � vi � := •� � � rn rn � iu � N N ,-. � c •'= � ca � � � p = (A
U�j � ��-' U�� o��= a� m '� m c c �� Q � c o�� o U� ca � U
a� o =v � � �
�� � � o E �.. � �. � � � �� a�. . ° ° a� o o� � � a� �, n� � � a�i�
r c � � � N � � � � Q a� � p � � � � � — � s `- � 3 u�i I � I— w c�o � F- � � I— �
H ca .� o L _ I— �.n Q cts ._.
K �
� �� 00 N N I� 00 N c� � � CO I�
N M � � �' CO Cfl CO CO CO CO
� d
�
O p � N ('7 d' � CO I` 00 � O
.. Z � c - r � � � c- � c- � N
�, �, �, �, �. �. �, �, �, �.
rn � m rn rn m rn rn rn rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` � L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � �
c c c c c c c c � �
� � _c L � � � � .� � p 'o o'
U U U U U U U U U U U U U
�i' � � � N � � N � � N � N N i,
� � �
O � N � N � N N N � N � � � �
�� L L L L L L L L L L (n (n (n
�{Q� � �� +�+ � � +/ �i rt�-� � � � 0 0 O
� U U U U U U U U U U U U V
� � 7 � � � 7 7 � 7 � (n fn
� L L L L L L L L L L ^` ^` ^,
U) UJ U) U> UI (n UI U) U) U) VI LL/ Y/
N N N
N ( N � N N N � � � � LL, LL
.� � � w w � � �.- � �
. � C C C C C C C C C C
*'
�
Z I d' t17 CO CO I� I� 00 O� � O � d� Cfl oO
ti ti � ti ti ti � � ti � � � � �
�
a
� � �
� � �
N � � �
C Cn � �
d
� L� Ll� L�
O ` ` `
V o 0 0
� � m �
� > > > > > > > > > � � � 'a �
N � � � � � � .Q � � C C C C —
N tB N N N fB (6 (0 N � w � � �
� N N � � N � N N � N N N
N (0 t0 (0 (6 (6 fB N (6 � N � � .0
N � � N N � � � N
� � � � � � � � � � a' � � �
N (0 N f6 f0 (0 (LS (U (0 � N N N O
� � � � � � � � � � � � � V
� � � �
>, � � p (D �
'� � L � � O -� � p� � cn > C
N � � N � � N N � 0 C •V � (0 � � L � � C m
L L S L fl- � �` � � N Q � �� L '� � ,� p„ L � • � �
, --° -a --° � � � Y ° � � c o o �- �: � � 3 c a � � c�o � � ai
0 0 0� o�c ��N�- �°i� �� a•���- co �'Q �°>�
� � �� � a�� a��n- ��ci o� -a��� �n oc�_
� +.. � cn L tB �- �- N ca �� N O U
� � � � � � � ,> � � � � � +�_-. � ; ) "� N � +• � � � � C (�j > " C
.0 � � � � � � C � • L � cn � � N c 3 Q C � � � > cn v� C � "� C� O
� >+ >+ >.rn >+(����a���''E(0 c"� �� � a���a� �, '�> - °�U
_ �n cn �n co �n co � ? � .� � ° o - > co `= `' '� o o c�o � ° .�
d c c c� c� � Q� �� � rn .�: cB "- i 3 �� � N� o� o �,� L U
� � � �., � � �tA �-� N �- � � N � E u� �° o a� � 3 � c c � � N �U
co m cv c� w� t° �� ca o<� �, ,.-. Q a� E� cn � >. L
p � E E� E�c�,o�c ���Cc� •--c�s_ c �L• c c� c;=•� a�U�
V L. L� L N �. +. �� 0.� O Q 0 � �� y j `� !_' Y � Q. N� � N� N �� (A
� o o c� o�o ��3 >. �n c� �� a� �v o a a� �� co E o a, �, �� c� c� �°- c��'
� c . c V c Q . c � � cn � � N � � V � �a `-_ � L a� � c x -� N � � .� � ca w ��
u y.J _ � �+ ^` +J �..� '� � O 0 � � O � � N V � L � O Q � � � � � � � C � O �
L (n � + f/7 — .. L " (n C �
.L O � ca � O,� N C� C >�_�, � C N � N N (o � >,
,,_, E � E �. E . E `t c u� cv . c o o � _ � -� E � a� � cn � _c � '� �. o s
R � � a� � N � ui N � a�i a �. N c v� �. � a �s .i 3 � � � � � �� � � cn � � v N � U � .� m
� �� �3 Qo o Qc � �'� � ° o � o -� o �o °�� �° � n.� c o � -� Q � �v �, � ��,c
�����°��°Y��a� oa��� o Uv�v�i� o� o;�o ���-`o
(6 (B � (� T N � "� (0 L (0 L � " .0 � L v- C �i . (6 � C � ... L Ul
���cu E�° �v�� cn>,�uo�n� cn oca-�u» v�� cnLa� oo°'�
0 0 � o c� � o � � � .� c a� � �a� >, �- �_ �. �, �_ >. a a� � � >. �- >. �. rn >, - >,
�-.� (n 0 +. Q L �, � � U ._ L (6 L !� +� �_ � ±.+ � �. �.. � � � = � �= N (6 (0 V U `_
� cn � ,r � � �o � � c� Y � «_ ... � � U c . r � U r U U � � a � U U � � a� � cv
.� �� a��� � ���� �, � �-�a�
������co��- � a� a�. ��� a�= a�co� ���a�
�.`��L�o�L_��`�-�o'n�'o����� .� ��>c�cv � Lc� soo�
I- 3� ca F- .� � I- .._. Q � m Q Q c� u� �n 1- ... ,3 ._ �- �. I- F- � a� �n � F- � I- a� �n I- .� �...
K'� �'- a0 � O � N M V' t[) CO I` M � � M
R�� C� CO I� I� I� I� I� f� f� I� O� � � O
� d
� . �.
� � N M � t() CO f` 00 � O
Z N N N N N N N N N M c'� M M C'�
i
m
�, C
O � � L L L L
W W � W
� � . � � J-- ti L ..
U � � � � � O.
� Z N o�0 � �
�"
�
� �
C
+-i � � � W � (� y L �
� O
* � Q � � 0 � � � � �
0 N N tn � ��� Q t0 `� �� Q- Q� fn O �
Z � O O O O ��+-� O .�? � 3 p A Q cn 3 � C
• � � �- � �- � � � i- Q — U �, � � � • � p
� � N cn � � �" � � V = cn "� � �«- � N C �
C � � � � f� � U � � ' N � � � fn Q-
L y o> u� � N�' �= Q� cn C 3�� N
� C. U�"p O�j O 7�.� p C
� � � Q N � C �- � C N N � � -p O
(U Q (6 (� � N � p � � � U � � L f �
�
C ,,.._ L � C "� > � O � �
� V V j O'C C ���'a �� C� V N� O>
� •- � cn � O V -� cn � Q p � � � � �
+-. � !4 � C Q'� 'p O�, '� >� C t� cn
� � � � � �°a���oo.� a�i�
a�i � 3 3 u� �- E��°-�c�o
� a co cv � rca� �?Y� E���Eo� as�a�
� � >, >, � � � o � 'Q � v� o � >, ca o � � � a� � �
U o 0 o U� c � c�° •`—' �� o � ��," � ��� �
�� o �.�=a�o
,� �. w. a� �, ca a� c� � a.� �-' u� � ��- n. c�
� m � � �•�rny��Qa� �cn°-ca�� ��
ca c rn rn � c� cB .� c� a. cu � Z ca � Z co ���:� �
� � c c :
U U � L �
� O O D U -� �
� d � � N 4� - a � �. m
u� N �+
L •V •V � � � C C � � �
�� c c �� �
O � � � •� �
� C � � � Q' � � '+. � > C
�'d U V � Q' C� � U � Q � m �
d p — � Q `p .� �
� � = U � � `� � �--' �
� `� �O O 7 uj . . � . .�. w+. � � C � L � � O Q
O (p � T
� � N L o � � �' � � �� -a ° � n� " E
3a, o � .�L �.�,.�- � _c �co� �,� �•v�
c � � :� c c�
��, � �� ,�Q oo� =.' ��d ��o �'QD � ^` ° �o
O � � O O � .� � � � � L � Q }� W Q �
n c � � � U -� ' � �U � � � N ,� � �'� u C
N� N C� O V u� �� v � O U E �� N N
c y N E .'v� .� u� o � Q o � �� N� p -a � c N
� �� E_N�, �'�n E�V x a�io .a?Q-� ��� °—'c
� c�c o�'��ai �n o�� , �� ca,> �-°— ��
-� Q ' u� U � � � � � � V Q .�... ' � o c a� � cn � �'
� � � rn� o � � rn� � �� �'c� � � ���
� -��' �c�aU��oo � °-c � v � `�o �oc�a� -°`o �o
� a�i c n m���'�nU �' � o �" �.. � � c o N
a � >. ca ca.S �0•�' v�c c�o �� � � c�i a�i � �u�i � � �
x c :. a� � �•-.
� v� o � N c � ._ a� a � '> � � '- � Q c �
� c3 a��c��u �`�O �° Q�o �'_ o�
x � •. � u � a, �' �o ° cu E � 'ca Q c � � o U � .� U �� �
�
: •� N � � 'c N � d c a c�u t`�o .� � a� � a� � � � �? a�
ca �� ���.� N C N•� ��� � s 0 F- � n.
� W /A a v- .._.
N � C � ln � � fn
f0 '+� f6
�� � C E C c O(0 O E ��..r
`� � +-., � •- a. � E � o � YC �
a� �� o � o o .� .
•- —
�. �
c � ,L U o U � ' � L � U s � � � � �k � ° r ° � �r
� �- � � U � V -p �' u> N �' O
a C � � � � d
W�� U � U ��� O c0 C N �
� �' C � C � "� N Q C � � �
N N � � �
�- � � � �U F �U N Q � � Q � � . 0
: Z � N C*') �t
'L � �7 CO 1� �- N
� p�$ O O O � �
� � � � � �
�
�
Z M C'�� c'�7 �M M
5-184
�
�
.«.
U
(U
� �
L
� ...
Z � �'
� �L
� �
a �
�
a�
U
� � N
� ], C
"' � � N 'n O
O'� y O � C
U � � � � � � �
� O U p >, U
N
� p � � � � � `p N
�+ � U ��.+ (D � � � + ' C
� (6 N � � "� N Q � O" �
� � � � � O � � U p p
� C N � � `
� � (d � O � � N � C
U �. � � C (p � (� � .0
� � :� � � � j, O .� � �
� �
r O ui ���� Q� � N
N Q � � � � o � Y � �
�+'� � � C M � � +-� �
�� N Q U L � O
� � O U
��� Q�� � "a N
. . (� .0 L tn fn � � C
� � O 3 � O � � � �
N +�
Q. � C �i .0 � C U �
C �
� '�
� L
� � � � � �
� � � � � �
� � � � � �
�
V _ p O" � O
� � ' � � �N
(� � C L N
C 'a �. :... O �
C� � I n++ 3 `�'�
G O o � E '-
� a N�
c c �.�-° N
N �+� C� �N
� � O
� (0 p V t6 . ` L
.o ��L� �
� �Q�c� �a�
� � o � a�i c Q
� � x
x � c }, L
.�. a� � � o : �
ca � c � '�- m �-
� - a a� � .� g cn .�:
� � � .� � �? a�
.� .°� � � ai � � �
� ��cnca ��o
�� � —
� � �� a•—�
U� L c c � v�
� -� � �� ... � � C
F- �U N � � � � �
� � �
� N ` O
C
i � � � �
� O �t op � � N
� y C � .
, , � N C v-
� N �
� � O
� � Q. �
Z N � V
� �
I ' � � � �
O ~ * �
Z � N �
5-185
. Attachment 4
OFFICE OF COMM 7NITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVEN UE • CUPERTINO, CA 950"14-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FA� (408) 777-3333 • plannii.t ��cupertin.o.or�
CUPERTINt?
PLANNING COMM=[SSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 1 ' Agenda Date: A�ri113, 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 orga:lizational efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Comnission provide input and ideas for
implementing the recommendations in the Management Study of the Permit Process in
the City of Cupertino, prepared by Matri;: Consulting Group (Matrix Study), for the
City Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group wa:; asked to conduct a comprehensive
organization and management analysis o:� the development permit process and
operations. The objective of the analysis �vas to identify opportunities for enhancing the
quality of the City's permit services and i=nprove organizational efficiency. Matrix
began their research in March 2009 and c<�mpleted the study on November 5, 2009 (see
Attachment 1).
The study used a variety of sources for it� analysis including: customer focus groups, a
survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the
City's website. They then compared Cup �rtino's permit processes and organizational
framework with other comparable cities � nd best management practices in the industry
and made a list of recommendations to iniprove 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 followin� categories:
• About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented and/ or
require minimal adjustments.
5-186
CP-2010-01 Matrix P-oject Update Apri113, 2010
Page 2
• About 22 percent of the recommendati��ns can be implemented administratively and
are being currently being implemented
• About 35 percent of the recommendati �ns need Planning Commission review/City
Council action in the form of Ordinance/Policy amendments or funding.
• About four percent of the recommend�_tions should not be considered either due to
inconsistencies with City policies/ dep�irtment functions and/ or potential liability
concerns; and
• About four percent of the recommend��tions 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 re�:ommendations have been divided into four
main categories to provide a context for d.scussion:
1. Ordinance/Policy Amendments
2. Infrastructure/Technology Improvem�nts
3. Fee Amendments/Cost Recovery
4. Other Misc. Recommendations
1. ORDINANCE/POLICY 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 allo•N a wider range of projects to be approved
administratively subject to codified perfo�•mance 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 rez�iez�� authority for prc jects
The Matrix report notes that Cupe�•tino's development process requires more
levels of review when compared tc� similar cities and recommends that the
approval authority for projects be :;treamlined.
Staff conducted a high-level reviev� of approval authority for projects in three
� local cities that have a good reputation for efficiency: Mountain View, Sunnyvale
and Santa Clara (see Attachment 3I. These cities also share similar community
characteristics with Cupertino and often compete with Cupertino to attract
5-187
CP-2010-01 Matrix P roject Update April 13, 2010
Page 3
economic development including c��rporate headquarters, hotels and retail
centers. The survey showed the fol�owing results:
■ Mountain View has the most efficient development approval system,
followed by Sunnyvale and San :a Clara. Cupertino's process is the most
involved and is ranked last in tr e survey.
■ Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara allow staff level approval of
development projects that can b� approved with CEQA categorical
exemptions. Typically, the thre:;hold for a categorical exemption is infill
projects on 5 acres or less, and irt non infill areas non-residential projects of
10,000 square feet or 6 units. CL pertino requires Planning Commission
' review of all new development �rojects regardless of size and Council review
of development over 5,000 squa �e feet of commercia1,10,000 square feet of
office/ industrial, and eight (8) r�sidential units.
Recommendations provided in Att��chment 3 for the Planning Cornmission's
considerations include adoption of the CEQA Categorical Exemption thresholds
for staff level review.
(ii) Reducing noticing requirements
The Matrix report identifies that thf� 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 ,ecommendations to reduce noticing
requirements while still meeting th�� need for the public to be informed inclucle:
■ Stop requiring R1 projects to m� il 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 rf�quire 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 w here 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 Consisten�
Staff recommends a comprehensive re��iew of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency
and the use of tables to reduce repetitic�n and optimize readability The Sign
Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Specific staff recommendations
include:
■ Codify the Planned Industrial and Off ice (MP/ OP) zones in the Zoning Ordinance.
This section is currently used but not �:odified.
5--188
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update Apri113, 2010
Page 4
■ Incorporate the West Valley industria. 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 �ind Neighborhood Commercial (CN) uses
and standards.
■ Clarify and cleanup definitions, perm itted uses, parking ratios, daycare policies,
etc.
The Planning Commission may provic e additional input and suggestions to this list.
Once the City Council authorizes the C>rdinance enhancements and process
framework, staff will bring back specific Ordinance revisions for the Planning
Commissiori s consideration and recor.lmendation 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 ha:� been updated three times. These plans need
to be updated, made consistent with tr.e General Plan and enhanced with formats
similar to the recently adopted Heart cf the City Specific Plan. Staff recommends
updating the following Plans as time �ermits to be consistent with the new General
' Plan with updated formats and graphi�s:
■ North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan �
■ South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan
■ Monta Vista Special Center and De �ign Guidelines
■ South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Concepi ual 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. INFRASTRUCTURF�TECHNOLOGY IMPRO VEMENTS
One of the high-priority recommendation� in the Matrix report is the implementation of
a new automated permit software system.
(a) Online Permit S sy tem
While our current permitting system allows applicants to submit basic information
online, it does not have features such zs, online submission of applications and plan
review. As a result, online permitting can 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 per�iitting and reduced its support for the system
we currently use. The combination of c>ld software and reduced vendor support has
resulted in increased staff time to trou �leshoot and monitor even the small number
of online permits (currently, about ten vendors use the system). Matrix recommends
implementation of a new permitting s��stem for Planning, Building, and Engineering
services.
5 -189
CP-2010-01 Matrix P�oject Update Apri113, 2010
Page 5
A new online permitting system will ir.crease customer service by allowing
applicants to submit applications and ��lans online, staff to check plans
electronically, and customers the abilit:� 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 d��liver 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 ;�roject information within a geographic area.
Based on discussions with Matrix, perrnit software providers, our Information
' Technology Division and cities that ha��e 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.
(b) Infrastructure Improvements
The Matrix Study also recommends red �signing the permit counter area to improve
customer service. Some ideas include provision of a Help kiosk/computer where
waiting customers can access online inf��rmation related to City services. Another is
to redesign the area to add a customer rleeting place where staff can sit down with
customers to discuss plans. The curreni 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 forwa:-ded to the Council.
3. FEE AMENDMENTS/COST RECOVERY
As is common in other cities, Matrix recc►mmends 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 prcvide for additional development opportunities
and keep the City's document current. "Che City Council has expressed an interest in
recouping some of the costs for such pr��jects. Many cities have included the cost of
long-range studies in their development Eee 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 Pla�l. Staff is recommending incorporating about
25 % of the cost into the current fee schedu �e.
Permit S�stem Improvement Fees
As mentioned previously, the cost of a ne w 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 ov �r a number of years). The Matrix Study had
5--190
CP-2010-01 Matrix P:�oject Update Apri113, 2010
Page 6
�
recommended a technology fee of 4% sinc e that was typical for cities such as Los Gatos,
Santa Clara and Mountain View (proposecl FY 2010-11).
The City Council will review the 2010-1"'_ fee schedule recommendations on April 20,
2010.
4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
There are other miscellaneous recommer dations made by Matrix relating to Planning
Commission and City Council bylaws a�ld communication that the Commission may
wish to comment on.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate P1annE r
Reviewed by: Approved by:
�
G C ao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Matrix Consuliing Group's report titled, "Management Stud�
of the Permit Pr��cess," dated November 17, 2009
Attachment 2 Summary tab1E of recommendations in the Matrix report
with staff comrnents
Attachment 3 Comparison cr.art of permit processes for various cities
Attachment 4 Online Permitting System Features
G: � Plnnning \ PDREPORT � pc CP reports � 2010 CPreport � CP-201 )-01 PC 4-13-10.doc
5•-191
Attachment 5
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 April 13, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, secon�l by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3-0-0, Coms.
Giefer and Kaneda absent; to a�►prove Application U-2009-08, ASA-2009-08, TR-
2010-08 and EA-2009-11, with 1 he added conditions that the separated sidewalk
end with the new constructio:i on Franco; and if not, replace the existing
landscape that goes past that; tliat the second drive-through be allowed and that
the applicant will work with st:iff to make it work as best as possible; and that
Planning Commission recomme nd to City Council that the BMR fees be reduced
or eliminated to encourage tb e development of the property; and that the
applicant be given a credit for i he 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 ;o enhance the quality of the City's permit services
Citywide Location and organizati onal 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 devel �pment review process including operations of the
Planning Department, Building Departrnent and Public Works. The process entailed
interviewing customer focus groups, surv :y of city staffs, review of the development review
process, and the permit data and city's w �bsite. They also did a comparative study of other
comparable cities and also looked at comrr.on Best Management Practices in the industry.
• The recommendations to improve the Cir�'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 recommenda� ions from Matrix that require Planning Commission
review/City Council action involving eilher ordinance/policy amendments and/or funding.
The four categories are: (1) Ordinance/Po icy Amendments; (2) Infrastructure/Technology
Improvements; (3) Fee Amendments/Cost Recovery; and (4) Other Misc Recommendations.
1. Ordinance /Policv Amendments:
(a) Streamlining the Permit Process
(i) Adjusting the Review Authority fo�� Projects:
� Matrix spent a great deal of time ana yzing how the city's process could be streamlined.
Their recommendation includes adj�zsting review authorities for projects; the study
identified that the city's process is nc►t 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
recomrnendations in the staff report. Staff is also recommending use of the CEQA
categorical exemption thresholds to d�;termine if a project requires staff level approval or
going on to a higher body for review. Recommendations are detailed in Attachment 3 of
the sta� report.
(ii) Reducing Noticing Requirements.
• Matrix acknowledged that many of 1he notification requirements exceed the minimum
State requirements; specifically staff i;; recommending the Planning Commission consider
minimizing plans being sent to adja�ent neighbors or those within 300 feet for their
reviews, and looking at notifying the g eneral public more efficiently when there is a larger
item. It is also recommended not to rrail R1 plan sets to neighbors within 300 feet radius,
but provide a link to the City's website where the plans could be posted.
5-•192
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 13, 2010
(b) Improving Read'ability and Consistency
• Staff recommends that a comprehe lsive 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. Addi� ional staff recommendations are detailed on Page 4-
4 of the staff report.
(c) Specific/Conceptual Plans
• Many of the City's Specific and Con�eptual Plans were adopted in the 70s and 80s and
need to updated to be consistent with the General Plan and enhanced with formats similar
to the recently adopted Heart of the C ty Specific Plan. Staff recommends updating of the
North DeAnza Boulevard Conceptua Plan, South DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan,
Monta Vista Special Center and �esign Guidelines, and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga
Conceptual Zoning Plan be updated; e�ch plan costing between $1 SK and $25K depending
on the scope of the project and outreach.
2. Infrastructure/Technolo�v Improvemen ts
(a) Online Permit System
• One of Matrix's high priority recomnendations is the implementation of a new online
permit system because the current syslem 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 lc�ok up their status real time and submit applications,
review comments, and resubmit plan:� online. It also should have the ability to link with
GIS to facilitate the comprehensive iesearch by applicants and developers; all of which
will lead to reduced costs and incr�ase review efficiency. A new system will cost
approximately $500,000 with a$15,0(�0 annual maintenance fee.
. (b) Infrastructure Improvements
• The Matrix Study also recommends r�;design of the Planning Dept. permit counter area to
improve customer service, including ;� kiosk or using technology to set up the lobby area
so that people can use the self-hel� area, and adding a more comfortable and better
interface for the public. Cost would de pend on the final scope of the project.
3. Fee Amendments/Cost Recoverv
(a) Long-Range Planning Fees
• Matrix recommends the City incorpo -ate a long-range planning fee into the development
fee schedule. Staff is recommending ncorporating approximately 25% of the cost into the
cunent fee schedule in order to recoL p some of the costs for such long-range studies and
projects as General Plan updates, Hoi�sing Elements, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans
and Master Plans.
(b) Permit System Improvement Fees
• Matrix recommends that a technolog� fee of 4% be implemented to charge permit users
relative to fee recovery of fees ne:,essary to support the new permit system. The
permitting system will cost about $� 00,000 and staff proposes to charge approximately
75% of the cost to permit users to be �pread over a number of years. The technology fee is
consistent with surrounding jurisdictic�ns
4. Other Misc. Recommendations
• Miscellaneous recommendations by Matrix include Planning Commission and City
Council bylaws, operational proc �dures, and communication with one another;
summarized in their report.
5-193
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 April 13, 2010
Staff recommends that the Planning Commis.cion provide input and ideas for implementing the
recommendations by Matrix and staff.
Com. Miller:
• Asked staff if they were suggesting for de�relopments of subdivisions of 6 units or less, that it
be staff level review and not go the Plannir.g 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 c;ompete 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. Am� CEQA exemptions tend to be approved at the staff
level, done in a variety of ways. Mounta n 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. Tt.e project being discussed would be at staff level in
Mountain View and would only go to Pla:ining Commission if there was an appeal. In other
cities it would depend on the CEQA exemption. In other cities, and what staff is
recommendirig is maybe projects that are zot going to have any CEQA impacts, could be the
threshold for where the Planning Commi� sion reviews it; perhaps a higher threshold for the
City Council.
Com. Miller: •
• Said that the function of the Planning Co�nmission was, that they work out all the details so
that the Council can make the higher level decisions, which is what staff recommends.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Clarified that the smaller projects of 5,00(i 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 :ind 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, r�;zoning, 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.
Com. Miller:
• Said some applicants and residents have vc�iced their concerns in a number of different areas of
� development; and he wanted to make sure their issues as well as stafPs 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 rerr. odels 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 reside�its, is that sometimes responsiveness is not as good
as they hoped for, either at the counter, oT through emails or phone calls. It is challenging to
get a response back from the city. Frori the staff's standpoint, he said he knew staff is
5--194
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 13, 2010
overworked and he was sensitive to the fa�t that 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 t me 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 c�f changes; she said that it is correct that there are
many instances where responsiveness coul i 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 ordinana; could be simplified; how the information can be
arranged in a more readable way. Staff':; focus has been if you need a table to explain the
ordinance, then the ordinance should be tlie 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 we�e good ones as well. Also the sensitivity to the
neighborhood is very important; they h<<ve 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 hearing:, as opposed to meetings that aren't quite so public
and their outreach efforts. He said they d�n't want to return to the past antagonism, but want
to be more efficient and it is very challeng: ng.
• Said the suggestions about technology im��rovements are also very good; having more info on
line, being able to reduce costs by not ha��ing 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 dif6culty 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 knov� up 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 b;� 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 �(all to submit them; and they can pay for it online.
Staff has seen presentations from three sc ftware 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 commer ts online, look at the pictures. There will be a cost
5•-195
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 April 13, 2010
tradeoff; there will not be a net savings be;ause 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 �he 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 fo • the system that they use for Building, because only
Building has that system.
• When they put in the new system and s�read the cost out for Public Works, Planning and
Building, that cost will be a fixed cost soread 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 � fixed cost that doesn't go up; it won't be a 3%
increase. When comparing other cities, th�;y 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 �tart 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 increas�:d government regulations; staff recently made a
recommendation to approve the landscap; ng ordinance, and are not asking for a fee for that
because they think that the city should ab:�orb the cost. In all the review, she said she did not
know what the savings will be but they wil l 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 w:iat goes on in Cupertino. She said she looked at the
report as not having the public involved �Nhatsoever which negated all the public input they
worked so hard for in Cupertino to becor,ie 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 neede d 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 c;annot all get on the web; the deck issue shows a
complete lack of understanding on Matri �c' part about notification of second story decks in
Cupertino. Notification is necessary as is :lling of covenants. She said there are advantages to
high technology, but human interaction is <<lso needed; quality means human interaction.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if they still need to mail plan sets t� a 300 foot radius; in his experience the neighbors
get anxious when they get a full set of pl �ns and most who don't have a design background
don't have an ability to read and understan i them. �
5-•196
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 13, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were not planning to do away �vith 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 �ind staff felt it was too onerous for only R1.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said they should look at the ordinance, cl �an up the language; they have seen some daycare
facilities and they have not provided a lot c�f guidance so they might be frustrated at that point;
improve the readability as was done for th�; sign ordinance; with the technology, people could
check the sta.tus of their permits online ancl 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 ceviewing 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 comfo -table 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. 1Vliller for urging the Co�r mission 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 yea rs; it is a good opportunity to deal with some of the
issues.
• Staff provided a informational report of the applications from the last two years that the
Planning Commission and DRC had proc :ssed and he recalled there were meetings that had
very mundane and minute items that did not have a policy reason why they shouid be
considering the application.
• Said he was concerned that Matrix prirr.ary 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 �►roblems that one-time users of the Planning and
Building process have, the person buildin�; 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 revie�N; one of the questions that comes up are things like
conditional uses. In the past with the � tate holding a gun to their heads and that of the
Council, they agreed that churches coul i 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 �conomic period, they could review the entire fee
structure that applicants face in plannin� 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 ty�►ical application, what the overhead costs were; and
compared it with other cities to see if CuF ertino was in line with them. She said they have to
remain competitive with other cities and c-annot have costs over and above many other cities.
Cupertino's fees are very reasonable.
5�-197
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 wc�rk with Matrix, she urged them to get it done as
quickly as possible.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was an outstanding idea to reviev� the fees and also staff's recommendation and see
how they are.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Matrix was recommending a technology f�:e of 4%, and based on their study and what they are
looking at, staff would put it in the overh �ad 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 on:y 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 Publi�; Works review; all other fees will not be considered
because that is not part of the review proc :ss; that is a separate issue entirely. It is an example
of where they think it would be a good tra�ieoff.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it was important that everybody unde�rstand what all the fees are, what changes are made.
At the risk of not being able to get it reacly for the budget cycle, there won't be many people
demanding permits in the next couple o f 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 Plannin� 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 s�hool impact fees.
• Staff discussed the fees paid by PW Mark�;t relative to the proposed new store.
• Said that staff is not recommending chan� ing the BMR fees; recommendations regarding fees
relate to the online permitting and advar ce planning fees. Only the Planning and Building
permit review fees will be subject to the o iline permitting overhead.
Com. Miller:
• Said they agree that what staff is proposin; from a technology standpoint seems like it is worth
the cost and the value; the value being m��re than the cost. Looking at it from the applicant's
standpoint, he is not just looking at the Flanning fees, but is looking at all the fees he has to
p�y. It would be helpful to understand a 11 of it, to understand how to get an idea from the
applicant's standpoint what is he looking ��t 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 :he overall fees. There is also one large implicit fee,
which is the time cost of money and th ; longer it takes for someone to get through, he is
paying carrying costs on his property an i that is probably one of the biggest fees he has to
contend with.
5 -198
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 April 13, 2010
• He recommended that one more meeting b � held on the application, to enable the Commission
to absorb what staff has discussed, do m��re 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 ch�.nging at this point and they are not recommending
big changes to the fee schedule. She as;ced 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 co isidering the fee schedule for the budget.
Chair Brophy:
• Given that the suggestion is to put the inc •ease also on the building permit fees which are the
big dollar ones; as far as the advance pla�ming 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 th: 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 y ou 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 provicles 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 Plarviing Commission for them to study it and see if they
have any general recommendations; then �taff 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 m�iling of the notification, mailing a sufficient set of
plans, whether it is front or rear elevatic►ns, to adjoining neighbors as well, and relative to
citywide noticing, one citywide noticing �er 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 corlmunity feel differently, it will go to the Council and
they can express their opinions at the Cou icil meeting.
5 -199
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?
Piu Ghosh:
• A staff level decision can be appealed oiice 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 Planniiig Commission would be the final appeal body as
opposed to somebody having to appeal ev�:rybody like the subcommittee, DRC, staff, Planning
Commission, and have the experience of tliose 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 recommer dations 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 �n 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 rec��very 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 t e refunded. Many other cities require 50% of cost
recovery review for all appeals. She sai 3 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. "here are several appeal levels.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt they should not shorten the appeal process; if people want to appeal, they should
have that right. However, there is some� hing to be said for having some relationship for the
fee and the actual cost of doing that appea I.
Chair Brophy:
• He said on that issue he would defer to th � Council for them to decide what to do because it is
an emotional issue as well as an account ng 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 d scussed are a very modest way of going through the
5 -200
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 13, 2010
existing ordinance and just re-tabulating i� . If they were to do anything different, she said she
�vould recommend hiring somebody to tielp staff go through the economics of things and
working everything out. Staff is recomme nding something really modest on a as-time-permits
basis; ensuring that they are tabulating thii�gs, and defining things that are undefined.
Chair Brophy:
• One of the issues being discussed is abcut codifying the ordinance in a more readable and
understandable form, and he said he thc�ught they have unduly complex rules in terms of
conditional uses, and complexities.
Com. Miller:
• Said he had been through some revisions c►f the R1 ordinance as a Planning Commissioner and
it is still just as challenging to read as ever. He questioned how effeetive the use of staff time is
toward that; if staff has spare time. He sai 3 he would categorize it as a lower priority.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he wasn't thinking about going back :o R1 or any of the residential zones.
Com. Miller:
• Said that they have been working on rewc�rding 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 tliere are other things that need to be done that should
be made a higher priority.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was reacting especially in the c;ase of small business people where he saw them
struggling through the process in matter:, that don't affect the adjoining neighbors or don't
affect the appearance of the community; ;ind to the extent that they can simplify and perhaps
eliminate some of the unduly complex rul �s 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 priorit} .
Com. Miller:
• Said that he understood it was just going �hrough and cleaning up the existing language; if the
proposal is to go through and streamlinir g things and clarifying the process, it is a different
activity.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that cleaning up the language woul�i 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 o� minimal affect, some streamlining in some of the
language. He said he felt that some of thE; hearings held in tne last two years had a number of
cases that struck him as being unduly nit ��icking in terms of taking up the Commission's time,
staff s time and the whole rigmarole of a� ublic heazing.
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.
5•-201
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 April 13, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said he felt that having a document that e:xplains 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 understar.d 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; th�y 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 tha:. If they have an opportunity to look at it, they will
try to simplify it; but are not going to ch;inge 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 sirr plifying it, that is fine; she said they are not going to
recommend making any big shifts to any c f those standards.
- Com. Miller:
• Said his recommendation is to capture all � he 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 ;�taff 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 thir�gs 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 COMMIS�iION
Environmental Review Committee: No Me eting.
Housin� Commission: No report.
Mavor's Monthly Meeting With Commissic ners:
Vice Chair Lee reported on the March mee'�ing:
• Parks and Rec: Pool at Cupertino Sports Center will be a tennis court; property at Mary Ave.
may become a dog park; Library field v��ill be a cricket field, known as Cricket Pitch; City
Council approved it for funds, spendin; 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 aw �y square footage from the library field and give it to
5-202
Attachment 6
OFFICE OF COMMLNITY DEVELOPMENT
C1TY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENt�E • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
{�08) �7-33U8 • Fr1X 408) 777-3333 • plannin.��%cupertin.o.or�
CUPERTlN4 �
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3 Agenda Date: Apri127, 2010
i
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 orga :�izational efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Comrlission provide:
• Comments on the list of changes recorrunended by staff, including the review
authority (Attachment 1), and
• Additional ideas and recommendation� related to permit process enhancements. �
The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City
Council for final consideration. Once the ��ouncil provides direction on the issues to
focus on, staff will bring the detailed discL ssion ordinance/process changes to the
i Planning Commission for consideration.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commiss: on reviewed and continued this item (on a 3-0
vote - Commissioners Giefer and Kaned�� absent) to its April 27, 2010 meeting. At the
hearing, the Planning Commissioners com mented on the review process.
The Commission directed staff to docume:lt 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
�
5-•203
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations Apri127, 2010
Page 2
o Improve responsiveness to applicar�t
i
o Streamline the approval authority
o Improve handouts for applicants
o Allow uses to be permitted in some zones - e.g. Daycares in churches should be
allowed without a conditional use ��ermit.
• Notification
o Sensitivity to neighborhood concert�s should be considered in making changes
o R1 notification: Dori t send out plart sets but maybe just elevations
o Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the
City's website for more informatior, updates, etc.
• Technolo�y
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 c�f concern but could be acceptable if there is a
� comparable savings in copying/ pri lting/ transportation costs.
• Appeals
o Concerned about the appeal proces;� (cost and time)
o Second level of appeal could be on �� cost recovery basis
• Ordinance Amendments
o Clean up the language and definitic�ns
o Provide additional guidance for spECialized uses such as daycares
o Improve the readability
o Did not want to open up R1 Ordinance for rewording
• Fees
o Review fees to ensure that they are 1ot cost-prohibitive.
o Provide a copy of the comprehensi� e fee list. The comprehensive fee list is
attached for reference (Attachment ?). The Developer Impact Fee Schedule for
� schools is attached for the Commissiori s review (Attachment 3).
Also attached for the Planning Commissio�i s reference are the Planning Commission
Staff Report dated Apri113, 2010 (Attachment 4) and the Matrix Report (Attachment 5).
5-•204
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project [�ecommendations Apri127, 2010
' Page 3
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
�
G r o arti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
i
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities and
Staff's recomm��ndations
Attachment 2 Comprehensiv�� Fee Schedule for FY 2009-2010
Attachment 3 Cupertino Unic�n School District and Fremont Union High
School District Developer Impact Fee Schedule
Attachment 4 Planning Comrnission Staff Report dated Apri113, 2010
Attachment 5 Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Stud�
of the Permit Prc�cess," dated November 17, 2009
G: � Planning � PDREP02T � pc CP reports � 2010 CPreport � CP-201 U-Ol PC 4-27-10.doc
, 5•-205
Attachment 7
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 Apri127, 2010
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 enougr 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 ov �r there.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second 'uy Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0-0; Com. Brophy
absent; to approve Application DZ-2010-01 per the model resolution.
3. CP-2010-01 Review of the � Management Study of the Permit Process and
City of Cupertino opportunities ro enhance the quality of the City's permit services
and organizational efficiency. Continued from the Apri113,
2010 Plannin�� Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
date: May 18 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said there was no formal staff presE ntation; comments provided previously by the
Commissioners are provided in the staff re �ort.
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 in��olved 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. develo��ers or house flippers, and how do they ensure that
the community's voice is heard as part of t1is.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was difficult to get people to respo id, 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 aiid staff should be able to get an answer.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Clarified that Matrix conducted a focus gioup 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, �ivil 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 dicl an interview with staff inembers 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 similz r to ours with similar characteristics comparing
processes and seeing where the improvemf;nts can be made.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that having sat on the Planning Co�nmission long enough and involved in several R1
reviews, what she heard loud and strong v��as 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 re �ort. She said if she were a developer or somebody
5--206
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 Apri127, 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 n terms of reopening the R1 and asked for more
background information on how that fits in and what that review would be.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If you are discussing things such as se�ond story balconies and the like, and changing
processes a little, staff is looking for con�ments from the Planning Commission about what
they thought about these ideas; that was r ot 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 sens� to shake everything up and start over.
• Regarding the plan sets, staff's experienc � 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; an�i 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 el minated 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 the y 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 shoiildn'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 the}� can do as part of this or of future processes, is not
change the standards, but make it easier to read the ordinance.
• Matrix recommended a 4% technology fee because that number was commonly used; it
includes microfiching plans to an onlin�; permit system. Costs for a system to process
applications electronically range from $.5 million to $1.5 million for a city of Cupertino's si�e
range, which includes the cost of the softNare as well as upgrading the server, hardware and
. staff training.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff if there was any thought of a p�tential savings of staff time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Staff feels they can save on the time it take s to get from the architect to staff; because there is a
cost to that. The estimated cost of printin�; 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, b�:cause now you know all the departments are going
5-•207
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Apri127, 2010
to see this together, the applicant is goin�; to be able to figure out why it is held back, why
there is a hold on this project, he doesn't r.ave to come to City Hall and make sure that he has
appointment with a person who is reviewir g 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 becaus � they are going to get more information online and
they will be more demanding, but staff is ��kay with that because they think that is where they
should be spending their time and answeririg 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 o' times that is the issue; staff owes them a quick
response and they try to keep to those date;s. But the little coordination that happens, is where
you definitely save time.
• Said they estimate 2% to 2.5% of the cost <�f 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. 'I'he applicant doesn't have to make a trip down to
City Hall unless he wants to, which is a b�nefit; it can be monitored online, send emails, and
get answers on line; don't have to look aro znd 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 featt�res of the system, including the ability to compare
drawings using Adobe software, fee struch�res, 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 competiti��e. This has been done twice in Cupertino, that is
always something that gets brought up <<nd 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 l�w 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 t ze 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 nc►t 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 simil ar 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.
5-•208
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 Apri127, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Under Comparison Chart for Permit Proce�ses for Various Cities, one of the things that comes
to the Planning Commission is cellular ;�ntennas; and I thought on one of the documents
recommending change to that review proc�:ss, wouldn't it be great if it went to the technology;
was that part of the process as well as tr} ing to determine if there are other commissions or
committees that should be involved in the �iecision making process.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Mountain View handles it differently in tY�at they approve all current planning applications at
staff level. At this point the recommeridation wasn't for the TIC Committee, but was
something you could recommend, review �.nd see if that is something that could happen. They
would like to be more involved in those dE;cisions 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 recommendat ion they can look at it; they already have parameters
for improving cellular antennas in the Wir�;less Master Plan and if they meet those, it may be a
simple discussion.
Com Giefer:
• Questioned why the report identified dayc�.re, since some organizations had daycare and senior
care on their facilities. Was the reason bf cause there is more demand and there is more data
on it?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that most of the applications are fo�• straight day care/child care applications and they
gave some examples of how that can be si�nplified. 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 has 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 fac;ilities for children, special needs and elder care; but
noted that sometimes the needs of child c:are may be different from elder care; for example
there is the play area; so we could create sc�mething for both but then have different programs.
Com. Giefer:
� Said what was brought up was a good diff ;rentiator, you need more open space for kids to run
around, whereas seniors don't need that.
Com. Kaneda:
• One of the recommendations was for tlie training for staff development in the Building
Division, Engineering Division and Planni ig 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 t��ey are able to answer questions. Staff training is
important because things change rapidly �vith 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 �;ets translated into something meaningful for the
applicant.
5--209
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 Apri127, 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 neighboThood they are more receptive to it. Did they talk to
the people who filed appeals to see how th�;y 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 �.pplied 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 comm anity, 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.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• She said they relayed that to the consult�.nt; what they �tried to do was to look for ways in
which staff could become more efficient; tlat 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 benc hmarking yourself against other similar cities and it
looks like Cupertino is one of the best of tl►e cities in this area as far as what the process is and
how they do things, and we are looking at ;iow 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 10(� 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 21) 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 N:atrix tried to at least look at some of those changes
coming down the road like an out-of-conlrol train that you are not going to be able to avoid
and say no to. Did they at least talk to �tafF about what the implications are for Cupertino,
because some of those changes are very ra�iical.
Aart� Shrivastava:
• Said it was a good point; and said that N(atrix 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 thei - ability to understand a lot of the future.
• The life of a permit system is about 10 y�ars at which point you should migrate to different
software or an updated soflware. 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 wi',I be key, where they understand what some of the
new information they will get from architf;cts is going to mean and that is going to have more
information, so you are not going to be lc oking at schedules because it is right there, such as
5--210
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 Apri127, 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 anival maintenance cost is similar to the new system
and depending on the customizing, it is at out $30K to $SOK per year. The cost was built into
the Building fee schedule because only Bu ilding 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 findin€;s 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 v�ould be and had built some of it in. It is emerging
technology and people have talked about one vs. the other, but staff feels comfortable that
would be accommodated within the $SOOK. 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 � 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 t�eed to use a cost basis. It was changed in 2009, and
some minor adjustments were made to red.�ce 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 wr o they were. If the names are available; if it was
intended as a blind study, then so be it. `�Ve have no idea who is in the focus groups, and it
would be nice to know if it was a represen :ative sample from our standpoint.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• We can certainly ask; but that doesn't niean 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 � good point but is something that gets built into the
public input part; and we do get it but or a particular feature of the home that hadn't gotten
input in another part of town, we have to :iddress it and so sometimes those get applied a little
less consistently than one might like.
• Page 133 in the Matrix report answers tl-e 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 tley would not get. If we went totally green and you
had laptops, then you wouldn't have pape� . Said that viewing it online would eliminate a lot of
paper. She said they were not focused on << specific software package, but have surveyed cities
that use online systems. Should the city �iecide to move forward on the system, there is a lot
more research to be done. Ideally the Bi�ilding Dept., Planning Dept., IT departrnent 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
5•-211
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 27, 2010
having, but beyond that, there is a lot moi e 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 systf;m, so having the RFP, having the RFQ, doing the
work flow, getting the system designed ancl going online took about that long.
� Relative to the $SOK 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 e��erything is a custom, so you cannot change a lot;
maintaining that, updating that, having sc,me room for customs should you need some is a
$30K to $SOK cost and that is approximately what is now spent with the cunent system.
• Staff discussed/answered questions about � nnual 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 home:.; 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 wal:e 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 tzat.
• Covenants run with the land, the documer ts are attached to the title and there is no reason to
toss them out. They need to explain wh}� they are abandoning and throwing out everything
that the public is aware of in this documen� .
• 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 recomir�endations were; it is not Cupertino, the public was
left out and she would like to have the focL s 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 commet�t 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 2000: .
• The consultants do not recognize the imp��rtance of notification to this community and what
the State requirements for noticing are. F e said he was not sure that the $5,000+ postal cost
for citywide noticing was cost effective; an d 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 pub(ic hearings for City Council meetings in the early
morning; he said there weren't too many e<<rly morning City Council meetings.
• Also, the consultant is not familiar with the Planning Commission meetings; recommendation
No. 111 suggests amending the Planning ��ommission by-laws to clarify the responsibility of
the Planning Commission Chairperson to nanage commission meetings. He said in the past,
those meetings have been very well conduc-ted.
• 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
5-•212
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 Apri127, 2010
meetings. He said he was sure that the speaking time allotment is the same at both meetings.
• He said that the incorrect information i� t ie 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 doe �n'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 approva t or denial is obtained.
• It is important in this day and age, �vhen thinking about the number of commercial
developments that have been approved an�i are 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 e�:ample increase commercial development, where
generally there is not disagreement in th� 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 s�les tax revenues and also real estate taac 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 �,unnyvale Mall which compared to a few years ago,
Sunnyvale Mall was going great guns an i it was thought that Vallco was going to be a big
success; and now both of them are not dc�ing 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 �. goal worth having in terms of that competition.
Said when referring to commercial, he lurlped it in terms of what is desirable in town; retail is
desirable and there is certain office develo �ments that are desirable also.
• Another worthy goal is increasing flexibi .ity and the ability to adjust the changing economic
conditions, which is something they have l�een 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 pro ✓ide.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said they were extraordinary goals.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she wanted to add increase consister. cy 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 l3uilding 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 consL lting packet does it say this will decrease applicant
expenses; can they actually decrease ap��licant expenses? She said she was no sure if the
consultant had any recommendations on h�w 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 shou d save money, because time is money in this case.
• One of the recommendations was related to keeping staffing level the same for building permit
5•-213
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 Apri127, 2010
plan checking. In meetings of the Santa C'lara 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 Builcling Green has a meeting of city officials in the Bay
Area, is that as ordinances are develop�;d 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 recommend ations of the Cities Association and the implication
it could potentially have on staff time revie wing 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 familia� with the codes.
• In talking to other Planning officials in th�; 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 ad� ocate 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 1 as 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
mechan�sm?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to the check-back mechanism, pe �ple 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 ��vay 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; lea� e it up to the professionals.
Com. Giefer presented objectives to consider:
• Employing technology to reduce costs an�i streamline the process, support current and future
green building requirements because thi � is going to change and the system will not be
changed in the short term.
� Said he was concerned that although he a�;reed 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 har�ier to quantify. The focus groups tried to get to that,
it would have been ideal to have more in��ut because that would have given a better sense of
not just how long do you take to get from l�eginning to end, but what the experience is.
5--214
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 Apri127, 2010
• Added that while the study is a point in ti me that provides some information, they see it as a
continuous improvement process that wo�i'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 thc�se 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 tl�ey have come up with, they need a goal that speaks
to the community and ensures their involv�;ment as well.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• While a lot of the measures can be very e�cient, they should not forget that there is a
community interest and it is very importa:rt for people to feel like they do have input into the
process to the extent they can all be balanc ed.
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 c f the best, not necessarily take great efforts to go for
a 1% or 2% irnprovement.
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 m ight have been some of the larger developers.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the key was to benchmark against otr er 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 m;ide 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 remc�del or something relative to their house and that is
where a lot of staff time goes. To the exte;nt 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 develope��s but also for residents. Some did not make sense,
such as the Council and the Planning Co�nmission don't use the same timeframe for input or
reduce noticing; he ignored that as being ��eople who did not take the time to understand what
is unique about Cupertino; they just had sc�me boilerplate objectives that they added along with
the specific ones that they came up with b;�sed on where they did interact with the community.
� There were clearly some good ones, su �h as having the case manager manage the entire
process and take on the responsibility of n�t necessarily resolving interdepartmental issues, but
5�-215
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 27, 2010
at least bringing the resources together for all of the departments. For an individual
homeowner, it is very daunting, and would be helpful to have a single point of contact, and
have someone help you work through that.
• Training applicants on the application proc;ess.
• Automating the submittal process.
• 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 tl�ey already do. They have a checklist process in the
application packet so that the applicant is �ble to go through that checklist and the planner sits
down with them when they submit, and ch:,cks 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 �►erhaps some staff recommendations to the Planning
Commission in terms of when the applic�.tion 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 Cotnmission level.
• Said that when they were reviewing t}�e 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 ��rocess, 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 v� here there are levels of modification and they get
approved at various levels; if it is a large �;nough one where a substantial part of the project is
changing, then it can go to the Council. � he said it was an example of where they could look
at a different way of doing things.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to Director's Minor Modificatior. s, 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 somebc>dy comes in to the counter and tells us they want to
do something; w� give them some under�tanding 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 pe �ple want to still go ahead that is another issues, but
they get a sense of ... here is why it doesr�'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 the�� get to meet with all the other departments and get
input prior to their applying. Cupertino �rovides 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 ca�i include single family all the way through the larger
ones; so that when a person does submit tt ey have a complete packet and they know what they
need to do.
5•-216
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 Apri127, 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 pos �ible. 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 30 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 sc lutions.
Com. Kaneda:
• He asked staff if they were saying that the�•e is a significant amount of additional staff time that
other cities don't have.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Other cities charge, Cupertino does not c harge for that. In terms of getting reimbursed for
staff time, they spend a great deal of staff :ime working with applicants prior to applications so
that the application process is simple an d smooth and the fees reflect only the application
. process, not the pre-application process. N[any times the cost is absorbed by the work that staff
does; that is why there is such a lean stafi�. 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 informat ion.
• She said that most large applicants know that Cupertino does not charge, while other cities do,
because they do papers in other cities. Si�igle 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 ge;tting 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 thei�� time spent; and it is not built into the overhead.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to cycle times, she said they nee�i 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 hig'n rate of success and in terms of getting deerned
complete which is always the trigger point, they try to ensure that you are complete when you
apply; you have everything you need and lhat is how the checklist helps.
• Cycle time refers to the time between gett.ng an application and the applicant getting feedback
and comments.
• Said there was a specific cycle time for pl<<n checking.
Gary Chao:
� For small projects, for Planning, we alw�ys 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 twc� weeks, it is not the fault of the city, usually it is
incomplete information or something simi lar.
5•-217
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 la�; time between the time the applicant responds and
our system now doesn't capture a lot of � hat, but we meet all state requirements and exceed
that to a great extent.
Com. Miller:
• Referring to guidelines for commercial d�velopment, 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 �iearly 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 prcviding 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, fo.low Step 1, Step 2, etc." It would be helpful to cut
down the amount of time staff has to expla in it to every individual.
• Also, when he first joined the Planning (:ommission there was a joint meeting between the
Council and the Planning Commission �vhich 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 ineeting 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 recommendaticns 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 im �rovement center web page on our web site to help
the do-it-yourselfers; more people are inst�.11ing things by themselves.
• Another thing that stood out that Com. Mi ller did not mention was make a how-to manual and
publish it to the website, he also liked the : dea 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 tlat the consulting group wrote down, require City
Council's review. The first one was the c�nline permit and informational system; hence there
are five reasons why she felt they should g�t 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 nternet. It makes sense, you can make a correction
and the architect can send it to the city.
• The applicant can view the department r.otes and their comments regarding the plans; and
since the online system is going to be an;�utomated work flow, the permit doesn't have to sit
on a desk too long or get misplaced.
• The interactive voice response system allc>ws people to call in; applicants can call in and get
information on the permit status or sche�iule an inspection or they can get their inspection
results. The online permit system is an i�ivestment; it will not replace a full time employee,
but the customers aze out there and they expect certain things. Hopefully City Council can
look into it and have the funds absorb som�; of the cost.
• Relative to updating ordinances and sp�:cific 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, et:.. instead of having all the minor planning permits.
5-•218
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 Apri127, 2010
She said it should be clarified.
• The specific and conceptual plans were do:ie in the 80s and 90s, so they need to be updated.
• Some Commissioners like the noticing r�quirements as is; sending a postcard with a link
where the plans are available for viewing i� acceptable.
• Having interested parties sign up for e-list: and applications is already being done.
• The last thing to weigh in on was the re�•iew authority, Attachment l. 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 bf; lowered; Rl 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 requestec', on remodeling the permit center. She said there is
something to be said for having a place f�r customers to sit down with each planner at their
own work station; individual conference rc�oms 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 propo�ed 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 � he median of the comparable cities, so I would like
more definition on that. My question i:; how do we stack up in terms of cycle time for
different processes compared to our neighl�oring cities. What does it take Sunnyvale to process
an R1?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The cities used were different from Sunn.✓vale and Mountain View; they used Petaluma as a
comparable. She said they can find out thf: exact definition of inedian 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 the y say the engineering division is meeting their cycle
time objectives for plan checking buildir. g 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 c�nline system was, the biggest challenge was getting
people to do the input which is true. Unl�;ss 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 the 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 l 1x17 terminal s�� 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.
5•-219
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 Apri127, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that larger terminals would be availa�le for staff who are reviewing the plan sets.
Vice Chair Lee:
. • She reviewed some of Chair Brophy's cc�mments, including that he would like to have the
opportunity to identify regulations that �►rovide limited or no public benefits to adjoining
property owners or the community at lar;e, 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 �:he 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 l�y Com. Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Brophy absent; to continue Appl ication CP-2010-01 to the next Planning
Commission meeting.
OLD BUSINESS None
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISS ION
Environmental Review Committee: No Me .ting.
Housin� Commission: No meeting.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin� With Commissi��ners: April meeting report provided at previous
Planning Commission meeting..
Economic Develoument Committee: No meE;ting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMl�[UNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Written report submitted.
Adiournment•
• The meeting was adjourned to the next re gular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
May 1 l, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Elli �
Elizabeth Ellis, Recor 3ing Secretary
Approved as presented: May Il, 20I0
5-•220
A�tachment 8
OFFICE OF COMMi�NITY DEVELOPMENT
' ' � CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENIIE • CUPERTTNO, CA 95014-3255
C � P � R � � Q (408) 777-3308 • FA.Y (408) 777-3333 • �lanningQcupertino.org
PLANNING COMMI SSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: May 11, 2010
Application: CP-2010-01
Applicant: City of Cupertinc
Property Location: Citywide
Application Summary: Review of the N:anagement 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 Com�nission provide:
• Comments on the list of changes recor.unended by staff, including the review
authority (Attachment 1), and
• Additional ideas and recommendatior.s related to permit process enhancements.
The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City
Council for consideration. Once the Cour�cil provides direction on issues to focus on,
staff will bring the detailed discussion orclinance/process changes to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2010 and Apri127, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed
this item (Giefer/Kaneda absent on ApYil 13�' and Brophy absent on April 27�). The
Commission continued the item to its l✓Iay 11, 2010 meeting in order to have a full
Comrnission 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:
5•-221
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010
Pa�e 2
• Review Process
o Reduce length of review process
o Improve customer satisfaction for commercial developers
o Shorten/Streamline approval time
o Improve responsiveness
o Increase consistency
o Support current and emerging greE n building practices/ measures
o Provide the Planning Commission with a checklist of items that the Planning
Staff looks at to educate the Comm ission
o Step by step instructional aid for the public about the planning process
o Guidelines and strategies to help cc�mmercial developers
o Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off-site retreat/workshop
o Consider Planning Commission &��ity Council off-site retreat/workshop when
new members are elected/appointE�d
o Customize application forms to ha��e a separate form for each type of application
o Develop Planning Application Gui �es for each permit type
o Develop a self help Home Improvement Center webpage
o Develop "How To" manuals for th�� 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 ineaningless regulations
o Allow more uses to be permitted v�rious zones - e.g. Daycares in churches
should be allowed without a condi �ional use permit
• Notification
o Consider sensitivity to neighborho��d concerns when making changes
o R1 notification: Don't send out plan sets but maybe just elevations and/or
weblink
o Projects of Citywide significance: I'rovide one Citywide notice with links to the
City's website for more informatio�l, updates, etc
• Technolo�y
o Implement a new permit system that will help improve efficiency and provide
benefit to permit system users
o SofYware Integration for the permit review system bettiveen departments is
necessary
o Fees increases proposed are of con�:ern but could be acceptable if there is a
comparable savings in copying/printing/transportation costs
o Concerns about reviewing plans el�ctronically on a smaller monitor/screen
5-•222
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010
Page 3
• A�peals
o Concerned about the appeal process (cost and time)
o Second level of appeal could be on � cost recovery basis
• Fees
o Show nexus for all fees charged
o Review fees to ensure that they are not cost-prohibitive
o Conduct a fee study
Other questions
• Focus Group Participants
The Planning Commission requested t�� see the list of participants in the Focus
Group studies conducted by the Matri:<. 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 reques :ed information on the annual maintenance
costs for a permit system. The maintenance cost for a permit system covers support
and maintenance for the existing syste n and for upgrades to the system including
any customizations to the base system.
• Cycle Times
The Planning Commission inquired hc�w the recommended cycle times in the study
were derived. According to Matrix, the suggested cycle times for the various
permits were based on industry stand�irds established by Matrix's analysis of other
well managed cities such as SunnyvalE� or San Ramon.
A copy of the City of Sunnyvale's proj��ct cycle times (Attachment 2) was provided
by Matrix. It should be noted that Cu��ertino's �ycle times (Attac��ment 3) are 2
weeks shorter for projects reviewed by the Planning Commission and at least an
additional two weeks shorter for proje�ts reviewed by the City Council.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Pl�nner
5•-223
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Recommendations May 11, 2010
Page 4
Reviewed by: Approved by:
� �%�
Gary hao Aarti Shrivastava
City Plann Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Comparison cr.art of permit processes for various cities and
Staff's recommendations
Attachment 2 City of Sunnyv ale's cycle times
Attachment 3 City of Cuperti no's cycle times
G: � Planning� PDREPORT� pc CP reports � 2010 CPreport � CP-201)-01 PC 5-11-10.doc
5-•224
Attachment 9
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Questioned if it puts the City in a positior� where if a development request occurred on these
properties, it is one more thing that the Cir� can ask as a condition of development approval.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that the City did not have a track re ;ord of doing that. She said in her opinion it may
change in the next 50 years, but not chan�;e politically in the next 10 years. The benefit is if
they further define things, they have refined what those definitions are so people understand
what they are working with more. When it involves private property, staff may use it as a
negotiating chip; she did not see it as a t�usiness necessarily as a business inhibitor. It just
makes them stop and reflect on what they �.re about to do, and give thoughtful consideration.
• She said Council provided direction and if they chose to change the language to better meet
their needs, she would support that.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if there were any objections to a�►proving it as is, but sending a notification to the
Council of concern about whether or not tliis language protects the right of properiy owners to
decide whether or not they wish to provide public access.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported Chair Brophy's first ch �nge and would support the second change as well.
He said he was in favor of the protection, t.owever worded.
Chair Brophy:
• Requested that the sentence remain, changing the wording "but not required" to "but in no
way required." Chair Brophy and Com. Pdiller concurred; Vice Chair Lee supported change;
Com. Giefer opposed to change.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, secon�l by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0; Com.
Kaneda absent; to approve G PA-2010-02 per the model resolution with the
change suggested by Chair Brophy.
4. CP-2010-01 Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and
City of Cupertino opportunities :o enhance the quality of the City's permit services
and organizati onal efficiency. Continued from the Apri127,
2010 Plannin�; Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Date: May 1 f', 2010
Gary Chao presented the staff report:
• Reviewed that the item was discussed on E►pril 13, 2010 and Apri127, 2010 and was continued
to the May 11 meeting when a full Commission would be present to provide comments.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The ordinance requires that any commercial building above 5,000 square feet has to be
approved by City Council and office build.ng above 10,000 sq. ft. is approved by Council. We
were looking at possible changes to that as part of the streamlining process.
• Said the goal of the present discussion was ta get the broad concepts from the Commission to
the Council so they could review them and provide direction on which ones to follow up on.
5--225
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said the Matrix process is predominantly focused on professional developers, architects,
engineers, and contractors, and for the inost part they were reasonably satisfied and they
identified areas for improvement.
• Said he understood the Council may ha��e some interest in the existing ordinances and he
preferred to stay away from some of the areas where they have struggled in the past and if they
really feel strongly about some of those a:•eas to move those as a separate process rather than
have them tie up the Matrix, where they c ould move on the more technical issues to make it
easier for the applicants.
• There have been issues of daycare centers and churches, and they made them conditional uses,
but make elder care projects and churches permitted uses. He said he felt they could work
well with what staff drafted; and that is the direction he would prefer rather than spending a lot
of time on the issues that are of more conc:rn to professional architects and larger developers.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed they should address both groups; but not sure they should emphasize one over
the other. In reading through the report �:here are a number of things that appear to address
concerns, i.e., Attachment 1 where staff i� proposing more review at the staff level and then
making the appeal or exception process g� to review board. Some of the other things in the
report included holding classes and also putting more information online including step-by-
step procedures for going through a proce;ss. There are a fair number of things in the report
with recommendations to that effect; are tl ere some missing at this point.
Chair Brophy:
• Said at a previous meeting there was a disc:ussion about fees and the recommendation that they
be frozen. One area to look at, to the extf:nt that they will be looking at green building issues
that independent of any increases might be proposed to cover technology improvements or
cost of living, is the use of fee structures tc� encourage more green development; perhaps lower
cost and to encourage more affordable housing by keeping the overall structure revenue
neutral. There could be lower fees for th�; first 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet of a residential home
and higher ones thereafter; things such as that to look at if there is interest from the rest of the
Commission.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt lowering fees is a worthy obje�;tive.
Chair Brophy:
• Sid that he was referring to a revenue nf;utral one, but one that would help with affordable
housing and perhaps also encourage pecple to take a second look when they design their
homes at how they might get a more effe�:tive home in less square footage; the so-called not-
so-big house that works well. He said he was a believer in setting up fee structures that
encourage people to do things rather than liaving to tell them what they can and cannot do.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed. Staff proposed a number of things to make staffls operations more efficient
and hopefully would result in a lower co: t that could be passed on in terms of lower fees. If
doing a small building, they would defin:tely want to go through the fees and make sure that
there is a nexus between the cost that the <<pplicant is bearing and the benefit that the applicant
is getting.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
5•-226
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 May 11, 2010
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that as a member of the public and a resident of Cupertino for 10 years, she found huge
problems with the document. The public was not involved at all; it looks like someone is
trying to take over Cupertino and say how it should be run. She said she was concerned about
the focus groups that the Matrix Consult: ng Group came up with; the identity of the focus
group members remained anonymous; however, after reading the document it appeared the
focus groups were composed of builders, large land owners in the city and no one from the
public. They made suggestions about hov� to run businesses in Cupertino, and were supposed
to be the expert people at what they do; h��wever no one knew their identity, which discredits
what they said in the meetings. Why should the public believe them; the public is the one that
remembers why we do things the way we: do; it sounds like the focus groups are not happy
with how we do things in Cupertino, but who are they and what do they do in Cupertino?
Perhaps a city historian should be hired to ensure they don't start changing policies; why is the
balcony notification being eliminated? St�e reiterated that the public was not involved in the
study and report and the direction of the ci�y is changing.
Chair Brophy:
• Said on some points Ms. Griffin raised, he felt some of those areas were areas where it would
be a mistake to get involved at this time. If it is desired to reopen the balcony issue or the
process dealing with Rl, it should be dealt with as a separate matter and it would be better to
focus the Commission's energy on areas tliat have not been the subject of discussion, and find
areas of general consensus where they can make or find processes that will move smoother for
the applicants, especially smaller applica:rts without residents or adjoining property owners
feeling like they have not had a full chance to express their opinion.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the focus group process, he sa d that is the way focus groups are run, it is not just
this focus group. The intent is to first ensure that the people in the focus group are stating their
opinions and are not holding back. The process in general should be one of separating the
source from the content, and that is the gc al. Although knowing the identity of those making
the comments would be ideal, if not known, the Commission cannot color their judgment, but
look at the comments for what they are <<nd see if it makes sense to them. Many are good
suggestions and some of them as Ms. Grif:in pointed out, are not so good. He said personally
he saw nothing wrong with the process.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested that they look for areas of comrlonality in their approaches and thinking in terms of
what is acceptable and what is not with re;ards to recommendations, and see if there are areas
where they are not in alignment that need further discussion, and try to consolidate around as
many points as are agreed upon.
Com. Miller:
• Said that he submitted comments in the la�t two hearings which have been incorporated in the
list under review process. If that is the e:ctent of the input going to Council, perhaps there is
something more such as prioritizing the list.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said they did not discuss fees; but Chair Brophy and Com. Miller talked about reducing fees to
provide incentives for affordable housin,;. She asked if bullet points should be added to
. discuss it more.
5•-227
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Responded that at this point, it would be �;etting into an area that is out of the matrix; that is a
separate issue discussed at the time of the shopping center project. They can discuss it in the
future, but this is not the place to do it.
Com. Giefer:
• Referring to Page 4-2, she suggested t lat reference to "Develop How To Manuals" be
reworded, since it implies that it is an instructional manual for using the website.
• Relative to the R1 notification, she said sY.e was concerned about the "Don't Send Any Plans"
message as it was sending out a red flag and appears to be the beginning of the eroding of
noticing, and she had an issue with anything that would undermine the amount of noticing
done. She said she supported sending out the site plan and elevations only with the weblink
but did not want to meddle with things that are known public issues because it undermines
their confidence in the Commission. She �,uggested that it be rephrased to be more specific.
� She said Chair Brophy's suggestion abou�: a fee neutral approach was a good one; if building
green or affordable, you pay a reduced fee set for your first however many square feet the
project is; and then look at the overall fe�: structure, so the larger the home is, the higher the
fees are, or something similar that encou •ages building more green, smaller efficient homes,
rather than large energy inefficient homes.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said for affordable housing projects, the City does not charge park fees, which can be cost
prohibitive; and it also does not charge construction tax on the building permits, so those
policies exist. She said she did appreci��te the revenue neutral. One of the things coming
down the pike and they are not adding fef;s to it, with all the new regulations of Cal Green or
New Green Building Ordinance, is the ne�N landscaping ordinance. Staff plans to spend more
staff time on these applications than have been typically done; the number of hours per project
will go up, but in the interest of trying to }�elp people do the right thing, there is no proposal to
increase fees.
• Relative to the appeals process, she said that the first appeal could be at the same fee; staff
does not have an opinion on this and the Planning Commission can take a stand one way or
another. Some applications have been aFpealed more than once, perhaps the second level of
appeal could be on a cost recovery basi;;. The appeal costs between 50% to 100% of the
original application cost in terms of staff t: me; Council has chosen to reduce that cost to $100.
• Said that limiting the number of appeals w as a question for the City Attorney to address. If the
Council makes a decision there is a recon �ideration process where the Council could be asked
to reconsider their decision; starting froni the Planning Commission or staff level, there are
many levels of appeals.
Com. Miller:
• The problem is that it is a political decisic�n at the Council level and they have chosen to keep
the appeal price down because they do not want to discourage it. We could try to limit it, but
they are the ones making the decision. It is a good question, and if you did that, would it
always be to the City Council. _
Chair Brophy:
• Suggested that they address the issue of R1 notification, as the intent is that everybody get
sufficient documents for review; that they have knowledge they can either go online or if they
are knowledgeable about plans, they need to know they have access to them if necessary either
online or come down to the Planning Dep��rtment. It needs to be restated in a clearer manner.
5�-228
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 11, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said she rewrote it as R1 notification, "send reduced plan sets including site plan and
elevations with weblink information;" since most people don't care about an electrical plan.
What matters is what is it going to look lik e on the curb and how is it going to affect the house
next door.
Com. Miller:
• Said that is conect, and the remainder is i�nnecessary because residents do not have a right to
critique it and make suggestions which are out of the scope of what they should be evaluating.
• Said he supported sending out only the mi�iimum set that provides the information they need in
order to make judgments on the aspects appropriate for them to be making judgments. A full
set of plans should be put on the website f�r people to see; that is public information. The goal
in moving forward is to try to reduce the :imount of paper, not increase it. Paper is one place
to reduce costs, and it does not diminish the objective of notification.
Com. Giefer:
• How the interior of a house is arranged is the owner's business, but the issue of a second story
balcony looking into a neighbor's master bedroom are legitimate questions for neighbors to
ask. Some of them are unnecessary, but �.11 four side elevations are needed. If it is defined as
part of this, it puts the community at rest ;ind continues the relationship and trust they have in
the Planning Commission.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to website information, it will b�: done as soon as there is a good permit system up
and running. The site plans and elevation,; will be sent out to everyone within 300 feet radius;
for two-story applications it is everyone within 300 feet. For second-story decks, extension of
legal non-conforming walls, minor things, it is to adjacent neighbors.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the side and rear elevations for ��eople living down the block should not be an issue
as it does not affect them. For those imn�ediately affected, you want to give them what they
need, and there is already a distinction th�.t for some things only the immediate neighbors get,
and some get a full plan set. He suggested that the larger set be defined and given to those
residents who are immediately affected.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed in principle, and asked if it was a battle they want to deal with at this time.
Relative to the R1 issue, the focus should be on getting the plan set to people and if too many
changes are made, it is counter-productive.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said all comments will be forwarded to City Council; staff doesn't have an opinion.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she concurred with Chair Brophy; cnce the appropriate website technology is available
that would allow them to change the mix of what they send out, they should reconsider if it
makes sense to do it. She said she would l�e concerned with the administrative efficiencies and
reliability if they try to slice it up differently.
5•-229
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 May 11, 2010
Com. Miller:
• There is general agreement not to implem�;nt anything new until there is an alternative such as
the website, then the question is what shoL ld be implemented.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Explained that 11 x 17 sized black and white drawings are sent out as part of the plan sets; sent
to approximately 50 people, within a 300 : oot radius depending on lot size. The applicant pays
for the copying of the plan sets and the mailing costs.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested they continue with what they are presently doing until they have the technology
available, and revisit the issue at that time.
Com. Giefer:
• Summarized recommendations: R1 notification: send reduced plans sets of elevations and site
plans with weblink for further informati<�n; to be implemented only after online permitting
system is implemented and fully tested.
• Relative to cross sections of the interiors, she said her issue was only with what information is
available; .
• Said her issue was just what information is available; and she did not have a problem with not
sending a cross section of the interior; th�:re is no landscape plan so you cannot see what the
privacy plantings are.
Gary Chao:
• Summarized that there were many good comments from the Commission; some of which
would be more appropriate when the ite m returns. At this point, the Commission should
decide whether they want to look at eval�iating either streamlining or more efficient ways of
notifying R1 properties; bearing in mind when they come back they will explain the other
components involved; not just the plan, tc> make a comprehensive decision, because there are
story poles, story boards and different req.�irements for commercial properties as well; so they
will have all the information to make that -inal decision on how you want to curtail it or not.
Com. Giefer:
• How far down this path do we want to go because they all affect R1 notification. Do we really
want to try to remedy this quickly by ch� nging some language on recommendation or do we
want staff to come back and actually do a more thorough review on that. We fix one item and
say fine we won't include two sheets of interior drawings and mail out plan sets, and we are
done, or do we want to look at all of it. H e said he did not want to look at all of it, but wanted
the story boarding to remain and the si ory poles to remain because they are part of the
notification.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that when approving a house plan, it s not required to have a full set of construction plans
at that point; they have the concept draw: ngs. Typically the electrical plan, foundation plans
etc. are not required. If it is a special prcject, such as with a basement, a lot of it depends on
the project itself, there needs to be enough information to help staff understand how it is put
together; how the massing works, which includes the Public Works and Building staff, who
also look at it at the planning stage.
5•-230
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 May 11, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Commented that he felt the level of deta il in the story poles was excessive, and likely not
appreciated by the public.
Chair Brophy:
� Story poles is an area where the benefit is 1 ess than the problems of changing it.
Com. Giefer:
• Recalled that when they were putting the �tory poles in the Rl, she adamantly fought for them
because she felt they were informative.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that story poles are supposed to ��utline only the second story, there is no need to do
the ground floor. It does need to present itself to get a sense of the massing, to the extent that
the main ridges, corners, and main peaks b� delineated.
Staff:
• Said Cupertino was similar to some cities in how they deal with story poles and requesting the
same level of detail; while others require more detail. Some cities don't require story poles,
and don't review single family at the Planr ing staff level.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested comments on Attachment 1 to forward to Council: The third category, Planned
Development Use Permits should be re�amed to Minor Development Permit and Major
Development Permit, not ASA. In the m;ijor ASA category state Planning Commission/City
Council depending on the level of review, and the Planning Commission may want to make
some recommendation on what that thresh��ld might be if it goes to Council.
• Relative to the appeal process, the appeali:ig body is always the next level of review, and staff
is not suggesting any changes.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported staff suggestions to mo� e more of the items down in the structure, including
the recommendations.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested a change at the Use Permit leve�l; the small modifications can be done at staff level
and the bigger ones can be Planning Comniission level.
• Relative to a previous suggestion by Com. Giefer that for cellular antenna and similar
facilities, the Technology Commission rather than Planning Commission could make those
determinations because they are not land use decisions; she said that the Technology
Commission stated they are not in the business of aesthetics and the Planning Commission is a
better body to look at that since they 1�ok at aesthetics. When reviewing other cities,
Mountain View was the only one who did it at staff level. Cupertino has the ability to do some
antenna decisions at staff level, but in the ��ast have forwarded them on.
• There was a brief discussion about the role of the DRC, which appears to have been reduced to
evaluation of signs; more items are now be ing handled at staff level.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that when things were moving fairly ��uickly and the calendar was fuller, DRC was a way
to dispatch things more quickly, and if the decision is made by staff that is one avenue, but if
5--231
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 May 11, 2010
there are items that we are taking from Pla ining Commission and moving to DRC, they can be
more expeditious.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that if issues cannot be resolved at staff level, staff feels the Planning Commission is a
better body to appeal it to; primarily beca.�se there is a real hearing process in the next level.
There is also more consistency if it is heard by the Commission, rather than just two members
of the DRC.
• In prior years the DRC did a lot of single Eamily review which has since moved to staff level;
it also reduces application costs.
Chair Brophy:
• Many of the issues are issues that are goir.g to have to be dealt with after it comes back from
the Council. Are there any other lines oth�;r than R1 notification that need to be changed from
what has been proposed.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was unsure how to memorialize the concept of looking into reducing fees for green
building and affordable housing. She sug;ested forwarding it to City Council, perhaps under
fees, to look at a fee neutral basis to provide incentive for green building and affordable
housing as par of a fee study.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was in favor of incentives over ma idates and arm twisting.
Chair Brophy:
• Review Revenue neutral fee structure t� support affordable housing and green building
objectives. Com. Giefer said she would support tha�.
• Said they could change fee structures that reduce or increase fees; he suggested they deal with
the issue of raising or lowering fees separa:ely from changing the structure.
• If you want to raise the entire structure, o lower the whole structure, that is a separate issue.
There are rivo issues; one is the structure o.'the fees and increase or lower.
Com. Miller:
• Said what was being suggested was that tliey were two separate discussions and two separate
decision points. Said he supported that, biit did not approve of lowering it in the one side and
raising it on another.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to changing the fee structure, if they were to say eliminate building code fees for
solar, saying that is one decision but down the road they could look at raising other fees at the
same time; he was not opposed to looking at the issues of lowering the general fee structure or
raising them; but at the same time would like to look within that for a given dollar number;
what they are accomplishing to provide inc:entives to meet affordable housing or to meet green
building objectives.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed with the concept of providing incentives; however, it then presents the issue of
creating a reduction in revenue which so nehow needs to be made up; then , it is a different
discussion in terms of how and when the sltortfall in revenue is made up.
5-•232
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 May 11, 2010
• If it is affordable housing and they a� e doing a redevelopment district and collecting
redevelopment monies, perhaps an approp�•iate use of the redevelopment monies is to backfeed
what we are doing in terms of reducing fees to increase incentives.
• Said he did not think it necessarily follow:: to increase the fees somewhere else, as opposed to
using monies from other sources to achiev�; a public good. �
• Said that when fees are increased, it is say;ng you are going to pay and you are focusing on an
individual or small group to pay for a�vider benefit to the entire community, which is a
concept he does not agree with.
Com. Brophy:
• We are already doing it although not callir g it that. When we don't charge affordable housing
projects park fees, presumably then when we set the park fees for everybody else we have set
them at a level that takes that into consideration. If we are going to do that we are doing it on
an explicit basis rather than on an implicit �asis.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed and supported that and waiited to discuss it further. It shouldn't be a matter of
course and that's the way it happens; but r<<ther that they made a conscious decision to do that.
• Said he also supported staff's efforts to upgrade their permit system and there may be ways to
do that in a less expensive manner. The}� should ensure that they send that message to the
Council, because the last time around, the Council was not keen on doing it primarily because
of the cost. The message should be that th is is a efficiency tool or_ set of tools and they should
be looking at ways to make it happen, p;�rticularly since the current system we currently is
going to reach its limits in a very short pe�•iod of time. They are going to be forced to replace
it in any case.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to review of fee structure, just support affordable housing and green building
objectives in revenue neutral manner.
• Said he was willing to look at raising or lowering fees but would like to look at the fee
structure within for a given dollar number: and be explicit about it rather than simply say they
are going to exempt the projects for park ff:es.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Summarized the changes: (1) How To l�[anuals; (2) Rl notification; (3) Rewording of first
bullet in technology to say "support staff efforts to upgrade permit system" that would help
improve efficiency; and (4) Chair Brophy's sentence on reviewing the fee structure. Relative
to Rl notification, send reduced sets inclucling site plan and elevations with weblink for further
information.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that if they reduce plan sets, landsca�ing needs to be called out. The landscaping plans
would be a privacy screening.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda
absent; to approve CP-2010-01 t�� be forwarded to the City Council with Planning
Commission comments.
OLD BUSINESS None
5--233
Attachment 10
OFFICE OF COM11tUNITY DEVELOPMENT
' ' � CTTY HALL
10300 TORRE AVE vUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
� U P E RT 1 N 4 (408) 777-3308 • FA X(408) 777-3333 • planning�cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIJ� STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. a� Agenda Date: �a � 8 � �� 4
Application Summary:
Review the Matrix management study c�f the permit process. Consider authorizing
staff to move forward with recommer�ded process enhancements and ordinance
amendments, Application No. CP-2010-1)1, City of Cupertino, Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recornmends 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 li:�t of changes recommended by the Planning
Commission
• Direct staff to initiate public r�view process for the ordinance/ policy
amendments
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Grou � was asked to conduct a comprehensive
organization and management analys:.s of the development permit process and
operations. The objective of the analysi;� was to identify opportunities for enhancing
the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency.
Matrix began their research in March 2C 09 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 c��mpared Cupertino's permit processes and
organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management
practices in the industry and made a li;;t of recommendations to improve the City's
permit process and organizational effi�:iency. Attachment B is a summary table of
recommendations in the Matrix report �vith staff comments.
5-•234
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 (:;ee Attachment G for staff report). Specific
recominendations of the Planning Comr�ussion 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 Improvernents
3. Fee Amendments/Cost Recovery
1. ORDINANCE/POLICY AMENDMENTS
A substantial amount of Matrix's r��commendations 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 st�indards) and at the Planning Commission
level. Finally, there are opportunitie � to enhance and revise the City's Municipal
code and various Specific/Concepival 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 si::e and recommends that the permit process
should be streamlined. Staff condL cted a high level comparison of approval
authorities of comparable local citi��s with a reputation for efficiency such as
Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Sar�ta Clara (see Attachment H). The Planning
Commission reviewed the compar«tive review authority study and provided
their recommendations (see Attachrr.ent H, recommendation column).
The entire list of specific Planning Cc�mmission recominendations 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 r�iailed notice. However, staff and the
Planning Commission note that these recommendations have to be balanced
with community concerns regarc ing adequate noticing. The Commission
also noted that any reduction in iioticing plan sets should only be considered
after a new online permitting anci information system is implemented.
5--235
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 inforrriation, updates, etc.
(b) Improvin�ReadabilitU and Consiste�i�
The recommendation is to conduc : a comprehensive review of the Zoning
Ordinance for consistency and the us � of tables to reduce repetition and optimize
readability. The Sign Ordinance is ari example of where this was done. Specific
staff recommendations include:
■ Codify the Planned Industrial �nd Office (MP/OP) zones in the Zoning
Ordinance. This section is curreni:ly used but not codified.
■ Incorporate the West Valley industrial Park Zoning area (ML-rc) into the
Light Industrial (ML) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance.
■ Create a new Commercial orc inance to include all commercial zones
including General Commercia 1(CG) ordinance and Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) uses and stand�irds.
■ Clarify and cleanup definitions . permitted uses, parking ratios, daycare
policies, etc.
(c) �ecific/Conce�tual Plans
Many of the city's Specific and Conct�ptual Plans were adopted in the 1970's and
1980's. Since then, the General Pla�i has been updated three times. Planning
Commission recommends updating :he following Specific Plans as time permits
to be consistent with the new Genera. Plan with updated formats and graphics.
■ North De Anza Boulevard Conce��tual Plan
■ South De Anza Boulevard Conce�►tual Plan
■ Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines
■ South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conce��tual Zoning Plan
The estimated cost of updating each plan on a limited scale is between $15,000
and $25,000 depending on the scope ��f the project and outreach.
2. INFRASTRUCTURF,/TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
(a) Online Permit SUstem
One of the high-priority recomntendations in the Matrix report is the
implementation of a new automat��d permit software system. The Planning
Commission supports staffs efforts :o 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 ��ermit system users
■ Software Integration for the per�nit 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
5-•236
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010
Page 4
(b) Infrastructure Improvements
The Matrix Study recommends rede:�igning the permit counter area to improve
customer service. The Planrung Com�nission recommends remodeling the permit
center to add a meeting place where :�taff can sit down with customers to discuss
ideas/plans.
3. FEE AMENDMENTS/COST RECOVERY
The Matrix study recommended a Eee study to provide for cost-recovery for
projects. The Planning Commission ��ecommends 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 affordab: e housing and green building projects, but
in a revenue neutral manner.
4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENL�ATIONS
There are other miscellaneous reco mmendations made by Matrix relating to
Planning Commission and City Cour cil bylaws and communication.
The Planning Commission made the .=ollowing recommendations:
■ Consider annual Planning �ommission & Staff annual off-site
retreat/ workshop
■ Consider Planning Commission & City Council off-site retreat/workshop
when new members are elected/ a ppointed.
NEXT STEPS �
Based on City Council direction to pr��ceed with policy/ordinance/specific plan
amendments/ updates, staff will bring b�ck a schedule of the amendments/ updates
based on the City Council's prioritizaticm. These projects will then be incorporated
into the Planning Commissiori s and Cit�� Council's Work Programs.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Pl�.nner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planne� - a�� �-
Reviewed by: Approved by:
a' ivastava avi W. Knapp
Community Development Director City Manager
5-•237
CP-2010-01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Matrix Consutling Group's report titled, "Management
Study of the PErmit Process," dated November 17, 2009
Attachment B Summary Ta��le of recommendations in the Matrix report
with staff conunents
Attachment C Planning Conunission Staff Report dated Apri113, 2010
Attachment D Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Apri113, 2010
Attachment E Planning Conunission Staff Report dated Apri127, 2010
Attachment F Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Apri127, 2010
Attachment G Planning Conunission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010
Attachment H Comparison c�hart of permit processes for various cities
and Staff's rec:ommendations
Attachment I Summary of t he Planning Commission comments and
input
G � Planning � PDREPORT � CC � 2010 � CP-2010-01 CC.doc
5-•238
Attachment 11
May 18, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8
Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to approve the use permit modification M-2010-01
to remove the reciprocal access and paiking easement. The motion carried unanimously.
23. Communitv Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program:
a. Conduct a public hearing to ;onsider adoption of the (2010-15) Community
Development Block Grant (CD=3G) Consolidated Plan, Resolution No. 10-100
b. Direct staff to dissolve the CDFtG Steering Committee and amend Chapter 2.86 of
the Municipal Code to give th� Housing Commission authority to make CDBG
funding and policy recommend:�tions in the future
Written communications for this item i ncluded a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Senior Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report.
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 10-100. The motion
carried unanimously.
Mahoney moved and Chang seconde d to direct staff to amend Chapter 2.86 of the
� Municipal Code to expand the Housing Commission's responsibilities to include CDBG
oversight and to dissolve the CDBG S:eering Committee. The motion carried with Wong
voting no.
Council recessed from 8:47 p.m. to 9:02 p.m.
24. Review the Matrix mana��ement study of the permit process. Consider authorizing staff
to move forward with recommended ��rocess enhancements and ordinance amendments,
Application No. CP-2010-01, City of Cupertino, Citywide.
Written communications for this iteni included a records request and correspondence
from Bern Steves asking Council to df:fer making any changes stemming from the report
for at least 3 months; a records request and correspondence from Keith Murphy; email
from Keith Murphy regarding the pul�lic records request; email requesting continuance
from Marolyn Chow.
Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report.
At 9:30 p.m. Mayor Wang opened the :�ublic hearing. �
Marty Miller said that matrix report has many shortcomings but that there are also a lot of
good suggestions in the report to app:�ove processes. He suggested that at least staff go
through the suggested improvements a;id prioritize them.
Jennifer Griffin said that the public ha;; been shut out of this process for the past year and
that there has been no Citywide notic-ng on this topic. She said she was concerned that
5--239
May 18, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 9
the focus groups didn't include anyon�; living in Cupertino and that the residents should
be involved. She noted that she likes �he way the noticing for development is done now
and not to change it. She also said that the Design Review Committee (DRC) is extremely
valuable.
Ruby Elbogen said that the best focus ;;roup was Main Street Cupertino because it was an
open process and many people came a�id participated. She noted that focus groups should
be made up of people who volunteer for the group and have gone through the process
rather than anonymous people. She u:-ged Council to keep the DRC and to have more
public input rather than less.
At 9:38 p.m. Mayor Wang closed the public hearing.
Council directed staff to invite grou� s from the community to workshops in order to
discuss the permit process and left the Citywide noticing up to staff. Council also
concurred to authorize staff to obtain an accurate cost for software for an online
permitting system in the future.
Council recessed from 10:25 p.m. to 1(1:36 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
25. Consider adopting an ordinance movir.g the date of the City's en� eral municipal election
to consolidate it with the statewide general election commencing November 2012.
Conduct the first reading of Ordinancf: No. 10-2061: "An Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Cupertino moving the date of the City's general municipal election to
consolidate it with the statewide gener<<l election commencing November 2012."
Written communications for this item : ncluded emails from Patrick Kwok and Julie Lunn
opposing the date change, and an emai 1 from Ignatius Ding regarding a complaint sent to
the Fair Political Practices Commissio�i.
Ignatius Ding said that it would be b�d politics to change the date of the election and
noted that local issues would be lost if the election were changed to coincide with a State
election. He read a letter submitted to Council regarding the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) and cited a sectio 1 from the Election Code.
City Attorney Carol Korade said that she read the FPPC letter and categorically, no
impropriety exists on Council's action tor,ight or back in March on this issue.
Jennifer Griffin said that she doesn't see any benefit for the future in changing the
election and asked to have a courtf;sy notice sent Citywide to inform residents of
Council's decision on this item.
5-•240
Attachment 12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCE55 IMPROVEMENTS
July �'.8, 2010
Described below are the proposed categori�:s for improvements to the Development Permit
Process in the City of Cupertino. The nun�bered items provide an outline for community
input to help draft recommendations fo° the Planning Commission and City Council's
considerntion.
1. TECHNOLOGY
a. The City should implement an uutomated permit information system to allow
greater efficiencies including:
i. Online submittal of applications (including plans) and permit issuance.
ii. Ability for users to track and m�nitor project status.
Note: It is expected thot o fee inc�eo=�e of 3-4% would be necessary to implement the
permitting software. However, this fee� would la�gely be offset by cost sovings due to
reduced trovel time, moiling chorges onc�p�inting costs
2. COMMUNICATION
a. Look for ways to improve commui�ic4tion with the public while maintaining the
efficiency of the permit process. (For example, provide detailed project
data/contact informntion online)
b. Strecamline the notificntion process to provide one mailed notice per project.
Residents could then sign up to ��et em4il updates as the project progresses.
(People who prefe� mailed notices ,:an coll or emoil to stoy on o mailing list). This
will improve efficiency, reduce no costs and reduce use of paper. (Per
Council direction, notificotion �eqc�ir�ements fo� Single-family pro, jects would not
change.)
c. Provide manuals and guides on the City's website to explain the City's permit
processes.
d. Periodically review and update City jocuments (Zoning Ordinances and Plnns).
3. STREAMLINING
o. Make the Planning Commission the final decision-making authority on development
projects, with the City Counci) u:c the nuthority to review appenls. (Projects
involving omendments to the GenE�r4/ Plon, Ordinances, and Conceptual Plons o�
Mops ond Envir�omentol Impoct R��ports (EIRs) will continue to requi�e Council
review.)
b. Streamline the process for minor ��lanning permits by developing project findings
and criteria and allowing approval ai the staff level.
c. Reduce paper work by not requiring staff reports for minor projects (For exomple
Director Minor Modifications)
5--241
Community comments 1'rom DPP workshop July 28 A�chment 13
Matrix Residential Commercial Community PC
Recommendation Applicant Applicant member Member Totals
On ine Permittin P an #26-28, 32, 47,48,
submittal 62-76 XX XXXX X 7
Technology Access to technology is hard ##77 X X 2
Provide computer station
at City Hall to aid people
without access #77 X 1
Sta ma e more ecisions #6-11 XXX 3
Keep current approval levels N/q XX 2
Adopting permit cycle
times will rush projects #14, 17 X 1
Step-by-step guidance #54, 80 X X X 3
Streamlining One contact person for
entire process #23,35, 37, 39 X 1
Process/ Use of
consultants/ requirements
are expensive &
complicated #93 X XX X 4
Mailings most e ective #11 X XX 3
One mailing enough #11 x XX 3
Notification is cumbersome #11 X X 2
Email is good #65 XX 2
Communication
Improve Interdepartmental
communication #46, 91 X 1
Involve Public early/ have
community meetings N/A XX XX 4
PG E issues N/A XX 2
Annual/ biannual meeting
Misc with everyone #82 X 1
City staff should be LEED
certified #87, 89 X 1
Total attendees at the meeting 2 4 9 4 19
5--242
Approval Authority Comparing Cupertino, Moutain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
Attac hrnent 14
�� -- - -
, - - b ---- - - ;
, h 3 �
_ _ , - � � � �
} + __ . � ,
�
PC � - ,�; _ : - r -
� �� i�
� ; ;
_ —.� �- _._
�.
1 ' '�
DRC _ a K��� - - " ,��;, .
_ . ��". - - - � _, . —
� �'�� �� � �
Admin � _ �:_:, — . :
; �: - --- _
�
�
�� y � S.
T' i
. , ._._-.'_ . � ._�_ . ._-_. .
�
�,`
I
.
A
-F � � � �' .. _ � �� -- - � - � . . . . ... ��`�.
j '' � .`. -_ '�_ _
R R R. R R R R
Parcel Maps Tentative Map Ordinance Rezoning/ Map Development General Plan Precise/ Specific/
(4 or less) (5 or more) � Amendments Amendments Agreement Amendment Conceptual Plans
PC ---
DRC ------------------
. ��
Admin--�-
� � -L i
, � . �
, .
� . �,, . ,; .
y'
�_t �:>,._ . . ., . � f 1 4` �" P --- I� ; �
R R .j R R
R1 R1 Exceptions Duplex Yard Interpretations
CC -
. ,
,,
PC� - — —._ . _ �
_--- ---;
� .
I ��
DRC —} - --____ _
,,� , F .
�
— x � - �;. _ --
, ,�,
,,
Admin �=�x�� ��'
:t..
_ W _ � �' (,
1
.�. . �bn' , n .
. ' ,' _... .._. _. .'...: �� .'.,�.T.� .
4 .-
+'.-:. �4'�' t . ., .1 {Y �" � i'.
. R -- : , W:: • ;..._... R _. R _ R
r— - --r-- _ . ....., —�
Cellular Antenna and Variances Extensions for project Extensions for project
similar facilities approved at PC approved at CC
September 8, 2010
5-243
PC -- - -
D RC � ,—_ _ Y
—
��
Admin - -- - ---
- ,�
�;�:� .
e 1 �� e � � s . :
� Y;:
1 .,..
. .
......M��, ..,.....,. ,. �.,..�.. -� - _�...,.. _�
R R R R
Fence Exception Sign Exception Minor Parking Exception Major Parking Exception
CC- — -- ---------------
F
�'
�
P C -------- --- -- -
' �
DRC� ---- � -- -- ___. ..._ _ _ __ ._____ __ _ ._----
� �
�.
�
� .
1 '� �
� .
--- --- - _ __ _ __ _ _-- _ _ _. _ _ _ __ _ _ _-
i ,. E
� � ,;
�.
Admin -� X _____ _ __
- - -- �
- __ __ _
� � �� � � �
; � � � �
i _, � I i :
e � � f �, � � � �
., .. _�" �7'i .L"c:.'. '` , .�, � . � .R.. .
., , ,. �_. R , ,. R _ ., . --�
Minor ASA Permit Major ASA Permit Modifications to Minor ASA Modificafions to Major ASA
( 000 s.f. (Non-res > 10,000 s.f., �
Non-res <_ 10, , �
dev <_ 5 acres, MFR <_ 6) dev > 5 acres, MFR > 6)
CC - ---------- _
T
PC---- i w - ___ --- ------ i
---------- ; - ----- �
�
DRC - � i --__ __..__ ._ '
� ---__ ___ --
,
: �
. � �,�; :, .
Ad m i n ( �,� . r , , x �.;
,
_ _ ,...: - - � 3 _ - - _
x � e• �
�
�s . .?a � - �
��� A --' r��.Y� —.._.i � — �
.. , r. ' �.
' .. .
� �
� .,_..;_... .�. - - .. ...: . R -- _. R _ .. _ R _--,
Minor Use Permit Major Use Permit Modifications to Minor Use Modifications to Major Use
(Non-res 5 10,000 s.f., (Non-res > 10,000 s.f., Permit Permit
dev _< 5 acres, MFR <_ 6) dev > 5 acres, MFR > 6)
Please circle one:
Residential Applicant Commercial Applicant Community Member Elected orAppointed Official
5-244
SUMMARY OF GROUP WORKSH�)P RECOMMENDATIONS (09/08/10)
Attachment 15
Current Level (inf. � �
presented to City Planning Design i Majority iStaff Rec. if
Type of Project group) Councii i;ommission Review Administrative Group Rec. different
Parcel Maps PC 0 10 2 ii � Admin �
Tentative Map CC 9 7 0 0 CC
Ordinances CC 13 2 0 0 CC
� �
Rezoning/Map Amendments CC 12 3 0 0 � CC �
Development Agreement CC 12 3 0 0 CC
General Plan Amendment CC 15 0 0 0 CC
Precise/Specific/ Conceptual � �
Plans CC 12 2 0 0 � CC �
R1 Admin 0 0 3 19 � Admin �
Ri Exceptions DRC 0 0 10 12 Admin
Duplex DRC 0 0 7 15 Admin
Yard Interpretations PC 0 4 3 15 � Admin �
Cellular Antenna and similar
facilities PC 0 10 10 2 � PC �
Variances PC 1 10 4 6 � PC �
Extensions for PC approved � �
project PC 0 8 1 12 � Admin �
Extensions for CC approved
project CC 8 0 0 12 I Admin �
Fence Exception DRC 0 0 10 13 � Admin �
Sign Exception DRC 0 1 13 8 � DRC
Minor Parking Exception 1 PC 0 S 3 15 Admin
Major Parking Exception Z PC 1 14 2 5 � PC �
Minor ASA Permit 1 PC 3 4 4 10 5 � DRC � Admin 4
Major ASA Permit Z PC 10 5 7 1 CC PC 5
Modifications to Minor ASA 1 PC 3 3 1 15 Admin �
DRC or �
Modi�cations to Major ASA Z PC 3 8 1 5 8 � lower � DRC
Minor PD Permit 1 PC 4 7 4 8 � Admin �
Major PD Permit Z CC 7 13 1 2 � PC �
Minor CUP 1 PC 3 4 7 4 8 Admin PC 5
Major CUP Z PC 3 7 13 1 2 PC
Modifications to Minor I I
CUP/PD 1 PC 3 4 5 3 11 � Admin �
Modifications to Major � DRC or �
CUP/PD Z CC 7 6 3 7 � lower � DRC
1 Minor - Less than , ', 10,000 non-residential, e#�e��ial e+g#� six units (exempt under CEQA)
Z Major - Greater than or equal to , ', 10,000 non-re�idential, ', e+g#� six units
3 Correction made to approval authority.
° Change proposed in order to maintain consistency in approval autnority. For e.g., all minor PD permits (recommended by the group to be
issued administratively) will always be accompanied by an ASA Perriit.
5 Recommendation different from group to maintain the current le� el of authority in these areas.
5--245
COMPARING GROUP WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CURRENT APPROVAL LEVELS AND OTHER
NEIGHBORING CITIES
cc
PC
DRC
Admi
i
I
{ { i
- CU MV SU SC
Parcel Maps Tentative Maps Ordinances Rezoning /Map Development General Plan Precise /Specific/
Amendments Agreement Amendment Conceptual Plans
W Cupertino Current Level U Mountain View LJ Sunnyvale b Santa Clara IJ Majority Group Rec. ._! Staff Rec. if different
CC
PC
DRC
Admin
R1 R1 Exceptions Duplex Yard Interpretations
V Cupertino Current Level U Mountain View U Sunnyvale U Santa Clara '. Majority Group Rec. -_' Staff Rec. if different
CC
PC
DRC
Admin
U Cupertino Current Level U Mountain View LJ Sunnyvale U Santa Clara L Majority Group Rec. Staff Rec. if different
5 -246 Page 1 oft
Variances Fence Exception Sign Exception Minor Parking Exception Major Parking Exception
M
PC
DRC
Admin
Minor ASA Permit * Major ASA Permit * Minor PD Permit Major PD Permit Minor CUP * Major CUP *
W Cupertino Current Level W Mountain View C! Sunnyvale W Santa Clara !_l Majority Group Rec. .-J Staff Rec. if different
* Corrections have been made to reflect the current level of approval authority in
CC
PC
DRC
Admin
iStaN to
_.�
Rec. Rec. �
Extensions for PC Extensions for CC Modifications to Modifications to Modifications to Modifications to
approved project approved project Minor ASA Major ASA Minor CUP /PD ** Major CUP /PD **
W Cupertino Current Level W Mountain View ii Sunnyvale d Santa Clara Li Majority Group Rec. L] Staff Rec. if different
** Group Recommendation was for DRC approval or lower. Staff recommends DRC approval.
5 -247 Page 2 of 2
Attachment 16
Approval Authoritv
Owner with a large lot could potentially subdivide into many parcels – therefore even minor subdivisions should
be considered at the City Council —Jen Griffin
Glad the item at last night (9/7/2010)'s CC meeting wa�� considered at their level. —Jen Griffin
If you have one acre in the middle of town – the project meets all development standards– shouldn't need to be
considered at CC Level.
There needs to be triggers/thresholds in place that woiild allow minor/straight forward subdivisions to be
approved at the Planning Commission.
If rules are in place – projects should be approved adm nistratively.
Concerned that by moving projects to a lower level –yc>u lose public input opportunities. —Keith M.
MV seems to have a lower threshold for approvals – hcw has it been working for them over there? —Amar
Does MV have firm guidelines over there? —Keith M.
It's the culture in Cupertino. MV respects its own cultui e. If we do that then perhaps things could be approved at a
lower level. �
Cupertino is one of the youngest, out of the cities bein�; compared. We have a long history of residents'
involvement. We have to realize we are being compared to other cities with longer history/culture. —Jen Griffin
T-map – 5 or more should go down to planning commi�sion. —M. Burns
Residential Approvals
Glad Cupertino is at its level where it is because we ha�e limited space/high property value. Yes, it's a long battle
to develop something in Cupertino, but it is worth it. V1�e are unique and worth it. —Jen Griffin
Why is Cupertino at a higher level? —Bob McK.
Clarify yard interpretation.
Matrix believes residential projects/process is the problem. That's unfortunate. Doesn't acknowledge community
interest/background/issues. It's good to have open con�munications about project/developments. — K. Murphy
Have we looked to see if our current system is working effectively? There could be some improvements that could
be done to the work process and that should be looked at first. —Norm
Focus group (matrix) is all developers. Which means wtiat's in place is working for them. — Bob McK.
We should make the process as efficient and easy as w�� can. —S. Plautz.
5--248
When people are following all the rules, not pushing th � envelope, the process should be easy. They should not be
penalized. Time is money due to changing market cond tions. —M. Burns
When someone purchases a property, goes in for permit, once receive approval, the house goes right back on the
market. This is a concern. See a lot of properties that are owned by banks, empty lots. — Jen Griffin.
Projects that are stalled, how do they fit into the buildi�ig permit process? —Keith M.
Cellular antennas, if can't be seen from the public, sho��ldn't they be approved at the staff level? —John
There was a cell phone tower that was approved at the staff level. Missed the issues pertaining to landscaping that
would have been minimized if there was public input/r��view. —K. Murphy
Parkin�
Based on other cities, we are out of line and should be �ade similar. —Scott PI.
There seems to be a parking issue city-wide, so would like to see the parking process stay at PC level. —Bob
Minor exceptions should be approved at staff level — m ajor except at PC.
Shops in Cupertino because accessible. Some centers a�e tight in their parking lot — safety concerns. If can't find
parking, people tend to go elsewhere. —Jen Griffin
Parking is an important issue —should be maintained at current level — there needs to be address of commercial
vehicle parking to minimize parking on public streets.
Are there ever applications where they want to put in r�ore parking? —Paul P.
What are considered Parking 2xceptions?
What about Alternative transportation? Should be encc�uraged. —Paul P. •
Where's the parking in Cupertino? Policy? Or process? —Miller
If other cities could set things down at a lower level, wF�y not in Cupertino? —Catherine C.
Minor uses = DRC
Major = PC
Minor mods = DRC/PC —John V.
Even if approvals are shifted to a lower level, they can �till be appealed to a higher reviewing board. —Paul B.
Cost of appeal? —Bob McK
Perhaps if process is reduced, then appeal $ should be owered or waived. To not hinder folks from appealing.
Things that may appear trivial are important to others. It's not a political issue if the entire street/property owners
have concerns about a project. It means people want tc� preserve their neighborhood integrity. —Jen Griffin.
5--249
Pg. 47, Bullet 1(Matrix). —K. Murphy
By looking at the chart, you get the sense why projects,'CC meetings take so long.
"It gets political/individual feelings come in at the CC level. Where as other lower review levels are more technical
and easier to get through. —M Burns
In working with the city, they were very professional b��t their hands were tied and had to be resolved at a higher
level.
Because unclear rules/guidelines, it will be hard to make crisp decisions. —Cox.
Best rules/policy dealt with city of Santa Maria. Decisions were crisp/objective.
We are forcing people to go through various review prc�cesses, encourages people to put their personal stamp on
projects. —M. Burns
The process currently reflects democracy as a result of �itizen's efforts. Hate to see the city going back to "stealth
process" without proper public participation. —Bob Mc K.
At least people are involved—process may take longer
Need clear guidelines/criteria but over time they get di uted modifications made. People surprised by bad
development. With good clear guidelines both for big developers and small projects and everyone keeps to them.
— Keith M.
If there are people living outside of the City wanting to change our process, they need to explain why. —Jen Griffin
Planning Commission is where public input ought to ha �pen. Show developers the issues so they can consider
them. —K. Murphy
A lot of the concerns relate to commercial projects. Coricerned about the residential process. Perhaps process
should be made easier for residential review. Maintain the current commission review level. —Amar
Process could be moved down to DRC level and yet still sufficient public input opportunities are provided. —Scott
Plautz
Easier process may work for projects working within th�� box. For those working outside of the box, still require the
higher level of review. —Norm
How does City enforce unpermitted activities? How do we monitor construction?
Other thin�s to cover:
In difficult economic times, tenants need to be able to inove in quickly. Current process takes too long. —John
Cupertino commercial/office tenant spaces tend to be inore expensive. We are constrained. 18% occupancy rate —
can't really be compared to much larger neighboring cii ies. —Jen Griffin
5-•250
We are not other cities, but we are competing with oth�r cities. Some of the tenants that are looking to come into
Cupertino compares us with other cities in terms of ease of process —Kevin D.
Need to make sure we stay competitive.
Does Cupertino have an economic development persor that helps the City to compete with other cities and entice
business? —K. Murphy
Public input is integral to whatever process we end up �vith.
Have lost tenants because process took too long —Johr�
It's a constant battle to keep tech in Cupertino. Currently there's a good balance. People need to realize that it's a
privilege to be located in Cupertino. Otherwise, the city would be all residential.
Tenants always compare us with other bay area cities. I�uts a lot of pressure on builders and developers. It is a
balance between residential/commercial. It's that balaiice that is keeping up the property value. —Scott Plautz
Matrix report talks about the politically changed environment. It doesn't have to be. Encourage developers to
outreach to the public and work together. —Bob McK.
5--251
�
� Q
� N > L' +- �
�� � i N V � �
G� � � o� s � ,L
� V � � } � o-
� V ��n o W L
�I c ---- ---- --------- --------------
V °_
�
� `� n , � �
�,O L� a � a V U
+� U� E ¢
� o
'� u
� d
� � -- ---- -------- ---- --------
� } �— — — --
� �
O L�} a � V V V
� a �
� V Q Q
C
O � o
vi � ° } � d � d
� � s � � d o � �' o Y � � } c
� 'cn � � } � a 'L a �o a � a i �
� � ��G a 3� d j � cn Q ' o y -
� �� C U N L X Q1 � p � � V� 0 � �
� G. X d � 4�-- � s,C �� � N O+' �
N � � � a o i- L } • 3 � �' } ,� tn
o • v
� c c o�L °�— y a 'c � °+°�- 3 0}
O a y c`•�' � y x= Y o� X� c d 3 a�
� u � ° ° � � � �n �° ° � o c � o u }
V +- � a. 3 N �, } X
� d � a o � d o� o o�i �� � o.� °� o
N � N Q Y "' �C }��. � V � L d O� � � 0) d L
� L y y L L } '}' Q N i. � _ }- V � �
+-+ �' � .c � a ' c � o ` +`'- .°�. � o . v d 2 N
� v 3 o f� `� }}�� o o� L o d�^ d w
� v- } ° o s .., d a c } � > � o� °> � o
N � � >� cn "' � a L+ - . O � o � �� o r+
v � � � o �i ° ° ° ° o o > +�-- � 4 ° - o > � , c
� p� � �- pl `� L N N�G
.� y � '� � U } � � d � d d � � i�. Q1 '� � O
� 7 > V C C � U •� 0 � "C � tn d 7 �L N d � N
L' O N L G� "� N X L- � C d N t- Q' O O L N L
� � v Q u�. v s. N U� '�n o F- c. 1- v� rn t F-- �n Q
i
O o� p � ^
+�+ t d v } � v� �' d o
a .�. • c � , c� a, [Y
o � o
' 0 � +- �L O -n Ol
+-+ • N O � �l � N N � > 4 d Q 01 � �
� S � � O
Q � 3 S L � } � L � � � d � � ~
d � � •L VI � a a a '�n � � } � Ol
(p 'L • dl
� m j � � t ~ � Y L. U p L O j � L
N ^
O 4��- � 11J � Q. .-~-� G. d 4- L � �O � �l
Q
�.
4- d � � I
Q = N p� �O
C Z S O I L � � 4�-- �
O � �� ��' d v L •"= s
'_^ �i v� a � o�! � a� � v
�L
�
Q (�j tt�
� .-i .-r O nj ' N M M M �
� O O � p O O O O^
v � o o ° o 0 0 0 0 o p
C �� N� N N N N N
p N N � N i � i i Q
O �� ~� j W j� w
�1 .� w N M �p � � Cp
�a O�-+ O O p N O� p� O c0 p
O i p O 0 O i
� O O O O� O O O O�
N O O N
�n� �n tnX v�i�X
Q I- Q Q w u� �` t- I- Q I- w
a
+-
c
E
F
0
V
_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0
�
N a � � � c �
� L F V v v � a � a a
� � F Q ¢ Q Q
"� °
C d
� � - - - - - - - - - - - � �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� � - -- - - -
� � a t V � � a V a V a
� a �
� V � �
� � +-
c
c
i O O � � � O d a1
f6 M O } � o � � � O � � N� � L U
c o� v o 'o o� d-
� � � V �� s O p � � N p O� d� O
� Q1
Ol �' � � � p� } � � L � � � L "': V } N �
� � � . � •� a � o � � .� � } � � � o ,� _ o
i C � p�'j C t � U> � O y�... � � i � L aj p 4-
� � L N } O tA � L O O � , � a O tn Q, y y p C +-
O 't. N � � � � � a o °> j � � > � � > 3 � `�' t > � o
.� � � . d o - o � > o } � o • o o� o
N � o� �"o v� >� � L o 'v� . d d 3 3 a. s
o � i �. x ° ° � � ° d � i } a s � ' ° � +- N � u
o� � rn_ c
C L• '+- i 3 � � 0 3'v� } v� �
� � +�- � o�i � � � � t� � t °� — � } L o o�i � �
N tA � > Y d � N � � C O } � } � � O � � � "d �
� O ' � _ N - d � N - C .N N
� � � V � � � . � � L N � � � i � � � L O � d 'r-
� � L N } O � d y� C x d N. G L O p d� d L O ��U O
� o a u � � � '� � � L � o� � Q � � �o„ � � � � Q. � � o � e�
+. o � y �,� o � �-° � V a � d j Q, v_� � vr � � j � cn ._ vi u Q�
U L. O L p� � p� } � o) cn � N N d � O N N u �
� n- '7 \ Q1 p Q O_ � �'+" C p pp a - C N C y � } �-� N
O L O V1 p
.� o� o c� o�i � U ° v i� d o L 3 0" v °� ° o O� o�i u° °�
� 4- Ln L 7. F'" G tA LL C � N N i- t� f" � .--� O L � V
� Y � � � }
� � p � L �
+��+ � } O - a L � ° ° � � *�' v
� � rn
•L a `" — � d � ° � c .n o� �
p �� M } — y � � � � ° ° o� � '�
+�+ Ol } L } al C N d � �� y � L �p
� � � N� y m � 01 L � � O � V J
Q � L �.� p O � } vf p� a. L s � i 'p �
� m } X � +�- � j n- � � 7 � H v d N
� � � S W 7 G N O .� � N d N Z �
Q
� � �
Q � � � N O L al � N C
�..� t L � C
O p � Y � °° � � a ` s ° � � � c � v
g � +' V �
� Z p � 7 0� � L 0) � � t7 � � O
� Y � � 1 CO �C �'7 _1 F H f'7
�L
�
Q .--i
� � '� Q O
�
O O O p O.-� �
V ^ O O O O � O O O
N (�J
0 N N N N � N N N
� � Q � j � � Q �
u .o w I� ao o� w
O O� O O O p � ap � �.p �
• a 1� �i 1� I� f� ~ 1� � 1� � f� 0 f�
Q O I� O O O 1� O� O Q O� O
N O N N N O N � N � N � N
Q N Q Q Q N Q N Q N Q N Q
�n � �n �n 5._ 2 � � �n Q �n � �n cc �n
Q F-- Q Q F- Q W Q� Q t- Q
a
�
c
E
�
0
V
�---- ---- ------ -- ------ -- -- --- -- ---
0
�
� � � � � � c � � c
a
d v
� t °. E � � � v � � v v � � - �a
+' U� E Q < Q Q Q Q Q ¢
� o
'a u
C 01
� � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
� �— — — -- — • — �
� �> � V V U V V U V
o► o o V p� V p� p� V p� p� p� V p�
� L n. + � � � � � °' � � � � �
� a �
� v Q Q
� � ° ° o } �
� L �
� Q p � O y" d '� O � p
� � � � � � � + t ' � N 3 � v�i 4-�-
a1 0 � a o rn c v► c s a ' X � o�
`� � =a '+- } ' � o rn d � o � rn d � s
� � . � d � 3 � � � i= rn � si o o +- o�
� 01 0 � � �- o } o � d � 3 c ` � ' � �
� p } a d � 4��- y p� L N X p) � c7 0 3° u�
O o � � L ° d� 3 c s°� 3 � d 3 a �� � �n
N +- �-. `�- -o � � a ° � u a ° c� o o� � c� c �- �
� g� � v o c� o� � 3 � d d ��° o ��} ��
O a v � v' c � c o o } � d ° � } c � " - � � +`'- L � o
� u L ° -� � ° i p ° � o � N a� N � � � ° � °° o ° � N
� Q a� • � � a � �tj � y � � 3 � d d � o � �t � � �
� G L Y -o ¢ L Q 3 i X o ��} X d c � 3 0 0� ° u �
3 �, � .s � � � � � °' �. � } � °' � o ° � } � � } ��
n. � +- y +- o v`^ o� �+°- 3 �° �° s o� ° rv
�i-+ 'd N � d � � - � p � �' � � ��" � C � � V/ � 0 .M.
� O O � U �� d.� a x� 00 i L } C a'y � 3 t v � �� O
� N � � N � � N M
N � � u } � � } � � � � } � � o y o v � � � � X d � o
U o�i a� o�i a a �� d X a ` ° v � X rn x N ° o o� c °� v
.� � � � �- N � } d - �O �V1 � � O � w N V ��( p p N -�p V d
O L � �X L � p�j L N L `� �1 Q � � � �� � O d C� 3 S - 0) � 01
Q t d Q �� Q� c+� 3 cn o•O .0 in w c + + L tL cn
L
0 p� � L-
�
� �
� �� � v d 7 � O p O
�L' •a d Q � � � 7 � � } � � O � � O
0 V L y � Q vl W' � O �� d p y i- p � �
� d Q1 � N � � N � a i . u d � Q � y � V N
� �� � L � � O } �} w � s � � X u °� X
Q v- c � � d d �. O cn x � y o L X d °� X d d
d N;� �= y � Q lt') N N O � � �} N�C p1 d � N
> m � � � } a � 3 3 � � �' � � � v � � `n �
O v� v v a Z Z � 2 c� � in � ti in = ti
Q
Q } o � y } o � u
} Y
'+- � s o o� � o � y � u- T V
� C vi Y � � L s � `� .� c � d � v
C Z .� � o � Q tn c� c v c ° s } h
O o �� s � � o o d o o � o 0
N � �[ V V _! 2 ti ti Q Q 3 �L �
�L
� �
� o ° O
� � r� ° o
v ,� o
C N aL N
O � H Q
Q � p W
� '° � °O °� o 0 0 0 0 0 °
'� . �, .-, ..�, ..� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � �
Q O O O O
N N �N N N N N N N N N
t¢ � t� � V X X X X X X
¢ ¢ Q Q � 254 w w w w w w
�
�
c
�
E
V
c
----- ------- -----•- ---- --- --- -- -- ----
0
f-
� � � � c c c
O o� .� a a V a � � � �
� � F Q Q Q Q Q
� o
� �
� �
N —__— ___--__ ____•- -- _— �__ _ -- ----
� � — — — — — —
� o�i o o V V V V V U U V V
O << s a a V U V a a a n-
� a �
� V � Q
� .., °� f- � v�i
� � � -� d � � ° L � d > >
� � _ v s d a
� . ° .� -o � . � } `�- d o� h
N O O al (L > L Q N � y ��.. i�. x x � O �
f� N y •� � � p � L L Q O .� ? � � •= C d
� - +- d d o o s v ^ � • �
01 � L `�"' °� a � y } a'
N vf � N.� N c� N N � �
d s
p 3 � � � v � � N U.� } L U' L�t' L L �'p N
0 � �O � � � C t � o G �� � a Q a � O �vf N
� c a L 'X o � °' 3 3 0 : L . } ° ^ � �^ ° v� � L �
a �� d� d o�i o� —° L o d 3 �� o� � o� d a vi
� '+- ^ s� �� � v o d a� a d � o u° u L 3�
O a +- w v d Q c � d c ��� � d O d L d L s} �
O u } � o c�n � ° � „p d � � � � � .�o � ° a, � a � � d
N O � L } C= V - O �p - N - 01 � Q X
N 3 � �
N � � � v a °1 s � v� 'a � ° u � � � o y , s N s � •� -p
� y � a } L 3 � cn s L } � � � N �"' a � � � � ;' � � a �
s v � o ° r? � � � L
GJ � } � 3 +" � °� � � - v c � d °o } d 'a� � } ° a- ° o � O
� c � o� o� + � v�L � o vi � �� c c� u a �
+, - •v � � L � � � � -o —° u o� �^ o� d Q d L o� °� d °� d � ?,
N a > d> u N > >�>�> c vi
Q� ,F O V O�� C � v y V Q L Q C L } p N d O d O d � p
• O . V N y ����� � L d L d.-� N O � d L N N N p�j Ol } N
� v�- � � t} a o� } v � m E- cv + � F- a v � F- ��
L
O N ^ tA Vf VI
� O � p r . y N y 7 7 7
+,�+ } p�j N � � •j � � � �
• O �a y w p o 7 p � O O O O O
�--+ N O � "O L ]L � � � � ^ ' j ' j � _ �
� Q V N N t C � 0) � d � � .� U U U �
ca 'i. 3 �� o�i v � 3 Y o`�i °�- � � L� L rn L v
d L L L �f C O � O
O m Q\ o X� � o o N o 0 o a = � a ��
L U 3= W O U C� N v N M v � M�
Q.
� � 3 3 3
a d °� s � d ai -Y L L L
`� E � o d � � 2 c m m m
c � �' �' � �
� � o H o�i �.
Vl • 'Y H L L L
p o a •-� o`'i 3� v u o�
'!� � � ti w J� F aC m F- H F-
.�
co
� ' Q
� , m
o .., � o
V �. (� � O
� O � � O
O p O� N
� � � N >
� ►J ri � �o r�
. a � .., N� �„� O O O O .-
Q � O O .� 1� !� 1� f� I�
p i� I� �p � O O O O O
N p p N N N N N
O �
i ,
H � 5- � , � N � � � � �
}
�
F
O
V
� ----- ----- ------ •--- -------------
0
}
o �
` a �
� �°, E °- v - �a � �
*_' u� E Q Q Q
� o
� �
C �
� ---- --�— ��--- •-- --�--�-------
� �` � — — �
� � > � U U U
O L a} a � � � V
� a �
� V Q �
C } o � �- a
01 0 0
� 3 4�- vf -� � � � O d � L N y O
� O � o� �- *� L � � c o v- d}
�n a.o �} o V o� c w�� 3 d c a o
� } „ d g �, d �, �- � } �- �- � 4- �, 3
-Q L t p . t t I� v� p 0 � L }
� u o �- � p c � c� 3 v�� y vi
O = 3 0 � o i.°- >' O - —° � o � i . �''� o � � `� � } °>
N �
V� �L � L � Q1 � O O1 � � � O� � � Ql � V�f O
� O � N O N O = d M ��O C N M � � C p d �
� O � � N� N �" � C 7 j C O j } i- f tn � �� �
^ L 7
� i- � � L � V "� U L �� VI O L O O y "' .-�i 01 •� L N
p '� -0 3 � � � v o � o c N � } c +- rn � °� � `
� d � o � } a o � ° � o�i -a � o�i � � °� � � o u -�
� p -� ' � � � � � ° ' _ � +- } d � � n. � a vi � }
� O d o t v� > N c � a'd o � °� o
� � o � � ° 'u
3 � o� � d o� �°� � F� t�� c �> � c L o
Q � O N p � � d L C cn a O � c� "� a1 N � p y �
� C O �.�. L p- p � � s O � y � � � p) � p d pp � O
+�.+ � } d � � � � � � } ' } _ } � � } 7 N � � � u1
U � d L 0 i- _ •- m � � N � N 0) x ' � � ] � � VI
+ O � '� •y L � � �- �U _ � � } � � C N N C � 7
•O =, d 0� N N p� d� = U'� L U O N � V � �C y �
L L L i- G. L C 7 U O_ N 4- O L • �
Q- 1� >.y o o V v � V v o Q o�� o} a o U
i. ,�
O H ^ °� �.
v �
� o o L H L '+- 3
� i- �n d� `. �� d d o
'i �- 3 s '- o� � � � `—� � t
3 • c — • v
s . v v i n c+' o�i o +-' -fl �� o> > } o�
+�+ o► o L s � �� � `� ac
Q � � � ' v� � � � � � � o ..
+- `o �. d d L�� c + rn
01 = � • L �- y o rn � � o 3�
� m � � 4- � 'p � t- O y p C "C � d �
i. O � a� N C � � �
� > � �D W LL J .� 4- � � � M �
Q
Q. � d
Q }
oi � o ° u L >.
O � V � � C ]�L
C Z Y � 3 Y v�a �
� ti c Z � m` ac 1=
�L
�
� O �
1
� � M
C.) .. �O � � �
N N O o0
i
O �N w w N
V w N M d' !L') �
'a ,� O O O O O
� �' O O O O O '
�
� O N N N N �
N N Q Q Q tn aC
>� ¢ Q 5' 2",� Q �--
a
�-
c
E
0
v
--------------- -------- ---- ------ -------
_
0
}
N � C � �
O lj E V � Q Q Q
� O
� �
� �
dJ ���___—��____ ���•--�— __—_ �--��� —_�����
� o o � U V � � �
O � a� V V � � �
� u � �
� � �
� � � v � � p , cn � o�i � N s N
� L "� ^ � N•� U � �= i } 3 a
� � — v�'+- c� i o v��- � O 3� o t �-� —° ' D � v�
� ��F � N d N d V O � N L' � U U � d O Q d �+-
O O N U V S�p N �F" � 00 � � � � L � 3 a1 �� � U � O
� � �l L 4- �L p •--� > � } � � U � } d y C C � O X V �
� � � �F 4- } � } C � } j } Q VI } � � C p� L 0) X N
O L :�... O O � � � C � i- � , d C � 0) p � �
� � N O L O � L y._ S d � _ � p p O i- > >�. -� +' t
`°, `^ o� o� `�' o o� } � � = � rn � L -o o . � v
N = d °� °� o L °� o 0 0 o v -� � o o`�i o ° a � � m c.� �>
� � O � L 4- v j d � 7 N L' N �1 - d O U O 7+' L ' L d y � h
O a� p�j 7 L, 0 N O p y Q � O j � �� ��'N N� } � t L
C n, � G. O X L d Q1 �
O � ¢ a N � d o rn � o � `� d � � Q c Q } � .,,_ ° � � •°� �
� � d o � a' h o � a p •� °� v�[ d d � s oi a °� c s �
N �� > Q O c� d � O} � c� y � tn c u tn � o a.� o �•� �n v
3 �_ �^ o�� N o c. o� L �} y rn
� � .�-, � O .� � L � S t } � y C � � S C � vl U O +�- � � � � N
+, o o� O•o �� v d � a-� di o d v v s. � d c"n � o � 3 Q �
� ? � p .., i- � � +- o o s � o � o � d a 'a � o � F ° � �
O � O. �' C O � } J L �C � L C �— L d C O
� � d o .�? d .° � � .� L � d -� � v +'- � H +'- u a c —° � � c ..� 'h �o
X o d a, v- � c � o
(� y• � L O � w � L ln „M 4"' ' � y � X 01 3 V Ql d )( _-p L a�
� } � �X d s � c } a, N d y � � +- � d +- d . � - o w } � � o
'-� S c L � � '� Y n. v � � s — � s Y � S � � � L � v 3 � }
� L o a o 0 3 v` �� ���> c i d+�- L�'d �� n. °-� o�i —° � v
� Q v- o u L s u� o c v� v� _ 3 �-� Q� o Q o �n .n � in � c� c a
L
� � } S L � d
�
�` � . O1 � � O1 =
C �
� d �} S F N Q1 N
� > �
� • H � t � � � L .� d � Ol
�+-+ d ' d d � a C
� � N �? � O N � t�if N a y
Q �F- 7 L v S d �� � — � u �
}
01 01 � �' � V C 7 U' N�C
> a�D X�� a� �.°�. ��—° � 3 v�i � o
N o � � .
� � ° u s �n S J .a �. Z v � �
Q
�
a J L N
y„_ d � J N � �
� � �� d N � � v a1 y
a . L
� .� L � •� O � L � N
O Y � LL �C V I� V� W
�L
� �
Q ^ � �
� O O �
� aD a0 ao �
U h o � o '
�
o Q O Q
O
� W N w N
U �O � 1� � 00 � �..�
f-
F . a pp "'' 00 N a0 oO 00
� O �, �,,,� O� � 0 0 O�
N �� N p N N N
Q �� Q � Q Q U
N O N
Q�° 5_ ' 2 � � Q Q w
a
�
C
�
F
O
V
�---- -- ------- ---•- --------- --- -- ---
0
�
` a �
� � '� '� '�
� L F � '� �d �C 0 � � � �
� l� F Q Q Q Q
� ° u
C d
� � --- -- — --- --�- �----�-- �-- —� ---
� } � — — -- � —
� �> t- V V U V U V � V V
d o 0
O � a� � 0 � � 0 � ¢ � �
� V < Q
C o �- v
p t d u s � } � v u
u o� • +. 4- � o� .x ° o a � v v
v } � � d °O o } ;� v } `o c } � v o L
>
c`no � 4= � u a � °� � � � � ,c .� � s d � � c
� �� � X � o w � s v�i `�- u x o rn c. °� o �
°� o� '� o> >. ° N ' o� o`�- o
� i } � � L o i �°- 3 � .��. � d � � 3 s � � s c �c
p � 3 � o F � � � � � d o .� v°�i +�- ° o ° � v ° v
N � +°. '�n c o � �c � t � � � - � � v v 3 � � o � �
, c � N+� ,�1 ai p � � "� N � c7 � °� N N 'O N
� o � o � N � '� 3 p �'+- '^ � a:� � o � N X�� o H
O d W } ). � d � d �� � w� � p N V � 1 = O O a w ,� p ��
O .L o� N O 3 ° 7 � y v o A� c n >- L � � N � � L N vf �
N �}� p�� � J �-� o � o+ � c o+- ° u � L > v�i � o� c
N � N t- t- o c�i �s .� d � oi � � }�.� ° o o ° o aC i " X� L
� � � � L d i �F L � X � � d � 4- 3 C. �F C O � •� �
V1 � � � � �, Fl y,,,, L � N � U � L � Q� } i1 � Ql �F- i1 N'p �y
N � �. � � N a1 L O.-� 3 ' +- 0)
�7 �� � O C O } O Ol L � �N � i. �� ��� N p } N� N 0.L .�
). vf S � O � � � C N N V � � � � � O
� � v .�- L o 3 � d�� rn�� t �� c v� c v � c L v°� � �
v �i °� �� � s � h�� � o i- � Y �� o �°��'� c� d
,� o� o o� w ° w d w °�i � d o o —° v o o ° �°� ° � �°� v�i +
rn +- s � +' c 3 � � � rn +- � � � L L t � o�
� L } �1 S p� O p� — O � L N > } a n. L � ° t) V1 d v1 O O
L � O 4- � p L O d � N � �- O O d O X d t d� �
Q- ln a o tn ��. ln o ln t a� � �} ��n o o a s tc� N �C +- �.
L
� � O •� � � O O 3 �
O �
a-.+ � � U h � � � � d � �
' L;, G • pJ � v � C O D U N �"� } �
� • U X O O O p ` X X �� N V
�-.+ 01 � } +- i- -� �. d d � � X X
� � U N V N N �� U U L � � Y
O Y
�, C U� V U } C C! O U
f0 �L N � � � '� � d � N p�j � � C! �
� m V1 p� s Ol -� �dl 7 � tn Vl 'p u N N
� � � G�. �_1 � � 4-�- Y �C N N � �
� •-
d � .� =
Q N y � � � p W h ��
� d N ~ � Z J h'7 � N � �
�
� Z U N � 'a L t�A S .0 '� N �
O � C
�' � Q F m �t ; i ti t � m` V
.�
cv
Q ^
� o � �
o �o � -;
o �
V N o °° o
t N p O
O � N N
Q � � �
V N M � l� �O �
•� p •--i N M
.-� .--i .--� .--�
d � � � � b � � � �
�
N N N� N .��1 N N N N
V U V V J� U V U U
W W W W ` � W W W W
}
C
�
F
O
V
� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —�- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0
}
d
O �o d a � cc a a � � �
+� V� E Q � Q Q
� o
'� u
C d
� � -- —�--� --- ---��-- ---- --- —�-------
� o o V V V V V V U V
� � a} � � � a a U a a
U � � �
� v Q Q
c
O d � � , o
�
'p � °.. c� v a�o o � o d
v�i o � d � � � � o � • � � � o� o`�i ° � �
� o o m o c� an s ��c' } L }`� +" °�
cn > � ° o� .� v� a tn � ..-. o� o
� L O C L � p� ,� pj u � L � C � -� � � � � �
� O � � � � � u � t p O � C � � � d N
� N� .� � m a d o�i � v 3 � o o�i � a� d� -v
O N > Y t' -p � C L N d t" N � r' d � N
. o u � a v 3� L
l0 °- 3 � � `�' °� � °' � o � 3 0 o�i u o v- � � � ...
O a 3 L :c c V+ L L �' �" + v�.. � �°°�'� Q
- a
O •N C'� 7 � � O 07 � � � l L L U fh � d N �L d Vf
� or �. � � � > � rn ,a o � + � � Q 0 } � � ct > t
� � ° `� � � � +�- a N s .a S a ' } N � c j � � � �
� �
d � v� s o O o
� rn � L O cn �� .� � � N'X +- N c� o d O m v_ } N
3 +- .� � ��'" � o` 'N s s c M°� o � s i ,�. a, o o�L ; ''
N � cn �"� � �� o- U � v� v d t Q�, c N N � r..
-Q �� c ��� � o� }� S 3 0 o Q�. o L}¢ �� o0
v� x o s d � t� 3 *' o o� � o i .. i- ... -� += c c �.
� � d
� °� o� o`i � rn � ;� o x � d '� � o o .� c o � ° v � rn a ° u �
' � L � � i- +- N L � � � � � } +- p1 � p � L 4- � � } N O
O � C' i S X V X t � O • V 0 � �p � � � II�. N � S 7 O i-- O
Q VI Q1 i- N � L1J 3 O � �� G O O L � C i � �A .� Z � U
s_
O L }. � v�
�• a `�" +. •� '� � d � �
L' d � �C O � �� O � O � O � .�
� � ,� +- p � +- +' +- +- � p
� N N m � � L � � p�j � N � � N �
� N V � VI U d � � O V � O 01 VI 0 L p
� � X �� X rn a � o� t X }`+- } '+- � v
a � d � L O L � N � t � U � O V y Q V �� N
(� �L, � � L 41 N �l d C O � � S � L d � � � L
O m y S w p � L '3 } � � p N L � p' � p L II- �
L = C � V U U� C O L ~ � t U � L� � � v M
Q
�' � 3
Q � d o 0
� E o� 3 F- � � � m `
p V t t C L �F- . 0 � d p �
L
� Z � V t � C Ol d O Y O � N
�^ Q �t'' �n C'I G Q ti ti � �-, 2 I-
.
ca
Q �
0 ao 4 0
v � ° o c �
p N n O
} � j N
C p�
`-' � �n �o r� � t� F-
N
•--� •--� •-r i �i .-i � lL� O
°�- oo ao ao a o0 0 o O �
� ° o ° o ° o c°o 0 0 0 0
X X X �- �C N N N '
W W W ��� � � � �
}
C
�
O
V
c
------- ---- ---- --------- ------ -----
0
}
cn a �°
O o o �� � � � � �
'+� �y F Q Q � <
� o
� �
C �
aJ--��� ---- -- —•-�----- ------ ��---
� o o o U V V U � �
� L a� °" a � °" 0 �
� a �
� � a Q
� } 3 � o
G1 p � � t d � p) +' y � O C S � �
N d+- ;;,, •- C � t Vf �� � Q, Vf f- y � y
cC L cn � 3 N p� o. -� �n i- v .F. � �x
'Q � X � C � �' o � �vf O � o O � � } � � �
� o d � � u � °� L 4 ° - d `+- � 3 � '�' } o *' i ° � ° °1 d
� � o� � a � � o�i d ° °� � i °� } � a `� d � o �a v
N = � � L d � c � ° � o�i o�i °� �� ° � c > > } � °>
'�n � � } c - o o v- v �
O a, � �' � � u � L —° � � � ° °� � � . ''"' � L � a �
� '� ln j L N 3 � N L N N � � 7 y pl M v i- � [Y
N N ": C d Q N � � � y Q L N Q N � Vf � } s p �
� N d N V � � �'O �� N 4- u � L s O a. Ol �
p_ v � �s �� y 3 s— u o - 0 3— � c.
a1 0 � `�" c o t d - } � } � � 01 u � °1 ° o � � ~
+- a vi += o � o o� � } — � } Y } ' d � e�
� � 7 � � } } p� `�"' C d � U � � y" 4- � "� � `F V� � '�'
� � � � u 3 � v L � o _ � � s _ o� +- o c v � � �
v� � L c c� L c �> ;�� c.� }�� +- � c` H o o � o� . o�
a -' } '� � o c } n � o u � u o c d � � � } � �
V 01 � L y V � � n- N cA � } } y � O � N i � Y dl N �
� p N _ O N_ N d a � d N � C � d N Q � � N
•� u � � o " c } � o � � `;- d o c � � o�i � -� --° L "
L' O O� � S 7 O L' N � X O • C' � O S �' � � � 7 � a�,
fl- 4- U N L +- }+- ln i W �O 3 C �+- d Vf L_ t� .� • O
L..
� � � i L � � O
� � L (� � '� V � O
N � � � V C
0 a d } � `� � � p p N �'�
u 'u - � �
� � � � ,.p 3 � � )( y � U N Y � �
Q �F- � V Q1 d O p } N C �� U � p u
(� • L U y- � N V ( � .� � t L � � � � } p 4 � -
> m � o ,v� � � � � a �� '3 } � � � � X °
� Z� o t� Z U� Z> 2 o c u~ � v w�
� ' N
Q Y � �
Q 01 d L �
0 E � C � m L d �
� � s t � � .L � � c
� Z °' �� L O rn � L�
'n w � i-" m a Q F- U� �
�L
�C N
� � o �'
� N
U �` °� c o ° o
� � O '
O N
O N N X N �
� � � W � f-
V .-.i N M � � �
'� O O O O O O
Q O O O O O O
N N N N N N
Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q 5-•260 Q < Q
}
d O � O d
� } a N t a N
u a� u rn p- �� v v� v-
V 'c�'n s o 3 L Vf s o 3 L
c
------ ------------•--- ------- -------
0
�
N � �
n.
� s E � a a a
�'' t9 E Q
� o
� �
C �
N — _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — •- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
� � — —
O � a s a V a a
v � a �
� V � Q
} �
� .� � +- `� ° d p - p � } o�i } o
� } a � +�- °_ d '� o o rn rn c °� ao � � � ° � v
v �� d o � o y o`�i ° o�i �� o�i L � 3 o�i a s+' 3
� � � N � � L y .}. U� N tA � � } } � p � � , � � O
N p) � �
� ��"' � C � 7 O U } � > � � � N C t } N 4' O � +-
p � �� � v�f u N y O L �.�- � d p t j '� Ol Q lL� C +- .Q1
N � d F�- °.o s�° o c i � �.� � a d d a' '�' d
s .o } � ' u +- o ° +- p d `� s s � � � � s
l 0 } �} L � � C V � O S d y O t' a' d 7 t � j � �
O a o d+ o a rn o 3�' d F- s d� }-� � } d o d�
O ' u `�^ 3 �} Q o a� � F L s} o�� o� N w •� . c
� d o d}} d� n. 0 3 o +�- �°� o s�� c s d U� �
v � } ° � • � � } c o � d c s o o +- d � } t d � d �
3 3* " —° ��� L' `�' o s.� o� o� a a d�n o a> o�n '�'�
o�
N o t � c ° d °� � `�- +- a, > � `° '+- +- c } } } c d +- �
� 3 3 d a ° � � � o � o � � o d � � d °� � o � °� o
�"�., } o`"i � d � � u y � �°, � � L v`- w } > �r w } , � � ►n .�
N L o � i � > � o � � v +- i � � o �. +' +" � 3 � �' � � .-, �
. _, a- � c - _ � � � � '� � v � ° L L � ° � � L
O � •y —° � u c .�^ � �� . v_► � > � . � � d . � L o o�
� ° v L o c'n Q° o � .a o o a o 2�� 3 2� t o 3
i
O = o � o �
�, C ^ `+- 'u `� �v
.-. }
'i� d � U � Y p � 4 �- p ��
U
� N � N i p � t�/1 O � v O
� � �`�-� �� U N �^ u d � i-.
� F 3 X v� a � L x �n a u L
a N s 0 � l u v +' °� c 7 3 }—°� ��
3
� '� 3 - 0 3 cn � L � � � rn .L o�i � o�
� m � a �� �o� 3� o V �d 3� o V
L N� �� = d C U � = C O tJ .�
Q
�- � — —
Q 3
t� d L N m m
0 � m � C C
O O
� Z
L � �
O �- �L CY � �
N
�L
� Q .-ti
fl- N N
� � � � p O
U N a '
O � O N N
� N .'�V O CC CC
O � � N H H
a � � � � �
u � b H ^ ao
'a O � � �,.; O O
� O � � O
� O O � O O
N O ti Q N N
i N � N � �
N � �_�� X X
Q � w w
a �
�
= o d
oi
E +� a, �►
o � °1 � �^ c-
V 'in s o 3 L
c
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —•- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0
�_
N �
�
� L � d d � a a
� � �
fC
'� u
� �
� -------- ------- --•---------- ------- —
� � ---
�
0 � a} a U V V a
� a, �
� U Q �
C
O � � � } � � � � o
� 'd N � � i. p L � � � U C
(/� } ,t (7 -� L i C 1 a ' } t . � � N
� � } . 4- L O p j N L: � a � U N t S
� 0 VI N � � � L �' s : Q � 4' � �[. t v � � t��A � }
� } > 'p � Ol � N Q } ` } d � }
p . � o v ' � � L � � i � i v � � � a v► � � � �
� 3
� '� `� ° � m s � ^ +� h °� + � •�. o o } o ' L
N o� c o v� v� � c� ' i- `� °- `�' c ° c c+- �
� c } �n n�i d rn Q �� �� o �_a o `~ c u u � u
o d —� v� � u �
� } � L } � Q } �C Q L 1 � d i- L � � G C7 � .� L
� •a p�j ..0 p � � O C N fY i ch }� t 'p � � � � v � s ' U
N u �*- 3 c � } a � � � � � c�i N o °� • � t7 `� �
N a '� rn� N Q C� 0.� � U �+- O N I- p� � v�i � L
� � L � � N O � � � OC 1 O� Ol C3 � � a L � N
� N � C� O N rn L
N v. `� ° � ° N � `'' �i cY � �� `^ L o � i `o o � � Y � o �
� � � s 'o � vi } � �: � O d � n- � � } � � d o � J •N-
� a- � '� } ? � +. � S' � N S � �►- n' C � � O a } � t O
� V � d L � d � � C i O � } L p y �� � O O � �+ � U � e-1
X p� t' i- 01 N X �F ' � L} y m
U } � j (7 Q� p�j d � l� U }� x O � L L � p � U � �
•� � s .� t '�- u � � � `�' `�' '� y '� � '�n � � � 3 '+- - � t
O . rn X .. � w u° �� o L t ��� a���.cn o a cn
L � N � �D � 4- � C. C N X O O � C � O X C X
fl- 2 s� o+- o E-+ o c�: � a. d 4- u o o� u c d c d
L
� � L } y V � }
O i•
� � � U N pi �l } U
L a p O 4 �� - ' � '� •� � y 4 � - O p�
Q �t" +- O � 0 d j� �� O,� � N N � t
}
� L }
i- � 0) d [' ,� O � x �F• L- � � � � O L y d
U N ^ � d �� v m
� � X cn � ° � � � o c� � _ } � � v ~ o L i " �
Q �►- °' � o ' � • u o +- � • o ° ° o s � +- � c
� •` S � � � L � u � ±• � ±- � � } � V ?� C L N
� m .� '3 } � "' �p � � L. O C � Q C C � L p O }
O = O O U v � v d L � a. U �+ V � Z � �_J
Q
Q �
� d m h � . L
0 d � ~ N � �
C Z '�p � Y � .G�
� �
N � f- �- tn Q
�L
�
Q �
� M
V O
N N
O �
H
C �
u �
a Q .., N M �n
� rn o 0 0 0
° rn rn rn o�
p 0 0
N Q O O O
W � 5_'ZGZ � � `2
a �
�
c
ot
�
0
V
_----- ----- ---- --•------ ---- --- -----
0
t
N � � �
a
O L F a a a a � � n a
� � E Q Q
� ° u
C �
� ��-- ---- —�-- —•- -- —�-- — --��—
� } � — — — -- — — —
� �
o o o V U V V V V U V
� L a} V V a a a a a V
� a �
� V � Q
� , ±' tc� � °� �
� d � c `� � � o —°
N L � � o � o >` '� � ° � >' — c
N � o, s a� a+- d d} o o c '� '� o �c
� � N L �.�. � < L L F a 4"' } � +" � � d �
� a o� u u c O �
O M U � L N � O � p d L ? U � � � � p
0 O � V p � � p � � L j � C � L V j L
CV � > } � L � G. } y � � 7 �1 V O1
N O o � � N d �� C O
� +. � S C } L � C d p a �� p � � Q y � �
O a } +- } �n d � L • � L � • �
C �/f .
O '� � o� o 0 3 � � ° o `� °� � c � � � o � o
N o � ° ° } o � i > � u > � > ` ° � � ` F � o ° s
c7 � � � �
dJ � � � � o � �+ �� � � a o\ .� .� v o a u c
a v � v� } 3 3
3 ��,�. � � u c o� o � o 0 o o o a o}�� '� �.,
� O N t �� � d O V t p� � � C � 7 d i C L w
� � N +- � \ � � � Q1 d � � p � V V } � +' p t � N
N +_ � } d ° 3 +- ^ c � n' u � °" � o � i °- � L � } I- � .1
U V � N C L � V � L � � � � � � s � � � � A = �p
'p � � � } � � � � � d o � � � '� o � � N � *_ � �o
� � U w o ° u � � � F-�i � � c � � ° � � ° � o � v � o
L
0 4- �
c o � � � s
�-�"+ '+°-- o � ° °� L �
a o� — d � � ' i
. p '� ��' .�. + c o> v o 0 o v- � E
t H � o� � d � ? +- ;v� ;m :v� Q +- °�
;-+ oi �°, � } _ � � � ,v > > .�. > o } � a,
� � O L � N L � � } � � � V V
a � � a o o a � 3 3� -� � a � �L a Q
> > L �� o v� cn • cn a c � a �
� m � L N L � L t7 � N } } � } � � } � �
fl.. C � t N O O � � � j v� �
O � O� � U I" � c a � M. M U LL L ��
Q d
C L
Q O — � O � N
y S N L �
O Q V •� � y m O V
C Z � s� � v'^ � o i � �
O LU V V � a m m F� � V
'L
f�
Q.
� O
v N O�
v O
O N
C W
V
' N M �'
a
.p ►� ap O O O � p�
Q O O O � � � � �
O O O O O O
N N N O O
� � i
� � � 5_ 3 � � N N
� � > >
Attachment 18
On-site Noticing Requirements
Conirnunity Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue 408.777.3308/Fax 408.777.3333
Cupertino, CA 95014 planning�cupertino.org
CUPERTIMQ http://cupertino.org/planning
PERMTTS THAT REQUIRE ON SITE NOTICES major architeciural and site improvements
requiring DRC review, cellular facilities,
All projects except for Minor Residential major planned development per�nits, major
permits in R1 zones, applications diverted for conditional use permits.
admixustrative approval, sign permits issued
over the counter. Signs shall be constructed of woo�d or �metal
and secured to the ground with 4 x 4 post(s).
If you have questions about the project sign
requirements and if your project requires a NUMBER AND PLACEMENT ON SITE
sign or have questions about the size of the
sign, you may contact the Planning Division . Project i tification signs shall be
at (650) 903-6306 to discuss the project sign place each street frontage; one sign
requirement for your project. is d along the front of the prop-
SIZE
o corner a minimum of two signs
Miscellaneous Signs (11" x 17"1 equued. If the lot frontage along
y right of-way is longer than 300 feet,
Required for tree removals permits, use dditional sign shall be posed.
permits associated with existing businesses es must be posted within 10' of a
and use permits that may be issued by the eetside lot line, must be visible to pe-
Director of Community Developm destrians anci motorist and shall not be
for use permits associated with e g posted in the public right-of-way.
businesses may be allowed inside 1
windows, but must be visib • Standard signs (2' x 3') should not be
right-of-way. placed less than 4' above grade or 6'
above grade as measured from the top
Signs should be made of c ock er edge of the notice. Large signs should
lanunated with plastic. not exceed 8' above grade. Signs cannot
Standard Si n�s (2' x 3') be affixed to the outside of a window.
Required for minor conditional use permits CONTENTS OF THE SIGN
variances, minor planned development
permits, minor architectural and site review �e content of the sign should include the
requiring Director review, subdivisions that following information. Prior to construction of
result in the creation of four or less lots, new �e sign, the language of the sign needs to be
construction proposing less than six units, �alized by the Plaruung Department. See the
R1 two story permits, R1 exceptions, parking attached example.
exceptions. • Project address.
Signs shall be constructed of wood or metal • Project file number.
and secured to the ground with 2" x 2" post(s).
• Project description.
Large Si�ns (4' x 6') Name of the applicant.
.
For subdivisions of five or more lots, new • For single family homes - 3D color ren-
construction ro osin six or more units derin or black and white ortho a hic
� Page 1 of 3
5-�264
as required by the Rl Ordinance. day that the notification letter is sent by the
• For all other projects - Legible Site Plan. Planning Deparfinent to notify people about
the project.
• Contact information for the project Plan-
ner. His/her name, e-mail, direct line 12EPLACEMENT OF SIGNS
and the Planning Department's main
phone number of (408) 777-3308. The applicant is responsible to replace any
• Statement that additional information �sing, damaged or vandalized signs upon
and project plans may be obtained at the �e request of the City.
City Hall Planning Counter including
current hours and the website (if appli REMOVAL
cable). The applicant shall remove the project
• 'The applicant may include their contact identification sign 14 days after the final
information on the sign. decision of the permit request.
TIMING OF PLACEMENT VERIFIC OF PLACEMENT
Project identification signs shall be placed The ca 11 submit a signed
on-site 10 days prior to the first public meeting ation co ' g that the project
or, if a public hearing is not required, the n' tion sign s) were i.nstalled.
�
Page 2 of 3
5--265
3 Q
o � �
� � �,
�, oo v �
o v `� a
� � a � � �
O � � 0 v w
� � � � � �
� °' �, � ,� Q
� � � � �
� � � Q., � �
s�. � � � � w
� � v a�
� � � � � � o
� � � `� o �
� v ;� �, E�
O � � �s � � z
� o Q, � �, �
�, � �, � �
�..� � a '~ '� °' � H
O � �� .� � � �
�
� �
`° � U, eo � � � �
� � �,
p.., � ° � �� � o � � x
� � � � � � � �
p,� � i c � o ��; o
� � � � N rn a 0 '
�-+-� � � .� � � � .�.n s' o �
� � � � �� �
b� �.� .� o ,
� � � � �� � �
� � � � � � y � � �
o � �
O � � �� �n u X o
� � � p v�i � U ' �
� '� v �' �' � � �; 'C
� � � � � p w � ca
y o � �
� �a � �
.,,
�� �� .� � �
� 'r' `�
� � � � .� °' �. �.
Q o � Q � . .� �,
r ,� o 'd �' �-+ z y �°
w �� v� � a� �
� � �
0 °'� �H T � � Q ° � �
�°' �, '� V 1 ;� r�o � Q, o
� � o � � � �� :�
+' w �, � o o t�
� �� .� �� �o z �, v �, �
�..� �' �' � °' `� � 3
�' �� �� � �
O � a� o �� .� �0 3
� � � � �
�J' p. Z �� �' `�� �
�+ ° � � �" � °�'' � �
� � az z Q� .�
Q � W � ,� � �° w 3
� � Q ,� z � � .� v�
y W Q E O � .� ��
� Q � z ^Ci t V R-, :-: U
� E-� E-� � -d Ca u � � �
U U U ,� �
� r�, W, a � Q .�' � �" �
O O � � � o � ° �
R-, � Q � � U �� �ri ��
5--266