157 / 194
Morgan Hill, California
151
Zucker Systems
and took 39 days for a PC project. Unlike some other Cities we have studied, Morgan
Hill does not consider a project technically complete until the CEQA determination is
made, which results in varying determination timeframes.
Data on the number of review cycles was not presented, so it is unclear how many
review cycles each project underwent.
The time frames from completeness to decision were quicker for the PC case shown
than for two Director decision cases shown, which is curious, since Director cases are
by nature more routine and should take less time.
The overall process completion timeframes for projects requiring Council action,
varied significantly, from 32 to 404 days. It is not clear whether processing variations
are attributable to expedited review, CEQA, multiple reviews, applicant delays or
some combination of these. The varying completion timeframes is consistent with
feedback we received in that applicants desire more predictability in the approval
processes.
We understand that processing timeframes can vary by project due to CEQA and
other complexities. Nonetheless, many of the California communities we’ve studied
have successfully implemented review Performance Standards, which have helped to
improve accountability, efficiency and predictability. We believe the City needs to
establish and implement performance standards as well to increase accountability and
predictability.
Performance Standards
The Division has not established formal Performance Standards to measure decision
time frames for Director Administratively approved applications or Planning
Commission and Council Approved Applications. However, a 14-day timeframe has
been established for first cycle reviews for all planning application types.
Best practice communities establish performance standards for planning application
processing so that they can more effectively gauge processing effectiveness and meet
customer timeline expectations or needs. Performance Standards are typically
established for application completeness (e.g., depending on how an agency interprets
“completeness”), staff review time frames for up to three review cycles (e.g., each
review following the initial review until the project is accepted for final decision-
making) and overall processing time frames (e.g., from submittal to decision).
Table 23 below shows our Suggested Performance Standards.