Development Services Review. Final Report. Zucker July 2016

9 / 194

Morgan Hill, California 3 Zucker Systems
 Adopt specific performance standards for building, Recommendation 28, 29,
and 30;
 Meet next day inspections at least 90% of the time, Recommendation 28;
 Create and expedited review process that meets performance standards,
Recommendations 5 and 119;
 Use consultants as necessary to meet performance standards,
Recommendations 34;
 Adopt performance standards for engineering, Recommendation 77;
 Performance standards should be met at least 90% of the time,
Recommendation 29,
 Set performance standards for contractors, Recommendation 82; and
 Adopt performance standards for planning, Recommendation 130, 137, 149,
and 160.
4. PROCESS ISSUES
Findings
The customers to the city development process have a variety of complaints about the
process. They see new requirements being added for subsequent reviews, and staff
suggested standard conditions that may not actually apply to the specific project.
Many best practice communities see the development process as a partnership
between the city and the applicants. As such they invite the applicants to the staff
review meeting, DRC, which is not the case in Morgan Hill.
Recommendations
 Do not add new requirements during each review, Recommendation 13;
 Create fillable computer forms for all submissions, Recommendation108;
 DRC to use only standard conditions that actually apply to the project,
Recommendation 134; and
 Invite applicants to DRC meeting, Recommendation 146;
5. STAFFING ISSUES
Findings
The city has not been meeting acceptable performance standards, at least partially due
to lack of staffing, particularly in the Building Division and likely in the Engineering