HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 364-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
September 25, 2006 CMR: 364:06
SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROGRAM REPORT
This is an informational report regarding the status of the Single Family Individual Review (IR)
program and no Council action is required. This report provides statistical information
comparing the past four years of the IR program, and identifies issues and discussion areas.
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2001, the City Council adopted the IN Process Ordinance (Ordinance 4717), which
became effective November 19, 2001. The ordinance included a five year "sunset clause" per
staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommendation, such that the
program would cease after November 18, 2006, unless the City Council made the ordinance
permanent. The Council directed staff to conduct an annual assessment of the ordinance’s
impact, to describe an:i address issues, and make changes to establish a successful program prior
to the time the Council would consider making the ordinance permanent.
On April 11, 2005, the City Council adopted the revised R-1 Ordinance (Ordinance 4869), which
included the Single Family Individual Review process (now Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.12.110) with no sunset clause. In June 2005, the City Council received the IR program
annual report, including a review of the IR program for the year 2004, the updated IR Guidelines
and the outreach efforts, accompanied by photos of built IR homes and statistics for the three
years the program had been in place.
The IR guidelines have been updated twice since adoption of the initial version. The PTC had the
opportunity to review these versions prior to their adoption by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, in accordance with Ordinance 4717 (and now Section 18.12.110).
Staff has informed the Council of these updates via informational reports.
DISCUSSION
Outreach Efforts, and Changes to Notice Radius and Appellant qualifications
The code requires the posting of a sign on the subject property within three days of application
submittal, when the 21-day notice period begins, as well as the mailing of notices to the owners
CMR:364:06 Page 1 of 5
three days of application submittal, when the 21-day notice period begins, as well as the mailing
of notices to the owners of property immediately adjacent and across the street from the subject
property. In addition, the City’s website provides a listing of all applications received each
week, available to those who subscribe to the list-serve. Staff continues to encourage applicants
and their architects to provide regular input on the program.
During construction of a home approved through the IR process, staff, including the City
Attorney, met with owners of property beyond those immediately adjacent to the property. These
neighbors disagreed with the approval, were distressed about the lack of notification of non-
adjacent neighbors, and felt they should be able to appeal the approval. The City Attorney raised
concerns and asked Planning staff to explore the following:
(1) Increasing the notice radius from the May 2005 adopted radius (PAMC
18.77.075), which requires notice to only the adjacent neighbors (including
neighbors across the street from the parcel), and
(2)Allowing other affected neighbors to appeal the Director’s decision (in addition to
allowing the applicant and adjacent neighbors to appeal.)
In 2007, staff will return to Council with analysis of and recommendation for the appropriate
notice radius. In the interim, staff has increased the noticing of IR projects to 150 feet, and
allows persons not identified in PAMC 18.77.075(0 as appellants to submit an appeal of the
Director’s decisions on IR projects, consistent with appeals for other discretionary permits.
Site Posting
In 2005, the PTC had some concern that drawings were no longer posted on site. The posting of
drawings was not required by code. The change was made for several reasons. The first reason
was for consistency with other application types, as no drawings are posted currently for other
applications. The applicant posts the sign, which encourages interested parties to directly contact
staff, shortly after submitting the application. The second reason was that drawings submitted
with.the application are typically not the final approved plans, which had been a source of
misinformation. The third reason was that additional Planning staff resources were required to
monitor the drawings on the signs.
Neighborhood Context
One appellant has contested the current definition of neighborhood context. They thought
context should extend beyond the immediate block of the subject property. For the IR program,
staff considers the context to be both sides of the street within the same block as the subject
property, rather than homes on the lots behind the subject property or on side streets. This is
consistent with the Guidelines and original IR program concept, which was concerned with a
home’s context within the established streetscape pattern as seen on the same or opposite side of
the street. Staff does consider privacy concerns of other adjacent properties in the neighborhood,
such as the property to the rear of the subject property undergoing Individual Review.
Ordinance Changes
The 2005 revisions to the R-1 Ordinance codified a process for modifications to IR approved
homes, clarified when noticing occurs, and required a longer (21-day) public comment period.
These have made a noticeable difference in the success of the process.
CMR:364:06 Page 2 of 5
Staffing and Cost Recovery
One staff member serves as staff liaison to the consulting architect for IR review. Staff rotate
almually or bi-annually into the position to allow staff leadership opportunities. Six permanent
planning staffand one support staff processed 130 IR applications in 2005 while maintaining
other duties and roles. One part-time contract planner also dedicated time to IR applications in
2005. The budget for the part-time contract planner is currently $28,800 per year. An additional
part-time contract planner experienced in two-story, single family home review has been retained
to handle applications in Fiscal Year 2006-2007. This allowed Senior Planners to be removed
from the IR program to focus on other responsibilities. Origins Design Network, the consulting
architect for the IR program, was budgeted at $59,000 for Fiscal Year 05/06, but only $49,257
was expended.
A total of $213,695 in application fees were submitted in 2005 (January through December).
Prior to August 2005, when the IR application fees were increased in an attempt to make the IR
program a cost recovery application process, the City received $83,795 in IR application fees
($27,200 for 34 additions and $56,595 for 49 new homes.) Since the fee increase, the City
received $129,900 in IR application fees ($26,650 for 13 additions and $103,250 for 35 new
homes). These fees were applied towards the contract planner time and Origins Design Network
contract (approximately $80,000) and towards permanent planner time, support staff, mailings,
and notices (the remainder of approximately $134,000). Since the IR application fee is a flat fee,
support staff and permanent planning staff do not track their time processing IR projects. The
most recent IR Guidelines update cost $16,341 in 2005; staff does not anticipate the need for
additional IR Guidelines updates in the coming years. Staff does anticipate additional staff
resources involved in preparing code amendments with respect to public noticing and appeals,
but this potential impact will be evaluated in context with the 2007 work program.
Implementation of wider noticing and the expanded appeal opportunities will incrementally
impact staff resources.
Comparison Table
Below is a comparison table for four years of the IR Program. In summary:
1. A total of 492 ]R applications had been submitted for processing over four years of
the program to the end of 2005.
2.The number of applications in 2005 climbed back up to 130 applications (a 10%
increase from 2004).
3.In 2005, the percentage of applications for new fiomes versus additions was
significantly greater than previous years; almost twice as many applications were for
new homes..
4.4% of the applications went to Director’s Hearings, 2% less than last year.
5,The number of applications appealed to Council remains low, less than 1.5% of 2005
applications. Only two of the 2005 applications were appealed to City Council.
CMR:364:06 Page 3 of 5
Individual Review Program
Category 2005 Applications
Total number
received*
New homes
2n° story additions
Applications of that
year which were heard
at Director’s Hearings
Applications of that
year which were
appealed to Council
Council reviewed
# Planners
2002
Applications
106
65
41
6 (5% ofapps)
4 (3.7%)
2003
Applications
134
67
67
14 (10% of apps)
2(1.5%)
2004
Applications
118
60
58
7 (6% of apps)
1 (.8%)
130
84
47
5 (4% of apps)
2(1.5%)
1 0 0 0
2 full workload 6, part of 5, part of 6, part ofworldoad
workload workload
# FTE budgeted 1.5 1 (+hourly FTE)1 (+ part time 1 (+ part time
consultant)consultant)
#FTE needed based on 2 2.5 2.25 2.5
time estimates
# Consulting Two in same firm Two in same firm One (Origins)One (Origins)
Architects (Origins)(Origins)
Comment period 10 days 10 days 21 days (10/04)21 days
Posting/notice After submittal When deemed After submittal After submittal
complete
Systems Access Access
$1,000 new home
$350 addition
Fees
Guidelines/Ordinance
in annual update
Accela,
applications
received are
posted on website
$1155 new home
$800 addition
Guideline #6
removed, code
changes,
Guidelines update
underway
Clare Campbell
3 focus group
meetings Jan.
2004
No changes
$1,100 new home
$385 addition
No changes,
discussion of
code
Accela, apps
posted on website
$2960 new home
$2050 addition
Guidelines update
adopted summer
2005
Lead staff person Chris Riordan Chris Riordan Russ Reich
Outreach for input Survey cards Meetings set up Case by case input
for January 2004 on new guidelines
*FYI, there were three applications in 2001 (2 additions and one new home)
CMR:364:06 Page 4 of 5
PREPARED BY:
AMY FRENCH
Manager of Current Planning ~
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
CMR:364:06 Page 5 of 5