Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 199-05The Commission had questions about how the processing of applications was being handled given the cuts in staffing, and the Department's proposal for increasing fees to make the IR program cost-recovery. The Commission had some concern about a change in posting of the project site that was made for reasons of both cost and consistency with other application types. The Commission requested to see homes that went through Director's Hearings in future photographic displays, and requested standards be established for taking the photos, including taking the photos head-on and taking both before and after photos. The Commission also encouraged staff to continue using surveys as a tool to measure success. DISCUSSION Status of IR Ordinance The revisions to the R-1 Ordinance presented to the Council on March 14,2005 address how to review modifications to IR approved homes, when noticing occurs and the increase in the comment period to 21 days. Status of IR Guidelines Updates In April 2004, Guideline #6 regarding solar orientation was removed after discussion with the Commission. After discussing the Guidelines with the Commission and Advisory Group co- chairs, staff began work on additional modifications of the IR Guidelines, including streamlining the guidelines to five, including photos, new illustrations, and modified format and text. The Commission report (Attachment A) and Background Report (Attachment B) provide some clarification on the update, which is nearly complete. Approximately $15,000 has been expended in this effort. Pursuant to PAMC section 18.14.110, revisions to the Guidelines must be presented to the Commission for its comment, prior to adoption by the Director. It is anticipated that modifications will be presented to the Commission in late spring this year and adopted by the Director before FY 200512006. Final revised IR Guidelines would be presented to the City Council. Status of IR Program As noted above, 2004 was a busy year for staff with the removal of one guideline, beginning the update of the Guidelines and bringing R-1 District code changes through hearings, plus public outreach meetings. The table on the following page compares various aspects of the Individual Review program over the past three years since the establishment of the program. In summary: 1. The total number of applications in three years was 358. 2. The number of applications processed per year is higher than the base year (106 applications in 2002). There were 28 more applications in 2003 (26% more than the base year) and 12 more applications in 2004 (11 % more than the base year). 3. For three years, new homes totaled 192 (54% of the total 358 applications), while second story additions totaled 166 (46% of the total 358 applications.) 4. The percentage of total applications that went to Director's Hearings was 7.5%. 5. The number of applications appealed to Council has steadily decreased, now less than 1 % of applications. Only one of the 2004 applications was appealed to City Council. CMR: 199:05 Page 2 of 6 . , One reason that fewer applications are being appealed is that staff is working with applicants in pre-application meetings. About 90% of all applications in 2004 have gone through one or more pre-application meetings prior to submittal for formal review. Approximately 7S% of the applicants met with the consulting architect, Origins, prior to submittal. This has reduced the need for meetings with Origins during the formal review; however this staff time and consultant cost is not reflected in the fee collected for the formal review. More than SO% of applications require two or more re-submittals for staff review, to bring the project into conformance with zoning code regulations and guidelines. In about 10% of the cases, multiple meetings with Origins result in the project ultimately meeting the Guidelines, so that the application can be approved rather than denied. In some cases, Origins provided design . services to facilitate an approvable project. Year 2004 Process Changes Although revision~ to the 1R ordinance have not yet been approved by Council (changes presented to Council in October, continued review to March 200S), staff returned to the former practice of posting and neighborhood noticing before the application was deemed complete, in response to 1R program participants who desired to get staff and neighborhood input earlier to make all necessary changes at the same time. In addition, staff extended the neighborhood comment period to 21 days, consistent with the initial comment period of Variances and Conditional Use Permits implemented in July 2004 (the ordinance currently requires only a 10- day comrrient period). 1. Another improvement is that 1R applications are noted in the weekly email bulletin of Planning Permits Received, available by subscription and noted on the City website (www.cityofpaloalto.orglgovernmentlplanninglplandiv/permit update.html). 2. More pre-application meetings were held to minimize conflicts during review. Recent Staffing and Consultant Changes The IR program had originally included a staff allowance equivalent to I.S FTE's. In 2002, two planners reviewed 1R projects. In 2003, only one FTE was budgeted for the program (.S FTE cut in 2003), and an hourly employee was hired to help handle the IR program workload (132 applications in 2003). Due to budget reductions in October 2004, the hourly position that was dedicated to the 1R program was eliminated. During 2003 and most of 2004, the Manager of Current Planning distributed the increasing number of 1R projects to six planners working a portion of their time on IR projects, to better balance each planner's workload. For the last two months of 2004, five planners worked a portion of their time in the 1R program. It is still estimated that the equivalent of at least two full time employees are needed to efficiently handle the IR program caseload (which would also allow improved efficiency in the processing of other types of applications.) To partly address the loss of the full time hourly employee in 2004, a contract planner was engaged to process a percentage of IR applications beginning mid-January 200S. CMR:199:05 Page 4 of6 RESOURCE IMPACT Staff and consultant time have been spent in outreach and meetings to review and revise the IR Guidelines, including creating illustrations and taking photographs of successful IR program homes. The cost of consultant time for IR Guidelines update to date is $7,350. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is associated with updating the IR program or guidelines. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Council Annual Update on Single Family Individual Review Program B. Background C. Photos of selected IR projects completed since program inception COURTESY COPIES Interested Parties Prepared by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Reviewed by: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official DepartmentlDivision Head Approval: ____________ ---'-_______ _ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official • City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment B ATTACHMENTB BACKGROUND IR Program Annual Update The IR program includes an annual assessment and update to the City Council. The last IR program annual update report was presented to Council in the form of an informational report on December 15, 2003. The report, which had been presented in draft form to the Commission on October 29,2003, provided statistical information about the IR program, identified issues and discussion areas, and included the Commission's recommendations stated on October 29,2003. Commission Meeting of October 29, 2003 The Commission had been asked to review the draft 2003 IR program report for two reasons: (1) zoning code changes related to the R~1 District were anticipated in order to implement the ideas presented, and (2) staff desired Commission input on whether or not to make the program ministerial instead of discretionary. The Commission voted to recommend that the program remain discretionary, and continued the public hearing to 2004 to discuss other items related to changes and clarifications to zoning regulations related to the review of single family residential development. The Commission's recommendations in October 2003 included the following: (1) Create only one opportunity to appeal an IR application. This appeal would not be heard by the City Council. If after the appeal period the project receives major changes, another appeal period is possible. (2) Staff return to the Commission with the following: (a) Ideas for simplifying the process, changing the nature of the process. (b) Limitations on the appeal objections, with less subjective criteria. (c) Ideas for how to deal with modifications after construction. (d) A guideline definition for "minimizing" privacy intrusion. (e) A definition of major changes that would require another appeal period. (3) Provide greater training of staff and the public, have specialized staff/lead person. (4) Eliminate IR guideline #6. Also at the October meeting, the Commissioners noted their: (a) support for the use of illustrations to provide more certainty in IR guideline interpretation, (b) desire for staff to use other criteria in determining the Program's success, (c) thought that people could still be encouraged to consider solar orientation and this should be included in the new Zoning "form" Code. Commission Meetings in 2004 During several meetings in 2004, the Commission received and gave direction on: (1) summaries of three IR program focus group meetings held in January 2004 and staff responses to suggestions, (2) graphics clarifying current interpretations of gross floor area, (3) issues and proposed changes relat~d to regulations in the IR code chapter (18.14), IR guidelines, R-l District (18.12, particularly contextual front yard, garage placement and maximum house size), and HIE findings and process, and (4) updating the IR Guidelines. Prior to the final Commission meeting on the IR program on May 26, 2004, staff met with the Single Family Advisory Group Co-chairs and two members of the Commission (as noted in the May 26, 2004 Commission report), and discussed the IR Guidelines update. The task of implementing the code changes, including defining HIE parameters and incorporating the IR and HIE regulations into low density zoning regulations, was transferred to the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) team. The ZOU team and City Attorney's office developed the revised and reformatted R-l chapter, including IR and HIE regulations, reviewed by the Commission on August 4, 2004 and City Council in the fall of 2004. The revised ordinance, slated to go to back to the City Council in March 2005 after additional public outreach, addresses the three IR Ordinance issues identified during public hearings, including modifications to IR approved homes, when noticing occurs and an increase in the comment period to 21 days. Proposed Changes to IR Guidelines The May 26,2004 report noted that Guidelines 3, 4,8 and 9 could be more effective and better illustrated, and that Guidelines 5 and 7 could be clarified to convey clearer design objectives. Five basic guideline titles were proposed: (1) Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage, and House, (2) Neighborhood Compatibility for Overall Height, Mass and Scale, (3) Architectural Form, Massing and Roof Lines, (4) Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries, (5) Privacy from Second Story Windows and Decks. Staff noted that an approach to the IR Guidelines could include considering them to be more like criteria in a technical manual, similar to the Tree Technical Manual currently in use, along with other technical manuals to be used as companion documents to the new zoning code. Also noted in the Commission report, Advisory. Group Co-chairs and two members of the PTC Subcommittee made the following additional suggestions: (1) Consider including the description of compatibility from the SOFA IT Plan within the IR Guidelines, (2) Consider including the Palo Alto neighborhood types described in the previous Single Family Residential Guidelines within the IR Guidelines and on the City's website, (3) Consider referencing applicable code sections that relate to the guidelines within the Guidelines (and as a hyperlink on the web version of the IR Guidelines; however, the IR Guidelines are now in PDF fonnat), and (4) Consider improving the handouts and display area at the Development Center. Further evaluation of the program's success Staff gathered photos of and data for built homes that were approved under the IR program. Staff has not submitted the photos to the ARB for their review of the visual results of the program to date. However, staff met with the consulting architect for the IR program to identify some examples of IR projects completed by the summer of 2004. The photographs of these homes are provided as Attachment C to this report. The annual update to Council includes the photos. .- \ \ 1 the hearings. Outreach efforts have increased since the first year and I think are more 2 productive. We are getting some good input through the outreach meetings. 3 4 I will now show you the photographs. This is the home that was in the packet. It went 5 through IR review and is now constructed. I will just show you the context on either 6 side. This is the home on the one side and this is the home on the other. 7 8 Another example. One that we don't have for you is the befores, you aren't seeing the 9 plans that come to us initially and then are modified through the process. That might be 10 an interesting way of looking at the process as well. This is the home on one side and 11 this is the home on the other. 12 13 Here is another house that is being built. This one has a lot of trees in the neighborhood 14 so it is hard to seethe home on the other side. It definitely goes with the Craftsman on . 15 the other side of it. 16 17 Here is another one. And the next home. Here is the house on the one side and a little 18 snippet of the house on the other. You can see it is challenging to design a two-story 19 home with one story on either side but it can be done successfully. Here is the subject 20 home that had gone through the process and through the trees, hard to see, is the home on 21 the one side. 22 23 Here is the last one. It is kind of Spanish. That was a new home. Then the home on the 24 one side here is one story and a two story on the other. 25 26 So that gives you an idea. We will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 27 Again, this is an informational item that will be going to the Council next month and it 28 will be going as an informational report. 29 30 Chair Cassel: Do we have any questions before I go to the public? This is listed as a 31 public hearing. Do I have any cards from anyone who wants to speak? I have no cards 32 then I will bring it back to the Commission. Do we have any comments we would like to 33 make on this? I can see Pat nodding already. Go ahead; 34 35 Commissioner Burt: I have a fewso I will take a couple and then let other 36 Commissioners take a whack at it. The photos that we have in the packet are some pretty 37 nice examples of successful IR projects. First, can you clarify the purpose of the photos? 38 Are they to give best models for applicants to see what we would prefer that they do or 39 are they intended to be typical examples or some other purpose? What purpose or 40 purposes are the photographs? 41 42 Ms. French: First of all they can serve several purposes. The first of which was that last 43 year you had requested that we do something along these lines to bring you some 44 examples of built projects. The second is yes they can be useful and in fact we are 45 considering putting some of those photographs with of course the permission of the 46 owners in the new IR guidelines to show good examples of well-done projects. We had a Page 2 1 pre-application meeting today where I used not one of these but one of the other ones 2 we've taken because they were going along the lines of working on their floor plans of 3 how it would look at the front. We were able to use that photo to say well here is 4 something similar that they did to alleviate that massing problem. So I think having 5 examples is a good thing and can be a very useful tool. Of course we are not saying what 6 style people should use and we don't want them to get that impression. We also want to 7 have some contemporary photographs mixed in as soon as those houses are built. 8 9 Commissioner Burt: I can certainly see that these photos provide real good examples of 10 what we would like people to try to do in their projects. I think there were a number of' 11 really well designed homes and I think that if all of the project were comparable we 12 would all be happy campers. So it seems that we have a couple of different objectives. 13 One is what you would want to provide applicants as best models perhaps or however 14 you would like to characterize it. Then for the Commission's purpose of looking at the 15 success of the program and are there any tweaks that would be appropriate it seems that it 16 wouldn't necessarily be that set of our best success stories that would be in those. 17 Certainly we have sensitivities to whether people want their photographs reviewed and 18 things. What struck me is one way that we might be able to look at those borderline 19 cases where if there are going to be, adjustments to the program those are the examples 20 where we would most likely be looking to say okay, these were the contentious cases, 21 what made them contentious and is there anything in the process that we might want to 22 learn from these contentious cases that would cause us to adjust it one way or another? 23 Consequently it occurred to me that the applications that go to a Director's Hearing are 24 by definition the ones that are contentious. They aren't necessarily ones that we would 25 all agree have valid reasons for having been appealed but nevertheless they are a subset 26 that probably would give us a good focus on the ones we might want to look at and say 27 what was it about these that people had concerns on? We as a Commission may say we 28 just simply don't agree with that appeal or we may say yes, we can see this one really had 29 two sides to it and this is where we may want to delve into how we can continue each 30 year to improve on that process. So that would be one thing I would be interested in is 31 seeing that set of photographs in the future. 32 33 Then a second question is I saw that there was a staffing decrease both on support staff 34 and how the budgeted full time equivalent in staffing occurred. Iwas interested in Staff's 35 comments on how that affected the workload and the number of applications seems to 36 have stayed fairly steady with a little bit of fluctuation from year to year. Is Staff being 37 able to keep up? If there has not been a decline in the ability of Staff to keep.up with that 38 workload what do you attribute it to? Is it that we have simply gotten better and more 39 efficient at a process as we have gotten to know it better? Is it that we excluded 40 something like having to deal with the solar setbacks or other reasons? So I would be 41 curious how the decrease in staffing has occurred, what impact it has had and if it hasn't 42 had a detrimental impact what do you attribute the lack of detrimental impact to? 43 44 Ms. French: One thing I thought was interesting in your range of possibilities was the 45 . solar. I think that has had a dramatic impact. A lot of hours had been spent on trying to 46 describe just what that guideline was about and what the limitations were. So that was a Page 3 1 very welcome change for Staff. We do struggle wIth the amount of applications we have 2 and the Staff that are dedicated to it. Lisa I think might want to say something about 3 staffing in general or the budget. 4 5 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: I do want to add something to that. We have as 6 Amy mentioned become a little more efficient as we have gotten to know the program 7 and the standards and the guidelines andthat has been a positive. We did change the 8 solar standard so that was also a reduction in some time that was required for the 9 analysis. However, we have experienced some timeframe extensions in other areas of 10 development review and it is not necessarily in the Individual Review program but in 11 Architectural Review applications both at Staff and Board level because the are the same 12 group of Staff that review those applications as well as in our Building Permit review 13 timeframes. So there has been an impact in lengthening of timeframes as a result of 14 fewer Staff. 15 16 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Does someone else have a question? 17 18 Mr. Steve Emslie, Director of Planning: Madam Chair, Ijust wanted to add a comment 19 or two about the cost recovery aspects of this. As you know in our last report we did a 20 cost recovery analysis of whether the fees are sufficient to cover the Staff time after we 21 had a couple of years. You know that that resulted in showing we are losing half of our 22 expenses. The fees cover roughly 50% of our expenses. So I just wanted to mention that 23 that there is General Fund support of the program. 24 25 Chair Cassel: I would like to go on and come back to you. Thank you. Someone down 26 here want to say something, Karen? 27 28 Commissioner Holman: I wanted to confirm what Commissioner Burt had said about 29 good examples and bad examples and I know that there is some difficulty in using bad 30 examples from our community. I think you are on the right track with having 31 photographs of the residences on either side because the purpose of the IR program was 32 to address mass and scale as it related to the environment, its own environment. So I 33 would suggest that the individual homes as you got photographed and attached to the 34 packet is a very good start and that what you showed tonight. I had a couple of 35 suggestions. One is that the shots be taken straight on because when they are taken at 36 angles it really distorts the context and proportions to neighboring structures. The other 37 is if there could be one shot that would show the context of the neighborhood. In other 38 words, the house on either side with landscape photography I think it could be done 39 pretty readily these days. I appredate your bringing that up because I think it is a very 40 important aspect of this given the purpose. 41 42 Chair Cassel: Lee. 43 44 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up with regard to the photography. Whether 45 you realize it or not pictures do lie. Yes, they do. What I am talking about specifically is 46 that the photographer is not as objective as we would like to think of that person as being. Page 4 1 What really needs to happen is that there needs to be some standards by which these 2 photographs are taken for two reasons. Number one as a point of comparison of the 3 existing conditions and the neighbors but also to be able to compare 'projects so that you 4 are able to look at one house that is being proposed and another house and be able to 5 compare them. That is how an evaluation can be made visually. I agree with Karen's 6 comment with regard to taking it on an angle can distort the image but also distance has a 7 lot to do with it as well as the aspect ratio and the type of lens that is used. My 8 suggestion would be that I am sure the department or somewhere in here this is a digital 9 camera and that some guidelines be established and that photographs be taken or the 10 documentation begins when somebody goes out in the field to plant the sign for the 11 project, that way you are not having somebody go out there twice, and that the second set 12 of photographs be taken after the project has been finaled out and the planning 13 representative is out there checking to make sure that the project complies with the plans. 14 15 Chair Cassel: Michael. 16 17 Commissioner Griffin: I would like to return back to the question of staffing and also 18 cost recovery. Amy, you are now operating with just one full time employee plus a part- 19 time consultant according to your draft here; You say are able to keep up with the 20 demand however the timeframes are slipping so help me a little bit. Are you keeping up 21 or not? 22 23 Ms. F~ench: Well, the short answer is we don't meet our targets 100% of the time for 24 building permits, for other permits as well. Again, we spread this out as well although 25 there is one budgeted we do have five planners, full time employees, working part of 26 their time doing these projects. So we are spreading it out among other Planners there is 27 not just one person that might be deceptive there. It is quite challenging to keep up with 28 the workload and it fluctuates because again these Planners are also doing projects that 29 ebb and flow based on when they are complete and when things are hopping. 30 31 Commissioner Griffin: I guess what I am trying to get at here is is the public perception 32 that this thing is dragging out longer than it was in years past or would an applicant be 33 pleased with what is going on and the expediency with which you are able to work on 34 these projects. 35 36 Ms. Grote: Again, I think some of that fluctuates depending on the project itself, 37 depending on the number of comments received by other neighborhood residents 38 sometimes the process can become longer, whether or not it goes to a Director's Hearing 39 will add time to it. So I think the perception varies depending on the project itself. 40 Again, the impact isn't always experienced in the IR program application timeframes. It 41 can be experienced in other areas of the development review process. Sometimes it 42 would be experienced in an Architectural Review application, which will be handled in 43 the order in which it is received so the IR's may be handled first because they are 44 submitted first and then an Architectural Review follows. Sometimes the Architectural 45 Review timeline is affected because a Planner has other Individual Review applications PageS '1> .• ,. 1 that have to be dealt with first. So the impact isn't always in this particular program it 2 can be felt division wide. 3 4 Commissioner Griffin: Okay, cost recovery, do we have any plans to increase the fees so 5 that it is a revenue neutral or a cost neutral program? 6 7 Mr. Emslie: Yes, we are very much looking at potential fee increases as a part of the 8 department's budget submittal. 9 10 Chair Cassel: Bonnie. 11 12 Vice Chair Packer: In order for the City Council and for us to evaluate the success of this 13 program I imagine we should test it against whatever goals we may have had in the 14 beginning for establishing this program. I wonder if it has been thought and I realize that 15 staffing is a problem but we now have about 360 projects that were subject to this 16 process. I wonder if it has been thought of doing a survey of the people who experienced 17 the process how it was and maybe also of all the people who submitted comments on the 18 project so that is another few hundred. I don't know who would design it just to get a 19 feeling to test it against what the goals might have been. I am trying to remember what 20 the goals were. One is to find a vehicle for people in Palo Alto to express their feelings 21 about new construction going up in their neighborhoods. The other one was to preserve 22 the character of our neighborhoods and those kinds of things as well as addressing issues 23 of privacy. These are difficult things to evaluate but maybe there is some good survey 24 writer who could try and ask questions that could test this program against these goals so 25 that it could be better understood in terms of its success and those survey results could be 26 a good tool for City Council when they are looking at these cost issues especially in these 27 difficult budget times. 28 29 Ms. Grote: Just briefly, we did actually invite people in kind of an informal survey but 30 we did do that at the end of 2002 and into 2003 and people did answer those types of 31 questions and come to our public meetings to discuss that very subject. What was 32 expected, what was the experience during the project, how did that compare to what was· 33 expected and that kind of thing. So yes, we can continue to do that. 34 35 Chair Cassel: Annette. 36 37 Commissioner Bialson: Just quickly, have you been finding that design professionals 38 who have gone through the process once come back well prepared the next time? Is that 39 part of what has accelerated the process for some of these projects? 40 41 Ms. French: We do see quite a few repeat architects coming through the process and that 42 does help. They get to know the guidelines and the programs. Architects all design 43 differently. Some design from the inside out, some design with the appearance of the 44 front more in mind so we have varying successes with that but it does help that people do 45 get familiar with the guidelines. 46 Page 6 1 Commissioner Bialson: Would you expect to be able to handle more applications with 2 the same personnel dedicated to it because the community is becoming a little more 3 aware of what is expected in this process? In other words, can you continue to handle 4 this number of applications if not more with the same amount of personnel given the fact 5 that people, including yourselves, have gone through the learning curve? 6 7 Ms. Grote: I think to handle the same number of applications we may experience again 8 the same kind of impact, which might be in some instances lengthening of timeframes for 9 review, and other areas of project review. Again, there are efficiencies of scale as people 10 become more familiar both applicants and staff. There are efficiencies there and we will 11 continue to look for those. . 12 13 Chair Cassel: Pat, you had another question? 14 15 Commissioner Burt: It has been partly covered. I just want to make sure that we are 16 unambiguous in the response. As I understood it the workload on the five staff members 17 who share the responsibilities for the review process is such from the IR review that it is 18 negatively impacting the ability of Staff to give timely response to other project reviews. 19 Bluntly put is that accurate? 20 21 Ms. Grote: That is accurate. 22 23 Commissioner Burt: The Council has one of the rare circumstances where we are having 24 a review go to Council on 1012 Forest I think it is and it got my interest because the 25 Daily News in an article Sunday thre~ times in the same articlesaid that the Planning 26 Commission had reviewed and approved the project even though the Planning 27 Commission doesn't review Individual Review projects. I left a message for the Daily 28 reporter and haven't seen a correction yet so maybe this public comment serve as a 29 correction there. 30 31 In any event, because that was one of the projects that are being appealed to Council it for 32 me once again was that example okay here is a contentious one. What exists here that 33 might shed light on whether the process should be refined one way or another. So I went 34 by the site and what I found was that the posting at the site, and I had forgotten this, 35 doesn't have a plot map and it only had a front view of the project. Basically by going to 36 the site and looking at that posting I really had very little idea of what the proposed 37 project would be" and its relationship to other properties. So that was one thing that I 38 thought would be potentially an improvement in the process is looking at what additional 39 information should be posted there. It seems like it wouldn't be much of a problem to 40 post the footprint qf the proposed project on the parcel, perhaps the footprint in relation to 41 adjacent parcels. Then the other question is should there be other angles besides the front 42 view because the contentious issues when I read the Staff Report weren't really the front 43 view at all they were these other views and going to the site really couldn't shed any light 44 on that. 45 Page 7 1 Commissioner Lippert: I wanted to make a comment with regard to fees. From what you 2 have described this covers 50% of the cost of the review. There is a neighboring 3 community that charges two-thirds to three-quarters of this price and they have had 4 design review as long as I can remember and it is a Board review which makes it even 5 more cumbersome but I think that there are some lessons to be learned from this 6 neighboring community that maybe we want to have a liaison with that staff there and 7 talk to them about it because they are charging significantly less. I am sure that they 8 haven't raised their prices because they probably are covering their costs. 9 10 Mr. Emslie: Do you want to tell us what community that is? 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: Privately I will tell you what community. I don't think it is fair. 13 14 Mr. Emslie: We have checked with some of our other neighboring communities and 15 other communities that have design review of single family homes and we are finding 16 that the fees are substantially higher and some of them are direct cost recovery. So if a 17 project gets more complex and more controversial and the longer staff spends on it it is a 18 direct billing to the applicant. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: There is one other comment with regard to cost here. Most 21 architects that are submitting, I am talking architects or anybody who needs to use 22 reproductive services, what they do is they take them to their blue printer and their blue 23 printer has a large format scanner and they tum it into either a TIP or a PDF file. That 24 file is actually either stored on a ZIP disc or a CD and then they go and they print as 25 many sets of drawings or documents as your require plus the architect is going to require 26 to get out to their contractor. So they have to pay those costs anyway. Just simply by 27 requesting those files you will get the information that you need with regard. to being able 28 to post the stuff on the web. 29 30 Chair Cassel: Maybe you can talk to them more about those details later. Karen. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Going along with the last two speakers I am in my mind having 33 a hard time seeing how the reduced .components on the posting is going to save money 34 because in anticipating that neighbors are going to want to see what those plans look like 35 there will be Staff time that will be spent pulling the plan, going over the plans, reviewing 36 the plans with those neighbors so I am questioning whether that would be a cost saving. 37 Then the other thing was as Commissioner Lippert mentioned the architects are putting 38 these on disc anyway. 39 40 Chair Cassel: Again, this is an informational meeting. It is coming back to us in two 41 months. So maybe they can look for us and see about some of these other cost issues. 42 43 Commissioner Burt: Madam Chair, this isn't just an information meeting. 44 45 Chair Cassel: It is a public hearing. 46 Page 9 1 Commissioner Burt: Under the recommendation to receive and review and if we don't 2 give input tonight then they won't have had an opportunity to respond to our concerns 3 when they come back in two months. So I think both the issue that I attempted to raise 4 and that Commissioner Holman is raising is exactly what we should be doing tonight and 5 I would appreciate that we follow the agenda which says receive and review which means 6 to give the input. 7 8 Chair Cassel: Pat, I am not trying to keep us from giving some input of what we think 9 but I am trying to keep us out of the tiny details about how they actually do it. We have 10 another major item to do this evening and I am trying to keep us in the general comments 11 rather than exactly how to do the PDF files. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Well, I am not talking about how to do the PDF files what I am 14 addressing is the posting which if the architect is already do these files to post it, could 15 the architect just not provide a printout of that, the City could provide the materials and it 16 seems like a done deal. I am just concerned that it is going to have a negative cost effect 17 by eliminating this information on the postings. I am not trying to tell you how to do it I 18 am just saying that is one way it could potentially be done and there is a negative impact. 19 20 Ms. French: I can respond to the cost aspect. The boards that we were using that would 21 contain the drawings to a scale that people could read were like three or four dollars more 22 expensive than the ones we use now that we use for the rest of our applications. So there 23 is somewhat of a cost savings. Again, it was also to get it out quickly and to get it done 24 but I can appreciate your comments. 25 26 Chair Cassel: Are there any other comments on the program? The comment I wanted to 27 make was I thank you for putting together this draft with all the numbers of one-year 28 comparisons. I think that is helpful in our understanding and it is helpful for people to 29 look at it easily and I really appreciate your doing that. What I thought was impressive 30 was that we have each of the last two years only one appeal that went to City Council. 31 That is less than one percent, which to me indicates that something is going very right in 32 the program. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at the issues that you are talking 33 about Pat and that other people have talked about in terms of efficiencies and costs and 34 those things and where the problems might be in a particular problem that is going on. 35 Are we hitting something that we should be hitting for all of them? We should be 36 looking at those problems. But on the other hand only one of them went to the City 37 Council and six went for Director's Review, the first year 14 in 2003 and back to six this 38 year. That indicates that whatever the problem was last year you are beginning to resolve 39 some of those issues. I think that was very helpful. Thank you very much and thank you 40 for putting this together for us. 41 42 We can go on to the next item, right? Okay, thank you. 43 44 This is the third item on our agenda and it is a Zoning Ordinance Update discussion. It is 45 a review of the draft of the Multi-Family Residential, RM-15 and RM-30 and RM-40 46 districts, Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance Update including revisions to allowable uses Page 10 Attachment E IR PROGRAM COMMUNITY MEETINGS Purpose and Composition The IR program community meetings were conceived of by City staff and the Group Tri- Chairs (Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Group), to solicit feedback from participants of the IR program. The meetings were organized by staff, and invitations were sent to selected participants. The agenda for these meetings (attached to this report as Attachment A) was intended to solicit what was liked and disliked about the process and guidelines, and suggestions for improvement thereto. The meetings on January 9 and January 22,2004 were facilitated by Project Sentinel, and were attended by three staff members and the Tri-Chairs. The January 9,2004 meeting was attended by architects and homeowners who had been invited because their applications had been appealed and reviewed at the Director's Hearing level, at a mi;nimum. The January 22, 2004 meeting was attended by applicants including architects, current and former ARB members among them, a past appellant, neighbors of pending IR applications, homeowners of approved and pending IR applications, additional members of the Group, including a Commissioner, and a media representative. The January 23,2004 meeting invitations were sent to all homeowners who had appealed Individual Review applications. Since there were no advance confirmations of attendance for this meeting, the Group Tri.-Chairs, senior management staff, and Project Sentinel were advised by staff that the meeting would be cancelled. However, three appellant homeowners who had been invited but had not responded to the invitation prior to the meeting did appear, so the Manager of Current Planning conducted the meeting using the same agenda as the previous facilitated meetings and received their input. Participant Feedback The participants expressed their appreciation for the IR program's annual evaluation component, and for being invited to comment on the IR program. One participant said . she left the meeting felt "empowered." In general, three IR program categories were discussed in meetings, indicated in sections below as the IR Initial Process, the IR Appeal Process, and the IR Guidelines, with categories (A) what is liked, (B) what is disliked, and (C) suggestions for improvements. Comments under (B) and (C) are further grouped into italicized subcategories. In addition, several suggestions to change the R-l code were separated into another section, Suggestions for R-l Code Changes. It should be noted that although a member of the media was invited, these invitation-only meetings were not audio-recorded and are not considered public hearings. Staff's and Project Sentinel's meeting notes are not required to be made available to the public generally. Statements in the following summary are not tied to any participants by name, but connected on occasion by the participant's role in the program, to give additional meaning to the statement. IR Initial Process (A) What is liked: • Participants expressed satisfaction in their interactions with the staff, noting their appreciation of: (1) staff's efforts in successfully assisting applicants, given the demands placed on them, (2) staff's efforts educating the public, explaining the basic IR process at the Development Center, (3) handouts prepared by staff, given to applicants in the form of packets containing complete information on the IR program, (4) staff's provision of aerials arid 'other graphics to applicants, and (5) staff's written summaries of meetings, which assist in providing a certainty of outcome. • The review process (combined with IR guidelines) can result in a better final project. • The existence of the process is good for neighbors of IR projects, and neighbors appreciate being able to get copies of reduced plans to study at home. (B) What is disliked: Neighbor opinion component • Lack of clarity as to why the City is concerned about the neighbors' opinions. It appears that neighbors are getting extra consideration, given too much weight; particularly, there is too much concern about second floor windows. • An unhappy neighbor can hold up a project that meets all of the guidelines, and good will between neighbors can't be legislated. • There is still too much subjectivity, particularly in the scope of comments accepted from neighbors. • The overall goals and intents of the IR process is unclear, for example: . (1) the specific extent of the rights of parties participating in the process; (2) which neighbors have a right to participate; and (3) the scope of the neighbors' right to comment, both as to content and to timing within the process. The neighbors believe they have the right to determine the project design. Application turnaround delay • There is no way to predict how much time will be required to complete the process. • The 30-day turnaround for staff response is too long. There can be multiple periods of 30 day reviews (even if it is only a minor task such as an item missing on a form), resulting in a 60-day staff review period b~fore posting. • Turnaround time for initial approval is now more than 30 days, a change from previous practice and the intent of the program. The process takes too long. Outdated Information • Changes in policies and processes are not updated in the packets, which sometimes have incorrect information. • The website information is out of date. Lack of consistency handling projects • In part because of staff turnover, staff's handling of these projects is not consistent. There is shifting interpretation of the guidelines (and code), and staff members can give different interpretations on the same project. There is no consistency regarding who will look at a project, or return a phone call, at any stage of the process. • The consulting architects make comments on issues beyond the scope of their authority and their input is rect?ived too late in the process. • When written summaries of meetings with staff/architects are not prepared (this varies by planner) so that the outcome is unclear, resulting in repeated reviews on same subject. Other process concerns • The posting on the property doesn't help neighbors whose homes face other streets. • It is an expensive process, and there is no way to predict how much a project will cost. (C) Suggestions for Improvements Early and better coordination to minimize redesign • There should be an earlier method to receive input from staff, before the plan is submitted. Applicants should be encouraged to have·a preliminary review with the consulting architect. • Neighbors' comments should be coordinated with consulting architects' comments, forwarded to the applicant together so project architect only has to redesign once. • The more detailed information submitted by the applicant should be forwarded to the consulting architect and the timing of consulting architects' comments should be better coordinated with the staff meeting. • The consulting architects should review all project materials prior to the meeting and should not feel compelled to make revisions to a project. Clarification and education of neighbors' role and scope • Protectthe process from being hijacked by a neighbor with an unreasonable agenda. • Make the definition and role of a guidelint! clearer to the neighbors, emphasizing. the difference between guidelines and zoning regulations. • The notices or flyers -to the neighbors should clearly spell out the bases, and limitations on their right to have input. It should be made clear that the right to comment is not the right to veto. There should be an early meeting with the neighbors to explain the project to them, give them more information. Staff should be empowered to educate neighbors about the scope of the neighbors' right to comment and staff should have the right to reject comments from neighbors which are outside the scope of the review process. • Comments from neighbors should be limited to certain subjects such as privacy and massing. • Copies of drawings should not be given to neighbors. This is a violation of the rights of the designer and architect (several architects' comments). • Create a general education program about the IR process for the community and staff and Council members. • Letters of support, if not from immediate neighbors, should be given less consideration than those from immediate neighbors (appellant comment). Improved program management/applicant outreach • Minimize the processing time. • There should be one member of staff assigned to a project from beginning to end. That person should offer guidance and demonstrate a "how can we make this work" attitude. • The packets and website should be reviewed to make sure they are up to date, and applicants should be notified of changes (notice in the newspaper or website). • Staff should do a site visit to ensure the accuracy of drawings, and should visit each of the neighbors' properties (appellant comment). • Staff should encourage the applicant to contact neighbors early on. Changed review process • Minimize subjective judgment; projects should comply with codes. •. Change the process to make it final once staff determines guidelines are met. • The process should be redesigned to get sign-offs from neighbors, saying they do not object to the project (compare to San Mateo's program where a meeting is held with neighbors and they each sign to verify have seen plans). • There should be a citizen panel, knowledgeable about IR but neutral, to speak with neighbors and applicants. • A deliberative body (more than one hearing officer) with architectural knowledge should hear and rule on appealed IR projects (similar to other cities); • Ideally; the consulting architect should be a staff architect that is a conduit to the City Council. IR Appeal Process (A) What is liked: • No favorable comments. (B) What is disliked: Applicants' viewpoint: • The fee for appeal ($100) ofIR approvals is too low. • The current process does not afford predictability as to either the time or cost of obtaining approval. • The fact that there is an appeal process, wh;ich should be abolished (applicant comment). Appellants'viewpoint: • The media didn't review all parties and exaggerated issues surrounding and appealed IR project for sensationalism. • Sometimes the applicants don't speak with all immediate neighbors or there is a failure to apprise the neighbors and find out why they might be concerned. • The staff is in the position of defending their first decision against neighbors' comments, so it can become adversarial. The staffencourages neighbors not to appeal. It is also hard for staff to cut neighbors off and nothing says the appeal has to be valid. • A site plan submitted with an appealed IR application was incomplete and inaccurate and it caused issues. ec) Suggestions for Improvements: Improved program management/applicant outreach • Initial approval letters should contain explanation (findings) for approving projects, the reasons the home meets guidelines, to help neighbors understand why the project should be approved. • A public information officer or other City spokeperson should get involved when controversial projects get into media. Modified appeal process • Allow only one level of appeal. Eliminate the Director's Hearing (stated at all three meetings). • Require a higher number of city council members (a majority) to vote to hold an appeal hearing. • Shorten the time period for filing an appeal, such as 30 days,. and eliminate continuances of appeal hearings. Guarantee a reasonable expectation of finality. • Limit the number of times neighbors can submit comments (to once). Don't have comment periods associated with revisions during the process. • Place more requirements on the neighbor seeking to appeal, for example: (1) raise the fee charged to file an appeal to represent the true cost, (2) require the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal if it is unsuccessful, (3) require that a certain number of neighbors join in the appeal, (4) impose a waiver of appeal rights if a neighbor fails to take a necessary step such as failing to attend a hearing; dismiss their appeal if the appellant doesn't attend a hearing. • Appeals should be limited to significant issues, and only those within the IR process and guidelines. Do not allow an appeal based on factors or concerns outside of the IR process and guidelines. Need a way to determine if appeal is valid or frivolous. Create a summary process to dismiss frivolous appeals quickly and without a full-scale hearing. Change code to exempt certain projects from appeals • Change those guidelines that are suitable into zoning regulations, so a project meeting the zoning requirements is not subject to appeal and input by neighbors context in another (they should also explicitly vary for the character of each neighborhood, for example Eichler neighborhood, which is distinctive in character and therefore more flexibility is needed). Suggestions for R·l Code Changes • One participant suggested that the second floor area threshold for IR review should be raised from its current level of 150 square feet to perhaps 500 square feet, requesting that staff provide to the Commission a breakdown of statistical information regarding the total number of new homes versus the number of new additions subjected to the IR program, and a statistic for the number of homes adding a second floor addition of less than 150 square feet. • The contextual garage placement code should be made a more flexible guideline. The code language creates a lack of flexibility and an arbitrary impact on the outcome. The contextual garage placement code is unclear to users, it is not certain how strict staff will be in applying this code, and answers from staff on this subject are varied. Backyards are lost due to contextual garage placement. • Story poles should be required for new homes over 5,000 square feet. If projects are reviewed by a deliberative body, and story poles are required, there should be no appeal heard by City Council. PARTICIPANT COMMENTS, POST MEETINGS Written correspondence received from participants and others after the meetings included the following suggestions for improvements (paraphrased): Participant (applicant/architect): • The IR process was intended to be applicant-driven so staff should decide in favor of the applicant vs. the neighbors, when there is a choice. The example is the requirement for "correct" application vs. "complete" application. Delaying the project 30 days to make zoning findings before posting for neighbors review, just so neighbors don't have to look at another set of drawings, is not consistent with the intent of the program. • Neighbor notices should include: (1) Notification of legal activity is a courtesy to the neighbors, not a right or an entitlement, (2) All comments are welcome but only responses to comments regarding privacy, massing or streetscape will be required to be addressed by the applicant, (3) Appeals can only be made on the bases of privacy, massing or streetscape, (4) Anyone may comment or come to a public hearing but only those receiving mailed cards may appeal a project. • If a comment is received within the time limit, but overlooked by accident until after the approval, staff should determine whether or not the comment is important. Only if it is a serious matter should it be passed along to the applicant. • Staff should inform the applicant which of the neighbors' comments require responses, so the applicant knows the staff can tell the difference. • Two things could be done without changing the ordinance: (1) change the wording of the notice (education), and (2) change the review team or hire a staff architect.