The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-12-15 City Council (16)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 15, 2003 CMR:533:03 SUBJECT:SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROGRAM REPORT This is an informational report regarding the status of the Single Family Individual Review (IR) Progam in 2003 and no Council action is required. This report provides statistical information on the IR Pro~am, and identifies issues and discussion areas of the Pro~am and related Zoning Codes. BACKGROUND The Single Family Individual Review progam (Progam) was implemented November 19, 2001. The Progam guidelines and process were developed by staff, in conjunction with "The Future of Single Family Neighborhood Advisory Group" (Group) over a period of 18 months. The Program includes an annual assessment and update to the City Council. The 2002 Progam Report included an assessment of the Progam, ordinance and guidelines, and identified recommended changes to three regulations (contextual front setback, contextual garage placement, and entrance structures/towers). Status of IR Pro~amlProcess 2003 Applications and Process To date, 121 IR applications were submitted in 2003; of these only one has been to a Director’s Hearing. A total of 13% more applications were submitted in 2003 than in 2002. There have been four Director’s Hearings in 2003 but three of these were 2002 applications. One of these cases was resolved so no appeal was filed. There have been three IR appeals (David, Webster, Clifton) to Council in 2003. Only one appeal was heard by Council, and the item was remanded to the Director for denial (1849 Webster Street). This year, staff has taken a proactive approach to identifying issues and to working with applicants, architects, and neighbors, visiting neighboring homes to see development from each perspective. At the last update, staff began neighborhood noticing before the CMR:533:03 Page 1 of 7 application was deemed complete. The goal was to get all input and make all necessary changes all at the same time. The process was changed in 2003, consistent with PAMC 18.14, so that neighbor noticing begins only after a project is deemed complete. This ensures neighbors get input on complete plans. Staff involvement in IR In 2002, two planners reviewed IR projects, each planner also performing other duties as well as IR. The Progam had originally included a staff allowance equivalent to 1.5 Full Time Employees (FTE.) In 2003, the IR workload was distributed to six planners under the supervision of the Manager of Current Planning to better balance each planner’s workload. It is estimated that the equivalent of at least two full time employees (including attorney, manager, support staff involvement as well as planners) were needed to handle the caseload thus far. Only one FTE was budgeted for the progam this year due to position cuts (.5 F-rE was cut). Projects that go to both Director’s Hearings and Council consent calendar (required process for those projects that are appealed) result in an estimated 56 additional staff hours beyond those IR’s with issues and neighbor comments that are resolved prior to any requests for hearings. Items that proceed to a Council hearing are estimated to take an additional 20 hours of staff time, minimum. Application fees do not cover costs of the IR progam. Staff’s analysis of IR processing time and cost is summarized in Exhibits 1 and 2. Estimates include time and expenses for Associate Planner, Secretary, Planning Managers, CPO, Director, Attorney, but not for the consulting architect, Assistant City Manager, Clerk, nor other staff attending council meetings. EXHIBIT 1 Type of project A project with no major issues A project with issues and public comments A project to Director’s Hearing Appeal request on City Council consent calendar Appeal heard by City Council Building Permit plan check by planning staff Total Planning and Attorney hours 12- 18 19 -26 43 - 54 70 - 82 86- 102 V2 hour CMR:533:03 Page 2 of 7 EXH~IT 2 Staff Hours Cost Estimate by Project Type TYPE 1 A project with no Origins review and no comments $980 TYPE 2 A project with Origins review and issues but no comments Average $1500 (used as base for Type 3) $1429- 1585 TYPE 3 Add invalid comments but no hearing OR Add valid comments but no hearing Average $2040 (used as base for Type 4) +$78-$312 $1578-1812 +$468-609 $1968- 2109 TYPE 4 Add Director’ s Hearing Average $3856 (used as base for Type 5) +$1653-1978 $3693- $4018 TYPE 5 Add Appeal on consent Average $6369 (used as base for Type 6) +$2470-2557 $6326-6413 TYPE 6 Add hearing of appeal Average $8175 +$1747- 1864 $8116-8233 Add denial letter Building Permit check +$199 $8374 +$39 DISCUSSION The Progam consumes more staff time than anticipated and causes applicants additional delay. In her recent report on the Development Review Process, the Auditor suggested exploring a ministerial process due to the time spent and expense incurred by the applicant and staff. Staff is investigating this as well as other alternatives. The process and guidelines have caused issues for staff and applicants. Staff will be holding focus goups and gathering data on ways these might be alleviated. CMR:533:03 Page 3 of 7 There are several advantages to continuing with a discretionary Program. The Group and staff invested time to hammer out the existing IR guidelines and process. This product and process emerged as a result of community outcry against the features commonly associated with "monster homes". The vast majority of all cases did not result in appeals, but did allow neighborhood involvement in the neighborhood development process. Many neighbors use the notification process to understand what is planned for their neighborhood. Also, staff and the City’s consulting architect’s input can be useful in resolving compatibility concerns of adjacent neighbors. There are several disadvantages to keeping a discretionary progam. The existing IR process has too many levels of appeals. Staff is exploring how to consolidate review levels and reduce the number of required appeals. The Progam requires the equivalent of two full time employees; approximately $40,000 for the annual contract with the consulting architect; expenses for newspaper advertising, postings, mailings, and hearings; and applicants’, appellants’, Council Members’ and Group co-chairs’ time. The IR process adds one more step in the development process and all guidelines are open to interpretation. While the City utilizes consulting architectural design services, staff is often called upon to do design review with no formal training in design. The IR process is not a surrogate for the single story overlay. However, because it is a discretionary process, neighbors have the opportunity to delay a project. The IR process cannot guarantee absolute privacy but instead it serves as a method to respect the existing privacy situation between properties. Neighbors often have an unreasonable expectation that to preserve an existing privacy situation offered by an adjacent single story home, second story additions should not be approved or have no windows facing their properties. Eliminating the Progam would reduce expenses to the City, as reflected in the recommendation of the City Auditor. As noted, expenses for newspaper advertising, postings, mailings, hearings, meeting minutes and administrative records would be eliminated, and applicants’, appellants’, Council members’ and Group Co-chairs’ time would be regained. Planning staff time would be reduced, as would the City’s Architect, Origins Design Network. Origins architects, however, were previously utilized for a voluntary progam that was funded entirely by the City, and for the Compatibility Review progam before that. However, eliminating the Pro~am would require formulating and adopting ordinance changes to approximate what the current progam does for mass, streetscape and privacy via discretionary review with guidelines. This is not currently on the Planning Division’s work progam. Ministerial regulations could arbitrarily limit design flexibility and implementation of architectural style. Modifications to IR Guidelines The appeals raised concerns about the IR Guidelines, which are issued by the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to PAMC 18.14.110. These concerns included mediation, solar studies, surveys, privacy, and loss of ambient light. The CMR:533:03 Page 4 of 7 Director amended the IR Guidelines to modify professional mediation as a tool. Staff is now using an approach that is architecturally-based, using OriNns Design Network architects and staff to discuss issues with applicants and neighbors. Staff is considering modifications to the IR Guidelines. Pursuant to PAMC section 18.14.110, any revisions to the Guidelines must be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for its comment, prior to adoption by the Director. Solar orientation In several cases, a solar study was required to determine compliance with solar guideline #6, which was not anticipated by the Group in recommending the Program. In addition, compliance with the solar guideline was not anticipated to eliminate any shading. Rather, the guideline was intended to guide designers to consider solar orientation in the placement of second story features as one of several design considerations. The Group co-chairs have recommended this guideline be deleted, and staff agrees. The daylight plane is the code regulation that is intended to allow adequate sunlight to reach a home during the year. Privacy The definition of "privacy" has become very subjective and therefore difficult to standardize. The IR guidelines were configured to ensure second story window placement minimized views onto adjoining properties, but not to eliminate views. Staff is considering providing further clarification to the policy statement, "minimize intrusions on privacy for adjacent houses’ primary patio or outdoor living areas" to define "minimize". In order to provide some degree of consistency, staff would also propose a specific window setback to establish a privacy zone as a code regulation. Should the discretionary program be eliminated, a prohibition against new two story windows directly opposite windows of another home could be codified. This is the only IR guideline that has been identified for potential conversion to a code regulation, as it is not expected to meet with extensive deliberation and controversy. Issues with IR Ordinance The existing ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.14) has not been modified since its adoption on November 19, 2001. The ordinance does not identify a procedure for what happens when an applicant changes plans after approval or identify what constitutes major or minor changes. There have been several IR project applicants this year who submitted revisions to plans during the building permit application process. Staff determined the changes to be minor in each case, and beneficial to the design and neighbors, but decided to send notices to neighbors announcing the changes since the code did not specify otherwise. A section should be added to this ordinance to describe a discretionary process providing neighborhood notice CMR:533:03 Page 5 of 7 for major changes to previously approved IR projects, and to define major changes versus minor changes (those changes that could be done without notice to neighbors). The ordinance does not identify an expiration of the approval, which is commonly in place for other discretionary land use approvals. Without an expiration period, an IR project could be constructed many years from the original approval date, and codes and neighbors may have changed in the interim. K the IR process is to be similar to other minor discretionary land use processes, a section on expiration should be added. An expiration section would also include a process for extension of IR approvals. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW On October 29, 2003, a draft version of this report was distributed to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission), as a report attachment. The Commission was asked to review the draft 2003 IR Program report because code changes related to the R-1 District were anticipated in order to implement the ideas presented. The recommended changes to the three regulations noted in the 2002 IR Program report were included, among other potential changes, in Attachments B and C to the Commission report. The Commission has not yet discussed these attachments. The Commission continued the public hearing to January 28, 2004. The Commission report, two attachments, and minutes are attached to this report (Attachments A - D). In summary, the Commission voted to recommend that the Program remain discretionary as follows: (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 undergoes 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, regarding solar orientation. 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. The Commission heard from the Group N-chairs prior to opening the public hearing. Members of the public who spoke included two IR appellants, an architect/IR applicant, an architect/Group member, a retired attorney/potential IR applicant, a lender, a CMR:533:03 Page 6 of 7 homeowner that has been through the IR appeal process, and a homeowner that has been through the IR process and HIE appeal process. Staff intends to bring to the Commission input from moderated focus ~oups, to be held in January 2004. The goups will be comprised of Group N-chairs, applicants, architects, appellants, staff, and a facilitator. Staff’s intention was to hold the discussions and forward the input to the City Council in this report. However, scheduling conflicts approaching the holidays pushed the discussions into 2004. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Commission Report of October 29, 2003, w/o attachments Attachment B: Proposed Single-Family Residential Code Changes Attachment C: Proposed Home Improvement Exception (HIE) Modifications Attachment D: Gross Floor Area illustrations Attachment E: Gross Floor Area matrix Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission minutes of October 29, 2003 PREPARED BY: ~/~~--~~ AMY FRL~CHManager of Current~~ DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:/~ ~/EMYV ~ E~~" Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager CMR:533:03 Page 7 of 7 Attachment A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNq-NG & TtL~NSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: .~aay French Current Planning Manager October 29, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Conmaunity Envirolmaent SUBJECT:Planning and Transportation Cormlaission review of (1) the 2003 Single Family Individual Review (I_R) Update including financial impacts of the pro~am, (2) the existing discretionary IR process and an alternative option for a ministerial IR process, (3) potential changes to PAMC Chapters 18.04, 18.12, 18.14, and 18.90. RECOM3IENDATION Staff reconmaends the Plarming and Transportation Commission (Commission): (1) Receive and review the Draft 2003 IR Report to City Council, (2) Review staff’s analysis of the existing discretionary IR process, suggested changes to the IR Guidelines and Chapter 18.14, and consider the implications of an alternative, ministerial process that would necessitate changes to Chapter 18.12, (3) Review existing codes and policy regarding what is included in floor area, maximum house size, the purpose for average front yard and how it is determined, and contextual garage placement, and initiate modifications to Chapters 18.04 and 18.12. (4) Review existing findings and policy for Home Improvement Exceptions, and initiate an anaendment to Chapter 18.90. If the Commission initiated the above changes to the zoning regulations, Staff would return to the Commission with an ordinance in 2004. City of Palo Alto Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is divided into three sections, each of which addresses a topic raised over the last year ha the context of Individual Review. Each is discussed in more detail in an attachment to this report: A. IR Program/Process Issues The Draft 2003 IR Report (Attachment A) provides appIication data, process and appeal data, changes made in the guidelines and procedures, an analysis of staff resources for and financial impacts of the program, proposals for changes, and an alternate option for a ministerial process. The report does not include input from moderated focus groups, which will be held later in November. The Commission is reviewing the report because code changes related to the R- t District may be needed to implement the ideas presented. It is anticipated the Council will receive the IR report on December 15, 2003; code anaendments would follow. B. Single Family Residential Codes Over the last year, the Individual Review process has highlighted several single-family residential code sections that need clarification. The definition of gross floor area requires clarification on several points, as do the requirements for average front yard, contextual garage placement, and maximum house size. The issues and Staff’s proposed solutions are detailed in Attachment B. C. Home Improvement Exception (HIE) Current regulations regarding Home Improvement Exceptions are attached (Attaclmaent C). The Commission is asked to review the Intent and Findings, receive staff s analysis and consider policy alternatives, and provide COlr~nent. NEXT STEPS After the December 15, 2003 Council meeting, staff will schedule a Commission meeting in 2004 to review any ordinance and program amendments. ATTACHMENTS No B. C. D. E. Draft 2003 Report to Council on Single Family Individual Review Program Single Family Residential Proposed Code Clarifications Proposed HIE Modifications Gross Floor Area illustrations Gross Floor Area matrix City of Palo Alto Page 2 COURTESY COPIES Neighborhood Associations Committee for Furore of Single Famil?, Neighborhoods Focus Group members Prepared by:Amy French, Manager of Cun’ent Planning~/~--’.: Reviewed by: Lisa Grote, ChiefPlarming Official---~ De artment Head k r ’ iiSte~e~/mslie Director of Planning and Communi~, Em~ironment City of t~alo Alto Page 3 Attachment B ATTACHMENT B Proposed Single-Family Residential Code Changes Definition of Gross Floor Area [Subsection 18.04.030 (65)] Due to the floor area issues raised during several IR appeals, and upon the suggestion by the Group Co-Chairs and IR participants (neighbors and applicants), staff has enlisted the IR program’s consulting architect (Ori~ns Design Network) to prepare graphics showing how single family residential floor area is currently calculated, focusing on thresholds that, when crossed, result in inclusion as floor area (see Attachment D). These graphics may be the beginning of a visually oriented technical manual that staff, applicants and the genera! public could use in day-to-day operation, rather than rely solely on the code and its subsequent interpretations. In addition to the graphics, a matrix is provided to indicate features included and not included in gross floor area (GFA), citing code section sub-items and noting code interpretation sources for each architectural feature (see Attachment E). The matrix is intended to clarify how staff currently rules on GFA. It is accompanied by graphics, intended to clearly show what does and doesn’t count as floor area in R-1 Districts, to clarify the code and as currently interpreted. The form of the graphics is to indicate on a single page an example of what is counted and related example of what is not counted, to show the "thresholds" of floor area. Contents include general diagram, basements, attics, vaulted ceilings and tall roofs, carports, breezeways, porches, decks and stairs, entry structure/tower, bay windows, fireplaces and similar projections. Particular focus has been placed on the Hound floor porch!entry structure issue, showing several versions of recessed porches, enclosed and unenclosed porches, and entrance structure/towers. Staff asks that this issue be the focus of the Commission. There are several items in the definition that need to be clarified: It is not clear what sections of the definition apply to the R-1 and R-E districts. This is especially problematic when determining whether porches are included in GFA. PAMC 18.04.030 (65), paragraphs (A) through (D) establish what is and what is not included in GFA. Paragraphs (A) and (B) apply to all districts, so they apply to the R-1 District as well as all others. However, paragraph (D) applies specificaliy to the City of Palo Alto Page 11 R-1 district. It is not clear whether this was intended to be the sole definition of GFA for R-l, or whether it was meant to apply in tandem with paragaph (A). Staff proposes moving relevant items from para~aph (A) to paragaph (D), and making that the sole GFA definition for the R-1 district. With respect to porches, roofed second stou porches (and other porch-like features, such as arcades) are currently included in GFA, as are recessed porches. However, the definition does not discuss gound-floor non-recessed porches. Staff’s long- standing interpretation has been that they are included in GFA only if the3’ are substantially enclosed, but it would be clearer if this interpretation were codified (also see item 4 for a discussion of "unenclosed"). 2.The difference between porch and en03, structure is not defined. Some people have stated that porches are entry structures and therefore should be counted. That was not the intent of the Group, which was concerned about oversized, tall entry features. The Group co-chairs have recently noted that perhaps 12 feet is too low to be 15 feet tall is a better height at which to begin counting these features twice. There are also other ways to describe the difference between porches and tall entry features. 3.The wording of how a tall entt3, structure is counted toward GFA is not correct. The 2002 IR Report noted that staff’s method is to count the footprint of an entry structure/tower twice, not just the part that is over 12’ tall. The report stated that this method was supported by the Group Co-chairs and claimed the restriction had resulted in virtual elimination of this feature. 4.Enclosed porches are counted but that was not the intent of the Group. Staff has used the "more than 50% enclosed" interpretation to determine what is substantialiy enclosed and is included in floor area. Regular, non-recessed porches that are not substantially enclosed are not counted in floor area. The intent of the Group was that all porch areas should be excluded from goss floor area. Front porches add interest to the architecture of a home, yet can add mass to a building. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Possible Options Following axe some possible options to solving the above issues: Include everything under the roof minus the eaves. This would be simple for staff and applicants to understand as it would remove all interpretations and provide more predictability for applicants and neighbors. However, designers feel this would be a disincentive to providing Palo Alto architectural features such as porches. Floor area would be used primarily for enclosed living areas. 2.One way to encourage porches, whether enclosed or unenclosed, is to exempt only front porches from floor area calculations. 3.Another way to encourage porches is to cap the amount of porch floor area, whether "enclosed" or not, that is excluded from FAR calculations. Entrance structure/tower needs to be renamed and better defined. A possible new name "vaulted entry", would better describe what the Group was trying to penalize by counting twice. "Vaulted entry" could be defined as an3, entrance structure that extends above the second floor or above the eave of a first floor when there is no second floor (see illustration 4). o This definition needs to be divided into commercial, industrial, and residential districts to ensure roofed second floor porches are counted in residential districts, and to ensure gound floor porches are not counted in residential districts. The definition needs to be clarified so "substantially enclosed" (the "more than 50% enclosed" rule) is included this definition, °A maximum number of porches or enclosed porches, with a specified maximum size or percentage of lot area, could be permitted on a home without counting toward GFA. R-1 All front porches could be exempt from GFA. Regulations [Chapter 18.12] The question of what is included in Maximum House Size has arisen this 3’ear. The Commission has noted the need for amendments to regulations for both contextua! front setback and garage placement in R-1 Districts, and the 2002 IR Report noted amendments City of Palo Alto Page 13 as well, cited below. 1.Section 18.12.050 (i)(3) Maxitnum House Size The PAMC section 18.12.050 (i)(3) states, "...the maximum allowable house size shall be 6,000 square feet." However, there is no definition of what is included in "house". Staff has determined that attached garages are included in "house". In fact, a legal determination was made that as our code is written, detached garages are not considered a part of the house for the purpose of determining maximum house size. However, garages are considered floor area for the purpose of the FAR allowed on a parcel. Structures that are not habitable, such as detached garages that are accessory to the main dwelling have not been included in calculations for maximum house size. At one time, carports were not included in GFA unless they were substantially enclosed (more than 50%). The code was changed so that all carports that provide the required covered paring space, regardless of enclosure, are now counted as GFA. Also, the origina! intent of the maximum house size regulation.may have been to include all garages since the3, do add to mass and building volume on a site, especially when incorporated into the house footprint. There is one drawback in that non-habitable accessory structures are considered GFA and are included in the maximum FAR standard if they are geater than 120 square feet, so if they are converted to habitable area without permits, they would contribute to maximum house size. s Section 18.12.050(d) Average Front Setback Issues The Commission has noted that the definition of neighborhood for the purpose of determining compatibility should go beyond the proximity described in the average front setback regulation (currently, five homes on either side of the home on the same block if longer than 600 feet). The Group had initially intended to deal with the issue of special neighborhoods that had less than 20-foot front setbacks, in order to preserve the streetscape. It ended up that the average setback is applied citywide. There have been several issues with the current system, resulting in a cumbersome regulation for applicants and staff. How this is measured is set forth in 18.12is not indicative of the entire neighborhood (and this relates to the need to seek compatibility with neighborhood, including homes across the street), especially when trying to make HIE findings (as seen in the 4044 Sutherland project). The applicants commonly rely on aeria! maps on file with the City to determine the average setback. City of Palo Alto Page 14 3.Section 18.12.050(m) Predominant Neighborhood Pattern of Garages Issue The issues have been as follows: ¯When there is no garage, it currently counts as a front facing garage, as code is currently written. This is the reverse of what the rule should be to accurately reflect the context. ¯Side facing garage toward front portion of lot not described (not front facing) ¯The code is not clear that, if the predominant pattern is front facing garages, somebody can build a detached garage in the rear, even though this would not fit into context ¯The code doesn’t say when to start counting garages across the street (doesn’t say "and/or") ¯Issue presented in the 2002 IR report regarding corner lots. Possible Solutions Following are some possible solutions to the above issues: 1. Options for Maximum House Size a.One covered!garage~ par’king space should count toward the ma ~ximum house size and any other non-required covered parking spaces do not count toward maximum house size. b. All habitable accessory structures should also be included. c. A definition of "house" should be added to the PAMC. 2.Options for average f!’ont setback Staff is of the opinion the average setback should stay in effect, with modification and specific methods for applying it would help, as follows: ¯The setback will be based on the 2001 aerial photos. They will not change due to new construction on the street (in other words, the average setback will not "creep" as new houses are built). If an HIE is issued for average setback encroachment, that becomes an anomaly that is not counted. ¯When determining the average setback, houses that are set back a certain distance more than the average setback for the block wi!l not be included. (I0’ ?) City of Palo Alto Page 15 ¯Comer lots are included only if the front lot line is on the block face for which the setback is being determined. ¯Anomalies are thrown out (issue raised in 2002 IR report). An alternate solution is to eliminate the average front setback in the code, and simply (but not quicMy) map all those R-1 District setbacks that are not 20 foot setbacks as special setbacks on the Zoning Map, in order to protect those we believe should be protected. All others would stay as a 20-foot minimum setback with the Director retaining discretionary abilit3, regarding a maximum setback. 3.Options for garage placement ¯A lot with no garage should be counted as one with a rear garage. ¯For corner lots: o When building on a comer lot, the block that the comer lot faces on is the one used to determine whether the garage may be in the front or rear of the site. Comer lots will not be limited in whether they build close to or far away from the street side lot line. o When determining the predominant neighborhood pattern for a block, comer lots are included whether the front lot line is on that street or not. ¯Rear garages would still be permitted in neighborhoods with a predominant neighborhood pattern of garages in the front half of the site. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Attachment C ATTACHM~NVr C Proposed Home Improvement Exception (HIE) Modifications Status of the HIE process There have been two applicant-filed appeals of the Director’s denial of HIE’ s in 2003. Neither of these projects included an IR application, since they were both single story additions. Both of these appeals were approved by the City Council. One HIE was for a five-foot encroachment into the average front yard setback encroachment. The other HIE was for small increases beyond maximum floor area and lot coverage. In both cases, staff was directed to explore relaxing the required HIE Findings to provide staff geater power to approve pound floor construction that maintains a one-story home when desirable for compatibility with a predominantly one-story neighborhood, and for additional floor area. The direction provided by the Commission and Council is to find a way to make it easier for owners of existing home’s to obtain HIEs. Several Council members have suggested that older buildings should be able to do this. On October 15, staff met with two members of the Planning and Transportation Commission Subcommittee on Low Density Residential Ordinances to discuss staff’s efforts. It was suggested that sustainability or adaptive reuse be incorporated into the second HIE finding. It should also be noted that an HIE for a second story extension of a setback encroachment was appealed by an adjacent neighbor. The Commission recommended denial and the Council denied the appeal, supporting the use of the HIE in conjunction with the IR review in that case. Obstacles to flexibility in granting I-HEs As noted, the Commission and Council have directed staff to find a way to make HIE Finding #1 more flexible, particularly for single story additions. In addition, the Commission subcommittee on low density residential has suggested adding adaptive reuse of older buildings to HIE Finding #2. The first required finding to approve an HIE is as follows: "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district." This is essentially the same as a Variance finding and is difficult to make in many cases because it is hard to make findings that a property is unique. City of Palo Alto Page 17 The second finding states, °’The ~anting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, or a protected tree as defined in Chapter 8.10 or other significant tree, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations." The issue here is that staff sees applications where additional floor area is requested beyond maximum FAR.. but it does not necessarily preserve an existing architectural style or neighborhood character. It simply reflects the applicants’ desire to have a home larger than the code allows. Applicants cite previous policy that allowed staff to issue a maximum of 100 square feet over allowable floor area without question. Possible Solutions Allowing for a one-time 100 square foot bonus above maximum FAR as of right, for homes over a certain age. If this right is created for the lot, then it amounts to increasing the allowable FAR for every older home in the cit-y that is not already over the maximum permitted FAR. This would come with controversy, especially if the home is already at or above maximum house size. One possibility is to limit it to single story houses smaller than a to-be-determined size that also have existing floor plan constraints. If this is seen as a good approach, Chapter 18.12 could be modified to allow this as a permitted use, so that no discretionary process would be required for those cases. Staff is of the opinion that, under this solution, the Variance should apply for those projects above maximum house size, and for any floor area request of over 100 square feet. Allow encroachments into the average front setback up to five feet, but not violating the 20 foot standard setback as of right. Chapter 18.12 could be modified to allow this as a permitted use, so no discretionary process would be required for those cases. 3.It would not be difficult to edit Finding #2 to elaborate on reasons for ganting an HIE, such as adaptive reuse of older buildings. 4.The feasibility of removing the first finding is still being investigated. City of Palo Alto Page 18 PORCHES Root Area Calculation Rules Attachment D.1 Attachment D OPEN PORCH DEFINITION: Ground floor attached Not counted in floor area catcuta#on EN(~LQSED PORCH DEFINITION: Ground floor atIa~ed structure;Su,,face arm of aft d~,~ining .~!~ ~0°~ /~ open Counts or~e in f~or area ~ RECESSED PORCHES Floor Area Calculation Rules Attachment D.2 RECESS.ED ROROH ¯ Ground level outdoor space . One storyin height ¯ Recessed on 2 or 3 sides into the mainbuilding volume. Surface area of each outside facir~j wall >50%open (s~ppoCdng columns and razTings are not counted as wall surface area) Not ~ in floor area calcuta’don OTHER RECESSED OUTDOOR SPACES¯ Upper level spaces (see rules regarding upperlevel decks). Spaces over one story in height . Outdoor areas where the ~ area of outside facing walls is <50% open C otmted one time in fioor area ~ UPPER LEVEL DECKS, BALCONIES, ETC.Attachment D.3 ,,OPEN DECKS ¯ Outdoor space where the roof above is > 50% open to the sky and tt~e perimeter walls are > 50% open (assume 8 foot high wal~) ¯ Outdoor space recessedintott~ main ~volume on 2 or 3 sides where the roof above is >50% open to the sky and walls are > 50 % open Not counted in floor area ~ ENCLOSED DECKS . Outdoorspace where the roof above is < 50% open to the sky ancYor the perimeter walls are <50% open (assume 8 foot high walls) . Outdoor space recessed irrto the main building volume on 2 or 3 sides where the roof above is <50% open to the sky <50% open CoLmt~d one t~me in #oor area calculation ENTRY STRUCTURES/TOWERS Floor Area Calculation Rules Attachment D.4 H2 ,DEFfNITiONS: An enlzy form is an ENTRY STRUCTUREtTOI~ER., it HI > H2 or HI > 12’ An entry form is an ENTRY PORCH, if_ H1 < H2 and Hl,~12" (see ~ area rules for porches) t H! = ~ from entry’s tloor to its eave or top-of-parapet wa!l. ,,FLOOR,AREA CALCULATION: Horizon~ Area of EnLgf Structure./Tower at floor > 12" Total Floor Area for Entry Structure/Tower (note: floor area shown shaded) Single story roofline ~ 12" ...........................Attachment D.5 ATTICS/STORAGE AREA (5’ rule) and-BASEMENTS (3’ rule) Floor Area Calculation .Rules House Shown in Cross Section (Floor Area shown shaded, except for .1st and 2nd floors) .ENCLOSED.STORAGE: Fl~r area coumed, ff.s~_ .. i~ > 5feet in height from floor-to-ceiling. Ceiling /" >5’ .Floor Ex~ng Gra~ Finish Grade ,B~,SEMENT: Floor area of the basement is counted, ~ The first floor leve~ is > 3 leer b height point a~/jacent to the house. AL TERNA TE BASEMENT: Root area of the basement is not. counted, i_f The first floor ~vet is < 3 feet in heig,~t above existing_ grade at the !oweSt point adjacent to the house. Note: Grade in the R-1 Distrfct is de~ned as the lowest point of adjacent ground elev~’on prior, to grading, or fill. FIREPLACE PROJECTIONS Roor Area Calculation Rules Attachment D.7 DEFINITION ¯ Pr~ from main building wall (extending 2 feet maximum) ¯ Housing onlya m:~dorgas burning enclosure or appliance Note: Extensions of counted fireplaces and housing for flues only do not count as ~1 floor BAY WINDOW PROJECTIONS DEFINITION ¯ Projec~n from main building wall (extending 2 feet n’,a~mum) ¯ Occurs above ~ level of ~e flloor Not counted in floor area catcula~n Attachment E Attachment F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, October 29, 2003 REGULAR MEETING - 7.’00 PM City Council Chambers Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM Comtnissioners: Michael Griffin - Chair Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair Karen Holman Patrick Burt Bonnie Packer Annette Bialson Joseph Bellomo - left at 9:30 PM Staff: Steve EmsIie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney Amy French, Current Planning Manager Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: Annual Individual Review Report Reports from Officials: Report from the City Auditor’s Office on Audit of the Development Review Process. Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to the Wednesday, October 29 regular meeting of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you. I would like to have Oral Communications now. That is a time, which members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three minutes per speaker. If you would fill out a speaker card that is available with the Secretary and please print your name to assist in the pronunciation and likewise when you approach the microphone if you would state your name and address prior to speaking that would be helpful as well. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: Do we have any speaker cards for Oral Communications? No, then we will move onto New Business. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Other Items: None: Chair Griffin: I am going to open the public hearing on the first item, which is the Annual Individual Review Report where the Commission will review first of all the 2003 Single Family Individual Review Update including financial impacts. Secondly, a consideration of the [R’s existing discretionary review process and an alternative option for a ministerial review process. Then thirdly discussion of a potential changes to the Municipal Code regarding existing code and policies on floor area ratio, contextual front setbacks, garage placements and home improvement exceptions. Would the Staff like to start us off? NEW B USINESS. Public Hearings: 1.Annual Individual Review Report: Commission review of 1) the 2003 Single Family Individual Review Update (IR) including financial impacts of the pro~am; 2) consideration of the IR’s existing discretionary review process and an alternative option for a ministerial review process; and 3) discussion of potential changes to PAMC Chapters 18.04, 18.12, 18.14 and 18.90.regarding existing code and policies on floor area ratio, contextual front setbacks, garage placements and home improvement exceptions. SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/2579.pdf Mr. Steve Emslie. Plannin~ Director: Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission I would like to introduce Staff that will be presenting to you tonight but before I do I would like to make a couple of comments to put this into perspective in terms of the overall implementation of the Individual Review pro~am. As the Commission is aware this is the second year into a five-year program of implementation of the Individual Review and part of the implementation progam that was recommended by this Commission and adopted by the City Council is that Staff conduct an annual review of the program. The progam was last reviewed in November of last year and we are scheduled on time to present with you the findings for the second year of the implementation. City of Palo Alto Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 The purpose of the review was to take a critical look at the progam to look at issues as they developed. Those that could not have been anticipated in the drafting stage but only through practice became apparent. So it is in that spirit we are bringing to you a set of options or policy choices that we would like to receive input on so that we can proceed to draft specific ordinance changes or policy changes for your consideration at a future date. I would also like to mention too that the work that would be done on the code amendments are coordinated with the work that our zoning code update team is currently engaged in. In other words, work that you would do in this process would be supplemental and coordinated with the zoning code. So it would move us forward to completing primarily the R-1 Residential zone codes and be coordinated and compliment with the zoning code update. So it is work that will advance us towards our goal of completing the zoning code update. I would like to now introduce Staff who will be presenting. First of all I would like to introduce a new face to you. We have with us at the Staff table Dan Sode~en who is with our City Attorney’s Office. He is assisting Nellie Ancel in the land use area, as you know in Wynne’s absence, she is now the interim City Attorney. Her presence needed to be filled by two people. So we have ample support for land use and transportation issues. I also wanted to mention that we do have the three co-chairs tonight from the IR Citizen’s Committee. We have Annette Ashton, John Northway and Carol Harrington. I know they have some remarks prepared for you at the conclusion of the Staff Report this evening. Now I am going to turn it over to Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official, who is going to be walking you through the Staff Report in the segments as it is presented in the recommendation. Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Plannin~ Official: Thank you Steve and good evening Commissioners. This overhead presentation is at places for you to follow along with and there are also copies at the back of the room for the public if they would like to review those as well. I did want to start with an overview of the recommendations. We are basically asking you to do three things. One is to receive and review the Draft 2003 Individual Review Report and to review and begin discussion of the existing Individual Review process and potential changes. Those two bulleted items as shown on your overheads are included in Attachment A to the Report. So that is where you will find the detail involved in that discussion and those issues. The next thing we are asking you to do is to review and begin discussion of existing Single Family development requirements as found in Title 18 or the Zoning Ordinance. Those items are included in Attachment B to your Report. They include ~oss floor area, maximum house size, average front setback and contextual garage placement. So those are actual code requirements and again they are in Attachment B. Then finally in Attachment C to your Staff Report we are asking you to review and beNn discussion of the Home Improvement Exception findings. I wanted to also start with some statistical information about the Individual Review pro~am for 2003. That includes the fact that there were 105 Individual Review applications submitted as of October 17 of this year. We expect that by the end of the year there will be 120 applications total submitted which is about 13% increase from the number submitted in 2002. There were four Director’s Hearings held this year for Individual Review applications. Three of those were for applications that were submitted at the latter part of 2002, one of those Director’s Hearings items was submitted this year in 2003. There were three appeal requests made to the City City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Council in 2003. One appeal was heard by the Council so of those three requests the Council called up with four or more votes to hear one of those appeal requests. Next I wanted to go over some information about hours that it takes to review types of Individual Review applications and costs involved with that review. Firstly if an Individual Review application doesn’t have major issues or problems associated with it, if it is simply a Staff Review, it takes about 18 hours to review and the cost in Staff hours is about $980.00. If there is an architectural component to the review meaning we ask Origins our architectural consultants to participate in the review then it increases the number of hours and the cost up to about $1,400.00 for that review. If an Individual Review application goes to a Director’s Hearing it takes approximately 54 hours to review with a cost in Staff hours of about $4,000.00. If the IR application goes to the City Council on an appeal request it takes about 82 hours to review and prepare and a cost of about $6,400.00. Then finally if the Individual Review application is actually heard on appeal by the City Council it takes about 102 hours to review and prepare those reports and that review and that costs about $8,200.00. Now that is just in Staff hours, which doesn’t include mailing costs or noticing requirements, legal ads in the newspaper. So those were the numbers of hours and the costs for the Staff involved. We did track that over a period of time so we would have an estimate to be able to present to you and to the Council about that. A couple of main areas that we have received comments on regarding Individual Review have to do with the program and the process itself and then the guidelines, the ten Individual Review guidelines. Firstly I wanted to talk a little bit about the pro~am modifications that have been implemented this past year. They include a much more proactive Staff approach in visiting neighboring sites. We had always visited the applicant’s site and we had always coordinated with the applicant and neighbors in the office and architects in the office but we have included now a much more proactive approach of going out to neighboring sites and viewing the application from those sites, reviewing the project site from the neighboring or adjacent sites. We have started to notify neighbors once the application is complete. When the program was first initiated we notified neighbors within three days of the application being submitted. That resulted in some applications that were incomplete in terms of meeting zoning requirements or other basic requirements being noticed to neighbors, neighbors coming in and looking at the application and then having it change significantly as the applicant modified the plans to meet basic zoning requirements. So in an effort to reduce that kind of confusion and back and forth and neighbors not being certain whether or not this really what is being proposed we have started to notify the neighbors after the application has been determined to meet the basic zoning requirements and to be complete. We have also started to assign more planners to review these types of applications. When we first implemented the program we had two planners who were primarily responsible for reviewing the applications. We now have six planners that are responsible for reviewing Individual Review applications. This isn’t the only thing that they do but it is a portion of their workload. They are supervised by Amy French our Current Planning Manager to make sure that there is consistency in the application process and the review of those applications. When this program was approved by the City Council there were 1.5 full time equivalencies or full time positions approved to implement the program. We now have if you take the portion of time that each of those six individual planners spend on these applications it is probably closer to two or a little bit over two full time positions in hours. That means that we have to expend more hours City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 than we have officially allocated for the program. In addition that .5 of the 1.5 positions that were originally allocated or approved for this program, the .5 has been cut from our budget due to overall budget cuts in the City. So we are expending more time than we have resources for. The mediation program was also amended this year to include Origins as part of the mediation process so that we are addressing the design considerations more directly than the oriNnal mediation program which didn’t include that kind of architectural expertise. So as part of our review and what we have heard about the Individual Review program is that it is too costly, it is too time consuming and the appeal process is often times confusing. There are different options for addressing those types of issues. The first option is to keep the discretionary program but to modify it. The second option is to change the program to be a ministerial program. I think all of you are familiar with the differences between discretionary and ministerial but discretionary is just that. It is a program that has some flexibility. There is a professional judgment involved in whether or not standards or guidelines are met. A ministerial program is one where you simply apply standards and you either meet those standards or you don’t so there is far less discretion involved. It is simply this is the standard has it been met or not. There are certain advantages and disadvantages of each of those types of programs. Some of the advantages of a discretionary program is that it does retain consistency with the advisory group’s effort, it addresses and eliminates the primary elements of new houses that were identified by that group and during that process of being undesirable. The guidelines were specifically geared toward addressing those problems. And the notification process keeps the neighbors actively involved and in the loop in the review of projects and gives them an opportunity to comment on those projects. The disadvantages of a discretionary program are that the appeals can become unwieldy, it is expensive, it is time consuming in terms of Staff time and consultant time, the process is complex and it adds to an already somewhat complex process. Whether the Individual Review process exists or not there will always be zoning requirements, there always will be Building Code requirements and there always will be Public Works requirements that have to be met. A discretionary process adds a level of complexity to that already somewhat complex process. The advantages of a ministerial program are that it has the potential for reducing expenses and simplifying the process. There wouldn’t be meetings. There wouldn’t be consultations with neighborhood residents or architects. There would be no noticing either on the site or in the newspaper. So it does have the potential for simplifying the process. The disadvantages of a ministerial process are that it again would add regulations but there would be no opportunity for neighbors to comment. It would be an informational only process. There would be no recourse for anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision. It is a limited approach. You wouldn’t simply codify the guidelines. The guidelines were specifically written to be flexible to allow people a variety of ways to meet the guideline whereas with the ministerial approach you would have one way to meet the guideline and that’s it. So it is a more limited approach. Potential changes to the discretionary process should that be the ultimate recommendation is to include a method for addressing changes made to Individual Review plans after that approval is given. Currently the ordinance is silent on how to address minor changes or major changes to approved plans. We would also recommend including and expiration date for Individual Review City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 approvals much the same as we have them for Conditional Use Permit approvals or other types of Home Improvement Exception approvals meaning that someone needs to act on their approval within a certain period of time otherwise the approval becomes null. Obviously if the ultimate decision is to create a ministerial process the potential changes wouldn’t be needed. It would be a different process. We have also heard over the last year several issues raised about the guidelines themselves, particularly guideline number six and guidelines number one and two. Number six has to do with solar studies, actually it has to do with solar orientation and then guidelines one and two have to do with privacy, window location and balcony placement. Guideline number six, which is the solar orientation and. impact, was not intended to eliminate shadows on neighboring property. It was not intended to address ambient light. It was intended to allow the solar orientation of the addition or the new two-story house to be one of many design considerations. So it was not intended to eliminate shadow on a neighboring property. If guideline number six were eliminated from the set of ten guidelines which has been one of the recommendations and has been talked about the daylight plane would continue to be the regulation regarding sunlight. The daylight plane is found in the ordinance it is not a guideline it is a strict code requirement and that would continue to be in place. Guidelines one and two again have to do with second story windows and balconies and they were not intended to eliminate second story windows or balconies. They were intended to minimize views into adjacent yards or houses. The thing that we have really found most difficult is the definition of privacy. It is hard to quantify. If we do modify that definition or amend it we could include window setback requirements, which might help address that privacy issue and help strengthen the guidelines. That pretty much completes Attachment A, which has to do with the Individual Review pro~am and then the guidelines. Now moving into Attachment B, which is Zoning Ordinance issues that have been identified throughout the last year as part of the Individual Review process, however these Zoning Ordinance issues apply to all properties. It is not just two-story house single story houses have to abide by these ordinance requirements. Chair Griffin: Do you have a question? Commissioner Burt: Yes. As far as our process tonight we really have three different subjects that have some interrelationship that are all being presented in one Staff Report, the IR guidelines, the HI]E and the gross floor area related issues. I want to see whether the Commission believed that is best to have the Staff go through all of those prior to us asking questions or should we really take them as three major issues that there is a reason why they may be presented on the same agenda but they stand alone somewhat. I think I may get lost as we go into the second and third items and lose focus on some of this. By the same token in terms of our audience comments tonight are we going to lump all of these three things in together and then come back and hit all three as if they were on the same subject? So from a process standpoint I think it might be worth us to at least see which approach we think might be most effective. Chair Griffin: I think there is no question that we have a lot on our plate tonight. Whether or not we can get it all done in one evening perhaps is questionable so I understand the point that you are trying to raise. However, we don’t have as many people in the public audience as I had anticipated so it may not drag on quite as long. I’ll open it up if the rest of my colleagues would like to comment on it. We could for example cut the Staff presentation at this point and delve into just Attachment A at this point. Do any of you have any comments? Bonnie. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Packer: A couple of things. While I appreciate the suggestion so that we can just deal with certain things at a time because our brains have limited capacities I would be concerned that the public may have been thinking of addressing all three at once. So I don’t know if we want to have three separate periods for public comments. Also I do see even though these are three separate things I see them very much being interrelated. What may happen for example is Zoning Ordinance issues may help us think through whether or not to have a discretionary or ministerial review and the HIE process is related to that too so I see them as interwoven. So those are just some thoughts to consider if we decide to make this into three parts or keep it as one. Chair Griffin: I think that is a valid point that people coming tonight may have their pitch as it were all set to go and it might be difficult to break it up. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I think sometimes we are a lot more lenient at the PlanningCommission than at City Council meetings. I think if people have three minutes to comment on all of this it might be a lot to ask to get put into three minutes or five is better. But I think at a minimum we should breakout t-lYE’s as separate. I think they are definitely a category on their own. Chair Griffin: Joe, do you have any comments? Commissioner Bellomo: So the intent is to have three separate items on tonight so the public will speak three times and we will have three items on our agenda versus the one? So we are splitting this up into three is that the intent? Commissioner Burt: I see it as several different options. One would be that for purposes of the Staff presentation and the questions to Staff that we could break it up into three segments. A second alternative could be that we do three separate segments of public comment and discussion with an understanding that there is an interrelationship between these but it is very arguable whether traditionally we would have these as three separate Staff Reports and three separate agenda items. When we are talking about the IR, which is the way it is agendized, it is agendized as our annual review of the IR. In fact what we have here is our annual review of the I~R and a review of the I-lYE and a review of certain zoning segments. Those are three significant items each individually although I think we all recognize that there is some interrelationship between the three. Chair Griffin: Joe, did you wish to follow up with your question? Commissioner Bellomo: No. I have a question for Staff. What was your intention as far as lumping these up into kind of a public hearing and going through them in this order? I kind of want to hear your input to that. Ms. Grote: Our intension was that you would hopefully be able to give us some comment and direction on all of these items tonight or you may need to continue your conversation on some of the items to a later date. But our intent was definitely to get input and direction and comment on all of the items. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Bellomo: So I guess my question to the Commission is do we want to take the IR and see where that leads us tonight so we can kind of look at our timeline that would be another option. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think that both your comments and Pat’s comments are very well grounded but I see so much interrelationship between the IR and the Zoning Ordinance issues that I would like to address both of those at the same time. I think Karen’ s suggestion of perhaps peeling out the HIE would make the most sense to me and probably be the least disruption to those who presented this and who are going to speak to it from the audience. Chair Griffin: I support that point of view. I am wondering if we need to vote on this. Staff I think we have Nven you some direction here. If we could in fact separate out it would be Attachment C on the HIE and we would definitely approach that as a separate item perhaps to be continued. Speaking of being continued, if you would like to carry on with your presentation Lisa. Ms. Grote: Thanks. It will be very brief. The next issues are the Zoning Ordinance issues. They include calculating gross floor area and how that is done, what is included, what isn’t included. The maximum house size, again what is included and what isn’t. Average front setback how that is calculated and then contextual garage placement and how that is calculated. The graphics that were attached to your Staff Report go with Attachment B. So those are graphics that are intended to show how we do these things now, i.e., how we calculate gross floor area now, what is included and what isn’t, how we calculate house size, how we do these things now. The gross floor area definition needs to be clarified. The zones where that definition applies need to be clarified. That is really kind of a cleanup issue in the definitions section of Title 18. It is unclear or it is found in a number of places where residential, estate and single family residential FAR gross floor area what is included in there it kind of jumps around in the code so we would like to clarify that. Clarify the difference between an entry feature and a porch. Clarify the wording about how a tall entry feature, one that is over 12 feet, is calculated into the gross floor area and clarify wording about enclosed porches and whether or not those are included as goss floor area. Again, for maximum house size clarifying whether detached garages are part of the maximum house size. Calculating average front setback, counting one side of the street only. Currently we only do count one side of the street, five houses on either side of the subject house and also how to address anomalies when trying to calculate the average front setback because sometimes there is one house that is extremely far back or extremely close to the front property line and how should we count those or should we. Then contextual garage placement, the existing regulations are silent on how to address a situation where there is no garage. How to address street-facing garages that are located toward the front of a lot but aren’t facing the front of the lot and then when to count garages across the street. So those are really the Zoning Ordinance changes that we have identified. The graphics are there to help clarify what we do now. I will conclude the Staff Report by saying I really want to acknowledge Amy French. She prepared the Staff Report, oversaw the preparation of the graphics and will be very important during the conversation and question and answer period. Also I would like to CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 acknowledge the other advisory ~oup members who are in the audience who took their time to come tonight. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Lisa. I am wondering at this stage, I am going to say that we have another agenda item later on this evening and I am hoping that by ten o’clock if possible we could have Attachment A and Attachment B taken care of so that we could hear Sharon Erickson deliver her presentation having to do with the audit of the Planning Department. Consequently that is the timeline that I am going to be looking at and if you could help in any way that you can to make that take place. The next item, I see that we have our tri-captains from the IR Committee sitting out here this evening. It is nice to see all you folks again after 18 months we are still here. Would you be interested in coming forward and giving us some of your preliminary remarks? At this time we would be very interested in hearing what you might have to say. I am opening the public hearing at this stage. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. John Northwav, IR Committee: I drew the short straw so I will make the first comments and 18 then I know Annette and Carol would also like to say a few things. It struck me about two weeks 19 ago when we were invited to a meeting in the Planning Department to kind of take a look at this 20 as it moved forward to your agenda. As I looked around the room at the top three people in the 21 Planning Department were there, Amy and Lisa and Steve and a host of other planners, and what 22 impressed me was there was only one person other than us three co-chairs in the room that 23 actually were around when this was put together. I don’t remember how many of you were on 24 the Commission, how many of you were on the Commission when this was voted or you 25 reviewed it? Just three or four, okay. I think the reason I asked that is it is important as this is 26 reviewed each year and fewer and fewer of us are around that remembered how did we get here 27 in the first place. One of the things to remember is we went through a horrendous historic 28 ordinance process and that was spun around to demolitions and rebuilding of things and monster 29 houses were terminated or talked about. Our committee spent a year and one-half trying.to get to 30 the bottom of what was the problem. We spent six months exclusively looking at what the 31 problem was and we had a lot of public meetings and we found out that neighbors were disturbed 32 that one day a house was next door to them and the next day it was gone and they didn’t have a 33 clue that it was going to happen and they had no clue what was going to go up in its place. We 34 found that neighbors were not particularly interested in stopping projects but they were very, 35 very interested in knowing what was going to go on next door to them. We defined the problem 36 further in that it was an issue of the real or perceived invasion of privacy, the massing of the new 37 structures and its effect upon the streetscape. We looked extensively at how many things could 38 be handled ministerially and the Zoning Ordinance was changed. The R-1 regulations were 39 changed when it was felt that that could happen. We also discovered that Palo Alto is an 40 incredibly eclectic town, it doesn’t have a regular kind of size of lot, lots are laid out in funny 41 fashions and so as many times as you would like to write the regulation so you wouldn’t have to 42 get into all of this guidelines and people trying to make decisions we found that we could change 43 many things but we couldn’t change everything. It had to have some flexibility built into it 44 because we don’t have a town that is built in a regular fashion. That is why this IR process came 45 forward. So in looking at can it be made ministerial that was looked at very, very thoroughly by 46 the committee and as much was made ministerial as was possible. It just wasn’t possible to 47 make the whole thing ministerial because for every time, an example that came up was well it 48 will be simple the offending windows are side-facing windows so we’ll put in a requirement that Ci& of PaIo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 all side-facing windows have to be clear story windows. They are up high, you still get the light and you still get the cross ventilation. Cool solution. Problem, Uniform Building Code says you have to have windows you can get out of if they are bedroom windows so you can’t do that. There are just lots of things that make ministerial, as far as me personally being an architect I would love it if you could do it ministerial. I am not crazy about a goup of people looking at my designs and telling me what to do but the fact is in order to build in the flexibility so you have some interesting desig-ns that can come forward this is where this process came from. It was a year and a half in the making and quite frankly there have been over 200 applications in the two years it has been in effect and there have been four problems. That is 98% of the progam has actually worked rather well. I think where we didn’t spend a lot of time and we were hoping that there could be things like mediation and the Director’s Hearings would smooth out some of the problems that could develop between neighbors I don’t think we came up with a very good appeal process. I think it is time consuming. I think it is expensive and I think it needs to be done quickly. I think if we probably found out one thing through the last two years is that if someone decides that they are going to appeal a project they probably are going to appeal it all the way until their last hearing is held. So we should probably get to the last heating as quickly as possible. Did you want comments on the floor area stuff now too? Chair Griffin: If you want to add a few comments to it otherwise what we could do John is get your initial remarks and then we could call you back and you could comment on them as we get there. Mr. Northway: It might be easier for keeping everybody’s mind straight. The nice thing about this pro~am is it is brand new. We purposely built in this annual review for fine-tuning the program. It is new, it is a creative progam and it is geat that we are doing this annual review and we’ll continue to do it. But we are doing the annual review. We are going to do it anyway. I don’t think that this is a program that is in major crisis. I think it is a program that needs to be continually looked at and fine-tuned. It has eliminated in many cases a lot of neighborhood concerns. It has not been 100% successful. I kind of laugh to myself because I run a lot which means I think when I am in oxygen depth and I am always trying think about what is going on in this town that we are at each other’s throats all the time. I kind of got through with this run and I thought ah-ha I know the problem. We are not perfect and we probably never will be but we spend an enormous amount of time trying to be perfect. That’s okay I guess but let’s not lose track of the fact that we are evaluating a progam that has been successful 98% of the time. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Pat, do you have a question? Commissioner Burt: John? Chair Griffin: In fact the tri-chairs may want to move towards the center here to have quicker access to the microphone because I rather suspect we will be asking you questions off and on during the course of the evening. Thank you. Commissioner Burt: We have heard the term ministerial review alluded to and by the City Auditor, by Staff and by yourself and I am not certain that we are all referring to the same thing. My understanding is there are two potential ways in which that term may be used and maybe we mean both or one or the other. One is having objective criteria and the other is an administrative City of Palo Alto Page 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 process and not with the sorts of appeal prerogatives that exist today. When you use the term what were you referring to? 1 2 3 4 Mr. Northway: I just use it, as I understand it and I would defer to my learned colleagues at the 5 bench over here to straighten me out. Ministerial, my understanding is basically all written down 6 like the Zoning Ordinance. You obey the rules you meet the requirements that are written down. 7 The daylight plane is a certain amount, you don’t exceed the daylight plane, check, you have 8 made it. Setbacks are so much you meet the setback requirements, check, you have made it. It is 9 all very black and white. The Planning Department will look when you submit plans that you 10 have met all the criteria that is written down and that is it. The "advantage" to a ministerial project, as I understand it to be corrected by my friends over here, is that there is no appeal to it. Commissioner Burt: So. Mr. Northway: The disadvantage, again because we are so eclectic, is it is very difficult to write a set of rules that you can’t find an exception to. Commissioner Burr: Right. So you are saying it is referring, in your mind, to a set of objective criteria that because they are objective there is no basis for appeal. Mr. Northwav: Correct. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Northway: Again, there are a bunch of people at that table who know a lot more about it than I do. Chair Griffin: Annette Ashton would like to speak to us? Do we have another question? Commissioner Holman: Actually it is a clarification by Staff. As I understand ministerial it means there is no discretion involved and that is what makes it ministerial. Ms. Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney: That is correct. If it is ministerial there is no discretion. If the applicant meets all the requirements then we have to issue the permit or whatever entitlement it is they are looking for. Commissioner Holman: So it is not linked to an appeal process. It is just whether there is discretion involved or not. Ms. Ancel: Right but I do think they are correct in saying there isn’t really an appeal although I am not sure if we have in our ordinance, they can say we misapplied the standards perhaps and have an appeal on that ~ound. I don’t know if we have a general appeal of a decision to the Council or not. Ms. Grote: Currently we do not have that provision in the ordinance. So there is not an appeal procedure for a ministerial process. Chair Griffin: Joe. City of PaIo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bellomo: Just for clarity, if this was a ministerial review it just takes the discretion out of it in a sense so in fact it cannot be appealed or there is not this because even discretionarily you must meet the standards. In a sense there is still a script with either/or and you must still fulfill those requirements of solar orientation, daylight plane, whatever you want to call them. It just takes the discretion out of it. Ms. Grote: Ministerial processes are quantifiable standards so that you either meet it or you don’t meet it. There aren’t three ways to meet it there is just one way to meet it because it is quantifiable. Commissioner Bellomo: Right. Chair Griffin: And it is the law and either you are guilty or you are not guilty there is no appealing it, is that the idea? Ms. Grote: Correct. Chair Griffin: All fight. Annette we are ready for you. Ms. Annette Ashton, IR Committee: Usually I like to prepare 100% and I wasn’t sure what we were going to do so I am not 100% ready for you. Let me just have some general comments. I think John had a geat way of sort of kicking it off and gee we are still here. I notice a lot of us in the audience and I know Carol wants to recognize everyone. I feel that the process is still very strong. I think it is interesting that even the families that went through this, the appeals, like a lot of the things about the process. There is a lot they don’t like but they still feel that the house that they have gotten is a little bit better than it would have been without the IR. I would at this point probably divide my concerns into the process and then the very specifics. John did say that a lot of the zoning code, the discretionary, is very much tied in to what we were doing because during the process we actually did change that. I personally would stand up for the discretionary. That is what we were talking about. I think that if you look at some of the things that were also mentioned in the audit this could work a lot better if we were clear in some of the specifics like the floor area ratio for example that is going to carry a long part of this conversation. So rather than what the Staff calls code interpretation or oral traditions I think that will work a lot smoother when we talk through this process and it is actually codified. Then we can put some of the discretionary work back in really the desig-n or architecture and how it fits in with the neighborhood. So I first say that. Going back to the process, I would just like to touch on some comments in the Report that I would like you to emphasize. Training of the Staff was brought up as a concern especially with the turnover and the record keeping. I think the record keeping was talked to in the audit. I think this is a special reason why we need to have a focus for this goup and make sure everyone is continually trained which I believe is being taken care of fight now. We have seen some problems at even the Council with Council turnover and it is not quite up to snuff on what the IR is. So with that in mind I really personally think it is very, very good to have a smaller goup of people focus on the IR process. I love the idea that was in the audit that talks about a person assigned to a project and then have the team approach. So that I think would clear up a lot of City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 this. The problems in the process that I heard is that it is very confusing about who was in charge especially when people were taking leave absences, etc. So I think that will really help. I think the level of reviews came up a number of times and I would like to see us move through that and really simplify that very clearly. As we mention in the report in some ways the Staff is doing design reviews and that is not really what they are appropriate to do. I think part of the problem with IR is the media hype and that needs to be resolved as well. I would almost take the approach that after the first Director’s review potentially we could make this not a call up for Council which takes up an enormous amount of time especially for scheduling but it could be reviewed by a ~oup like the Planning and Transportation Commission for the last call or the ARB or maybe another small goup of people that were volunteers. This was brought up in the IR process. I think the gaphics that were in the report were fabulous. A picture is worth a thousand words. I was pushing very much for that. I won’t mention my comments about floor area ratio right at this point but I think now that we have something put in print it will save problems for applicants, it will save problems for the neighbors, it will be very, very clear and then we could now have the discussion whether we really want to define something one way or the other. Again, we have a lot of people out here that are still interested in the process so thanks for listening to us. Maybe I will have some more comments later when we get back to content. Chair Griffin: I am sure we are counting on it. Carol Harrington if you could come forth and introduce yourself. Ms. Carol Harrington, IR Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. I think it is extraordinary that we have come through this process and that we are all still committed. So I think that speaks well. In addition to the three co-chairs I would like to introduce some people from the advisory committee. I just think it is phenomenal that they are here. Mike Griffin of course, Judith Wasserman, George Stem, Richard Elmore and Kathryn Carroll. Then we have two applicants here whose projects were appealed, Elizabeth Wong and Ronnie Carins. We have two appellants, Don and Carol Mullen. What I think is interesting about having everyone here is they are involved in different ways in this whole process. I think we will be able to listen to each of them and figure out how we can make this better. We need a forum to do that, which is here and then with the focus ~oup coming up. It goes without saying we still need the public and Staff education program so let’s not lose sight of that. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Carol. We have a question. Commissioner Holman: I have a question for Annette. Could you clarify what you meant by the review lastly being by the Planning and Transportation Commission or the ARB or a volunteer body? Could you explain what you mean by that? Ms. Ashton: Again, this is sort of a combination. I am tom now between my memory of the audit and also this report but one of the things I think everyone wants as from a Staff viewpoint or a citizen’s advisory ~oup’s viewpoint or the applicant’s is to get through the process with as short amount of time, obviously the most professional and effective way possible. If we keep the call up procedure it takes enormous amounts of time to get on a City Council agenda and then we still have the problem where we listen to the discussion, again this is all personal, every time you have new City Council Members you have to go through an entire process to train them. That is City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 true of any Staff or new Commission Members of any Board. So to help that process along and 2 especially the Council has so much to do there are going to be a lot of land use decisions 3 obviously coming up, my own personal recommendation that was also discussed briefly in the IR 4 was that the final cut for review, obviously if someone really disagrees they can go through the 5 legal channels, but would be after the Director’s Hearing to bring back if there is further need for 6 discussion bring it back to a body like yourself, the Planning and Transportation Commission, or 7 to the ARB who focuses on design and review or if the workload is deemed to be very heavy for 8 both groups another option which we did discuss was to have a volunteer group of individuals, 9 you would have different stakeholders potentially because you wouldn’t want all architects or all 10 planners or all non-professionals, that would come together in a fashion whether it be three or 11 five people could possibly be the final cut. So that is just elaborating on my comments. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 Chair Griffin: Would Commissioners like to Ms. Harrin~on one more comment. I neglected to mention the Staff. They have been wonderful and we have continued to meet with them at various times through the year. So let’s not forget all the good work that they have done and the clear report that we have. Chair Griffin: Now would Commissioners have any questions? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have a question for the City Attorney representatives here as to whether or not we could allocate the review of the Director’s Hearing decisions to a body such as being suggested by Annette. Mr. Dan Sodegren, City Attorney’s Office: That is an issue we are looking into right now along with the audit that came up as part of that process. As the Commissioners know there is a charter provision that does preclude delegation to Boards and Commissions of various final governmental and administrative decisions. So we are looking into those issues right now. Chair Griffin: Further questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: So presumably that would apply toward the potential delegation of that to the ARB as well. Mr. Sodegren: Correct. Commissioner Burt: Not just this ad-hoc committee. As I recall, just so that people will be refreshed on it, when we were first reviewing this the ARB was very apprehensive about getting in the middle of reviewing every single family home in the City. I think this is a much more interesting option in that it would only be that small minority of projects that would be appealed that would potentially go to the ARB. I recognize that we have a charter issue but I wanted to have that be considered in greater depth. One other question is that the Staff Report talks about mediation being modified and that wasn’t really clear in the Report. It seemed to be implying, and Staff if they would please clarify, was that we replace mediation with some sort of advisory process from Origin Design. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Ms. Grote: It still is a mediation process but focuses much more on the architectural or design potential remedies for issues that have been brought up. So we found that OriNns has that kind of expertise so that when people are concerned about certain architectural elements of a proposal that there is the ability for OriNns to come up with viable solutions. Commissioner Burr: So they are acting as mediators but mediators that have a professional expertise in these architectural aspects? Ms. Grote: That is correct along with Staff as well. Commissioner Bellomo: Just one question going back to advisory commissions on appeals. Doesn’t that, in your opinion, add more to the process and economics are in question and process is lengthened when we talk about advisory commissions? Isn’t that why that hasn’t been done? Ms. Grote: I think part of the discussion is to make the decision rest with those Boards or Commissions. Commissioner Bellomo: Make them rest. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a couple of questions on the Draft Report areas whether you have the information about this that might be helpful for people analyzing what’ s happened. One is whether you have any idea of the cost to the homeowner of the process. You talk about the cost to Staff but what is the cost to the public, individual costs in going through this? The additional cost, I know there is a fee but the additional costs and architectural costs. Also in how many instances of the 102 total did the neighbors get actively involved or weremost of them ho-hum thanks for telling me about this. To what extent did neighbors participate? One of the advantages that we have always discussed in this program is that it does give an opportunity for neighbor input. So I would be interested to know how much has that really happened. We know about the appeals but those were the two percent. In the 98% how much is really going on? Did this process achieve one of the goals of actively engaging the neighbors who we thought would be concerned? I will let you answer that and then I have another question. Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: That exercise was not among the effort that was put into this particular Report at this time. We are going to be having some focus goup discussions that will include both applicants and appellants as well as architects and those that were involved in the formation of this IR progam. We have not done a quantification of the number of IR applications in 2003 that had neighbor comment. It is not easily done. We also have not asked applicants how much money they have spent on their efforts. Commissioner Packer: Then my other question goes to, and this was an issue that always bothered me when we were reviewing this process in the first place, you have some requirements, you end up requiring somebody to put their windows in a certain place to respect privacy. Any of us who have changed windows in our house know that it isn’t that hard to move windows around structurally and it wouldn’t come through a review process it would be just a matter of pulling a permit. My concern was how would the Building Department people know that give the permit whether this was a house that was built under the IR process that had certain City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 privacy requirements for windows when somebody comes back in and moves the windows? I 2 was always concerned that the goals of this whole process would be literally thrown out the 3 window when people come back and change things for whatever reason. Do you know, have 4 you Nven any more thought to how to deal with this if that is something we want to deal with? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. French: One of the changes for Chapter 18.14, which is the IR progam and process chapter, was to identify currently there is no section saying what happens after a project is approved and they want to come back with changes. It is silent on that. So one of the suggestions if we keep this discretionary progam is to add a section that would identify if somebody comes back during a Building Permit process and wants to change something, we identify is it a major change, are they introducing a window, this kind of thing and then what kind of process do we use for that. The other part of that question is how is the tracking accomplished and we do have a system called Excella that the Building Department uses. We will be adding a planning module and there will be some communication between those modules so we can have a tickler type system in place over the years. It is not an easy thing to do.. Chair Griffin: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: Amy, enlighten me on when we were looking at assessing the IR process how is it looked at what’s happened with the design? How do we know what is working?. We can discuss and hear advisory boards but has there been a study by a body like the ARB? Now we have something that works where we are actually looking to professionals, a body that has been selected by the Council, and this is a question not a comment, to assess what is working? Is there better house design? Is it actually working? We all run and ride our bicycles around and see new buildings that are still bulky and massy and that do have different texture and mass but still bulky and heavy. So my question to you is how do we assess the IR in reality and not in paper? And is it working and can there be a means of really assessing are we getting better building design? I don’t see that and I think we need to see it. Ms. Grote: I would like to just add that the Individual Review process was not intended to be a design review process. So we wouldn’t be evaluating whether or not these houses that result are better design. What we would be evaluating is if they are compatible with surrounding homes, if they respect privacy, if they address the street well. In other words, do they meet these guidelines? These guidelines weren’t intended to be design review. Commissioner Bellomo: What you are speaking to is design. When you speak about compatibility and neighborhood I think we are speaking the same, I am not really talking about design, I am not talking about style. I am talking about is the effect of it has it enhanced neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Grote: Right. I think that will become, once these houses, and we have more of them that are actually constructed then we will be evaluating that as part of our annual review. So we will be starting to go out and look at those. Commissioner Bellomo: The hope is to do that. Okay. Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners have any further questions of Staff before we open it to the public? Then if we have any more of you that are interested in filling out a speaker card please City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 do so now. If you would print your name and announce your name and address when you begin to speak it would be appreciated. I am going to give everybody five minutes, which is our standard procedure. Here come some more. Our first speaker is going to be Carol Mullen followed by Don Mullen followed by Phoebe Breseck. Carol if you could. Ms. Carol Mullen: In Attachment B Staff has identified the heart of the problem that we have with the residential zoning and that is size. Only option one is a constructive solution, clear, unambiguous, no exemptions. All the other options take us deeper into the morass. Most of us do not want the Planning and Zoning Department whether advised by an architect or not to interfere with style. We are simply concerned with the intrusiveness of very large houses. Please recommend that the City Council adopt a zoning code that is simple. Something I can understand. Something my neighbors can understand. A zoning code that calls things what they are. An exemption is an increase in FAR. Call it that. If I can see it it is there. And make it simple. If you can convince Palo Altoans that they want bigger houses raise the limits, no loopholes, just an upfront up zoning. The advantages are speed, remove the exemptions, applicants will go through in a fraction of the time. Record keeping, no need to keep track of what you have offered and to whom, everybody is playing by the same rules. Neighborhood acceptance, see above, everyone is playing by the same rules. The problem is having exemptions in the first place not how detailed and cumbersome you make the exemptions. Predictability, people will know what size house is going into their neighborhood. City utilities, Public Works and schools will know what projections to make for future growth in single-family zones. Enforcement, the compliance will be easy to check. Expense, save time and money for applicants, residents, Staff and City Council. Architects could think about architecture instead of designing to exemptions. No one would have to hire an architect just to figure out whether or not they want to hire an architect. City budget, it is going to be a hot button issue from now on. There will not be an increase in Staff to handle additional complexity. Staff resources should be committed to large projects, which already have been granted development rights not negotiating deals between developers and neighborhoods. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Phoebe Breseck followed by Judith Wasserman. Ms. Phoebe Breseck, Los Altos: Good evening Commissioners and Staff. I live in Los Altos and am a partner is the architectural firm of Breseck and Wasserman. I am here this evening because I am in the middle of the Individual Review process. This is the third one that our office has been through and the difference is that this particular one is for a new house and the other two were for remodel/additions. Also the difference was the implementation of the process changed between our second and third IR. I should star~ by saying that I think neighbors need to be informed as part of good government. So I support the process in general though as John said, I hate having people look at my designs. I had a preliminary meeting with a Staff Planner at the Development Center counter before my schematic design before I proceeded at all. Then I arranged, with the help of Annette, for a neighborhood meeting so that the neighbors surrounding my project site could see drawings and a model for comments before I submitted all the documents, photos, drawings and forms as listed as being required in the guide provided by the City. I submitted this package on September 2. The informational notice to the neighbors is not yet posted. It is now seven and a half weeks later. I was informed on September 2 that to be deemed complete was not to have all the materials in but actually to be reviewed both by the Planning Department and the Department’s City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 outside consultant before the simon would be posted and that review would take approximately 30 days. Not a pleasant notice for me. But 28 days after I submitted I called the Planning Department to find out when I could expect to hear something and was told that comment had not yet been received from the consultant. I then called the consultant directly who said that instructions to them from the City had been unclear and therefore no work had been done on my project since the site had been visited almost three weeks before. I reviewed the project with the consultant over the phone. I then called back the Planner so that the instructions could be clarified and subsequently I received a letter of comment two days later. Two days, it didn’t take them 30 days to do my review. It took them two days of which I suspect there was not 18 hours worth of work. The Planner comments dealt with minor informational corrections and omissions none of which involved design issues that neighbors needed to comment on. So in fact a competent application is being penalized for those people who seek to subvert the zoning ordinances by providing an application that doesn’t conform. Mine basically conformed. But the last requirement to be deemed complete was to incorporate response to comments made by the consultant, which is Origins. So I waited almost 30 days to find out that nothing had been done. If I hadn’t been monitoring the process how would it have taken for the process to happen? Are we talking about complete or are we talking about correct? When I submit for a building permit the application is accepted and review starts. Should neighborhood comments be concurrent or sequential to other comments? As it stands now they will be sequential because it is my fervent hope after the phone calls and meetings this last week that I will be deemed complete tomorrow so the notice can be posted. As for the review itself in my opinion it is teetering a lot closer to design review than was my understanding as being the intent of the process. I can give you two examples. Guideline number five deals with front facade. In fact the comment reads the front facade is carefully composed with exact alignment between windows and central symmetry. Repetition of window shapes and sizes reinforces the formal composition, which denotes a traditional farmhouse typology. Although the right and left elevations are not a front fa~cade facing the street they are visible from the public way given the height and setback of the houses to each side. So they are not in the front but we are looking at them anyway. Okay, I’ll go with that. The composition and texture of these walls are thoughtfully done. The proportion and scale of these wall planes however could be studied to enhance the residential scale. On one level I feel like the motorist who stopped by the policeman who says you didn’t stop long enough at the stop sign. The other comment that I think is interesting has to do with roof profile. This goes to my comment about the timing of neighborhood comments. I went to the trouble to make a presentation to the neighbors with my partner because I really believe that it is important for people not to be surprised by what is going on in their neighborhood. The roof profile comment is that the large single roof form with its consistent and level eave line exaggerates the size of the boxy building footprint. Articulating the roof into primary and secondary forms or varying the eave and plate lines to achieve an articulated second floor are suggestions for meeting this guideline. Now, Chair Griffin: Phoebe, can you wrap up here? Ms. Breseck: I am. The important piece is that there was a recognized style in number five that was ignored in number seven. So in fact it is a design application as opposed to a consistency application but more important the reason that I had consistency is because the neighbors have a City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 very egegious example of what I believe the IR was supposed to prevent across the street from my site. It has very varied eaves and very varied roofs and I was specifically instructed not to do that but that comment wasn’t incorporated with either the Staff or the consultant comments because they never heard them because the thing was never posted. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Ms. Breseck. Judith Wasserman followed by Tom Jordan and followed by Ed Locker. Ms. Judith Wasserman: Good evening. My partner is a hard act to follow. I am here wearing my former advisory board member hat. I am actually glad to see so few people here although there are more people now than there were before because it seems to me that this ordinance seems to be working pretty well. I think that one of the smartest things we did was put in this annual review measure and I think probably more ordinances should be looked at that way. I think that as has been said before the education aspect needs to be installed. It somehow got left out and it was a very important component of our recommendation and it really needs to happen. I think that the problems are less with the ordinance and more with its implementation and interpretation. I think Phoebe spoke to that. I would just like to hit a number of things sort of ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think that the ministerial process would be a disaster. I think it would make things so cut and dried that there would be no flexibility at all and one of the points that the advisory board made over and over and over again was that we were to maintain the eclectic design character of this town and not to make it a little cookie-cutter thing. We work a lot in Los Altos, which has very clear guidelines, and it turns out very boring buildings. They are designed to do the ranch house with the little stack thing and they all look like that and it is really pretty unpleasant. I would like to make a quick comment about the daylight plane. The daylight plane does not have to do with solar access. Sorry. The daylight plane is a massing control device. If you want to do solar access you would need to look at an ordinance like Boulder has in which serious shadowing studies are done and we decided we didn’t want to get into that, that it was onerous and unnecessary and very difficult to achieve on the Palo Alto grid anyway. I would like to commend the use of ~aphics in the description of the ordinance in any way possible. It is consonant with the form code that the Zoning Ordinance Update is practicing. I would only please beg you that whoever does the drawings be rather even handed about showing contemporary buildings as well as little peakedy roof things. We tried to get that through the illustrations for the guidelines and if you look through the guidelines you can see the bias of the illustrator. It just looks like a little funky historic town from one picture to the next. I do have some comments about the massing issue but if you like I will hold them. My plea to you is to please not eviscerate our ordinance. It is a good one and I think it is working. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Judith. Tom Jordan. Mr. Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill, Palo Alto: I have had limited experience with this but in the experience I have I do have some fairly strong views. My own house is a two story on a 15,000 square foot lot. I could expand it and I have thought in the past of perhaps doing so. For that City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 reason I followed through the paper when this came into being what might be the limitations. Across Cowper from me on the corner is an older house on a 15,000 square foot lot that I have been informed has been sold and will now be divided into two 7,500 square foot lots, which will face me. So I will be looking at two new houses across Cowper coming rather soon. The house toward the railroad tracks from me on Churchill is a charming small Carmel cottage, which I am sure as long as the person lives there, will not be changed. It is very lovely. But as soon as she sells it it will be I have no doubt of that. I am really in both positions. I might expand and I have at least three houses that could easily expand very shortly, two certainly will be built and the third could be built. The other example is four doors down from me on the corner of Colridge and Cowper there was a large house built within the rules. I am not aware anyone objected. I didn’t object but it took four years plus to build that house. They brought in 60-foot cranes and construction equipment that would have built an office building. Those are not before you but I mention those now because to me the length of time and the size of the equipment they bring in and the disruption of four years of ten pickup trucks a day on the construction site needs to be looked at. That is not before you tonight I realize. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 So in my limited view, the other two experiences are that I happen to be here before the City 18 Council in the Chambers when one of the appeals was heard. So I will start into my comments 19 now. It was denied I think by unanimous vote if I recall. I felt complete hostility from the 20 Council toward the appellant. In fact Council Member Burch chastised the appellants for even 21 filing the appeal. Now the second time I did speak and that was the one last Monday. I spoke in 22 favor of that appeal being granted. It was denied. Based on the two that I have seen it would be 23 my opinion that the right to a meaningful appeal is really illusory and as most things in law if 24 you don’t really have a real right it is distracting to pretend that you do. I certainly wouldn’t 25 consider it a real right. I would consider it very hostile from the Council’s point of view and also 26 from Staff and the City Attorney. Now you I think are the most body, I am not saying you are 27 hostile to it, to really Nve some guidance here. If it is going to be an appeal it should be a 28 genuine appea! and granted and paid attention to. Along those lines I don’t think the entire 29 hearing process the City is setup to handle it. I am a retired attorney. When I was practicing my 30 field was environmental law and land use, which makes me basically an administrative lawyer. 31 As I followed the 1847 Webster appeal what I found was the City is not setup to handle an 32 administrative law appeal. They simply don’t know how to do it. They need an independent 33 hearing officer to handle an administrative law appeal. At that hearing there was no preservation 34 of record. There was no - I am looking forward on this, I am not criticizing backwards I am 35 trying to give you the experience I have. There was no attention to the relevance of what went 36 into the record and there was no sense of fairness. People came up and spoke to the hearing 37 officer secretly during the hearing and nothing went into the record. All of this is atrocious from 38 an administrative law point of view. Not to criticize the people, they are not setup they are not 39 trained to do that. I don’t think they should be asked to do a real administrative law appeal. On 40 Monday when it came before the Council, this was an administrative matter, it should have been 41 heard by.the applicant for the construction and the appellant, two parties, they are the only 42 parties before the Council no one else is relevant, no one else should have been heard. They 43 should have been heard ten or 15 minutes apiece and a decision made. Instead the appellants 44 were treated two minutes just like 25 other people who came and filed and it was not well 45 handled. I don’t think the City can handle administrative law appeals and they shouldn’t. 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: Tom, your five minutes is up. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 Mr. Jordan: Could I have 30 seconds more to make an opinion? I would go for the ministerial and I’ll give you an example. I believe the rules should be written for the citizens not for the designers. I think it is on page eight where you have options on goss floor area and the phrase is after saying goss floor area would include everything under the roof minus the eaves. However designers feel, now that is a legitimate concern, they should express themselves but these rules are written for the citizens. Visual impact, a structure with a roof even though it is not enclosed is a structure and should count. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Tom. Our next speaker is Ed Locker followed by Carol Harrington followed by Elizabeth Wong. Ed, welcome. Mr. Ed Imcker, Mountain View: I work with Jim Ward and Associates who has been a private lender in the area for almost about 30 years. We quickly wanted to voice our concerns with the process and the concerns of all the builders that we work with and just ask that you continue to work to improve this process and make it as simple as possible and do what you can to cut down on the timeframes. We lend primarily in Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos but because of the IR, and we understand what you guys are trying to do, but because of the IR we have limited what we are doing in Palo Alto. Our builders are starting to avoid Palo Alto because it just takes so long to go through the process and it is so difficult to get through. It does add a lot to their cost every time that we have to go back to the architect it does add cost there and it also adds cost to the interest that they are incurring. So we just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Ed. Carol, you already spoke? Fine. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Wong followed by Ronnie Carins and Don Mullen will be our last speaker. Welcome Elizabeth. Ms. Elizabeth Wong: Thank you Chairman Griffin. I wasn’t sure what this meeting was all about I decided to come down and listen to what would be happening tonight. Since the public has a chance to speak I want to go on record to say that I am intimately familiar with the IR process. The story that you heard tonight from the architect from Los Altos you can hear a lot more stories like that. I don’t think that this meeting was publicized enough for people to come down and express their experiences. Our experience you all know very well. It took us 16 months, over $100,000 and awful toll on our emotions, private lives not to mention finances as well. I am available to answer questions. I cannot begin to tell you how horrendous it was. I think that I am not in disagreement with the fact that your neighbors should have a view of your design and of your plans. Your house affects theirs but I think that they have taken this view to an extreme and they have stalled us at every juncture of our plans. I can go on and tell you all the horrendous things that they brought up, CEQA, historic preservation, we are going to form a coalition, we are going to use the press. I was desperate but I knew Carol Harrington from the Historic Preservation campaign and I turned to her from the very beNnning and I asked her what does this mean, what have I done wrong and how can I correct it? It was always in that spirit that i contacted Carol. After many, many tries it became apparent that when you have neighbors who are determined to oppose you there are no controls in the IR process to stop this neighbor assault. That is all I want to tell you but I am available to tell you what my experience has been. I just want to add one more thing. I have a neighbor on Byron Street, the Haverstocks, and Mary mentioned to me that if she had to go a little more or had to endure a little more of the IR process that she would not have done it. She would have just moved. I said, Mary your husband is a Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lawyer, what do you mean you can’t see this through? So it took that level of commitment in order for us to get what we did. I want to stop there. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you Elizabeth. Ronnie Carins. Welcome. Ms. Ronnie Carins, 3280 Clifton Court, Palo Alto: I, like Elizabeth, have been through this process. If she was number one I was probably number two. It took us 12 months to get through. We changed absolutely nothing from our original plan. The IR process did nothing for us. We did nothing. We made a few zoning changes but we did nothing to accommodate our neighbor because everything was done up front. We had an excellent architect. She met with 11 the City Planning Department three times before we submitted our plans and our plans were 12 excellent to the point where even through 12 months of this process we changed nothing based 13 on the IR guidelines. It cost us, I’ll be right up front my architect was charNng us $22,000 for 14 our house. We have now paid her $36,000. So it cost us $14,000 to go through the IR process, 15 which is 150%. We had interviewed Elizabeth’s architect, really, really liked him. He told us 16 our plans would be $70,000. He was going to charge us almost four times as much as our 17 present architect. If you use the same ratio we would be spending a lot of money. It was the 18 most g~ueling thing I have ever done in my life and I have had a very harrowing childhood. We 19 started September 27, 2002 and in January we were going to give up. We called a realtor to 20 come and evaluate our house. We were going to move and move into Mountain View and 21 rebuild in Mountain View. We figured that it would be cheaper to live. We would buy a Tudor, 22 we don’t need Palo Alto schools, screw this. The realtor came to our house and said that our lot 23 was so small that you could not build a sufficient one-story house on our lot. Our house is so 24 dilapidated, it was a rental for 30 years, you can crush the eaves with your fingers because of all 25 the dry rot and the termites. If the City came and saw what we were living in right now they 26 would condemn the house. He said nobody would buy the house without rebuilding. They 27 would not be able to build a one-story house and we would have to disclose that we had a 28 neighbor that was fighting a two-story house and that would knock $200,000 off the price of the 29 house. So we were told in January that we could not sell, that we would lose because we had just 30 bought the house four years earlier, that we would lose $200,000 to sell. So we had to proceed in 31 the process that was our only option. Our neighbor would bring up issues that were from the 32 moon. I had been told from one of the people in the Planning Department that your neighbor can 33 call you an alien from outer space and it is up to you to prove them wrong. That is what we 34 found was true. Our neighbor would say things like shadows from our house were going to kill 35 his heritage cherry trees. I had to prove that there is no such thing as heritage cherry trees. I 36 contacted a cherry orchard out in the valley had him write a letter that proved that shadows in the 37 winter time would not kill cherry trees but would in fact improve the cherry production because 38 cherry trees have to - I learned so much friggin information about cherry trees that you wouldn’t 39 believe. I proved the whole cherry tree issue was fine. Now, one of my windows overlooked his 40 house. We proved that we couldn’t even see into his backyard, not even small amounts, we 41 could not see into his backyard from this window. Then it went back to solar studies and he 42 admitted that yes, his house was already in shadow from some existing trees but that our second 43 story house would increase the density of the shadow so he wanted a photonic solar study to 44 measure the lumens to determine if the shadow density was greater or something like that. We 45 had to prove all [hese things. Every time he said anything we were on the defensive and we had 46 to prove it. Nowhere did he have to prove anything.-Nowhere did he have to pay anything. He 47 could just say whatever he wanted and take us to each level. We just went all the way up to the 48 top and when Jim Burch chastised our appellants there was a reason for it. I believe basically in City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 property rights. If you had asked me before this process did I believe in the process I would have said no. I feel like everybody has a right to build whatever they want. You bought the land it is yours that’s it. But then through the process I have seen how it has improved some homes. I have seen it from the other side. I have decided if my neighbor were building I would really like to be able to take a look at the plans and see what was going on but there has to be some sort of protection for the applicants as well because 98% is good two present is representing the bad apples in this neighborhood. There are people out there who are mean and I think that the applicants need to be protected from that two percent. I am available for questions. There were a whole bunch of things I wanted to say up here, I have a list on my chair that somehow I haven’t even addressed anything that I really wanted to say. It was a horrendous process. It is like having somebody come in your house, rearrange your underwear drawer, you go back and put it back the way you want it, they go back and rearrange it again and you have no say. Chair Griffin: Thank you Ronnie for that very vivid description. Our last speaker unless we have more cards coming is from Don Mullen. Mr. Don Mullen, 618 Tennyson, Palo Alto: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am here to speak to the options for the gross floor area. I had planned to do it later but I can certainly do it now. I happen to have been through the IR process twice from the neighbor’s point of view and I quite serious do believe that it can be improved. Some of the things that Annette mentioned this evening seemed to me to be very promising. Taking a complex issue in front of the City Council where you have two to three minutes to speak on these kinds of issues for people who are not familiar with them is not a very good process among other things. That is really not what I was here for. What happened was during the process I discovered some things. One of them was the business of having unwritten code about which I spoke to you about three weeks ago and this evening we are dealing with the question of turning that into written code. That turnaround time is fantastic if that is the Palo Alto process I am for it. That isn’t what is really happening. I would like to commend Steve Emslie and the Staff for jumping on this problem and doing something about it. I hope you will pay attention and clean this up. Incidentally if you have the impression that the homes that are going up are too large in practice they are because they are being allowed to add virtual and gross floor area beyond the formal FAR requirements because of certain kinds of exemptions. The most obvious one and what I would like to do this evening is ask you to not continue the unwritten code exemptions but to simplify them and clean them up. If you are going to increase FAR, increase FAR. If you are going to limit it limit it but don’t set a number and then add something to it through a series of exemptions that are difficult to interpret, etc. Some things I would like to point out right now the way the code functions the sketches that you have been shown don’t really cover all the cases. For example on a single story building, I think I submitted these sketches to you I don’t know if you have all gotten them or not, I can show them again. I won’t bore you with them if you have all seen them. Basically on a single story house because FAR governs and there are exemptions to FAR the only limitations are setback. That is all there is to it. On a 7,000 square foot lot where you have 3,800 square feet of buildable space there is nothing at this point to stop you from building 3,800 square feet and that is certainly not the intent of the law. On a two story house, and this is a little more complicated and is not shown at all in your sketches, it is very simple to use exempt space to support non-exempt space. In a sense the most extreme case of this would be a house with a very small lower floor City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 and a very large second floor, kind of a mushroom house. Many of these were built in the 1920s by the way with parking underneath them. So it is not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Although the basic concept may seem both extreme and ridiculous my point in this is that if you end up with a ridiculous result it is because you have a ridiculous rule. I would like to see those changed and simplified. The goal originally I assume is stated to have attractive porches but what you can end up with is something like this. I am not showing you this because it is particularly ugly. I am showing you this because to claim that that space is somehow not part of the building and doesn’t contribute to the mass as well as being useful. I think it is actually sort of a de facto laundry porch would be to miss the point. I don’t think this sort of thing should be encouraged. If people want to do it it certainly should count against the overall mass and gross floor area of the building. I have other examples that are a little more attractive but that is not the issue. What we are really talking about according to a fall Real Estate issue of some time ago was that because of the price of land people are looking for a house that is fully built out that takes advantage of the total floor area you can build in relation to the size of the lot. That is econ 101. We are not talking about architecture and interesting features we are really talking about getting the most out of the space we possibly can. Am I out of time? Could I add a couple of things to this? Chair Griffin: Don, how much longer do you think you need? Mr. Mullen: Basically another minute maybe. Chair Griffin: I am thinking that maybe what you might do is when we address this particular point, which we are going to come back, and we will discuss it some more. Thank you. We have no more speakers at this stage so we will bring the discussion back to the desk for Commissioners to bat this back and forth. I am wondering colleagues if you would consider starting this on page seven. What I am looking at here is. Pat, go ahead. Commissioner Burt: I am confused now. When we talked about how we were going to break up the meeting I thought it was understood that we were going to group the IR process with the floor area sorts of issues and you seem to have now broken those two apart in that you are talking about having members of the public speak subsequently on the gross floor area issues as a different segment of the public hearing if I understood you correctly. Can we get some clarification on how we are proceeding? Chair Griffin: I wilt tell you what I am proposing but I would stand still for other comments is that we would work on Attachment A. Anybody else have an opinion on that? Vice-Chair Cassel: I think what he was saying was you originally asked for everyone to make their comments on both items in the public hearing and now you told someone to come back so we have a mixed message here. Are we speaking to all the items on A and B now and the public? Chair Griffin: My intent was to discuss Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Vice-Chair Cassel: Two different questions. You want to start with us discussing Attachment A. His question related to the public hearing portion of it in which you invited someone to come back and originally we were not intending to have anyone come back for B but have them Nve both their comments at the same time. Chair Griffin: My thought was that we would invite him to come back and anybody else to come back and discuss additional items as we approached it. If we could then approach this thing from Attachment A and discuss it from the standpoint of number two, I~R Guidelines. We would attack the solar orientation item. If any of you have any comments on that please advise me. I am on page seven of Attachment A. It is called Solar Orientation. It reads, "In several cases, a solar study was required to determine compliance with solar guideline number six, which was not anticipated by the Group in recommending the lR pro~am. Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll make a comment on that. That is one that I was really concerned about. I don’t know why it required a solar study and this is how we get into a lot of complicated issues. I thought it would be a lot simpler than that. You put your mass of the building on the north side of your house and if there is a house directly to the north of you you are going to have a ~eater impact on that house than if you put your mass on the south side of the house. It was not anticipated to be terribly complicated or that anyone would be required to do complicated studies. We know the orientations of the houses in town fairly easily and it was anticipated to be fairly simple. Now if you can’t do it in a simple fashion and it is going to cost people a lot of money that is a different issue but clearly the house to the north of the one across the street from me was severely impacted by this shadow because the house is high off the gound as well as the second story is directly to the north. It could have been put to the south it just wasn’t. Chair Griffin: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: The issue in the zoning update, I know this was discussed at a committee meeting kind of the definition of a daylight plane and looking at what is a daylight plane trying to accomplish. Is the daylight plane trying to accomplish size of home or is it really trying to look at a solar study. You bring up a point Phyllis of this north side house and therefore the daylight plane should be sculpted a bit differently, I am getting more into discretionary review, but I guess I agee that solar orientation studies should be eliminated. I don’t think that is really a requirement. It is arduous. Though you can have a solar study done through PG&E of a simple massing model and I think it is good practice I think if you are keying your home to the sun which should be a principle of design which is we wake up in the morning and we really should be, if it is a house that is looked at carefully, it should be actually solar studied. But to require a solar study is an interesting - certainly just intuitively you should do this. Vice-Chair Cassel: But it costs money. A lot of money. Commissioner Bellomo: Not necessarily. I think it could be encouraged. I think it could be educated through the Zoning Ordinance that this is encouraged. When we talk of form code the form code should in sense talk about orientation and solar orientation. It just should because that is the principle of really the essence of desigxl. So I don’t think it should be required but I think it should be somehow funneled into the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. CiO, of PaIo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up. Most of the remodeling is done on houses that were most likely tract homes that were just plopped down on the land as part of the tract without regard to where the sun is. If your only choice because you have a growing family and you have a small size lot is to go up there is very limited choice you are going to have about solar orientation. I think that is a really nice idea when you are building a house from scratch and you can site the house anywhere you want. But what I am hearing in horror stories of people trying to do simple things on simple homes, and not every house is 6,000 square feet and we are asking a whole lot of additional stuff, giving room for neighbors to make their lives miserable I think we have to think very carefully about how much regulation we are going to impose in order to create this perfect world we would like to see. I think we have to use a little bit of common sense about what is required and what is nice. I a~ee with you Joe, I think if somebody is going to design a house it would be great to take the sun into consideration no question about it. But for us to require anything of this nature no matter what and then because it is required it becomes a form of ammunition for an upset neighbor then I think we have problems. So I am all for eliminating the requirement. For each of these guidelines we ought to think to what extent is this guideline really going to accomplish the goal that the single family review committee wanted to accomplish in the first place and to what extent is it going to give unnecessary ammunition to cranky neighbors. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just want to follow up on a comment that Commissioner Bellomo made about these studies being available through PG&E. Could you say something about that? Commissioner Bellomo: There are many, PG&E offers a modeling but you do have to have a model. It could be a cardboard model. They do offer free solar studies up at the San Francisco PG&E office. What I want to say is I think you bring up a real good point, common sense. I think through an educational, through a zoning ordinance I think you can direct homeowners to look at solar orientation with simple devices. It doesn’t need to be complex but we need to rely less on air conditioning, etc. We live in California. There is a sense that I think built in to a review process you can plug in solar orientation into a zoning ordinance that tries to make sense out of how we design our built environment houses included no matter where we are on a grid. I think we have been talking about it with the Zoning Ordinance Update and I think it is important to keep on. We can eliminate the requirement of a solar study but be mindful of solar orientation. Chair Griffin: John, did you have a comment that you wanted to make on this item? Mr. Northwa¥: Yes I did. It comes from the three of us. The solar guideline was put in there really as part of trying to be a good neighbor. The problem that we have seen in really following it very closely is it is being misused by appellants. It was never discussed or intended by the committee, I am just trying to give you the viewpoints of the committee, that no shadow should ever cross a property line. We basically felt that the daylight plane did a reasonable job and it was citywide and it was uniformly applied so the solar guideline was really put in as part of just trying to make people building things to be aware that this would be part of being a good neighbor. What we have seen is that this is being turned around and being used as a weapon, I think Ronnie got beaten to death with it, and that was never the intension of the committee. It Cir., of PaIo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 was really just be aware when you are siting your mass that you are going to cast some shadows. It never was ever thought that this was some kind of entitlement that the next-door neighbor got that never a shadow could cross the line. Again the town is very eclectic, unfortunately it is not oriented on a north/south!east/west grid and we have all these damn trees that usually cast bigger shadows than any of our structures do. So that was why when the three of us were discussing it and we really followed all of the cases very carefully that we thought that number six was causing more confusion and was being misinterpreted and misused and that was our recommendation to just do it in. There are already some solar protections in the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question for Staff. John mentioned Ronnie Carins as an example and I was a little horrified to hear her story. When I was listening to it I was also wondering if the problem was the IR guidelines or if the problem was implementation. I was really concerned and questioning and please help me out here that how it is that an objecting neighbor can cause an applicant to have to go find out about heritage cherry trees and sort of thing. How was that allowed to continue? Was that because the applicant took it on thinking to get satisfaction with this neighbor I have to do this? Was it because Staff said they had to go do that? How did that happen? The point again is because I am wondering if the problem is the IR guideline or the implementation of it. Ms. Grote: I can’t speak to the cherry tree research because that wasn’t addressed in any of the guidelines. However, some of the requirements do come from Staff because we need to be able to, as the applicant needs to be able to address the neighbor’s concerns. So there needs to be some effort shown that there was an attempt to do that. So I believe we did request the solar study. I believe we also if it wasn’t in that case and Amy may know the details better but if it wasn’t in that case in another case we had OriNns do a solar study for one of the applications to evaluate two competing solar studies, one that the applicant had done and one that a neighbor had done. So OriNns did a third one. So there needs to be some definitive answer to concerns that are raised by neighbors. Again, with the issue of the research into the cherry trees I don’t know where that originated. Chair Griffin: I had Pat next and you want to finish up with yours and then Pat and then Annette. Commissioner Holman: Just to follow up with that, these are all guidelines so while there needs to be some response is it naive to say that since these are guidelines that a practical attempt has been made to minimize your solar orientation objections of the neighbors but, help me out with that. That is what my question is. Ms. French: I think in this case there was a neighbor who actually went into a different territory of solar and he was concerned about the lumens, the amount of light not the shadow cast. It got into kind of a weird territory and I know there was an attempt made, and Steve might want to address this too, of mediation to actually hear what the neighbor was concerned about because it was hard to understand what the concern was. We didn’t make the Carins go and do the other study that the neighbor was asking for, the lumens study. Steve do you want weigh in on your experience? City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Mr. Emslie: I think I would like to really address this on a more general basis rather than the specifics. The guidelines, they provide the limit of the City’s discretion. And the guidelines were put in place recommended by the Individual Review Committee, reviewed by this Commission and approved by the Council to be very specific so that it would limit the requirements of Staff in order to meet the guidelines. So they were intended to be very clear, very easy to apply and not require a lot of extraneous information. So to the extent a concern that is raised comes up that has some bearing on the Staff’s interpretation of the guidelines in making its decision we will pursue that. But if it is information that goes beyond what the guidelines were intended and we do look to the legislative record on that in attempting to discern what is the intended results we won’t ask for that it will tie. So the guidelines do provide the basis for responding to concerns that come up. Generally there is a pretty good idea at the Staff’s initial review as to whether this meets the guidelines or not. So I think what Amy was getting at is that we didn’t require additional studies because we already had concluded that this particular project has met with the guidelines. Now if an applicant in trying to build their case wants to go the extra mile and do additional research they certainly can do that in terms of how they present their case is completely up to them. As far as the Staff making the findings that basically remains consistent and doesn’t generally change based on input throughout the process. Chair Griffin: Karen, are you satisfied with that? Pat did you want to make a comment? We are going to entertain a motion here on this particular item but if you would like to comment now is the time. Commissioner Burt: I don’t have comments I have questions. Steve, I know that you said you would prefer to talk about this in generalities but I think that as we have all heard this process is working in the vast majority of circumstances. What it seems like we have to correct are those minority of circumstances where it gets blown out of control. So for me, I think a few of these examples that we have had of what are pretty obviously the more severe circumstances of process gone amuck are the ones that we want to analyze and try to come up with ways that we can retain the essence of what is good about this process and get rid of some of the problems. So in this example on Clifton Court the applicant said they went through numerous iterations of objection/response, objection/response and so forth. So can you explain to us how the process works that there can be this whole series of iterations taking up supposedly 12 months and a peat deal of applicant expense and Staff expense? Mr. Emslie: Again getting back to the guidelines is that early on in the process the application, and again early consultation often is very helpful as the designs can be developed with Staff input, with a mind towards implementing the guidelines it helps. But essentially the Staff makes its review and analysis at a fairly early stage. Generally an applicant likes to know if it meets with the guidelines before they commit to substantial design costs. So consultation can lead to an early indication that the project meets guidelines after a site visit and review of topography and things of that nature and we do our field studies. So that pretty much is established. What happens after that initial Staff decision is not appealed but an adjacent neighbor, one across the street, may request a Director’s Hearing and that will prompt a public hearing before the Director’s designee and we have two, Amy French and Julie Caporgno who take turns serving as the Hearing Officer. That can take, with this particular case I can’t cite the examples, but it can often take one or two because the Director can ask for additional information because they do City of Palo Alto Page 28 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 1 have the ability to basically, those are de novo hearings, they can take any new information. In 2 the several cases that have come before the Director there has been some additional information 3 requested so that can sometimes add delays because there are a couple of hearings and they need 4 to be scheduled. Then once that decision is rendered then that is the decision that is appealable 5 and then that goes to the City Council and that is scheduled. I think if you basically put in the 6 review period for Staff, the Director’s Hearings, possible continuance and then scheduling of a 7 City Council meeting, I think in the case that was cited that was what contributed to the delay in 8 that instance. Let me just back up a little bit, I think it was envisioned that even in the extreme 9 cases under the IR process that the review period would not take that long. It was anticipated to 10 take even with an appeal I think the estimates were from two to three months. So clearly some of the back and forth and some of the scheduling in that case contributed to delays that were considered outside of what the typical process envisioned when this process was recommended. Commissioner Burt: I understood some of what you were saying. First it sounds like we have the potential for new issues to be raised at subsequent times, that there is not one opportunity for an appellant to raise whatever issues they have and for the applicant to respond to them or Staff to respond. There can be numerous opportunities, is that correct? Mr. Emslie: I think that is one of the observations that we would have is that as notices come out when the application is first noticed to the neighborhood that is a chance for input. When the Staff makes it initial decision that is another chance for input and when it goes to the Director’s Hearing. So that is correct there are multiple points where new information can be added and it is permissible under the process. Commissioner Burt: So when later in this discussion when we get to the aspect about process I would be interested in whether Staff has some recommendations on how we can narrow the number of opportunities for these issues to be raised. More specifically to the solar guidelines issue I heard the Co-Chairs indicate that it was never the intension to allow neighbors the right to prohibit any shading and any solar impact whatsoever. I think we all a~ee with that. So then the question becomes is there still a potential value to solar guidelines and could this guideline be modified in a way that would be clear in terms of the limitations that the appellant would have on what they can object to and still have this as one of the considerations that is made both by the designer and in the Staff review. I haven’t heard of any middle gound alternatives to just the alternative of eliminating the solar guidelines. The other half to that question is what value do solar guidelines provide that daylight plane restrictions do not provide? Ms. Grote: The daylight plane doesn’t specifically address solar orientation or solar access to either the site itself or a neighboring property. What the daylight plane addresses is open area around the subject building. S~o when someone mentioned that it is mass and bulk that is certainly one effect of a daylight plane requirement. It reduces or it regulates mass and bulk but it also regulates amount of light around a building and ensures that there is light around a building. It doesn’t address solar orientation. It doesn’t address solar access but it does address kind of that light and air mass and bulk issue. We are recommending that guideline number six be removed because we believe that it is too difficult to try and quantify the amount or try to regulate the amount of solar access that should be available either to the site itself or to the neighboring site. It is too difficult a guideline to implement. If we want to put it into the Cir. of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 ordinance in other places where it wouldn’t be regulated but maybe rather encouraged that would probably be more useful. Commissioner Burt: If I might as John Northway. Commissioner Packer: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Yes, bonnie? Commissioner Packer: I thought we wanted to finish this by ten o’clock and this isn’t a study session on solar orientation. Would it be all right with you if we just had a motion on this issue so we can move on to the other issues? This is just one of many. Commissioner Burt: Yes it is and one of my concerns is that we get it right. Commissioner Packer: We are never going to get the world perfect. Commissioner Burt: I heard you earlier characterize Commissioner Bellomo’s questions as attempting to create a perfect world and that you needed to have common sense. Chair Griffin: Pat, do you want to go ahead and ask John for his comment and then we will wrap it up and let Bonnie make a motion so that we can get through this? Thank you. Commissioner Burr: I would appreciate not mischaracterizations of the intentions of fellow Commissioners. So John, is there any middle gound that you can envision that would provide for some utilization of the solar orientation concept that would not be so onerous on the applicant? One possibility that Staff had mentioned was as a recommendation and not a requirement. Anything else that you have that might address this issue and retain the best of what you originally intended without the unintended consequence? Mr. Northway: It is always difficult to figure out what the unintended consequences are going to be. I think in this case we know exactly what the unintended consequences are going to be. Guidelines are a double-edged sword. Guidelines are very good in an eclectic situation because it does give the homeowners some flexibility in how they can meet these requirements of privacy, massing and streetscape. The downside of guidelines is that they are not laws so they are gray. If you hire a good attorney they will find the weaknesses in the guidelines, which I think has happened with these solar guidelines. If there is a way of putting them into the Zoning Ordinance which are ministerial so that they are not items that can be used to beat the applicant up then that would probably be your best compromise. I think the way they are setup in the guidelines they are being misused and misinterpreted because these guidelines are not clear cut rights and privileges like a zoning ordinance is and I think that is where this has gone awry in that an attempt to Nve the homeowner flexibility in how their house is put together by nature is a little gay. Lawyers love little gay spots because they can go after them. I think this has become very onerous and if it can be put into the Zoning Ordinance, a good architect will do all of these studies anyway, but I am not sure that you want to put it in a situation where it can be used as a club against a well-meaning applicant. City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chair Griffin: Bonnie. MOTION Commissioner Packer: And with that I will make a motion that we recommend as this goes forward in the process of whatever you are going to do with changing these guidelines that we eliminate the solar orientation guideline. I think John Northway gave the speech for us as to why. We need a second and then I want to say something. Chair Griffin: Annette. SECOND Commissioner Bialson: Second Chair Griffin: We have a motion and it is seconded by Annette. Did you wish to discuss it any more or have we heard enough on this? Commissioner Packer: Just one little point. When we get to the IR process and Pat was asking some very good questions that got me thinking about this I think if we look at the process in a little different way in a way to give the neighbors less rights than they have now then we may be able to look at the guidelines in a more discretionary way and not be so afraid of the discretion if the neighbors have less rights. I will get that later. So as we are looking at the specific guidelines we may be thinking about the changes to the process at the same time. Chair Griffin: I would like to keep it focused on solar orientation here at the moment. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have to respect the group co-chairs as well as Staff having the insight and the experience with this process to come to us with the recommendation they have. I am going to follow that recommendation and that is why I am supporting this motion. Chair Griffin: Do any other Commissioners wish to discuss this item or can we have a vote? Vice-Chair Cassel: I will make one comment. I am disappointed we have had to do this. I think this is an area in which many neighbors were very concerned and that the concern got overly specific. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Griffin: We will call for the question on this item. All those in favor of the Staff recommendation say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously. The next item has to do with privacy. If you would like to take a break I would certainly stand still for that. Would an eight-minute break help everyone? We will momentarily take an intermission. Cit3, of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 I’d like to reconvene our meeting. We are going to move to privacy being the next item seeking clarification. I will read from the text. Staff is considering providing further clarification of the privacy issue. Staff believes a clarification needs to be made to the policy statement, "minimize intrusions on privacy for adjacent houses’ primarily patio or outdoor living areas" to define the word "minimize." In order to provide some degree of consistency, staff would also propose a specific window setback to establish a privacy zone. Steve, did you want to comment on this at all? Then we will ask the tri-captains if they have any comments. Mr. Emslie: Maybe just a little procedural clarification. The purpose of the Staff format in the Staff Report is to frame the policy issues so that you can have a higher-level discussion, provide Staff with comments and direction that we then in turn can use to return to you with a more specific proposal. The SOFA II approach is the same process that we are encouraging here. So it is not necessary to resolve all the details. You can give us general policy guidance and then we will return with specifics. So we would really encourage the discussion to occur on privacy on that basis. Chair Griffin: Then I am wondering if the tri-chairs have any comment about minimizing intrusions and how that would be more carefully defined. Do you have any observations there? Annette. Ms. Ashton: Well the guidelines if you look at the detail are actually what the Staff Report makes a suggestion for, offset or stagger windows, use clearstory windows, use translucent glass. So it is very, very clear. I hesitate to do this because George could do it so well but for me it is not the guideline or the privacy question. I think George wanted to talk to this. It is really how it is implemented. I think we as a team of people whether it is residents, Commissioners and Staff have to find a way to let appellants get their voice being heard but on some issues like privacy and solar which are so ambiguous we have to say wait a minute, that is it. We have to hold the line. It is one time and just stop the discussion. So as far as I am concerned I think you have the direction on the guidelines and that is at least the way I feel. I think they are all very good suggestions. Maybe John or Carol have some additional comments. Chair Griffin: Or if George wants to come forward we would hear from you. You don’t want to address this item then? Thank you, we will talk to John then. Mr. Northway: I would actually just reiterate the discussions that we had and actually at this Commission when Owen Byrd brought up the issue of he was nervous that privacy wasn’t defined. It is a really tough one to nail down because we have a town that let’s say averages 6,000 square foot lots that do permit second stories. So privacy is a very, very relative and narrow concept with that lot configuration and the ability to do second stories. We all kind of laughed at the time that if you want to nude sunbathe you better go to Woodside unless you don’t mind being seen by your neighbors. That kind of expectation can never be met. I think what we thought in terms of privacy was that through guidelines and pointing out that you didn’t want large windows lined up with the neighbor’s windows those kind of things can be done as Annette said and they are clear in the guidelines. The idea that you can have absolute privacy and someone with a second story can never see into your yard is a concept that through education and maybe through even greater elaboration in the Forward to the guidelines needs to be pointed out. It is an unachievable goal if you think privacy is going to be the same as being in a remote mountain cabin it isn’t going to happen. City of Palo Alto Page 32 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Chair Griffin: John, I wanted to ask you a question and Staff as well. I didn’t save all of my 3 Single Family Review materials but this notebook I still have. There is an item here and I am 4 presuming this came from Origins, which showed a sixty-de~ee viewing cone from a window. 5 could pass that down to Zariah and you could put it on the overhead if you would. It is pretty 6 clear that we didn’t elect to do that. Now that we are being asked by Staff to consider a more specific definition of privacy I am suggesting that maybe this is the sort of thing that would provide that degee of definition. I want people to comment on that. Why did we elect not to use that viewing angle? Mr. Northway: Because I might come in with a perfectly wonderful design that was only 57.5 degrees and that is why you do the discretionary review in the IR process so that people who are knowledgeable can look and evaluate each design because everything is eclectic. For every rule that you write I can find the loophole and architects are very good at finding the loophole. So that is why it is much better, I don’t think we have had any complaints, I don’t think there have been any appeals that windows were out of kilter. The complaints have been as Ronnie pointed out that real or imagined intrusions into somebody’s sense of what they thought people should be able to look at or not. Chair Griffin: If that is the case, if no one has appealed that then why is Staff proposing? Would you ladies come forward? Vice-Chair Cassel: I’d like to move this item as soon as you are ready to answer your questions. I would like to get it moving. I would like to talk about process because I think that is where the problem really is. Ms. Wong: Yes, I think the process should be addressed fully. I do want to briefly tell you that my neighbor has a swimming pool and he objected strongly to our bedroom windows and as a consequence we were made to recess our windows eight inches from the walls which are already 50 feet away from his house, not from his swimming pool but from his house. The window panels were limited to 24 inches each window width is 24 inches. So Planning pretty much encouraged us to do that. To me that was onerous because the neighbor really expected to have total privacy not only of his home but of his swimming pool. There is no way that he can have that. He wrote two or three times and he is a lawyer from Harvard. So it was very, very difficult. Chair Griffin: Thank you Elizabeth. Pat. Commissioner Burr: Under section C of the options Staff refers to a specific window setback option. What does that mean? Ms. French: Well the concept would be as Ms. Wong noted they had a certain setback from the property line and from the neighboring house. If it could be quantified as we go towards quantification if we could state that at a certain point in time that is as far as you have consideration about privacy. Once you get 50 feet back then privacy is no longer in question. Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burt: Okay, so the setback might be referring to either a distance from a property line or a neighboring house. Ms. Wong had actually referred to a recess of the window and I wasn’t sure if that was part of what was being alluded to here. Ms. French: That is not. That was a solution in this particular case given that particular issue. Commissioner Burr: Then Staff also had recommended that some effort be made to define minimization of intrusions on privacy. I am interested if Staff actually has a notion as how that might be defined. I am trying to envision that. I get the concept and if we could come up with language that would achieve that I think that would be really preferable. I haven’t been able to envision that sort of language. Do you have any things that might help us get a feel for what you are thinking of? Ms. French: It would just be to get your concurrence that that’s a good direction to go in. We would try to massage and see if we could come up with it. One of the things is it was written probably generally in that way to allow us to have discretion but if we are trying to get more quantified and specific if there is a way to do it then we could try. Commissioner Burt: Thanks. Chair Griffin: Bonnie, you want to make a motion here? Commissioner Packer: I just want to make this one comment. The danger of having a privacy setback is that you may end up with another one of these unintended consequences of creating and giving neighbors and opportunity to create a new side setback that never existed before. Where I live we don’t have the luxury of having houses 50 feet apart. They are 16 feet apart. Most lots, ordinary Palo Alto people not people who live in Professorville have 7,000 or 8,000 square foot lots where the side setback is eight feet or six feet. It is six or eight but not more. So you have 16 feet between. You start creating and area where this is privacy so in order for privacy your windows have to be way back and then you are going to have a little second story that is this high. So I think you have a real danger. I would be very cautious about what you look into in this privacy area. I think the struggles we went through for the many months of the committee trying to deal with definitions of privacy and what we did here on the Commission a couple of years ago trying to deal with privacy I think we looked into this and did the best job we could considering the difficulty of the issue. I have looked at the guidelines now and I think they are pretty good. Adding anything else could have some negative unintended consequences. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. MOTION Vice-Chair Cassel: I will move that we encourage Staff to look at the definition of privacy and work with the term minimize. We will then have this come back to us to look at it again. I don’t think we should try to make a final decision on that tonight. SECOND City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bialson: I will second that. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 Commissioner Bellomo absent) Chair Griffin: Any other comments or can we have a vote? Let’s vote it up then. All in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? There are none so that carries unanimously with the exception of Joe. Joe is not with us here for the vote and not here for the second part of this discussion. Pat. Commissioner Burt: Staff had another paragraph under privacy protection where they were recommending or suggesting that we consider the other aspect on window placement and we haven’t discussed that. So I think we should take that up. Vice-Chair Cassel: I was kind of hoping that we could go on to process because the questions of process may answer whether we want to deal with window setbacks. The process question is so outstanding in my mind as to how to proceed. Commissioner Burt: We are one item away from process. Vice-Chair Cassel: I know but I can’t answer the other question. I have no clue. Commissioner Burt: I am not particularly in favor of it but I just think we ought to complete going sequentially through. I am not in favor of it. I am not in favor of belaboring that issue I just think that we are going through it in this sequence why skip the very last one? Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we have already voted on referring the privacy issue back to Staff for additional work. We are going to have an opportunity to take a look at this again. I am suggesting that we are done with that item. Commissioner Burt: Well, addressed the preceding paragraph Michael. We did not discuss nor address this paragraph. I would favor not recommending what Staff has suggested. I think Staff has asked us to comment on these and let’s tell them whether we think it is a good idea or not. Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you want to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Burt: Yes. My motion would be that we not support a change in the program to only allow two story windows directly opposite windows of another home and that instead that we Nve greater consideration to view angles as an alternative. Chair Griffin: Do we have a second? That appears to have died for lack of a second. Karen. MOTION Commissioner Holman: I think this may get at the same thing. I would move that we not look to converting the privacy issue to a code regulation by simply placing second story windows not CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 directly opposite one another and that view angles be included in the guidelines. It is a little bit different although it may not sound like it. Chair Griffin: A second to that? SECOND Commissioner Burt: I’ll second it. Chair Griffin: Karen, do you want to speak to your motion? Commissioner Holman: No, I don’t think there is a need. MOTION FALLS Chair Griffin: Pat? We will vote it up them. All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) I am abstaining and Joe is not here so the item fails. Commissioner Burt: What is the input of the Commission on the subject? Vice-Chair Cassel: You want some comments from me? Basically I want to wait until I get through the process issues because I probably don’t want any changes made in it and I want to see if we can deal with some of the problems with process. My sense is I still want much more flexibility in this item and I don’t want it specifically narrowly defined at this point. Commissioner Burt: I will just say that I think the intent of the motion both mine and Karen’s was to not narrowly define it but let’s move forward. Chair Griffin: Thank you. We will now move to the process item. The issues are discussed in Staff Report and moving on to options then. Does anyone wish to comment? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have some very basic questions. What we have been hearing is that this whole IR process works and it works because there have only been four appeals. We haven’t been hearing whether it works based on other criteria. So that is what I think needs to be addressed in the Report. Having said that, one of the things we really need to look at is the whole concept of whose rights we are dealing with in this process. I would ask the attorneys to go over a little bit with us what are the issues when you have a discretionary process and a decision is made by the Director. What is it that gives which people the right to appeal? Now clearly the applicant would have a right to appeal. I am told, in casual conversation, that those neighbors to whom notice was given because they had an opportunity to comment because they were given notice have a right to appeal. What are the legal issues here that we need to understand in order to go forward with thinking about process? Mr. Sode~ren: The basic requirement is that there needs to be a right to be heard. That right not only runs to the applicant it also runs to any property owner that may be affected by the decision. That is the basic requirement. Now what is flexible is when and how that hearing occurs. In the process that we have now there is basically three points of input that could be considered hearing process. There is the initial comment period, there is the appeal to the Director and then there is Cio, of Palo Alto Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ultimately the appeal to the City Council. So I view that as almost three, even though they are not called hearings, three times that meet that hearing requirement. So those can be changed and modified and reduced or expanded but the basic requirement is that there must be a hearing and that runs to both the applicant and affected property owners. Commissioner Packer: So if I understand you correctly there needs to be a hearing but the consequence of the hearing does not necessarily give, does that give all the hearing participants the right to appeal it or just the homeowner? Are we legally bound by issues of due process or is there some way to craft an ordinance that will Nve the opportunity for neighbors to input but lessen their ability to make frivolous appeals? Mr. Sodegren: Well, right now the way the ordinance is structured there is not a hearing unless there is an appeal. Again, a lot of cases there is an automatic hearing. Regardless of whether it is automatic or whether it takes and appeal for there to be a hearing it must be structured so that both the applicant and the affected property owners have that right for hearing. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Along that line when item come before the Planning Commission such as a zoning change or a particular applicant wants a PC zone is a good way I guess to use it. When a hearing is held at the Planning Commission level people speaking must raise all of the issues they want to raise at that time. They can’t bring in other issues when it goes to City Council or to court is my understanding and we have that in our writing. Can something like that not be placed in this ordinance? People can’t come back and raise a different issue and a different issue and a different issue. Mr. Sode~ren: It depends on the type of action. As you know for legislative actions such as Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes those are legislative in nature and they don’t require the decision to be based on findings and substantial evidence. But when you are dealing with a quasi-judicial action such as a CUP or a variance or in this case this would be the equivalent to that type of quasi-judicial permit because it does require that there are findings made and that those findings are based on substantial evidence in the record. So it does have some limitations and you do have to get everything in the record so the decision can be based on that evidence. So there is that limitation. Vice-Chair Cassel: Could such a limitation be placed in this that at certain points issues have to be raised at those points? Mr. Sode,,zren: I think by the very nature they have to be raised before the final decision. I don’t know if there is any way of getting around that because the final decision-making body is the one that is going to have to make the findings and rely on the substantial evidence. You could do that by incorporation by reference but I don’t know if there is any good practical way to limit that. What you may have if you try to limit it and then say you can only incorporate it by reference if there is an appeal is that there the requirement of substantial evidence and findings but there is also Brown Act requirements, the people, even though you can say you can’t speak it is not in the record they would still have an opportunity to speak to the issue under the Brown Act. Then it gets kind of confusing of what is allowed and what is in the record and what is simply comment. City of Palo Alto Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I am going to try and take another stab at the same concept as what Phyllis is trying to get at here. I think there is an interest among Commissioners to limit the number of occasions and reiterations by which an appellant can raise new issues and have this process keep cycling along. They get one shot to object I think is what we are interested in. Are you saying that we can’t write code that would achieve that? Mr. Sode~en: Certainly you could write a code that could achieve that. You could have the initial decision made at Staff level appealed on up to a Director’s Hearing, have one hearing and that would be it. Commissioner Burt: I think that is what we are searching for. Before moving on I was confused by another comment you made. At first I thought I understood you to say that only the appellant could cause it to go to a hearing and then you said that there were certain things where it is an automatic hearing. I didn’t understand how both those things could be true. Mr. Sode~ren: What I was referring to was in the case of the IR program there is not a Director’s Hearing unless requested. That is what I meant. In some cases, as you know, for other types of permits there is an automatic hearing. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so in this case it is only based on an appeal. Mr. Sode~en: Right. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I think what is a little bit different with the I~R process and say a appeal that is filed on other types of projects is that you are dealing with in the case of an appeal of a commercial project that had an ordinance passed, to try to appeal that you have. a project that you are appealing. So in that case you do have to bring up all your issues, should you take it further, you do have to bring up all your issues and they have to be on record. In this situation you have an appeal that is being filed and the project is going to change then subsequent to that. So I am trying to figure out how to best state this. The project is an ongoing process and so if a neighbor for instance only has one input opportunity the project could be a different project that comes along that still might be out of compliance and they have no opportunity then to give input at that stage. So in other words, even complying some nel~,hbor s concerns the project could become a concern in other areas because of how it was changed to comply with other concerns. It is complicated but I don’t know how to resolve that without giving the whole individual review process the gravity of the intention that it based on. Can you sort through that one? Mr. Sode~ren: The only thing I can think of is to have as you do now kind of a meet and confer with the neighbors process before or concurrent with working Staff but before they make their decision. Staff would take all that information and then make findings and outline the evidence and then that could be issued. Then people could review that and determine whether or not that CiO, of Palo Alto Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 required a hearing. I don’t know if that changes your process much but you could have a lot of that negotiation occur before Staff issues its what would be a final Staff decision. Staff level decision would be final appealed up to the Director’s Hearing. So that is one way of doing it to have all that back and forth occur before the final decision is actually issued. Commissioner Holman: I think that could be helpful. Then there is one other thing that I might suggest which is there are sometimes issues that come about that really aren’t Individual Review issues but they might be zoning issues. If those can be resolved before this is put out for Individual Review comment that might help solve some of the back and forth. Maybe Staff could respond on that but I think getting those kind of concrete things resolved first might be helpful. Ms. French: In the Report we noted how we are being a little more proactive now and how we have changed a little bit when we do the notices. We don’t notice it until the zoning issues are resolved. So that is a step we have taken to minimize that issue. Chair Griffin: We would like to have Sharon Erickson have an Opportunity to make her presentation here shortly. I just bring that up for colleagues to consider here as we have now reached the ten o’clock hour. Pat, did you have a comment? MOTION Commissioner Burt: Yes. Regarding the issue that Karen raised about what if there is a substantive change in the project how could we still follow this guideline of limiting the number of points at which an appellant could object. Somewhere, it might have been in Sharon’s report or elsewhere I recall going across just that differentiation that if it is a major change in the project or some other description that Staff used for it then that could open the door to a reconsideration of opportunities for an appeal by a neighbor. But if there were not major changes then they would have one shot at their appeal. So I would be interested in Staff coming back with language that would reflect those concepts. I will even make that as a motion if the Commission would like. That would be that neighbors have one opportunity to appeal unless there are major changes to the project and in that case they would have an opportunity to reconsider a basis for appeal to the Director’s Hearing. Chair Griffin: Do I have a second for that? SECOND Vice-Chair Cassel: I will try a second accept that I wanted to know if you would, there is a question here about ministerial review and discretionary review. You want to keep it going with the concept of using a discretionary review if you can? Commissioner Burt: yes, I would prefer that although I think tl~at can be addressed as a separate issue from the number of occasions that a neighbor would have to appeal a project. So we can break it up into first whether it is ministerial or discretionary, well ministerial in the sense of, I’m sorry I am drifting. In the sense of whether it would have the prerogative to go to Council. If it is ministerial then what is there to appeal? We were told that if it is ministerial and it is objective criteria then essentially there is no basis for appeal. So this is only if it is a discretionary process. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: You have a comment to ttiat? Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes since I seconded it. My comment has to do with the fact that the committee worked, I wasn’t on the committee I just attended almost every meeting they had, they worked very hard as to whether it should be ministerial or discretionary. They worked and worked and worked at this. I know the Staff wants something very simple and ministerial because it just saves a lot of problems and a lot of time but I still would like to work towards some discretionary process because I think it gives us a better chance and there has been 98% of these working well. I think we should work at this process issue and see if we can do that. We come back every year and we can look and see how that goes but I think we should look at how we make this process move forward and what limitations we can make on it and make it work to give us the discretion we know we need because all of these properties are different. Bonnie has talked about her distances between houses and mine is 12 feet and other people in the north part of town on large lots have different ones and I think we do need some discretion in this process. I hope we can work something out. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would like to see if the maker of the motion would have a friendly amendment that in addition to what you are suggesting Staff explore that we ask Staff to look not only at the dichotomy between a ministerial and discretionary process but come back with additional ideas of ways of making; if we go discretionary, it simpler, cleaner and perhaps exploring the idea of not appealing to City Council. Give us some different options of changing the nature of the discretionary process so that it is less cumbersome than it is. So if you would agree to including that as part of your motion then at the next go around we have some more ideas from Staff about how the process can be changed and still be kept discretionary. Commissioner Burt: I would accept that and in fact I jotted down a list of things that I heard from Commissioners and the public. In the interest of being expeditious I will go ahead and read them off and see whether the Commission is in concurrence that these are things that we would like to have explored and brought back to us. We have already been discussing on the appeal process that there are too many opportunities to object, it is too lengthy, too costly, to readily available. The criteria is too subjective in certain circumstances that is the descriptive criteria, we have discussed some of that. That there needs to be greater training of both the Staff and as Carol Harrington has said for two years the public in both the architectural aspects and the meaning of the regulation. It appears that there may be too much spreading of the Staff role in this that we may want to have certain Staff members become more specialized in this area. There needs to be a lead person for the applicant to be able to turn to. Bonnie raised issues about modifications after construction and then we heard about the problem from Judith Wasserman’s partner regarding the way in which we have changed the sequence would solve one problem but may have created this other one of creating a new time lag. So each of those things are ones that I think we would be interested in hearing more information on at our follow up hearing and see if there are any Staff recommendations on how to improve the process. Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll accept those. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 Chair Griffin: That seems to have covered the waterfront. The seconder accepts that. Karen. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: I have another friendly amendment to offer. Your motion included the words "major" and "minor." I would like for the motion to include providing that we come up with satisfactory definitions of major and minor your motion assumes that we will and I think they are going to be very, very difficult to define. Commissioner Burt: I don’t know whether it assumes it. It seeks them. So we would have to wait and see whether Staff can come back with reasonable definitions that would distinguish them. Chair Griffin: Are you accepting that Ms. Seconder? Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, fine. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1) Chair Griffin: Anymore comments? It doesn’t look like it so we will vote this item up. All those in favor of the many amended motions say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously with Commissioner Bellomo being absent. Does that give Staff enough to chew on here for next little while. I see smiles so apparently mission accomplished. Commissioner Burr: I am taking Phyllis at her word. We have got one more quick piece of feedback we need to give Staff and that is what we think about limiting two story windows that the privacy would simply not allow a home to have two story windows directly opposite another. Vice-Chair Cassel: My word was not to do it tonight and when you get all this other process back that we may not find that we need to deal with that issue at all. Commissioner Burr: What Staff I believe was seeking tonight was our preliminary feedback on these things and they will come back to us with more specific proposals. I sense that this is not so hard that the Commission is probably not in favor strictly saying the only privacy restriction would be that you can’t have two story windows directly opposite each other. If that is an easy call for the Commission we can move forward. Chair Griffin: Would Staff like to comment on this? Mr. Emslie: Yes. I think we did get direction on this because you decided you wanted to retain the offset of the windows would be if you wanted to move in a ministerial fashion that would be one of the items that you could reasonably implement through a ministerial code. Since you have now given us direction to explore ways of addressing the process and retaining the discretionary program that we think gives us enough direction to come back with those things. City of Palo Alto Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Then you can take a look at whether they achieve those objectives and still bring back the question of ministerial at a later time if you so desire. Chair Griffin: What do you think Commissioners? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I think we do have one other thing, which is the paragraph right above C, which is that the ordinance does not identify an expiration of the approval, which is commonly in place for other discretionary land use approvals without an expiration, etc. I would like to see Staff come back with some options. It seems like one really simple option might be that the approval runs with the building permit timeline. That is a really simple, simple fix it would seem to me. I would make the motion that Staff come back with options unless somebody wants to make a motion we just make it run with the building permit. Chair Griffin: Any seconds to that? Vice-Chair Cassel: The question is can we just make that and let it go so they can come back to us with something along that line. Chair Griffin: Okay, so that is a comment then that Staff has recorded. Commissioner Burt: If I can briefly add to that comment in the Staff alternatives it talks about that if codes change or neighbors change in the interim then it may affect the granting of the approval. A code change I would favor neighbor change I would not. When somebody has an approval and you get a new neighbor you shouldn’t lose your approval. Chair Griffin: The comment is recorded by Staff. Fine then I think we are now finished with this item for this evening. We wilt continue it to a date certain or uncertain? Ms. Grote: It will be a date certain and that will be January 28, 2004. Chair Griffin: Great. Thank you all for your participation in this item. Now we have come to that portion of our agenda Reports From Officials and now we will entertain a report from the City Auditor’s Office on the Audit of the Development Review Process. Welcome Sharon. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS: Report from the City Auditor’ s Office on Audit of the Development Review Process. Ms. Sharon Erickson: Thank you very much Commissioner Griffin and members of the Planning Commission. In accordance with the audit work plan that the City Council approved for us this year the City Auditor’s Office conducted a review of the Development Review Process. Now what the Council asked us to do that was different from previous reviews that have been done is to look at the process from the customer perspective. Now of course in doing this we have to balance the Planning Department especially is a regulatory agency nonetheless the Council did want us to look at the process from start to finish. So what it looks like from the time you originally think up a project, come down to the City and maybe talk to somebody about it until you nail the last nail and you get your occupancy permit. City of Palo Alto Page 42 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 What we found and the detail of course are in the report and I will just go through them very briefly and then we are happy to answer questions. What we found is that there is broad agreement that improvements are needed to address the timeliness, complexity, customer service and management of the Development Review Process. We conducted a number of interviews and it was startling to me the unanimity of opinion out there that the length of the process is not good for anyone. It is not good for an applicant. It is not good for a developer who has money resting on a project. It is not good for a neighbor who is left with an uncertainty for a long period of time. It is not good for a neighborhood activist who is trying to figure out do I need to turn out my neighbors to this meeting, to the second meeting, to the fourth meeting or the eight meeting. We basically then looked at turnaround times and found that turnaround times can, we all know and you have all heard this many times, can be improved. That delays in reviewing planning and building applications put a heavy burden on applicants, neighbors and especially interesting to me was the burden that it puts on Staff. We quantified a number of delays. They are in the report and you probably also have seen those. The other impact that we heard from interviewees was of course anecdotes of the cost of the delays. Those are things that we couldn’t quantify. Things like the upfront startup costs for a homeowner or business, an auto dealership that leaves town or restaurant that doesn’t open. We found also that the Development Review Process needs to be simplified. We were asked initially to flowchart the process. A number of people have tried to do this. We started to do it. We realized we were going to have to do at least 15 different flowcharts putting together old flowcharts, new flowcharts and we basically said we picked a number out of the sky and we said let’s try as a goal to simply it to five processes so you know when you come down to the City or if you are a neighbor of a project you know that it is going to be one of those five processes and we are not having to argue with each other about whether it is this process, that process, which direction it is going to go. We also recommended that there be a standard appeals process. What we found for those 15 processes that we looked at in more detail was that there were at least ten different appeal processes. They all had different timelines, different number of copies of plans that needed to be submitted. The feedback I have gotten on this one is pretty straightforward - let’s simplify it. For some people the deadlines would be longer, for some people it would be shorter but at least we wil! all know what the process is going to be for appeals. We recommended that we try to expedite the Individual Review of single-family dwellings by strengthening use of administrative and/or ministerial approval processes similar to other minor projects where possible. This is something that obviously is a complicated subject. You have started to dive into that today. You are better people than I. We recommended expanding and strengthening the development review committee staff. There is an existing committee at a Staff level in the City. When we went around to other jurisdictions and talked to them we realized that other jurisdictions when you submit your initial application, in some jurisdictions there is a committee of Staff people who get together that first week. So if you submit on a Tuesday you know they meet every Thursday your application will be reviewed that Thursday. For a simple project you might be able to clarify all the issues. Redwood City I know has said they will meet however long it takes to get through the projects that they got that week. On the other hand for some projects it may be something where you are doing less of the Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 technical work in this committee but you are at least establishing process. The idea here is that you don’t want somebody to find out that they have an historic resource three months into the process, six months into the process. What developers are telling us is we want to know up front. We want to know which of these processes I am going to have to follow, which Commissions I am going to have to go to and then what we can do is make sure that those Commissions are lining up. Some things can be processed simultaneously other things can be scheduled farther in advance so we are not waiting until four months into the process before we realize we are going to have to schedule this Commission meeting and that takes another month and a half to schedule. Again what we were looking at here is compressing the total time without reducing the quality of the input that we are able to give to applicants. So cutting down perhaps the number of times that we review a project but ensuring that we have the adequacy of those reviews but in a more compressed period of time. We also recommended, and there was some talk about this tonight, establishing single points of contact for projects. What we found is it is not just the Planning Division, it is not just the Building Division, those folks have already tried to do this but the City also has a Fire Department, Utilities Department, Public Works Department, there is going to be somebody looking over your irrigation plans. So there is any number of people and applicants end up going from floor to floor in City Hall or back and forth across the street from the Development Center trying to sort those issues out. Particularly for people who aren’t familiar with the Palo Alto process having a single person to guide them through they told us would be very valuable. Now this is an expensive proposition for the City. It is one of those customer service things that is not free. Assigning somebody from current planning to follow a project all the way through the process perhaps even through building permits is expensive and time consuming for current planning. On the other hand that wouldn’t be required for every project. It could be done on a case-by-case basis. Again, our goal was to throw out some ideas here, make some recommendations, all of these would have to be explored in depth in order to implement. We recommended expediting minor projects through increased use of administrative approval processes. First my recommendation was make sure we are in compliance with the code, that we are processing those minor projects, which should be dealt with in an administrative at a Staff level, that those are being dealt with at a Staff level and that we are not referring things that really our code does not provide for us to refer. That may require, at some point we may want to come back, once we have made sure we are in compliance with muni code on that we may want to come back and think about a Municipal Code change. But my goal first was to make sure that for example, the example that we gave was, that 45% of minor projects were going to the ARB. It is not clear to me from the Municipal Code that all of those projects need to be referred. We recommended limiting the number of multiple hearings on projects. Again this was not to, we are looking at the total processing time here, so again we did not audit, did not look at the quality of the decision. So we didn’t look at the quality of the projects that resulted from this or the quality aspect. We were looking at processing time pretty simply. In that case it seemed to us that limiting the number of multiple hearings, re-hearings, continuances, is an easy way to cut time out of the process. We recommended clarifying rules and responsibilities of Boards and Commissions. We felt we heard that training could be that roles and responsibilities could be more clearly defined, that Commissioners could be more clearly apprised of those roles and responsibilities before they are City of Palo Alto Page 44 1 2 3 4 set on the bench and that that’s an ongoing process. Our rules in this town do change over time so it is important to keep that discussion alive. We recommended simplifying Staff Reports and clarifying what actions are requested. The key here to me was the public cost of some of the Staff Reports that we write. What we heard from 6 other jurisdictions was that the idea of limiting Staff Reports to a couple of pages wherever 7 possible, attaching the documents that need to be attached but when Staff is available here for 8 answering questions that this is the public forum, requiring Staff to write those documents in 9 advance is a considerable expenditure of dollars. Now this again is something that would have 10 to be experimented with. The thing that this would address is the idea of asking Staff to clarify 11 for Boards and Commissions exactly what was being requested to be commented on. You are an 12 advisory role in these capacities and clarifying what advice is being requested it seemed to us 13 would be an easy way to help facilitate discussions so that you can get through items in one or 14 two meetings instead of having to have multiple hearings on a specific project. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 We recommended reducing building permit turnaround times. Some developers and applicants were very happy with a predictable eight-week turnaround time. Other people felt eight weeks was really too long. We are recommending that the City cut it to four weeks and that we establish turnaround times that are progressively shorter for all rechecks. We recommended investing in supervision and internal processes in the Planning Department particularly relating to monitoring the status of applications, official records, quality assurance, potential role of a Zoning Administrator and training. The computer systems, and there is some detail in the report, the computer systems are not adequate. Staff spends considerable time tracking down documents: There are the two computer systems that we know of between the Planning Division and the Building Division don’t talk to each other. There is a system in place in the Building Division that could be expanded the module could be expanded to include the Planning Division. We have already made a recommendation in a previous audit to expand that computer system to include Code Enforcement. That would wrap together a project around an address so that Staff can follow these projects from start to finish and we have less likelihood of losing things in cracks. We also recommended improving customer service and clarifying priorities and performance standards. Some of these are simple things, customer service training, returning phone calls. There are also resource issues involved in that. I don’t suspect that it is Staff means not to return phone calls in 24 hours there are resource issues there but it is for the City to step in and establish those standards and then figure out a way to make it happen. Our report includes a total of 34 recommendations for process improvement. Staff has reviewed the information in the report. The City Council at the Policy and Services Committee on October 15 accepted our report and adopted the recommendations. Before I close I want to thank the Staff in the Planning Department especially, Staff all over the City, but the Planning Department was absolutely wonderful to work with in the course of this. It has not been easy for them but they were open with us. A lot of the complaints that we heard were also from Staff in terms of timeliness of getting things off of their desk. So I think in summary, we are all in this together and we hope that this is a process we can improve. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 I forgot one other thank you and that is to Edwin Young of my staff who was the one who sat there and tried to bring up BODs and those computer records and see whether or not they existed. So I really want to thank Edwin for all his work on this. I think Steve would like to make some comments and we are also happy to answer any questions. Mr. Emslie: I just wanted to briefly go over the next steps. We are proceeding apace. We again feel we have had an extremely collaborative relationship with the auditor. The auditor and her office have Nven us a very clear vision of the improvements from an objective point of view so that it is a unique opportunity for us in a time of shrinking resources to focus in on items that -have immediate effect. So it is an objective review from a customer’s viewpoint that we feel is invaluable. So we don’t want to lose momentum. I can characterize the majority of the recommendations really lie within the bailiwick of Staff. They are administrative changes on how we do day-to-day business. Some small and some not so small but they can actually change the experience from the customer’s point of view. So we are in the process of putting together the administrative changes that are recommended in the audit. I would say a majority of them could be in place as soon as 30 days, some of them have already been into place. Take for example the eight-week turnaround the Building Department no longer uses the eight-week turnaround. All plan checks are done in four weeks or less. So that is a change that happened just with the issuance of the audit. So those are proceeding. Now clearly there are going to be administrative changes that this Commission and the other Boards would be interested in and we are committed to bringing that back for your review and input but I need to essentially leave you with the expectation that we need your approval to do that. We are going to be moving forward with administrative changes. In fact the City Manager has made this a high priority on the Department’s work pro~am, my work pro~am. So it is under that direction that we are proceeding. You are our customers as well so we do want to share with you our thinking and hear your comments and modify our procedures to address concerns you might raise. We are going to be proceeding quickly. I think that is one message I wanted to make extremely clear. In terms of the other ten to 15% of the recommendations there are code changes and that is where there is a direct policy role for this Commission to recommend changes to the code. Those are also going to be proceeding quickly. In fact at your very next meeting we will be presenting you with a Staff Report and a motion that will be seeking your initiation of Zoning Code changes for two primary areas. One is the consolidation of the process and the auditor gave us a target of five. We have talked about whether it is five or four or six and that is still open but clearly 15 processes are not customer friendly. So we do know that we can consolidate those. So that is one ordinance change that we are going to ask the Commission to initiate. The second is the consolidation of the appeal periods. As you heard there are a variety of appeal periods and it is just as confusing for Staff as it is the public to keep track of those. So those are the two immediate zone changes that we are going to be returning to you and you will have a chance to talk about some of the policy implications of initiating those on the 12 of November when that is agendized for your discussion. Chair Griffin: So even though we are perhaps dying to have more clarification on this Development Review Committee, this maNcal committee that sits down and quickly is able to dispense with different applications like they do in Redwood City we are not in a position to really ask you for any details on that at this time? CiO, of Palo Alto Page 46 1 Mr. Emslie: We would be happy to answer questions about how the process works and what 2 happens internally. That is fine. I just wanted to let you know there are certain administrative 3 parts of our job, my job, Lisa’s job, in administering and manaNng these departments of half the 4 City is having administrative policies. Those are clearly within our purview to implement and to 5 the extent that there is overlap in terms of us we also see you as customers as well and in terms 6 of how information is packaged we want to hear back from you. In terms of us exercising our 7 managerial acumen if you will in setting down administrative policy we are going to do that and 8 I am under direction to do that from the City Manager. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Chair Griffin: You are in fact going to implement each and every one of these recommendations? Mr. Emslie: We do not disagee with any of the recommendations. Now there are some vagaries within the implementation of that and as we develop we want to continue the dialogue with the auditor in terms of her findings and her staff’s findings and whether or not we can meet the objective in a different way. That is part of the good working relationship that we have with this. So I think we are not looking at a foolish literal interpretation of each and every one. I think Sharon would agree with that. There are ways that we can achieve the effects without absolutely following the letter of the recommendation. Chair Griffin: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I very much appreciate the work done by everyone with respect to this audit. I also appreciate you saying, Steve, that Staff will undertake the implementation of it but I did note that there were quite a few sections that dealt with some of the items which are within the Commission’s ability to affect. That is with regard to the size and amount of work that goes into Staff Reports and also the knowing of the responsibilities of Commissioners and the rules that we need to abide by. I would ask you to be a little more specific perhaps Staff can do that, as to what we need to do to make this process a little more efficient and constructive. I appreciate that most of the audit conclusions are directed to you but I think some of them are directed to this Commission and other Commissions and Boards. If there is anything you can do to make your recommendations, Sharon, more clear as to what we can do to change our procedures, our outlook, our perspective I think that would be very much appreciated if we could hear tonight that would be great. Ms. Erickson: For example one of the recommendations we made was it is not directly related to the Planning Commission but was in the absence of a timely ARB decision that the Planning Director should be given the authority to go ahead and make a decision on a project. This was a pretty radical idea but in part the idea is to ensure that Boards and Commissions act on projects in a timely manner. I think what we tried to give you with this in part was the ability to change. It is not difficult in Palo Alto. None of us want these processes to on as long as they do. Over time we have developed what people have called the web of regulation, web of complexity. I don’t think that was the intent. It is all of our jobs to cut through that to the extent we can to expedite projects, to keep meetings, to the extent you possibly can to hear a project on the date that you tell an applicant that you are going to hear it, to hear it in one heating if you can possibly do that. When it comes to Staff Reports to allow Staff to write a short report and attach all the relevant documents. Most of you I think are going to read all those relevant documents anyway. Instead of asking Staff to summarize them again for you simply ask Staff to go ahead Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 47 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 1 and attach the documents. From an administrative perspective that is much cheaper for us. I am 2 speaking here for Staff, but I think on behalf of the City, we would ask that you be careful with 3 the City resources that you are entrusted with. So you have considerable public expenditures 4 sitting in front of you tonight and we ask that you be careful with that expenditure to make sure 5 again that you are targeting it at the things that are controversial or highly visible or complex, 6 where you really need additional assistance. Of course if Staff is doing work like the work they 7 did tonight it is more than a two-page document. I don’t mean to say that. On the other hand 8 there are some applications and in particular we talked to the ARB about this last week, the ARB 9 is all fully capable of reading plans. Can Staff just attach a two-page document or even a one- 10 page document on top of the plans? The ARB is going to go through the plans anyway. They don’t need Staff to summarize what is in the plans. Just for Boards and Commissions then to be co~onizant of the cost of that when you ask Staff to do those kinds of things. Commissioner Bialson: Does that also mean calling and asking questions and asking for essentially studies to be done for us and explanations given of various points that are of intellectual interest but might not be all that germane to the decision? Ms. Erickson: I guess what I am asking you to do in this report is to the extent you can keep it germane to, if it is about a project keep it germane to the project, yes. On the other hand you have been asked to do a job, you get appointed to this Commission and you have very broad responsibilities. You have to be able to rely on Staff to give you lots of different kinds of input. I don’t want to limit that I just want us all to be cognizant of the cost of that and not squander that resource. It is not fee. Chair Griffin: I can come down the desk but if you don’t have any particular comments it is 20 minutes to 11:00. Do you have a quick one? Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to thank very much the report and that you did it. Unfortunately I think you really hit the nail on the head and unfortunately I have to a~ee with you about what I saw and different experiences I have had up here and in the community have verified some of these points. I presume that you are interested still in hearing some other comments that might help out perhaps not necessarily up here if it is more Staff related. Steve kindly offered me an opportunity to talk to him before about a project that wasn’t working well and I didn’t take him up on that and I don’t think I really helped the process in not doing that. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: First I would like to commend not only the City Auditor and her staff and the Planning Department and their enthusiasm toward implementing these measures and those measures that are administrative in nature to embrace them and proceeding with them without hesitation. That is their jurisdiction to do so and I think it is ~eat that they are so enthusiastic about implementing them. I would also like to commend the Council who initiated this study. I think there have been some misunderstandings in the press and in the public about the nature of this. This is a process, Sharon did not come from the outside, she works for the Council and was asked to do this by the Council. She has done an excellent job. The Planning Department has embraced this and has City of Palo Alto Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 found it to be a very constructive device that they are moving forward on and I think that those are important points to make sure everyone understands. I think that there are also some aspects of the role of the Planning Department that the Planning Commission has a geat deal of interaction with, that we are an internal customer for, that we are part of what results in effective process and best utilization of Staff resources. I think the Commission might want to peal off time whether it is on a study session or an agendized segment of a future meeting to give a little more depth and thought and consideration of those things. I will just toss out a few of the topics without attempting to go into the details. One is the subject of the Staff Report. Sharon has correctly identified that there are issues with how we can make the Staff Reports be less burdensome to Staff and also to be more effective for the recipients, the Commission, the Council, the public. I think that there are ways to do that to achieve both less work for the Staff and more effective reports. I think as the continual recipients of those reports we have the ability to give constructive input on that. Second, the items that come before the Commission and whether there are certain occasions where Staff is putting a geat deal of time and effort and expense on items that perhaps should not be coming to this process. We saw in recent times after one I-lYE appeal or denial and appeal over a six year period we have seen two additional, actually three in the last months, one by a neighbor that was appealed and that can’t be avoided but two that were based upon Staff denials. We have seen a variance recently that came to us that we and Staff all ended up agreeing that was perhaps best to have not come forward. So I think that there may be some opportunities there to improve those efficiencies. Within the context of this HIE I think there is another issue that we all need to contemplate and that is that there will be circumstances like I think what I came to understand occurred on the HIE which is that a more careful consideration of and review of the literal wording of the ~ ordinance caused the Staff and the City Attorney’s Office to believe that the way in which the ordinance had been interpreted for the better part of the previous decade had potentially been misinterpreted. Chair Griffin: Pat, we are going to talk about the HIE process. Commissioner Burt: I understand that. I am putting this in the context of issues that the Commission can give feedback to Staff. The process issue, what I am referring to, is not merely the HIE itself but a circumstance when it occurs where Staff or the City Attorney’s Office may identify what they believe to be an historically incorrect interpretation of a code and that they believe that there should be a different interpretation of a code from what has been occurring then I think that we need to reco~onize that that needs to be brought forward as a policy consideration. That Staff would then say we think there is a problem, we need to have a clarification, we believe that the code should be interpreted differently from how it has been interpreted if we are to take a literal reading of the code today and if the Council or the policymakers mean that what we want is to continue with the historic interpretation of a code then the code needs to be rewritten to reflect the historic interpretation and the original intent. So when that occurs I think that that’s important that that be recognized that needs to be forwarded to the policy advisory and policymaking bodies and not just have a change in interpretation. So I think that is a constructive but sig-nificant issue that should be addressed in the future. So those are the three areas that I think the Commission could have input on. Chair Griffin: Karen. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I will be very brief. Effectiveness motivated I think is how I would characterize our retreats that we have had, the Planning Commission and Staff. I think that is one way were we can as a Commission talk out issues that we have so we can clarify confusions and also make requests of Staff and Staff of us where we can be more effective. Staff Reports, I think that is another place that we could address what we would like to see maybe improvements in Staff Reports and just have an across the table dialogue with Staff. To just put it out there, something that I have recommended or suggested actually at one or two retreats is that there be, again this speaks to effectiveness and a more quick process is that Planning Commissioners and perhaps other Board Members and Commissioners too be appointed 30 days at least prior to them taking their seat. That gives them an opportunity to brush up on things that they aren’t familiar with, get familiarized with some of the projects that are in the pipeline that they are going to be looking at, those sorts of things. I think that is going to make for a better process, a more efficient process and shorter meetings too. I know Michael and I have talked about how that was difficult to be appointed on a Monday and take a seat on Wednesday. So those are just some suggestions. Also I would like to give my kudos to Planning Staff and to the auditor, Sharon, for doing a lot of really productive enlightening work. Thank you. Chair Griffin: That takes us to the end of that item. Thank you Sharon for your input. I am pleased that we are going to be hearing some more back on these different subjects that we can effect next meeting you said. Our next item is Commission Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements. COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues here an experience Steve and I had just last Friday. We went on the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group sponsored they have these Whistle Stop Tours where you go with transit. We went on a BART land use tour and we went to Hayward, Oakland City Center and Downtown Berkeley. We got to see developments at those stations. It was really great to get out of our little insular Palo Alto community and see the kinds of issues that other cities are facing. For example in Downtown Oakland they are looking to attract high level housing downtown and we are looking to attract affordable housing. Every city has different perspectives. The other thing I would like to encourage Commissioners to go to is the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group has these luncheons, the Housing Leadership Council has these luncheons every so often and I think each of us got an invitation to one on November 19. This one focuses on the fiscal side of high-density housing development. It sounds like a really good topic. I am going to go so I would encourage others to go too. I don’t know anything more about it than anyone else. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Yes, we all of us do receive invitations and thank you for brinNng that to our attention. City of Palo Alto Page 50 1 Zariah has brought to my attention the fact that Sunrise Development has invited Commissioners 2 to a show and tell on Friday, November 7 at their facility in Belmont. She is asking how many 3 of us would be available for that trip. I will start at this end. Pat are you able to make that trip? 4 5 Commissioner Burt: I would like to get details on being able to meet at the site since my work is 6 near there. 7 8 Chair Griffin: Karen, would you be a possibility on Friday, November 7? I am presuming that 9 we would meet here at nine o’clock. Was that the general concept and be back by noon? 10 11 Ms. Zariah Betten, Secretary: The time is flexible. It is up to you. 12 13 Chair Griffin: Did he say how long it would take? 14 15 Ms. Betten: He didn’t. 16 17 Chair Griffin: Well anyway one presumes three hours should be plenty. Karen? 18 19 Commissioner Holman: I did not see this until this evening of course I would have to consult my 20 calendar. 21 22 Chair Griffin: I understand. Annette? 23 24 Commissioner Bialson: I am in conflict on that project so I won’t be attending. 25 26 Chair Griffin: Bonnie. 27 28 Commissioner Packer: I could be available if it happens. 29 30 Vice-Chair Cassel: I doubt that I can go. I am free several mornings that week which is rare but 31 that is not one of them. 32 33 Chair Griffin: I would be able to make it but it looks like we will have a thin attendance from 34 what I am hearing up here. 35 36 Any other comments? If not, I am going to move to the Approval of Minutes. 37 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Regular Meeting of September 24, Special Meeting of October 1, 39 and the Regular Meeting of October 8, 2003. 40 41 Chair Griffin: I would take a motion for the approval of all three meetings simultaneously unless 42 Commissioners have corrections they want to make. 43 44 Commissioner Bialson: I am going to abstain from the minutes of October 8 since I was not in 45 attendance. 46 47 Chair Griffin: Any other comments? May I have a motion to accept? 48 City of Palo Alto Page 51 1 MOTION 2 3 Commissioner Packer: I’ll so move. 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Vice-Chair Cassel: Second. 8 9 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Betlomo absent) 10 11 Chair Griffin: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor of accepting the minutes say aye. 12 (ayes) Opposed? No, with the exception of Commissioner Bellomo who is absent. 13 14 Our next meeting is on November 12 and with that I adjourn this meeting of the Planning and 15 Transportation Commission. 16 17 NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of November 12, 2003. 18 19 ADJOURNED: 10:55 PM 20 21 City of Palo Alto Page 52