HomeMy WebLinkAbout0162.091..
february 28. 1991
HONORABLE CITI COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Members of the Council:
R~j)_.9rJ; ___ jn Brief
\..--
Thi$ report summarlzes the findings and recommendations, submitted by t~e firm
of Hughes, He; ss and Associates, regarding qual j t)' of ser .... ice and potent; ill
areas of ;mpro~~ng the Planning Division's service in processing development
anI':! desiqn re~ie'lif appl;;ca.Uofls. Chal"l<]e-s. to the de'wi'Cloprnent r:mnitorin~
app1icatioll review proceH. initiated or planned by staffl are identified. As
of this time~ no (ounc~l action is required or recommended.
The firm of Hughes. H~iss and Associates was engaged by the Planning
Dep~rtment in 1990 to analyze and make cecommendations on the effectiveness
witk which the Plannin9 Division processed development and d~sign re~iew plans
and appli~ations. The study was initiated after individ~als in the c~~unity
~oi(ed concern about the manner in whic~ applications were handled and
processed by the City's Planning Division.
The Study-consisted of severa1 elements including I) dfstribution of a
questi{)nn,dre to 370 individuals who applfed for permits issued by the
Phnning Division; 2) fono'W-up phone suneys to a limHed number {If
respondents regardirlg sU9gestion5 on imJlroving Plannir:g Division services; 3)
an analysis of responses contained in the 119 returned questionna1r~s and to
the follow-up phone surveys; a~d 4) suggestions for imprc~ing Planning
Di~ision service for pr~ject applicants.
Distribution of survey questionnaires generally reflected the proportion of
applications proc~ssed by the Planning Divislon 9 including design review
(;.e.~ the Architectur~l Review Soard pro~ess). which currentlj a~co~nts for
approximately 60 percent of all Planning applications, and use permlts. which
account for approximately 12 percent of Planning applications. Questionnaires
.. ere dso s.e:nt to variance. home imprQveme~\t p.xce)),tion and other discreticnarj
review applicants. lach of these types of applications respectivel, ar.count
for less than 10 percent of applications proc€ssed by the Planning Division .
. -
•
----,-
~pprox~m~te1, half cf the res?ondent~ w~re either prQfessional consu\t~nts,
contract(!r5 or de .... eTopers. while almost half of the remaining respondents ltIere
rE'sidents Dr homeowners. However, ~Qme of the respondents counted the~s:ehres
i~ sewer~l categories cf possible respondents, e.g., contractor and
resident/homen..,ners.
Principal F jndttl9.~
lhe consultant grouped findings into the fo11ow1ng categorjes: l} quality of
staff assistan~e. 2j application turnaround time; 3) falrne~s of stoff
interpretation of the reg~lat;~ns; 4) comparison ~;th other ~it~es on quality
cf rev lew process; and 5) ac(uracy and thoroughness of regulation
interpretition and applfcation.
The consultant, in bis cover letter, noted that ~the responses received to the
que~tionnaire are not unlike those r€ce:ved by the cor.su1tin9 team in other
cities. In fact, the responses recei~ed in P~la Alto--in a nu~ber of
instances--were more positi~e_" A comparisor. of Palo Alto to two other citle<;
is included on ,pages 17 to 19 iind 22 to 25 Df He repo,.-t.
The Planning Division staff received overall positive response$ on the quality
of st~ff ~ssista~ce (pages ~ to 6 of attached report), on t~e fairn~ss of
~taff interpretation of regulatiorls in re"ie ... i~g applications (pages 8 to g af
attached report) and on the accuracy and thoroughnes! of regulation
interpretation (page$ 11 to 13 of attached report). On the other hanJ,
responses (in applitat10n turnaround time questions showed that many
rsspoP1dents felt appl tcation turnaround time should be impro'oled. 1n a1diticn.
respondents who had processed ~ppl1cat1ons in other C~ti2S in recent YEars
were about evenly d·i'Wided regarding -whether Palo .B.Ito's PTanning revie~ and
app]iCiitlon process is more or less cumbersome than l'lan,ling revjew process "frl
otfler cities.
four qlJe~'stions were asked in the: survey tomparing P",lc Alta's application
re~iew prDcess w;t~ that of other cities. These questions focused on
lJ 1esign r€view; 2) z~ning regUlations; 3) loning administrator pro(ess; and
4} fiir~~ss and effectivene~s of ~taff .
... majority cf those individua.ls who respv!1ded to these fOU1-que-stiens felt
Palo Alto's de:;ign review process and Pa10 Alto's loning regulations were
indeed mor-e blJrdensome than the design review and loning regl11ations of r.earby
efties. Rougoly an equal number of respondents beJifved Palo Alto's zoning
administrator pracess .as more cumbersome or not more cumber~offie than tNis
process i~ Dther citie5. A majority of respondents said Palo Alto's Planning
staff were as fiir and practicil in applying the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan as found in other cities.
It has bee~ emphasiz~d by the consultant in conversations with staff, and it
;s important to note in this report. that the Pianning Division staff is
admini stering policies and regulations that can, and often do, run counte.,. to
individual goais regarding use or deSign of pers~nal property_ Palo Alto's
regllliltions are more restrictiVe in many areas than the d€velopment
CItR:16l:9!
p:\cmT\studyres
2128/91
Pag€ 2
-,
•
,
•
regulations of nei9h~ring cities. Further, the combination of tighter
restrictions on developmfnt, adopted especially slnce the mid-198Cs, and ~ign
l~nd ~alues have resulted 1n a far ~fgher percentage of projects seeking to
ma:::cimi/(· II parcel's development potential than 'Was tne case 10 Gr IS yean
~~o_ A~ a 'estllt, confticts can and do arise between an applicant's
obje(tive~ dnd City regulations; and th2se conflicts may not be resolved to
the satisfilction of an app1ical1t. Thus. it is unreas{lnable to expect Hlat all
appl icants wnl e'.ler be fully satisfied with the administratir.ln of developrr.er,t
rcgulat !OT'l<;".
~_\,J~g~_~t&t.L~ct i on~_
lhe sur~ey asked respondents to jdentify desired ~hanges in the Planning
Oiwision's serviCES. As a supplement to general suggestions submitted by
survey respondents, the ccnsulta~t conducted phone intervie~s with a limited
number ~f these respondents w~o raised Questions on spec1fic areas where the
PTanning Oivl$ion could improl.'e its services. These responses lIIel"e
categorized in four al'eas:
L Improve cOJIl'rlunici!tion with applicants;
2. Modify t~e pre-application meeting;
3. Improve turnaround t irne; and
4_ Modify tn~ Architectural Des1gn Review process.
fn addressing these responses, the cons~ltant suggested the following
strdtegie~ to improvE customer service in the Planning Oivision:
1. Establish ChECklists for counter persons to determine completeness
of applications,
2. Schedule iii publ ic hearing/review date at time of sutruitla1 if an
application is complete;
3. Provide an applicdnt wjth a copy of sc~edule for prGce§si~g
application frore time of submtttal through Zani'l9 Admirdstrator,
ARB, and City Council;
of. Consider a counter \o'CR video tape on submitta1 requiremi:r.ts in
lieu of pre-suhmittal meeting;
5. Modify application booklets by expanding use of graphics and
stating estimat~d processing time;
6. Improve accessibility of staff via the phone, possibly intludir,g
use of voice mai1;
7. 'Estabiish goals for processing time (If various applitations; and
CHl1:16Z:91
p: \cIl'tT\studyres
2/28/91
Page 3
•
. ""
B. Delegati! lI'!ori! authorHy from the ARB to staff to approlle or
disapprove deslgn revie~ applications.
Act jons Tmplemente<l by the Planning OhhiQJ!
The fol1~ing measures were implemented by t~e Planning Oi~is10~ in response
to some of the publlc's concerns that led to this study but, except far the
p~blic counter and express stop, were not i~ ~ffect fer the applicat10ns that
were isked about in the consultants' q'Je3t~onflahe and ;lItenr iews:
C~nstructing a public counter where both applicant and staff can
sit down to revjew plans;
Reassigning sing1,;-famli1' zoning plan the-cit from Building Division
t~ Planning to assure consistency in zoning interpretation;
U5ing pre-application meetings f~r applIcants of use perm]ts 1
vlrfanc!s and minor subdivisions;
Assigning a ·case manager-for applications to pro~ide a spec1fic
staff contact for appljcantsj
Having staff r!~iew some minor design revjew plans, e.g.) doors
and windows and rooftop equipment, rather tnan the ARB, to reduce
tUrAaround time; and
Creating an ·e~press stop· in which Building rfis~ection~ Planning,
public Works and Fire process and approve minor applications or,
the same day IS submittal.
[n addition, t~e Planning ~iyfsior. more recentlY lmp1emented severGr
additional meisures suggeste~ in the studJ in order to further improve
service, intluding:
2. Providing checklists of submittal feGuirements to determtne
completeness of applications (Attachment 2); and
2. Pro'1iding, for use by applicants, lists of goals and sch~dules Of)
review and action dates fer all types of applications processed by
the Pla.olog Di.i,ion (Attachment 3).
It should also be noted that, in 1990, the Plinning Division desi~nated a
Planner responsible for o.erseefng cu'!;t(lmel'" servire, lncl uding pr\lviding bo\cK
l.IP issistanee for the Planning Technician. .. ho normally staffs the .ol.:bl ic
counter~ This Planroer also serves as a bilek-up to answer QlOestions pertaining
to varfo~s types of Planning applications.
CMR:161:91
p:\cOIr\,tudyres 1/18/9!
P'ge 4
· .
Strategi!s .To be Considered
VCR Yiill
Stiff intend. to consider using VCR ,ideo tape to supplement counter
assistance during the next yaar. Ho additional CounCil direction is
needed in pursu1ng thfs melsure at this time,
Vojce Mail
The use of a limited form of v~icemail tnat allows people to leave!
message after ialtial conversatfo~ with a rfceptionfst can ~~ of benefit
to applicants. The co~n1cation proble~ is not only that staff are
difficult to reac~. but tnat the public we serve are equally busy and
unavailable. Currently stiff ~as made effective use of woice mail to
those applicants who have such eqUipment. We notice that our abiliti t~
communicate .;t~ applicants who hawe t~is capability is superior to
those ~hQ do not~ and would compare tn~ ad~antage to that of an
applicant having a FAX rnac~ine Dr the [-Hail system used internal I, by
the City for interdepartmental communfC3tion. Howe~~r, si~ce the
Planning Division does not have 1/o-ice .ill i!'l operation, the benefit 1S
not reciprocal. As a resu1t. ~hen staff or applicants are ~nable to
anSW2r tne phone~ the unfortunate cycles of ·phone tag-begln~ and the
applicant's issues that could be resolved on the t!lephon~ in a
relativel] expedjtious manner ire often nat resolved for d~ys.
Tne use of voice mail wa~ also recommended in 1989 by the Planning
Commission Subcommittee for Public Information. At that time. the
Subcommittee suggested the 'la~ning OivlsiQn consider the wse of voice
.ail i~ order to improve quality of service in providj~g information to
the public.
It is very important to eBphasize that staff .oyld not reoommEnd that
the direct answer of any calls be handled by maohine, but only that the
person answerlng the telephone be ab1e to g;~e the caller the option of
leaving a detailed ~ssage for th~ responsib1e planner if tne planner is
not inmediately available. Planning sUff will pursue consideration of
the cost and potentia' effectiveness of this form of voic~ mail pr:or to
preparition of the 1992·93 bYdget.
Cesiqrl Review
Plan~ing staff concurs ~th the consultant suggestion to delegate to
staff substantially more authorfty to review minor app1icatfons and
s~ift the focus of Architectural Re,i .. Bo.rd (ARB) design re.ie~ to
.ajar project.. Staff ha. shored the applicants and the ARB's
frustration regarding t~e oVfrlapptng layers of re(~ndation ind
revlew which ire jnher~i'1t in the design re'ffew process for rlearl, all
.xterior modifications. Staff works closely ~ith the ARB and is present
at all ARB .. etlngs. Staff ilso i •• ell-versed io the standards and
precedents the ARB folloos i, •• king decl.lons. Th.re are members of
CMR:162:91
p:\cer\studyres
2/28/91
Page 5
-.
staff who have triining in land5ca~e arcn;tccture and archit~cture, and
these qual iflcations would be required of any future staff members for
the ARB liaison functfon. Oftentimes~ the staff arid ARB fundi:.m for
minor projeds is redundant. Staff coul,j bett€r serve t~e ARB and the
3pplicant b~ approving these m!nor projects during its sched~led office
hours. thus avoiding a four-to six-week delay. The APB can be b~tter
utilized if its time and effort were directed prl~arily to major
~rojects, and those minor projects referred bi ~taff, Te~ving time fer
special studies and deiign guidelines.
Staff intends, 'iIIorking 'll'ith the ARB. to dev-elop for Cou:l~il r-€'Viel.'
witn i fl the next four montt15 a ~er i e 5 of amendment s to t he de 5 i gn r€ll i ew
ordinance to implement the consulta~t's reco~ndations.
Summart and (QnclU5fQ~
During th! past year, the Plan~ir.Q Division has placed a very high priority on
providing outstanding service to the public requesting some type of plannili9
projett appro~al. In addition~ the Planning Di.isian has initiated ~teps to
f~rther il!llprove its leo-vel of service to the public, induding the
.forementianed use of a checklist at the time of application submittal to
det'E!~jne completeness and the establishment of re,:dew aild time schedules fer
the ¥ariou5 types of planning revjew. Thus, an applicant nnw ca~ determire
key rEview and action dates at the time cf application submittal.
Ih~e areas of potential improvement of Planning Dill'i:s.~on service remain far
conSideration. including use of VCR widea at ttie c.ounter, imple-mentation of
voice ~a11. and deferral from ARB to staff fQr re~iew and actio~ O~ a
significantly grl?ater number af design re'olie .. plans and applicatior.s.
The benefits a~d risks of voice mail were di~cus$ed in p~evious paragraphs.
HOWEver, the underlying benefit of the Planning Division of tne limited voice
'DIiilil concept in t~at it would pel1llit iippl ic.ants to TeaY'e message-s stating
issues, problems or concerns of i proposal and al1Gw staff to address tnose
issaJs before returning an applicant's call. Under tne present pho~~ sY$tem,
staff and applicants frequently become bogged dawn in an unnecessary game of
"'telephone hog.-wheri!bjl telephone calls are retuned il1 continuing cycles and
nothing is accomplished regarding r~sDlution of project issues. Staff will
investigate the provision of ~oice mail equipment in the 1992~93 Planni~g
budget.
The concerns voiced by survey respondents o~er length of time required for
design review are in many situatiOTl5 indeed legitimate. ft is not reason.;bl€
that ~;gn and minor projects, e.g., ~inor facade cnanges, take between four
and si~ weeks for ARB approvll~ Thes~ problems eouid be rectified if staff
were given greater re~iew authority. If staff could review and act on such
plans, ;sany cDuld be a-cted on within the same day the plans were submitted.
Unless directed otner.;se by the Council, staff ~ill initiate appropriate
a.endments tc the Architectural Review Ordinance expanding staff authority in
rey~ewing and acting on plans for signs and ather types of minor approva1s.
CHR:162:91
p:\cmr\studyres
1/28/9l
Page 6
•
. ,
including .ino~ c~'nges to approved projtcts, minor facad~ remod~l$ and
building additions.
I. conclusion, staff bel;eves th~t many cor.(erns riised by members of th€
pub'lc over Planing Division service in working with applicants have been
addressed. ~reover, a few outstanding areas will be addressed in the neir
future.
~.spectfulIT submitted,
~,~
GEORGE ~[l:~.r.. .. '/1ttJwl;l.' _i'~
i,tant Plan' Official
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community En~lronsent
Attachaent: (1) Hughes, Heiss & Associates AnalyslS of Feedback
Received FrOG Applicants for Peroits
12l Application Checkll,t
(3) Application Schedule,
cc: Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Historical Review Board
Chamber of Coomerce
Board of Realtor,
Stanford University
All Neighborhood Organizations
CMR;162;91
F: \<mr\studyres
2/28/91
Page 1
. " '/
..
AnalYStS Of Faedback Rece!ved
From ApplIcants for Permits
IS5ue¢ By Th9 Pj~nning DI~rsion
CITY Of PIILO IlL TO.
CIl.IFORNIA
SubmiTted by:
A TT AC!i!1ENT 1
Hughes, Hetss A Associates
67~ Mertnars Island ~Ieverd
Suite 108
Son Mo~. CA 94404
•
II=--Hughes, "-I .. & Assoclat ..
~"'NAGEME"'f CONSULTA~'i"S
615 MaN'IelS ~~ 8lv1::l :'SU.Io'J m~
S;'l:'; Mat!=O, Cal.~or:".la lOI':oS04
t;15iS7!Hi111
3S S ~aymand Ave ISwre 22" ..
Pasader.3, C .. Morl1"'" S'l(,,:-
8:.I3~J,.l·Tt·1
December 1. 1990
Mr. Ken Schr~ibBr
Director of Planning er.d Community Eny[ronment
City of Pale Alto
250 Hsmllton Avenue
Palo AJto~ CA 94301
Dear-~. SChrelbe,.:
We h~e completed anarysis of 8 conftden~f81 questionnaire dlstrfbuted
to appl icants tor permiTs issued by the PlannTng Division regarding their
5atis.t~tron with the servlces provided by the Dlvlsion. The report .. hid'!
follows contains our fIndlngs. conclu5ions~ ~nd recommendations. this letter
prOYides a brief summary of tt.B ~Tghl ights of the rapor;.
Chap1"er-p.r<wides or, 8n81ysls of ~e Q'les-tlonnalre. This
QU8'Stiormalre was designed to assess the satlsf;K:tion of applicants wIth
services provided by "the PIl!lnnlng Division such ;,5 turnaround time for
process i n9 app I Ieat ions, the fa I rness and pract i cal: t'{ of staff. .."'ether
staff had ~ posltf ..... e. hefpful art-i"fuds, e"fc~ Thl! questionnaire was mall.e:d to
}7C individuals w~ had epplled for pennlts Issued by the Planning D!vislon.
This sample Size represents ttlree-qullIrtors of the l"Iumbe,. of :!p.pl tca-tions
received by the Planning Dl..,!sion annually. A. response rate of 32J: was
receIved; 119 qlJ8stioona!r8s ware returned. The resl>OnoSEIS Indicated
s;,t:sfact~on with staff and servlces provided b,. the Plan!'1ing DivIsion i<1 a
numbor of areas Incl~dlng:
The "'el pfui ness of cou:,.ter stefL
The courteousness of statt when rel{/ewing Dermlt appl ications
and pJans.
The usefurness of application ha~d-outs in ter'""l:'ls of explainlng
submitTal requirements.
The f~irness of steff I~ deal Tng wjth appl ications~
The know:e4ge of statf and fa. mlst~kes. made fn ccnQ'uctlng a:
rev t'ilfl of .epp r I cat I 0fI'S an':i p I an~ ~
The tttorolighnes$ and clarity .of statf I~ expl~I"ing wt1at tl'1e
appllcent ~es to do tn corr-ec"trn,; proto:ems fou~d .. Ith their
eppllClltlon.
HoItever" responses also tndleeted a number of opporTunities tor rmp,ovemellt
ineluarng the tollowrng:
Dea! Tng 'With iSlJPi rcants tn a posltive "hersts ,.~at needs: to be
don3 to ge-t the appl Tcation approved-approach.
Tne accesslbilTty of staff to appl Ican~s .her. assistance is needed
lq resolvrng problems with th~,r appl icaTjo~.
The 'tUt~narOlJnd Trme for revlew and analysis of appl iC<'JTlons.
The 8mO(,mt of time applTcan"ts had to .ralt to fin-j OIJt 1f their
appi I cat-! on had been accepted as complete or to flnd out aDoLl·!
needed ch a"ges TO ach' eve is comp I ete su bm l tts I •
The responses received to the quesTlonnaire are not un: rke thcs~ rgceived by
the consulting tsar. III other crtles. in fact .. the responses received in P;e;!"
''.Ito -in 8 nl.Qber of instances -were me>r8 positive. Further. an ar.alysi<:;
of tur-narQUnd "til!rlEt by the cOl'Isufting ta"", found the mMia:l time r~uire,: Ii.
Palo Alto to proce:;:s use p~nnlts and 'tariar-cas compardbla tc other cities,
However, the medIan maher of cafendar days recpJired to process arct1lt~ct" (:'
design revtetf' 8;lpllcatTons is longer .. reflecTing the limited autl'l'X"it) ";
staff in reviewtng and ap!)roving/disapproving this type of appl it· ... ;,
(without" takIng the appl rcatlon to the Architectural RevieY Board)..
Oiapter II present"s ~ n"",,l,bar of alternC!ltive-s "thQ Plat1ning DiviSt l >;
wlsll to consider II'! improving the 5ervfce pro'dded -to app! icants •
it has
asslgnment.
CI tv CouncT I.
Gary Goo I j tz
Associ ate
• • • •
bee:"! !' pleasure to serve tbe City of PalD AJto i!'" this
I look for .. ard to the opportun[ty to present the report-to th~
Sincerely yours.
, ~ ~,SS & ASSCC~S
San Ma"teo
-2-
I. -. YS I S I:F FEEIIIACII RECEIYED fIIOM
N'PLICNIIS fOR PERIl I TS I $SUED BY
1!E I'lNliIHG DIY 151011
I.
This Chapter presents !In anl!lfysls of fMdbeck received from 4ppt Ic.&nts
for permits Issued by the PI_"nrng Dtvislon r8g~rdlng the adequacy cf
servIces provlde<l by the Orvt,lorl. Th r 5 feedbeck or-I 9 I nates from a
etc •• w~o heve ~pplled for permits Issued by the Planning OlvtsTon wlthIn The
last tRW years. Th!s chapter [nclu~es the following:
The workload faced by the Planning Division oYer the lest several
1981"'5 InC[udlng use perm t ts .. vl!lrlenC*s. eJor and minor-sub
~tyls'ons .. architectural desl~n r~lewp etc.
The responses to e cont f dantT al quest r oone t re adm r" I s'tered -to
applicanTs for permIts T!'sued by tna PI ennIng Division regard
[ng 11'le adequacy.. respons TVBnass. and CtJstO'i!er-OI"'" I entalt I on of
servIces provided by Division.
The act!iilll elapsed Ttme req l.l T red by the Dl ~ is i on to prOQ:;lS~
.eppllc:!tfor.s tor I!l semple of use permits. v~rl ences. &nd
&rchltectu,.-al od"e."i!gn revr8'l Issued by the Dlvlslon ovar the I~st ""'0 ya.ars.
A coap~rison of th& responses To
eonfTdentl~l questronnalre to
cons~lt[ng team i~ other c!tles.
Palo Alto by appl TC8nts to the
p.atterns experTenced by the
The chapter' opens with a p,·esentatlon 0# the ... ork:l~d faced by the PI anillng
DjYrSI~ over the I&st several years.
I •
The tii!lbl. on 1tte fOllow1n9 page presents the .eoc--tual ",of'k~oad
experienced by the flaMing Dlvlslon for 1983-1989 and ]989-1990 ~nd the
proJectod work. I oad tOl'" 1990-1991 •.
•
..
WOr'klo~d ExperIenced by the Planning Oivislor,
Number i)f Appi rc~tJon5
Type of "'P211cettof'l
Comprehensive PI&n Amend-
ments
Rezone
Use Permit
VarTemce
Home Irnprov~enT
Exception
Major Subdly!sl~
Minor 5ubdivf~f~
Architecturel Design
RevIew
~
2
24
63
49
0
3
7
301
61 fl seal Year
19S9-~ 1990-91 (Est. )
0 2
25 25
62 60
30 45
2tI 45
0 5
4 10
299 300
As the table IndIcates:. the numt>er of appll<U.!!t!ons for arc"litecturai design
rev 1 ew far exceeds other tv pes of a p piT cat I 00 5 .. The Divisio~ receives 300
<!Ippl Teet-Ions i!I yeer'" for ard'i {teetu,al desfgn rev iew .. USB permits are the
second most numerous type of appl iC<!Itlon. but ~unt to onl~ 60 appllcations
a year .. The significant vo!ume of Jforkioa<f presented by the architecTUral
design review I!!Ippll~tlons 1s ~150 reflected in the ~! locatioo ot sti!!tf Tn
the Current Plennlng Dlvlsion: 40~ of the r~' i-'time s'taff are asslgnGd to.
analysis and preplIIratlon o-f steff reoor-ts for thTs -type of appl fcatTon.
I.
CHarall, ;eli 'total of 119 responses were-received to a confiden'tial
questionnaire milled to 370 Tndlvidu!lls who a~pi ied for pel-mits [ssued by the
PI anni ng Division. This is a response rate of 32':. This Is a "normal·
response rate. The Gues'tlonn~lre was malle~ to e S~Die ot individuals who
had applied for variances ,66 Inq.rvTduars). parcel maps (6 indllfidu1!!ls). use
permits (14 indlvldu8Is). an4 cu"chitecturaI desigr\ review (.~OO indi.,ldua~s)
jP'l 1988-15189. heme Improvement exceptions '11 rndilfldualsl in 1986-1989. and
a9?ltca~ts for sT"gle-f~ity dwel tlng building permits t73 individuals) since
S9ptember 1989.
-2-
•
A brief protlle of tha respondents to the quesTronnerra prOVlde$
Yhe following prof~ra:
13~ ware re6~ est~t. developers.
43~ were resTdents/hOl!t8Oltnel":i .... lthTn: the crty of Palo AltO'.
32$ wera professlonals!consulta.,ts (I.e •• architect .. engIneer.
etc.) •
18S were carrnerc:ial/rndustrra! ten!lnts wltl'!in the Cr1"y" of Pale
.ltj to.
3~ were real estate brokers/agenTs.
2$ were sign companTes.
lOS were resl~entlal ramodelers.
8S were other types of appl rcants.
White ail the r9spofldents submitted
Planning DivisIon .. 71' hed' an occasion
witl'lln the lest year and 55S withIn the
lin eppl fcetloo to 1118
to sutwnit an I!IpplrC~iio,
last +Wo to five years.
451 of the respondents had occo!I5Ton to submit an appllcatlofl '~O
PI~~n!ng DIvisions jill CClmIuni"tiEts otner rl'!an Palo ,o\Jto wl·Hllt
the last year. and 40S within t~e I~s~ tvo to five ye~rs.
27S of the respondents rated themserves very I(now I &dgeabl e
reg~rdrng the City of Pelo Alto's Pianning Otvision services and
regul.nfons. whIle 371 consider&(! themselves knowledgeable, 25'
considered 111emsei\lBS SClMnfhat knowl edgeab I e. 9:5 indicated they
fl,ad I itt!'!! f5"11Ifarity. el'ld 2'J !ndicate~ the",· had: no fan~ITarity.
161 indicated they hed o!Ippi Ted for o!I variance, i5':; for a ase
permit .. 26~ for -the I\rchltecturaI Review Board ... ~ for a pareell
subl$[vTsion RP, UJ for It home Improv8lnent/r6l1'tOdei e:<cep"'ilon.
11' tor a 5Tgn perllit. d for .& zone Chl!llnge, and 8~_ for oTiier
types ot appJ icatlons~
The percentages /!Ibove 00 not elways equal 100S since re.spondents in some
~uestlons Wcountad R themselves under ~~e 1han one categ~ (e.g •• contractor
and a res ident/hOll'!eOWner>, or 5O'It8 r1tcVd rd not respond to every question.
The analysiS of the NSpon.ses to the questionnaire were groopeCl by
t~eme. Each questIon is I fsted ul'1cSer e maJor theme and respo.,sas to thn.c;e
questrons are dTsptayed in two ways:
-3-
Actual drstrlbutlc~ of respondents O~ a one-to-tlve scale ussd to
J'.Jdge the degree cf lIgr-eement 0(1 each question.
A ..... elg!":ted average" respon'se whlc~ provTde'S a composlte of all
the responses to eaCh quest ron.
Ead-'! major topIC Is preceded by 111'1 Int.oowetlo" nur"tive which Identifies
CClnYnOn threelds snong responses lind p!np.oirrts the ~al rent-attitudes Indlcet6s
by respondent'S.
3.
Ov@f"I!ld I, most resp(lndants b& I j eved +!'Ia"t "they 'dare prO\/' r dQd courteous
asslstance from the staff of t!'"18 Planr.ing Division. Most tound the Mandouts
5Upp lIed by the Dlvl sroll to be fntorma"tive and usefu!. and the staff of
the P!anning Diyision accessible in resolvIng problems with the respol'l-
den'ts~ app! I Cel't ron. I,., add i"t i on .. most of the respondents indica-ted that-
thee Planning Oiyiston s"taff deal-t wlth them !n II posi"tive "~erels what-
needs 1"0 be: don-e to get "ttle !lppl Tce"t[ol'1 .,,,,,rovea" approach. Of p~rtic'Jlar
interest is the fallcwT~g:
76': of the respondents found counter sTaff of the Pl anning
Ot..,J510n to be helpful. On the other hand. 23~ did no"t fiM
coun~r s~Bff to be helpful.
55~ of the respondent-s perceived Planl'l1r'lG Di\(ision staff as
deal rng with them in a positive "here's what needs to be done to
get the lIppllcatlon approved" !!Ipproach. On ths ether ~and. 39S
perceil(ed the Plennl~g Of vision steff .,s deai[ng with thE!tn in a
negaTrve wyou clIn'-t do thetft approach.
77'S of The respondents 1 nd icated That" the staff of the Pl ann j ng
Division were courteol.'s whaM reviewIng 'their permit appl ications
and pi ans. On I y 11. of mEl respondents peicer..,e~ s"t;,tf as oot
being COUiteoVS.
51. of tne respondents lndlcat-ed the"t "the staff of the Planning
Oivlslon were easily !!Iccessib!e when assistance was needed in
.r-esolvTng problems with their ~ppl ieatron. On the other M8nd~
38. of "the respondents I :"1dtca"ted thaT 'the sn:ff __ ere :'lot east I 'f
~cesslble in resolving problems wttn their ~ppilcaTion.
-4-
-'--,
,. '". '
58S of the r9spOn~en~$ found the ~andouTs supplTed by the Planning
DlvlsIon et the counter to be usetul end Informative 1n explelo
Ing the r&<tllirements they I'Hld "to ,,"T. On t~e other hand" 20S
percerv&d The handouts as ~t beTng useful and Informative" and
L~ had no opTnl~ rsgardTng the h8ndouts.
'2$ of the respondents rndicat&d the pra-~pp!rcatron meeting wes
usaful fl':l providing the tnfOflTlatlon needed regardlr.g hOlW to pre
pl!lie e~d submrt an apprrcatlon to the Planning Division. Only
13' pere&fv8d tMe pre-epPI rCatlo~ ~tlng 8S not us~ful, and 35$
had n~ opInIon on tne uS8f~lness of the pre-app!Jcatlon meeting.
The sp&Cific responses to the questions are presented on the foi lowTng
pages.
l. "'hen submitting an
appl Tcatlon" l have
generally found the
Plann[~g counter steff
to be resPD"STve and
helpful.
Composite Ras~ns&
DIstrIbution of
R9spon5eS
2. In general" PI ann! ng
sTaff ~ave dealt with
me fn a posItive.
"here's whet needs to
be done to get ttle
appl I~Tlon ~pproYed~
approach. rather than
a negatlve -Vou can't
do that-apprOach.
Compos i t6 Respon sa
Dis1Trbut"To~ of
Respor.ses
9. Ptannlng staff were
courteous when r8'\t iaw
tng my appt 'cation and
1'1 ans.
~?Oslte Response
orstr-TblJtlon of
~s~nsas
Str~y -I 2
2.43
14 76
1 2
2.88
13 53
1 2
I I 2.23
22 j 69
-5-
No S1r<>ngly
DornlOll Drsaoree D
3 4 5
!
1
2 ;8 9
;) 4 5
6 n 18
3 4 5
I
14 I 4 9
I
12. The Planning staff .ere
~9sslble .~en t needed
!s5Is~anee In resotvJng
proo I ems 'II 1 ttl wry
elPP! Ico&t!on.
Conpos i te Respon SEll
01stribut)on <:'f
Re5p<Jnses
14. I found the handouts
suppl led by the Plan
nIng OIYf$l~ at the
~nter to ~ useful
and i "formative in
explaining the reqoire
me~Ts i had to meet.
ComposIte R~sponsa
Distribution of
Responses
17. fOOfld tbe preappl r'"'
cation ~trng useful
In providIng M the
rnformatt~ I needed
regardTng how to prep~~e
and submit an applTca
tion to the P~anning
Dh !sTon.
Composite Response
otstrlbut:on of
Responses
I
I
,
51".:!:., ""1"88
I 2
2.97
5 55
1 2
I
I
2.5,(5
12 56
I 2
2.58
11 50
No
barnlon DI.-[ ~;:0"9'Y ,...,.: ....
} I 4 5
12 29 16
3 4 5
I
,
I
26 I 17 6
3 C ,
I
I T
I 42 8 7
Overall. the Piant'ltng Oivt.slOfI recelved a high -approve'-rating b'Y
respondents to the previous six questions. The evar~ge -approval-r~Tlng to
these six questIons was 61J versus 8 "dtsapp~oval· ratt~g of 24~~
-6-
· .
I
4.
TUt"na,-ound tImes were ..,lew&4 wttl't 5O'MI concern by Mny respondents~ .More
.53' o! the respoflod9nts te\ t th~t turnaround time tor r9V few IIfld
anel~sT5 of their i!J:tpl tcat!~ by staft of the prallning Division
was not accep+5br6~ and that they had to welf e~ e~cesslve ~nt
of time to get the! .... ,pennl't !!Ippllc&tlol') appf'ov'9d Of'" to tlrll1 o'J1"
abotJt prool ems that f'M'dG'd to be corrected. On the otner t'lend.
3~ fown~ t~e turneround tIme accepteble.
43S of the respond.flts rndlC8ted they beJ leved they had to walt
an excessive aaaunt of 'tIme to find out from the PfennIng Oi~l
~Ton whether their i!lPPI Teat jon had been accepted as complete
or to find ou"t about needed changes to ach leve a compl ete sub
mrttaf. On Tr'l8 oth&r he"d, 42$ Indicated they did not t'li!Ye TO
wart an 8XC6ssive ~nt of tlm~.
Specfflc responses to these quas~Jons are presented below:
S1r..=:!y flo Strongly --Ilblnlon Dlsaaree Dlsaorae
4. The tIme taker, by Plan
ning st8ft tor revIew
and analysis of ~
I
1 2 3 4 5
eppl icaTlon .~s accept
aD18. t dIdn't heve to
wait an excessive amount
of timEt to get rrry
appl !cation approved or
find: out" abor.rt problems
that needEtd to be
corrected.
Composite Response
Distribution of
Responses
I
3.3:;
6 40 10 32 31
-7-
5. I didn't have to w~lt
~n excessive amount of
tTme to find out from
the Pt~nnrng D1Yision
whet11er rrrt appl !Q!tloi'l
hl!d been accepted es
complete ~ tG fInd
out the needed cha~ges
to. aCh T eve I!I c()ntp I ete
submi tt~1 •
Composite Response
OJ str I b1Jt r on of
Responses
Strongry -...
1
, I
-,~-
-2
42
No I ~~~:.! I (Ip-, • I on 01 saar .. , 4 5
3.3i
17 2( 27
Overall I., The PIl!nnlng Ofvfston hal! !: 41~ "approvel-rating for ths two
precedln9 question::;, ver-stJs a 48" "dls<!Ipproval· rat-Tng. This reflects t!le
percsTved need on tne part of tnese respondents ~o Jmprove the time! {ness wIth
wbi<::h appica-tfons are processed by the Plan-nin9 Division.
5_
~ny of those respondr'19 to tl\e qtJ9:!iittonnalre felt That the Planntng
DivlsTon w",s feir end prKtlcat in appl"flng Clty stan~ards and r-egul~-tToos
TO The an31ysis end review of their eppllcatfons. The fQi towing pOints are of
p.:trt J cu I 3r i nTareSt-:
5~ of the respondents belfeved -the Planning Dl'Jision staff was
pr~ct{cal in applying City standards .end regu1etions to the
~nalysrs and review of t~eir application. On The other ~~nd. 32'
be"1 ieved that the PI~nrTTng 01 .... is!on staff was not practfcel.
61:J of th9 responoonts believed thliit Pfannlng Dfvlsion steff
were faIr j~ deai Ing with theIr 3PPllcliit-lol'l. On the othEH"" hand.
3tS: believed that the PlannIng DlvisTon staff were not fair Tn
deal In9 with theTr appficatlon.
-6-
-::.:" . .,. ,
;/ ~'::>--"
:;..
SpecfflC re5~ses to thase q~estlons are pre5en~ed below~
6. Withl" the constraln1S 01
~h9 Compi~ensIY. Plan
and Zoning Ordfn~nce~ The
PlannIng staff wer~
practlcel r~ applyTng the
City standards 8"d regu
lations to The analysis
and revIew of rrry
appl Tcatlon.
Composite Res~nse
D~strlbutlon of
Responses
7a Planning staff were
Bfalr· tn deal fng wi~
my application.
ComPOSite Response
DistrlbutTon of
Responses I
S~y
I
8
t
14 I
No
lI<ree bot.ron D' ....... -
2 3 •
2.88
54 18 20
2 3 C
I
2.12
58 j 9 21
!~r~!!
~
18
5
16
Overall. the Phmntng Dlvl.sfon re<::e{vs<l a 57" "approval-ratrng by
respondents to ~e two precedTng qU8sTlons versus a 32$ ~dTsapp.ov~l· rating.
6.
The survey lnstrusnent included four questions which asked: the
rl!spor.dents to c:ompare the <::urrent planning process utll iZl'3d by the CIt)-of
Palo Alto to surrounding cltles. The rasponS$S are spilt rBlarlvely
-equally be'hreer'l thO'5e who be:r lave th& process 1 s more CUmberSOlTle ttll~n
surr~~ding cities and those who do not. More specIfically:
-9-
•
I
I
t
8.
13.
'r: -C /,~; ... -, -.-.
30~ Of The respondents dId not find ttia ZOi'il~g Ad!nl~lstrator
process more C1..IPnbersome than other sut"rolJrtdlng c:!tle-s. 01"1: the
other hand. 29$ did flild Tt moie c(J,.nbe"'~9. 4.1$ of the
respondents had no oplr.lon. refiactlng those respond~nTs who did
oot heve exp.erlence "ith this process Or" wiTh ot,"lef'" cltles~
~5$ of the ~espondants belleyad the Plann!ng Olvrsion w~s as f~ir
and j)1l!1(;tical In Its eppllcatlon of the Zon1ng Ordlnenc8 8n~
Canpr&henslll8 PI an 8S other nei ghborl ~g cl tte5~ Orl the other
ho/!n<.t~ 20~ of the respondents bel19\led the PI annl n9 DivIsIon wes
not as fair and practical as other rteigr.borlng cities. 45$ of
the res~denTs had no opfnfon.
26'1 of ttle respondents bet te\'~d that the zcmi"9 regul atlons of
the CIty did not pose requirements for approval ot therr
apptlcation _h!ch were any more burdensome than other surrounoing
cTties~ On the othl3r hand, 36'; 18rt t"he loning regulatIons drd
pose such requirements. 36$ of the respond~~ts had no opInion.
34$ of the respondents bel raved that the arct1it&ctural daslgn
r9Ylew process of the City posed requirerne01ts fer approv~1 of
thelr appl rc~tion which were more burdensome than other surround
ing cit"!,:ts. i9$ of the respondents d!d :Jet !:le/leve that the
Bo~rd process posed such requIrements. 47% ot the respondents
had no opiniorl. ref!ectil1g those respondents .,i'10 did not h~ye
experience with thls process ~ with ot~er cities.
The specIfic r83por.ses to these questions ar~ presen~ed below:
Tna Zoning AdmT~rstrator
process (.·f the Cf1y -dTd
not pose reqt.il rEDents for
apprw2Ii of I1't'f apPI Tca
tlcn which were anf more
cumber~ than other
s~rr~nding citIes.
Composite Response
DistribuTion o.f
Responses
The PlannTng staff were
jusT as f4!r and pr~
tical in thel r apPI ica
tion ot the ZonIng
Oratnanoe and Comprehen
sive Plen to my appllca
~ion and plans as other
Planning Departments in
neigh~;~S cities.
C~paslte Rasponsa
Olstribu-r-fon of
Responsas
4
9
-10-
32
2
2.88
32
nOon 01
J
}.16
48
53
4
20
12
SiToogIJ o
I 5
l4
5
15. The zoning regulations
ot the CIty dId not
pose requirements tor
a$'provifll of my a~p I rca
tlon whIch were more
burdensome then other
surro~ndlng cltres.
CompoSite Res~se
Distrl button of
Responses
15. The Architectural Rsview
Board process ot the C I -ry
<lTd not pose require
menTS foe"' approval of rat
appl tcatloo whIch were
any more bUrdensome than
other surr~JndTng cities.
Compost"te Response
S~Y ""'"-
I
I
3 30
I 2
. -' ..
No Strongly "",.,,,,, O~ ..
DI ____
I ~ 4 5
I
I
3.21
42 24 16
-.-
~ • S I
I I ,
I
I
3.2B
Dr s1Tl but I on of
ReSPOIl5aS
5 17 54 21 19 -.!
Over~lr .. the Planning OI'tlsTon !'tad" 28': "approvai-ri!lltlng to ttle
p1ecedlng four quesTions versus a >OJ "dIsapprove'-rating. The nature 01 the
rOSpofi5e IndTcates thet ~ relatively equaJ number of the respondents perceive
tne process used by Palo AI-to as being mer-e cumb~rsome thlm surrounding
cities as not. The hIgh proporTion of "no opinion-reflects respor,dents with
no experle",ce with one or more of these types of applications C1r w fthou-t
experience wTtt'! other cities.
1.
The majority of respondents !>Ell Jeved thet the s-taff of the PI Binning
DivIsion were 'knowledgeable and made tew mistakes rn conttuctlng a f"EWlew ot
thalf" epplleation and pi ans. Further,. .. hen ~f"ob!ems were foond by s-ta:ff of
-11-
•
the Planning O(vlslon, ~st respondents percetvsd staff as ~elng thorough in
exptalnlng whoet 1118 respondent ha-d to do to correct these problems. 0":
partlc~lar Intarest Is th3 f~1 towlng:
51~ of the respondents believed tna't r'evIew ~md analysIs of tr,eir
.application .by staff of the Pltmnlng 01..-1510n was complete and
accurate. On the other h~nd. 35" bel laved tt'!!lt the review and
analysTs was net compl6te and accurate.
5a~ of the respondents bel iev&d: ttUlt staff of the PI annl ng
0lwls;on were l<nowtedgeabfe and mllde f9tt mistakes I;, conduct
iog is review of their appl (cation and pi ens. On the other hand,
3'~ bel reved 5t~tt were ~t know!edge~bre and made mistakes.
58" of the respondenTs bel raved tha"t the staff of rna Pl anni n9
Dhlstof' were thoroogh. and clee:r-Tn aXPlainir.9 Wh3t the res
pondent h8d to do to correct prob I ems found dur i ng rev few of
thetr 8ppl ~catjor: 01" pi ans. an the other hand" 27~ ot the r8S
poo;:l,;rrts be l I eyed th at stat f were not ttl orou gh and e r e.e r I ~
explai"lng what h.ed to be done to correct thesa pr~l~s~
The 5p~~rftc response'S to these questions are presented below:
3~ Atter I SUbmlttB~ my
appl ication. review and
analysT s of my appt tea
tron by The Planning
s~aff was complete and
acc!.lrate~
Com~tte Response
DiSTrfbytro.'lof
Responses
10. PlannTng st6ft were know
Jedgeable and made few
mistakes I~ conducting a
review of my appl ica
tIon and pi ans.
Composite Response
Olstr ibut-lon of
Response'S
S~!!y
I
6
I
13
-12-
-2
2.91
54
I 2
2.73
I 55
Neither I ~I:r 01 ___
5 j 4
I
I
11 27
3 4
I ,
14 23
Strongly
Ol~
5
I
14
5
13
•
I
11. ~en p!annlng staff
found probtem~ during
r~iew of my eppllca
tlon and plans. tney
were tnCW"ough and
clear In 6xplarntng
what I had to do to
corntct those
problems.
Cc:lApos t te Response
Orstrlbutlon of
Responses
Strongly
kr_
1
1
.........
2
I
I
2.73
62
,
" .--::.J.~'~
~ltII ...
Agree
IIor or....,... .... QI.,.....-
3 ~
\1 20
Strongly
III ""'""ee
I 5
12
Overat!, the Planning Ohislon recaTved ~ 56' "approval-ra1'ing 'to
the previous three questrons versus a '" Ndlsdpprovaj· rating.
8.
5 u rv flY quest I on '18 aslc: ad res pondanTs: f1,rjh at th ree Changes wou r d you
make [n planning ser~ices if you were appointed by the CIty as tne Director of
Planning and Community EnviroOMentZ· Of the 119 respo~dents to the question-
naire. almosT three-quarters answered this qU9stirmo Concerns centered
around four themes, piuS other responses l'het did oot fit Clearly wit;'i.,
any of these four thtI'KIs.
III
Of aI' of the themes~ this category received tho grea~st number
of responses. witt! 3~ fndlcating this CIS an opportunity fo;
ImprovEnent. Ty'!) ica' response! in regards "to th is theme incl ude<l the
fol ~owing:
-13-
.'
I
"Prov I da t rrterpret-l ve adv T ca lIbout ::on I r'tg !!lind codes.: do !"lot Just
say It cenrt ~ ~one."
WReturn phone ca~ls mor~ promptly.-
-Increase sta:ff phone avellabtflty.·
l'lH~ve City steff 'Supply the pe:'"cel number lind zOI'ling for the
appl featlon.-
"Meva decTston-mekers be more ;accessible-and j)!"ompt In returning
ptlone cal I s~ •
-rncreas& hours of counter coverege.-
"Provide II!K)('"B room to 1'tIIf out Plans.·
The responses to thTs mama indicated eonr::arns regar<Hng statf
accesslbi I fty" the wal !ii!bllltv of staff., and opportunities to improve
the service orIentation of this steff.
(2) StreMllne The Planning Appllca~lcn Pr-oeess.
This th£11f.9 received the 5eCOf'ld most frBr1jJent resfX)(Ise. having been
ad~ressed by 29% of the r8spondi6rl"ts~ Typt~1 responses; tOt" this Theme
Incl~ded the tol (owing:
·EstabIJs~ Hnd stick to deadlines.-
·I~proye t~rnaround tTmes at peak workload perT¢ds by
contract-fng.-
·Staff hes r.o authority."
"Once an appl J c::a+1 on is scheduled tor the ArchitecTurel Revfew
soard. do not change: the 5d\edl.ll ill."
"Shorten the tiMe required' for Ar-chltectura! Revlew Soard
approval and plan checK.-
"Siftlpllty the Arch I tect.ura I Rev jew a~,.c1 process. 'II
nMirlor Architectural RevIew Boar~ Items stlOlJld only requfra staff
approval ••
-Allow staff approval of consent agenda ArchitecTural Review
Board 1 Te,n."
~AI!ow pl~~nrng STaff ~o 8ppr~e 5m81 I projects to reduce
tUrnarou"d tTme."
-14-
...... :.
""/'~. -: ~
These responses ref lected concern reg2lrd r ng the tUf'"arouod time
for processTng appl [ca1'!on5 as ... 1 t as tne reductlon In "tne nUft'lber of
requIrements that must be met. A significant proportlon of these
r~spon68nts expressed frustratIon with the 8rchTt~ural design review
process.
(3) Establish Clem-Standards For Rev!_ And AD""",o! Of
!\pD1 !ca~l0ft5 And Assure Staff -. To These Snndanb.
14S of ell responses addressed 'the theme of clear sT,emdBrds.
TypTca! responses ~ithTc thts theme rncfuded the fol lowing.
"'Co:x-dTnate comprehensive pren desires ... 111'1 zoning requlrements.-
"Provi<fe cle .... project crtteria."
"Make the requirements clear.-
.Froyr~ Inform8"tion on how The procass works.·
"Provide III u5~ratlons of good proJects. If
"Allow more creativity 8n~ flexlbtllty in $clo$8 calls l .-
"PrO'f']de clarity on. how to comply with zoning regulations while
accompllsnlng the proJect~·
These conwents reflected concerns regardi ng 1'+18 fairness and
practtcality of planning sTaff 11'11 Its applicaTion of 1't!e zoning
ordinance a~~ regulations.
(4) 1!IIp!31V!! c.-.nlcatlon Betw_ Staff And Appll",,,rts.
llS of all responses eddressed: the theme of improved camll,ml-
Typical responses as reg8rds thTs ttleme Included ffle
following:
"'PrOYTde more InformatTon 10 those seekfng perml'ts~·
"Provide ~e Information to ~9 usar ~t rhe process.~
-Provide more Inf~atlon for pre8PPtication mae't[ngs.
·A~d graphics to zoning Jnformatlon~·
"Prcv Ide better 1 nformatlon regarding del eys arid the statu5 of
ltP~ I r C8tl ons~ •
•
I.· •
/ ,r-.. -
• j ncr.ase I nfOl"'1l'Htt j on proy 1 d'od to deY. r opeI".5 regard r "9 prob I ems
with tne allpl leetlon earlier-I n the p,.ocess.·
The responses to thT, thama: typically IndIcated concerns
regard i ng how staff QlftII'Iun l-:ate with app II cants t n tlllnllS of handouts
.end brOChures. S'h!!Tus of epp-I rc:etions &1\d causes for delays .. and
CCIWIIunTeat"ll'Ig problems regarding I!I~P I ice'tlons to ttle i!!!Ii)tpl !CeJnt eer-j jar
in the process.
U I Otttor MI """ II enoou. 01 """"" Cbu I d 1.....,.,& Opent lOlls.
8. of all rasponMnts eddressed Itents that ~ld: not ·tlt" Tn
th.se DIIJor themes~ SlK:h r4sponses Included:
"Be fPJf8re of changes i!'l ttle OOI:'nunTty and chenge 1't!e
comprehensive plen ecoordlngl,.·
~.Encourage varIety and understllnd ral atronshTps wlth ot'b6t"
c:;ltles.1'
• ... dopt pol teres thiilt are eore favorable to op4IIn sP&Ce.·
• ... ~t pol T e [as that fsvOt" homeowners.·
·j~stltute a fee tor neighbors to flle grTBYances~·
It.ssen the financial end regulatory burden on buSt~S58S.·
The above responses I ncHeated ~ broad Yl!rr.ty ot concern5~
9.
The table on the tol f()llT~ pege presents Jtetlstlcel deta frOll! a semple
ot currenT 91annlt)9 I!Ippllc&tlons processed by the PlartnIng OfW'lsfon ''lI 1989
or 1990.. The 5aIJ) I a 5 Tze represenTs 20' of the DPP I r ca"tT ens typ l C811y f I i ad
In e f lseal Veer. focusIng on th' three most nuaef"OUS applIC3t~ons:
architectural design rWlew" UH p4Irnllt. and variance. The tebl. ldentif las
'th. low. Md I en. end the htgtl nllTlber of eel.~d&r' days required to pr-.oceS5
Those ~r" different types of appt 'cations.
-16-
Tfme R&q~lred To Process
Current Planning Appl r~atlon5
Type of Apollc:etlon
Arcnltectur.1 DHI9n Review
Use Pe""lt
'e:rT!ln~
Number-of
AppJ Icatl~s Incl~dad
In The Semple.
53
24
20
~ r endar Days
o
43
20
34
56
48
203
133
73
The medran ntaber of calender' days requTre:<l to process use permits and
variances sr. comparable 1"0 other cltls:;. How .... r. the medIan nwnl:ti:lr of
eel end!!!r deys rBqu,,.&<I to process arCh I Nctur-e I d&sT gn rev I ew app I r eat I OtIS T 5
longer than Mrty other citIes -b'l!Ised on the experience of the consultlng
team _ .. end rafle<:ts the extremely lImited 'authority of staff JI1 ravlawTng
and approvTngldlsapprovlp-g these appl tcetlons. C\.Irrantl y. a,s: of these
appll~T!ons ere revIewed: and: acted: upon by the Architectural Review Board ...
and only l5J reviewed and acted upon by statf. ThTs low pr~tlon of staff
nwl_ of apPllcatTons Is unusual &'1d J engthsns the e!OUnT of time required
to ~rOC&s5 applIcations.
10.
The conSUlting teem has 1Itllized thIs qlIestlonn81r-e In.rtr-tJ'IMnt--to
obtain feedback from applicants for penm1ts 199ued by p!ar.nlng servlC8s In a
number' of ot~er communltres rncltJdrng 'NOvato. EMryY'lJ t6,. MJllntaill fJaw,.
Dublin. Sloox City. I"" •• etc. The feedback p.ovided by applicants tor
58r\1ices provided by the PI51HtTng OJvr,lon In Palo Alto is!!2! I;lntlke these
other cltTa!. ,,. a nl.lnber of fnmnee" It 1s lI"IOf"e positive than tha'f
experIenced 1ft ttlase ottJer-OCInnu~[tl&s.
rec::ar • .ad tor ~ll5nn!ng Hrvlees ,provldedi by Palo Alto to two o'ther cItIes in
t"'e Bay Area Is prov I ded r" the BXh I b T t at the end of tn j 5 cnap"ter. Th 15
cc.per I son focuses on eleven questions cont8 T ned In the eont idaM i 81
que&tronnBI re ..
-11-
•
haportant points to note r~rdlng the dl!rta corttalned In: the exhlbrt
Bre presellTed below.
The 00III98r"I$On provided In t~le ftrst qU8STtOO focuses on _heftier
ttl_ rupoJ1dent bel r..,.d tbe counter steff ta. be responsive e.,d
~elpful. Pelo AJto experIenced I!I 76$ ·~pproval· rett~g for Its
~nter staff versus 51S for crty wAR BPd 67' for C!ty ~ ••
The c:arn$l8rlson prcw Idad I ~ the HeoRd q:uesttCH1 focuses on ... hether
the-respondent bell~ed the plannIng staff dealt with 1tIem In os
positl'''''. "here's what-needs to be done to get the appllcatfon
eppiOw'ed-appr'"oaeh or e negative "'you CI!II,lt do thert" eppr'Oech.
Palo Alto e.xperlellc.dl .!II ~~ "lJPPi"O'¥'a:· rating 'IlItrsus 38S for the
CI1y 0"," and 61l fo.-CIt)' "S"o
The th Ird questIon focuses on .hether the respondent perceTved
~I anr"!:ng staff ~s &CaIsslbl e to the respondent w~en assTstarK:8
was needed In rltsolvlng problems with their appl iC6tion~ Palo
Alto received a SIS "approval-ratTng versus 49J for City wA· ~nd
63' for CI1y "S°o
The fourth questIon focuses on. whether the respo",dent believed
"tTme tallen b1 planning STeff for review and analysis of their
a9pl leatlOl'l was acceptable -that the respondent dId not nave to
walt" en 9XC'5sslve .!IIIOUfrt of time to get the I r eppl !cetiOfl
approved or find oot .about-prob!$IftS~ Palo AlTo received-IS 3m
"approval-ra1'Tng versus: m tor City -... " end 46J for CI1'"t "8-.
The f tfth qU8stlo~ focuses on whether res.pondent bel laved ne or
she had 1'0 w!!lt an excessive iWOUnt" of tiM to f[nd out whether
the Planning OlvTSion had accepted their api>II<;aItlon a$ complete
or to find out about needed changes. Palo AlTO recerv&d a 43,
-approval-ratTng versus 32S for CIty -A-and 451 for City "8 w•
The 51 xtt; questlo,., focuses on whe'ft)er th iii respondent perce I ved
p! annrng staff !IS being telr end prac.tical In reviewing the
appilcetlon 5ubmlttad to the PlannIng DIvisIon by the respondent.
Para Alto ,BeeTv&<! a '3~ -epprovel· ratrn.g verSlJS 37S for City
WAR end 47~ for CITf ~ ••
The seventh qU9srion focuses en "nether the respondent bel ieved
the planning staff were fair 1" r.1eatlrlQ wlth theIr eppllcatfon.
Palo AJto receIved I!I 61J "~proval· raTing versus 461 f('}r City
·Ao and 62$ tor CI1y "!l"o
The eighth question focuses on whether rna respondent perceived
the :zooT ng regu latIons ~S more burden sane thlln ottI.,.. s~rround-
Ins .cIties. Pelo .o\ao recelved a 29'S -a'PPicr.,.a'· rating versus
21S for CIt)' ·Ao and )6, for City "S·o
-I B-
•
The ninth questIon focuses on whether the l"'espoOl,jent parcalved
t"e pfennIng staff III ~Ir;g es f-sTr end ~ractical In reviewing
the' r BP!) II eat I on &$ SUPTDVrlG r Fl9 cIt r 8S. Pel c> "I to r&ee Tv.ed e:
35. -2!p.pr-oval· rating \t4llrsus 31,. tOf"" City "A· and :saS for City
"B" •
The tsnth question foeuses on w"eTher the rsspOt'Iderrt porcelved
the review and analyslf of tnaT,.. apptlcetlon ~y plannTng staff es
compl.te and ~ur"ete. Pelo Aito r'!tC8Ived ~ 51 ~ '!I appr "",.'
rotl"9 •• rsus ~3$ for CI ty ,,,, ond 5aS for CIt-; "B'.
Th" eleventh qu.~·tJon focuse, on whe1'hei" thIS respondent perceh-e<I
the pfennIng s~ff IS being thorough end crear in explaJnlng what
the respondent had' to do to ccrrect-problems found wl1'h theIr
app! rcatlon. Palo Alto ,.eeel'l~ !II 59~ ·l!Ip~roval· n!l'trng versus
.3S tor CIt-; ,,,, on. 54S for CI ty "B'.
The responses reeeTved frO'l'l 1tIe eonfJd$ntlar questlonnaTre &dntTnlstet"e<I to
!!Ippl Jcant-s for p9:f""mI"ts Issued b-I fie PJar.ning (Jhtrsfon In Palo Ajto 0IIf seem
negative for some responses. Ho.ever .. tt-.ey arm not unl Tke responses rece!viltd
I FI other CCIM1'IunltTes~ Whl Ie Tmprovements C8n be Ml'je In ttle services
pl"'OVlded by the PlannIng DIvisTon 1"0 appl 'cants .. the res?Qnses rectliTved la
Palo .AJt"o r-eflect a ·nOf"ll\a!· sp&etrtn cf concerns by Cl:stOMf"S for pub! Ie.
serv!ce.
11.
The larg9st proportfon of res-pendenTs who responded to the
questronn~lre fncluO&d applicants for use permTts .. erchlt&ctural design
anelysis of ttle response pa-tterns to the questTonnaire tor these dlffereflt
types of appr tcertts found tnese petTerns did flot differ signtt!cafltly -by
and large -tor use pennlts .. YlJI"'lenoas .. nor archltecturel desIgn review. The
appt I cants for ha.a I llPiovement/ra.ode I exception penal"ts. on "the other hand.
,.-~ .
•
tlilnded to Mave a lower epprovel I"etlng and a higher dl$~ppt"'ov;el rating 'to
these qU9sttons~ ThYS may reflect the changes [n FAR requ,rements as weI I as
the public heerlng process r~uJre4 for t~e Iss~ence of these permIts by the
Zoning Adml"tstret~.
12.
As part of the effort to ellcrt speCific respon585 from appllcants fOt"
penRits isslted by the P!annTng Oll/Islan reg8rding tne revel of servTces
provided by ttle Division .. the consultIng tei!l!l COt14U'cTed a number-of phone
l~f.r-vIew:l with selected appl !can'ts. The t>urp058 of these Int"ervlENis was to
elicit from 1"1\8se applfcal'lts thalr perceptions rego!!r<!rng how ttHI Planning
Division could IfRPt"OV$ Jts servIces.. The O?porT!Jnlties Identified by itJ(·
selected applicants are as 10410.5:
Improve corraunicatlon with ~p~1 rcarrts.. These ~I ectad appllcClllI!:..
I nd r C4t9d that staff nee<f to return p~one eel r I 5 more pl""on1p'f:
In addttion, staff shour4 ~dYTse and <HSCUS5 with the lippi fc.:dfli
regard I ng their r~n:di1tIClns contaIned I r'! 'tn9 steff repor-t
pr!or to dlstrlbu"tron of the 5t~ff r&9Of"t-. St!!lff shool11 Intw-awi
wTt~ the apptlce~t5 Ta drscussing these recommendattO"5~
~rfy the pre-lI2plicatlon tteetlng.. The selected eppllcants
Indicated thet the p~e-appl icatloc meeting W~$ hGlpfu~ and always
n&C8nary. Suggested opper-tun r-ti as fot" tmprovetrrel"lt T ncl uded
developIng ~e ~andout descrrblng requirements for a
pre-ap~1 !c8Tion :MeTing (e~g •• type and neture 01 prans).. This
wQUld avoId last-.fnlJte surprises~ Also cited w.es the need for
wrltfs" feectbecK from !ltaff -perMlps in a checkl15t fonn -
.... egerdlng the lIkely condltlOlls of ap~rovo!ii for tt,e a,:Jpi ICl!l'tTon.
Turftaroun4 tIme. The 581 ected appl [caf'lts made a number of
posltrv8 commer.ts regardIng tur~around tr~. However. ~e of t~e
~pplre8nts 5uggBste~ he would be wl1 lIng to pey an ~dditlonal fee
to hasten anelysis of his appllcatloo to assure timefr!I'MIs can
be met. for-e)(anp.l e. tf't's cou I d I ncl ude the cost of OV09rt lme of
staff to Wfast track-t~e !ppi Icatlon~
Arch T teetur;e I Design RevIew. A number-of opportunTtles for
Tmprovemer.t I'ere reSentl t lad reger-ding the ar-Ch itectural desIgn
revfew process rncrudlrt9 delegatIon of more author-it) "to staff
for review of slflpler eppllcatlons., artd streant j1llrtQ of the
r'O'Wtfng P"'0C6.5S {routing of the p.l ans to otr.er dep~rtme""ts for
COINMl"lt}. These applicants 81'1':phasized the need to delegete marS!
.lIthor 1 ty to .t.ft.
-20-
.. ,-." .
•
..
,
Theso sppllC8nts made It number-of po:sltT-ve ccwment!5 reger-ding "the Pldnnfng
Olyl sTan such as the to-llOIfl r.9:
-Tn ~ I re not prone to take the f u I I th r rty day s (to. deTann r !"Ie
whether the appl fcatlort 15 CCI'Iirleta) urlless 1'l1;ey reaUy need ft.
They I roe pret"!y good -above I!!Iverag&~ II
"'Jivei'l theIr stafffng C1avels). "the r6sponse time Is good -they
are J~st und$rstatt.d.·
·Shff are not dTctatorial. They explatn th~ code and l!!II!"'e ope!)
ta. f f stM 1 ng to !lrgtllftents. They gYve you e f.6 T r shot. They
recognTze there are areas to compranise and are cpan to do so. tI
-'nfON'!etlon !n the h8ndout'S hav'!l Jmproved. lf~Bt-e they have ~.,
aTlalgamous, they are now more detZl!Jed.-
-(Steff are) open ;end accesslbl e for those (pre-!!ippl {cotron'
meetings. I\lw~s I!IYl!ltlable. NBY8r had TO. wait elOra tn~n!ll waek
to get a meetlng,-
"Upper staff (! n tn. PI "nrod ng 01 \I' f s I onl are very kno.! edgeabl Et.
lots of turnever In lower :>O:S:i'tlons. especl.fJ11., the last coople
of years.·
-The approach (of staff rs t~e) herpf~r $I~e. Gen~rally positive
compared ~o other oo.m~nltTes.·
Whi Ie the seleettKI appllcants Identl f red a r'llftber of opporttJrdtles tor
Tmprov8lflent, these eppf IC;!!Ints also Identified a number of po:5itlve features
regar-dfng the Planr.lnQ Of vision.
• • • • •
The next chapter presents a ntlnbsr of alternatives w~!ch cOlJfd be
exprored by the Planning OlvTs!on to lmprove the servIces it p~O\I'ldes to I+s
customers.
-21-
Strongly
Agree
1. When .aklng ~!'l
app! ieetloo for a
pe;a: t .. I have
gerlElrally found
cool"lter steff Tn
the PlennT ng
Dlv!sTon to be
responsive lind
hoi pful.
Palo Alto lZ%
~:~ ~ 21
19
2. I n genera t., p;.,o-
11 T ng staff h&Y'e
dtlal t .. 1 tt\ me in
~ posltfv9 -here's
whaT needs te be
do ... to get the
applTcetlon
epproved-approach .
rather-ti'll!!IIn a
~egert [ve "you
can't do thatll
approeCh.
Palo Alto 11$ g:ty A 12
:1';' 9 1 i
3. The Plonnlng steff
~er. aesl Iy accsss-
ible w~en J needed
ass1stance In resol~-
1 ng prob I BI'!'IS 'IF 1 th rrry
eppl TcatTo .....
.Palo Alto 4.
~:!! : 9
12
-22-
EXHIB!T (II
City of Polo Alto
CXlIf>AR I SOlI OF FEEOOIICK RECE I ~ ED
BY P .... O .... TO TO ornER CITIES
! I No Agree I Op[flTon Disegret
Strong I ~ !
pisagree I
64$ ~ 15$ 7$
36 27 9 7
48 17 !4 2
I
45$ 5$ 5~ 15$
26 16 16 32
50 12 12 U
J
.
47' lOS 25$ 14' I 40 21 14 16
51 15 11 5
•
•
EX>i1811 (2)
--
Strongly No StrOf1gi y
Agree l!lu:u .QQ.i..al.e.Il 01 sagree O!sagree
4. The tTmG taken by
Planning steff for
r~/l .. Ind analysis
of IlftI epp! reef-Ion
was ltOC\i!pt~ 18. I
dlcln 1 t lUNB to walt
en excessive amount
of t;Ir.4I to 99t rrry
I Bppl 'catTon ~pprov~d
O!" f! nd out ebofJ't
problem, that needltKt I to be QCX"ntCT9d.
Palo Alto ,. 34S 8J 27S 26, J g:~ ~ !2 11 17 16 ~: ~ 39 12 24
5. I dlcln1t have to I i welt ~n ~SSiV8 I ~nt ot time to
find out frOll tile I PlannTng OrvlsTon I wn.tIl.... 1ft app I 1-
<::8tlon had: been
accepted os COOIp I oto I I or-to find out-
about needed changes
to achTeve II canplete I ! ,"bmIThlI. I Z~S I Palo AI to l' 36' \4' 20J I CIty A 14 I IS 21 16 ~ CI'" S 10 35 20 19 16
6. Witblft ~e oonstratnts
01 me ComprehensTve
PJao and zon1ng ordra-
~nC9_ Pjannlng steff
arere practicer In
opplyiog tile City
standards B~d ragule-
tl~,5 to th~ analysls
and rfINlw of tII'f
applTcatlon.
Palo "ito l' 46$ 15$ 17$ 15' City I-16 2\ 12 17 I 34
CliV B 6 4\ 21 22 22
. "',
' .. --...
EXHiBIT (3)
Strongly Op~IOO I Dlsaaree
STrongl y I
6gca Aar-H DI $!fIr~
1. PlannTng Olvtslan ! I
steff were ·~'Ir· In
d •• ITng .1"111 "'f I !ippl TC!ltlon.
Palo AJtCl 121 4~ 8% I lal 131
CUy A !3 n 13 9 ~3
CItY s 11 5T 14 14 10
8. The .zoning regul&-
tloRs C)f the Cln'
c! i ~ I')()t pose r-equ 1 f"&-
ment. tor approval
of "'f app I 1 cot I 00
.. h! ch were more I burdensonr.e than
surroundIng citIes. I I Palo AHo 3S 26% 35$ 21% 15$
1 City A 7 14 ~ 26 27
CItY 9 6 :so 31 'I !§
9. The PlennTng steff
were Just IS faIr snd I practlcol In the}'"
apl>llcatlon of "the I I zonfng ordtn~noe and
Comprehens!ve Plan to
"IV appJ fcetioo .!!"ld! I PieRS as o~har sur-
rounding cities.
I Pelo Alto 8$ 27$ 45S 10$ iO~
g~ ~ 9 22 22 16 31
7 'I 36 -16 10
o. Aftar I submitted
my applicatIon,
review and analysis
Qf rrr( apP I 1 ca1 ron I t>y the PI onn! '9 Stoff
.as comptete aod
accurate.
Palo Alto 51 46$ 14$ 23$ 12$
CiTy A 16 ,. la 22 J
City B 12 46 17 23 2
-
-24-
EXHIBIT (4)
Str""s! Y 110 Stroogly
WH ~ Op [nlon Otsaqree Q.L.!Igree
t1. When Planning steff
fou~d probfems durIng
rayt ... of "'t, appll-I catTon and plan$~ they ,
were +tJot"'OUgh lind I
clear Ir. oxplernlng ,
whet t had 1'0 do to
oorrect these
probl E1f115.
Palo Alto S~ 53$ 14$ 171 10$
g~~ : 15 V Z5 16 16
6 48 19 17 10
-25-
,."
II. ClfPORll.tUTIES Fat I~ INS fUilUNS SCR¥ ICES
I I. OPf'ORTUN ITIES fOR j~ IIIl a-11Il SE!!Y ICES
ThIs chaptu~ ~r.sents e~ternatrv.s wblch the ftanr.tng Dl~fsfon may wIsh
to .x:p~Qr8 for Tmprovlr.g the responsiveness of Its services tQ its customers.
I.
These t~pr~eMents Tnclude tne fo! lowing:
Construction of ill C002r'lter' wh8f"e both ftle eppl jC::~'"t and the
planner can sit down &nd revIew the plans ~nd the eppllcatron.
rncreasTng tfl6 percentege of arch Iteeturet desIgn revIew
appllc:atro!1S rev lewed i!l1' steff revGI to reduce the t'Urnar--oon-:i
time for minor appl fcatlons.
Reessig~Tng responsibility for zon~ng ~8rding sIngle-famIly
plan checks trom the Bull~rng Jnspectlon DIvIsion to the PlannIng
Dlvrs!on ana prOYldtng direct COi,Inset to eppl tcant's reger-dl "9
comp' lance with the zoning ordInance.
O"ee"tion of an 'IIe:q>ress s"top'" I~ which Sui I dIng InspectIon.
P1 aon 1 ng. Pub I Tc Works.. and Fl re ,.ocess !lnd approve P.!III"K)C
eppt lcattons the SMe dey 5S submlt"ted by tile appl fc;,nt. Thess
ml nOr" app t I cat1 ems cons I st p..~ rmarll y of Rl 5 f ng Ie-5"torf I!Ind
tena~t Tmprovement burrarng permit l!I~pl lcetions~
Use of pr8--app t i cat I on meet r flgs for' use perm I ts. veri ances. and
minor subdivisions to assure the e~pl Icant Is ~are ot submittal
requir ... nts and: to reduce the nLo'lTlber of rncaTlpl ate SIJbml hal 5.
Use of e IIcase manager-conc9pt for app! lcations to assure -the
appr Tcent has a sr "gillS staff person to contact regard I ng ~ny
questions or concerns releted to hTs or her appl rcation~
These exempl es Qf improvemenTs represent lmpor--t!int steps -to improve service
to the c:ustaner.
2. A 'llM!ER OF 8. TERHAT!YES SHOl.UI BE El!I'LIJ!ED TO FIJR1HEB I ~E SElI'IICE
TO 11£ WSJ!lI§!.
The responses of appl ic:ants to the Questronnal re alld the experience of
the consulting teem Tndrcete a number of alternatlves are ~alJable to
furtnBr" enhiertee the services provrded by the Planning Division. Thes'!
alternatives Include the followTng:
-26-
•
t-l.ave tne Plllnntng 01'(16ron counter person dleek ap!'1 feetlons for
c::aapletemns 'n rei.atlol1'snrp to subftl!tt~l requlrements ~t the
tiM of sublltttal. Establish check I Tsts to-ennar:C'e this process.
Thls _Ill shorten tne time requTred tOt" the c!.ls-tomer to tl"CS: out"
wh&tter his or her 4ppi feetron has bgen ~ccepted ~5 comprete~
Scheil'ul. eppllcatrons fOf" e putl Ie hearIng at the time of
submlttar of tne applrcatlon. If the application Is detenMTned to
meet submittal requIrements a~d is b3s1caliy eomprete.
Publish 1I SChedule tor-rev:aw and !lpproval/dl sBpprOY!1 of
I!Ipptl~trons for the different types of lIIPPI feattons and t)rovJde
thIs schedufe to the CU$~omer.
As suggested by the Zoni~g AdmTois1rator. ccnstder d:evelo~e~t of
a VCR vTdeo tap$ regarding submltta! raqtliremants InstBtld of a
pre-applIcation conference to red~ce turnaround tlme,
Modffy appllcatloo booklets to !ncfude estr~tad processing tlme,
use of gr.eph res. using simpl e 8><mnpl as wherever possfbl e, and
other suggestIons made by Bay Area Planning DI.rectors regardlr;g
these hl!lndoots~
AlternatIve'S need to be explored to Improve the accesslb! I Tty of
stii!lft yTa tn. ~:'ona. thIS could Include use of VOI08 "II!1~t to
eneble customers to leave =e5S!lgeS with their ~cese maneger· and
enable the "<::as" manager-10 perf 0l"'Il the n&CeSSi!rv research ~rld
ene'Vsrs before returning th$ call. This 1$ becoming a stenda.-d
practice with Planning DlvlsTons. However. ttle problems wl"ttl
prompT return of phone calls Is not merely a technGloglcal Issae.
IT may requIre organlzatrcnel modlficattons s~ch !IS daslg~~tlng a
Senior Planner as responsible for customer services inCluding the
counter. supervis'ng the Plannfr.g Teehnic:fan (who sTaffs the
CO<Jnter).. answer i ng genera I Qt.lsstT ons ,Ilgeu"d i ng hOif to i!lPP i Y for
" permiT: eTC, This would designate "'Ithi~ a slngte sect-Ton the
~rrmery responsTbl1 rty for Inlt-lat customer contact~
Estebl ish goal s for the 19n9th of time hlken by steff to :oroeess
ap91 icatlons from 1118 trme of complete subf:llttal 10 i!lpprO'¥'I!II.
These ,go.ets shoutd be estattllshed for eect) different "tyPQ of
opplleotlon.
0eleg8te more euthorlty "to approve or clls~pprova !!Ir"c~lteC'tl;r!l1
desl;n rfNlew eppttcatlons trom ARB TO stoff. As noted earller.
staff Is currently reviewing only 15' of these i.!IppJ tcatlons. A
j'6Y lew of the types of "FP I r caT I ons rev r awed by ARB [nd T ca.tes
that I!I slgnlf!cl!lnt propot"tron ere !lIner in ni!lt'-re. for e)(lftPle,
one-quarter of the appllcatTons reviewed by ARB are on the consent
calender. Steff authority for review of These lIPP! Tcatrons is
limited. This resul~s T~ '.ngthler processIng tlmes ~an
n9CBssery. parTiCUlarly for mfnor applTcetlons.
-27-
, , . '
·.
.... utoma-te the appilcatl'On; planning and 5c!"1eOi.Jiing system to
enabre staff to readIly determine tn~ status of app!lcations aM'
p.ooptly answer II'status· questlC>-n:; tr'Yn appl ica~ts.
Thc5e are '5Cfne of tne alt~rnatives which could be considereCl by the Planning
Division to imDrove its responsiveness 10 Its customers •
• • • • •
This concludes -tr.e report~
/'
~PPlYIHG fOR ARCH1TE:TURAl REVIEW
PR<LINlIlA!!Y REVIEW
liHACJtlllIDJ!!INARY REVm?
The Architectural Review Board has ~ preliminary review pro~ess for the
purpose of discussing iI proje-ct and the concej:Otua'i 'design appro~ch fn the
early stages of project design. The preliminary review focuses on Site
planning, iTcbitectural concepts and cDnte~tual issues.
SHOULD 1 HAVf .. PRHIIIlNARY_RfVl£lI?
large, complex or ~ontrover5iill projects and all new residenti.l con~t~ucticn
should h<1"¥e a pre' iainary review. Nest projetts will not need a Prel iminarj'
Revle.. Staff sholJld be consulted as earTy u possible on the necessity for a
preliminary review.
",HAL1S RffllJIRED TO BE S!JBHITTED FDR A PilfLIHIN4RY REYIEW?
Please refer to the CHtCKllST of submittal r€quirernents for preliminary
arc."itectural review for i dehiTed list of specific submittal requirements.
IiliAT SHOULD I I/fCWDf /11 I/Y PRESENTATION?
Applicants will have ten minutes ia which to present thetr project to t~~
Soard. In tbe presentation, the applicant will be expected to explain bow
their ~ concept addresses the following issues:
I. Place In the urb.n context
2. Architectural characteristics of nefghboring structures
3. Solar orientation
4. Gra4es and contours of the site
5. Existing trees and other special features of the site
6, Circulation: pedest.lan, ~Icycl'$, auto
HOW IlUCHJI~E H RfQUIRfO FOR A PIlEtII/IN.4RY.REYl£lI?
Application .ust be made f?ur weeks prior ta the ~eting date. The ARB meets
the first and third Thursdays of each acnth~
AIlE PREUIfINAilY IIE¥IOO BINDING?
The Architectural Review Board does not take fo~al action ~n a Preli~inary
Review; therefore. no declsion is made or i~lied. The p~rpose Qf the
preliminar1 review ;s to il10w the applfcant to benefit from any pub'lc
testimony and the Board's comments in the !arly ~tages of design development.
, . ,
•
, '. " !-t-' .
,..:eCC,"-' __ ' __ ....:....' ______ . ____ , ______ '
AJtCHIT£CTURAL REVIElI BOARD SUBMITIAl R£Q!JIRE~EI(T~_C,Hfj:~UST
PRELlMI!I>\!!LREVlI;)!
l~ Written authorizition for r€¥ie~ fro~ Stanford Universlty if project is
loc~ted on Stanford land.
2. AppTicition
Items ]-6 completed
~ Ownerls ~ignatu(e
_ Check (lr lIloney order
3. Written ProjPct Description: The description should incl'Jde such things
as the project proposal, the design concept, the relation to existing
cGndilions on and (lff site 9 the existing and proposed uses, ~aterials.
and construction methods. etc.
C. Arborisl's Report. l<lation, species. size and condition of all
eXlsting trees prepar~d by a certified arborist.
5. Plans (Bound and Folded)
12 sets far ARB re~iew
7 addltlonal s~ts for HRS review if site is on the Histori:
Inventory
A. ~icin;ty Map;
Small schematic map showing the location of the site within tne
City
B. Project Data Summary, to be located ~n CD~er sheet or site pl~r.
lot area
Coverage
floor Aru
Density {for residential projscts only)
Parki n9
c. engineered site plan prepared by licensed engineer or surv€yor, to
include eJ:istlng building footprints and paving~ scr'2ened back, with
proposed: building footprints superlrlposed. For any portion of He
site witk g~eat!r than S percent slope, show proposed grading at l
foot interval s.
D, Sit, Plan
Se.l,
NlJrU arro'W
Dimensioned property lines
Any underlying lot lines
Dimensioned foot,prirlt of proposed build-ings and structures
footprint of adjacent b~11di"9S and structures
Circulation: pedestrian, bicycle, auto
locatior. of all existir.g trees
Zoning set •• c' lin,s (including Stanford setbaCK lines if
.pplicable)
lmprrwements in the public right-of-way, including streets.
curbs, sidewalks, street trees
Any eisements or encumbrances acrGSS the property
(reeks or waterwi$S on or adjacent to the property
•
£. Elevations and/or Sections
5chelJlatic eleviltior.s or sections it 1/4-• l' to snow height
and ~ssir.g and compliance with daylight plane
Sketches of ele~atiDns to convey proposed architectural
character
e. Aerial Photograph: An aerial photograph can be ordered from the
graphics technician in tke Planning Department. The site ~lan of the
proposed project should be superimposed on the i!rial photo at an
approprfate scale to show surro~~d1ng area.
1. Photographic Oisphy; Phctographs showing tni! relitionship of the ne",
proposed project to ~djacent buildings a~d to the neighborhood. Photos
shDuld be DOur.ted on cardboard no larger than S· x 14· an~ will be
retained by the Planning Department.
8. Project Re~iew Checklist
9. Mailing Labels; ~a;lfng labels oT III property owners within 300 feet
of the perimeter of the site are required. The City of Palo Alto will
sypply the labels and the information for the labels may be obtained at
th~ Planning Depart~ent. Preparation of the labels ~ill require
ipproximately two hours.
•
APPLIC4TION SCHEDLILE
SUBDIVISION, SINGLE-FAMILY SITE & DESIGN, AND REZONING (EXCEPT
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE) APPLICA nONS
April 1991 through Septomber 199]
MONTH OF Pl4NNING COMM1~SrON HEARING'
STE' DESCRIPilaH OF 4CTION 4PRll MY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEIIIIER
1 Appli(lt1on Period 1/21/91 2/25/91 l1lS/91 4n9j91 5/27/91 7/1/91
t hT\J I thru tnru thru thru tt!rw
1/12/9i l/22/91 4/26/91 5/24/91 6/28/91 8/2/91
2 D@partment Routing 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day
period peri~d period period period period
l Completeness Rev1€"M"/ Within 30 '1it~il'l 30 Within 30 Within 30 Wit~i" 30 Within 30
Environmental Assessme-nt days days days days days days
4 Advertise Env1ronme~tll I 4/2/91 5/7/91 6/4/91 7/9/91 8/6/91 9/3/9l
Assessment/Available Same Day
5 Advertise Agenda/Notice Heaiing 4/10/91 5/IS/91 6(12/91 7/l7/9! 8/14/91 9/11/91
6 Stoff Report AYanabie (p .m.l 4/19/91 4/24191 6/21/91 7/26/91 B/23/91 9/20/91
1 Planning c.-Isslon Hearing'" 4/24/91 5/29/91 6/26/91 1/31/91 B/28/91 9/25/91
a tlty CDllllCll Hearln9'" 5/20/91 6/17/91 7/22/91 8/19/91 9/16/91 10/21/91
Rei:0 P1:ing
1st reading 5/20/91 6/17/91 7/22/91 B/19/91 I 9/16/91 10/21/9l
2nd reading 013/91 7/1191 B/5/91 9/2/91 10/7/91 11/4/91
EffectiYe date 7/~/91 8/1/91 9/5/9! 10/3/91 11/7/91 1215/91
Please lIote~ . Th",w det~ wHt riCt awly if &r1 !:nvirCl"Cllffital I"'f'iKt 1ti'FX'rt. 0;-oIdditicn.a~ ~ .. i~~tit St,Jdy, ;$ feq..iired. If t~,e .app:.;C&tic:or, is Qet",,,.ine<:i in:;~Lete. tftll!
defti-will ~ 08djl..llited to tile t;/II!'..t1en ai.Htl()f'.at m.:.te..-;"ts .. roe. sut!miH@C. ,
~
>;!
n z
ffl z -< TIll' e«ancH.~'" pl...,ir.g it .. 01'", t~e t~i~d ~ of e~!l IMnti;. [rl. or~ to cCIeflly ~;th :~.l "' ... 01 ........ 11'. tt.,Coo:.nc:H IlUSt com.!a.:r-~lllming r::~i5SfCl'1 l'K~tlont~ W1U, t~e U(:l!ptlQt1 of site and des1iV1 awllcatlcn£. 1II1t.'l,n J.G days. Pt.rrl1ng applleet,ons, .re r'lDf"IIII.ly heard ~ th. Co.1ssfonat ttJe!r &.eOIlInd,-W
IIICI"Ithly .. nf,.. ~etcl O!'I t)I.e, fe .... tl'l 0'-last ~sdlly ef t~e ".".,th.
Meeting OIIICes are 'l&Ioject t<:l res.<:.r.eduii"9 dull! HI y,(lliday!>, l'!ngt~ >:If ~s. or-('Kit of quor~. If. meeti". is resd'~ll!d. aH of tJle-~t dates win
be .ffected. ~ur .".,\ic.~fQ1'15 'oII1i(h oe: Mt teq.Ifre 8n E:_, the City _t ute IoCtillrl no lllte::-rl';an 6 IrIQrIl~"IIi. fro. v.e cIne tl1e epplh:8tiQf'l is ~QI'1Si~red IXIIploe-U.
appc;klst.1 12/90
."
i
STEP
1
2
3
e
5
6
1
S
9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 80ARD APPLICATION SCHEDULE
MAJOR ARB APPLICATIONS
March '91 ihroogh June '91
•
~ OF ARCIIITEtTURAl mlEW fl{ARlN6'
D£SCRIPTIOI! Of AtTlOl! MARCH APRil MAY
AfPLlCATlDN DEADL!NE'
with EnvironMental Assessme~t 1110 IIl4 2/14 2/28 l/7 3/21
w/out EnvironMental Assess.ent 1/24 2/1 2/28 3/14 3/21 I 4/6
Depirt .. nt Routing 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day
period period pel"'ioci period period period
Coopleteness Reviewl Within Within Within Within within Within
£nvfronmental Assess.ent 30 day. 10 days 10 ~ay. 30 days 30 day. lO days
Advertise Environmental 2/13 2/27 lllO 4/3 4/10 4/24
Assessment/Avollable S ... Oay
(Dn1y if required)
Advertise Agenda/Notlce Hearing I 2/20 3/6 3/27 4/10 4/17 5/1
I.f. Meso Available (~ .•. ) I 3/1 3/15 C/S 4/19 4/26 5/10
AAtIIl~ mlEII BOARD 3/7 3/21
HEMI
4/11 4/25 5/2 5/16
Director's Decfsion J/12 3/26 4/16 4/30 5/1 5/21
Appeal Period ~xplres 3/22 4/5 4/26 SIlO 5'17 6/3
JUNE
I 4/1 4/15
4j25 5/9
.0 day 10 day
period period
Withl. Within
30 day. 30 day.
5/15 5/29
5/22 6/5
5/31 6/14
6/6 ,/m
6/11 6/25
6/21 7/8
Ple.se Note:
z
!
These dlt!5 will not apply if a.dditional environmental stud"ies (e.g., rlo;se study, traffic study) ire required. If
the I.pplication is det!rmhed incomplete, the dates 1rri11 be adjusted to the time when additiona~ !:later I 11 s are
sub.itted.
The applltltio, filing d_adllne for ~ajor ARB applications which do not require Envlronaent.l Assess .. nt is two weeks
11.ter t~ln the deadlfne for applications whic~ do require t~is review.
~ting dates a~~ subject to rescheduling due to holidays, 'ength of agendas t or lack of quorum.
oppcIdst.S
fjt
1/91
· . --
ZONISG ADMINISTRATOR APPLICATION SCHEDULE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, V ARIANeE AND HOME lMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION
March '91 through June '91
"ONTH OF ZONING AD"INISTRATQ~ HEARING'
STEP DESCRIPTION Of ACTION MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
I APPLICATION DEADLINE'
wit~ Enwironmental Assessment 1/18 2/1 I 2/22 3/8 3/] 5 3/29 4/19 5/3
w/out Environmental Assessment 1/25 2/8
I
3/1 3i15 I 3/22 4/5 4/26 5/10
2 Department Routing 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day I 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day
period p.eriod period perl ad period pe!"'iod period period
3 Completeness Review/Plan Check Witni~ Within Withif'\ \Jtt~in , ... ·it~in Within Within With in
environmental Assessment 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days
4 4dvertise Environmental 2/13 2/27 3/20 4/3 4/10 4/24 5/15 5/29
~s5ess~nt/~yailable Same Oay I (only if required)
I
5 Advertise Agenda 2/14 2/28 3/21 I 4/4 4/!I 4/25 I 5/15 5/30
6 Notice Hurif:;g 2/10 1/6 3/17 4/10 4/17 5/1 S/22 6/5
7 lONI:tG ADIIINISTRATOR HEARING' 3/7 3/21 4/11 4/25 5/2 5/15 6/6 6/20
8 Zoning Administrator's Decision I 3/21 4/4 4/15 5/9 5/16 5/31 6/20 7/5
9 Appe.l Pe<iod Expires 4i1 4/15 5/5 5/10 5/28 OL12 7/1 7fl7
Please Note:
,
1
These dates will net apply if additio'n-a1 enwironmental stl:dies (e.g.~ noise study. traffic study). If the application
is determined incomplete. the dates will be adjusted to the time when additional mQterials are submitted.
The application f11in9 deadline for a:pp1fciitions which do not requir""e Envil"on!ltelltal AS$2SSntent 15 two weeks later tf)an
the deadline for applications which do require this rewiew.
Meeting dates are subject to rescheduling due to hOlidays, 1en9th of agendas, or lack of q~urum.
3PPckJ6t.3
"t
liS 1