REPORT IN BRIEF

In 2002, City Council created an Outreach Task Force to review and, if needed, develop City-wide outreach guidelines. The Outreach Task Force reviewed a range of City noticing procedures, including public notification of single-family home additions. At that time, the Sunnyvale Municipal Code required that adjacent property owners be notified of all two-story additions and given a 14-day period to review and comment on the plans. As policy, Planning staff also notifies affected residents who do not own the property.

After evaluating these practices, the Outreach Task Force recommended expansion of the noticing radius for second story additions (See Map Example of Expanded Noticing, Attachment B) and a new notification process for single-story additions that exceeded 50% of the area of the existing home. City Council adopted these recommendations and directed staff to return in one year with an evaluation of their cost effectiveness and success in generating more public interest (see Minutes from City Council Meeting of 10/21/04, Attachment A). This report evaluates the success of the new noticing policies.

After nearly a year, 36 projects were subject to the new noticing guidelines. Fourteen of these projects were large single-story additions. No written comments were received for any one-story addition and 13 were received for two-story additions, 11 of which were from adjacent neighbors. A slight increase in phone calls and questions at the counter resulted from the increased noticing. Overall, the new noticing procedures generated two more written comments than the previous noticing practice despite a several-fold increase in notices sent.

Staff finds the increase in noticing successful at informing a wider public of projects in the neighborhood, but cumbersome to implement and unsuccessful in gathering additional input. The wording of the increased noticing radius (see Background Section) makes it difficult to implement consistently and often captures properties on a nearby street which are not affected by the proposed project. Overall, affected neighbors adjacent to the project are much more likely to have interest in and participate in the review of new two-story additions. Neighbors are unlikely to comment on a one-story addition or a property that is several doors down or on a different street.

Because of the inefficiency and costliness of the expanded noticing, staff recommends ending the expanded noticing trial. Other alternatives were evaluated to continue to inform interested residents and give them an opportunity to participate. In addition to direct-mail notices to all adjacent property owners and residents for two-story additions, staff recommends posting a notice at the site for all two-story additions. This will give other neighbors on the block an opportunity to participate without costly direct-mail noticing.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, in response to RTC# 02-0455, Explore Options to Improve Community Outreach, Council directed a task force to review and, if needed, develop City-wide outreach guidelines. The Outreach Task Force reviewed a wide range of City noticing procedures, and made several recommendations. Three recommendations affected noticing practices for private development:

·                     Recommendation 1A: For all single-story major remodels (an addition of 50% or greater), notice should be given to adjacent homeowners. (Previous practice was no notification).

·                     Recommendation 1B:  For all second-story additions, notice should be given three properties away (adjacent to adjacent to adjacent) on same frontage road, and other owners and single-family and duplex tenants two properties away (adjacent to adjacent) (Previous practice was adjacent properties only).

·                     Recommendation 1C:  The City should increase fees to cover the costs associated with the expanded noticing of private development (This was deferred until the one-year evaluation in this staff report).

In late 2003, the City Council adopted all of the above recommendations and directed staff to return in a year with an evaluation as the cost effectiveness of the practice and its success in generating more public interest (see Attachment A, Minutes of RTC# 03-371). Rather than implement a fee for one year, staff took on the entire assignment as a pilot project with the intent of evaluating the effectiveness of the noticing and the costs of such effort.

EXISTING POLICY

Planning and Management Element, Community Participation Sub-element

Goal 7.2a Community Education: Achieve a community in which citizens and businesses are informed about local issues and City programs and services.

Action Statement 7.2.A 2c:  Evaluate periodically City public information materials, activities and plans, using surveys, focus groups or other means to assess effectiveness, minimize duplication, maximize cost-effectiveness of information distribution, and respond to community needs.

DISCUSSION

Previous noticing standards required adjacent properties to be noticed for all second-story additions and new single-family homes. Neighbors were not notified of single-story additions, regardless of size. These new noticing requirements now required adjacent homes to be noticed of all one-story additions greater than 50% of the area of the existing home, and two-story additions should be noticed three homes away on all sides. This noticing was done for all second story additions, whether they required staff-level review or Planning Commission review.

The new noticing procedures took effect in January 2003. For the following statistics, staff tracked written comments. Staff did not include phone calls from neighbors who inquired about the project.

Statistics for Staff-Level Projects Noticed Under New Guidelines 

	Previous Noticing Practice (Adjacent)	Additional Noticing Required under New Guidelines	Total
Number of two-story projects:	22	Same	22
Number of single-story projects:	0	14	14
Number of notices sent:	148	410	558
Average notices/project	6.7	11.4	11.1
Number of written comments from the public on second-story additions:	11	2	13
Number of written comments on single-story projects:	0	0	0
Ratio of written comments to notices:	1 comment: 13 notices	1 comment:205 notices	1 comment: 42 notices

These new noticing procedures generated two more written comments than the previous noticing practice, all related to second-story additions. A slight increase in phone calls and questions at the counter resulted from the increased noticing. These additional calls were concerned primarily with questions about why they were noticed and requesting information about the project. The two comments from neighbors who lived farther away were concerned with the visual impact of a second story on the neighborhood character.

There are several other outreach alternatives that could be considered to substitute for the expanded direct mail noticing for all two-story additions. First, the expanded noticing could be continued only for second story additions reviewed by Planning Commission (projects with greater than 45 % Floor Area Ratio). This would ensure a greater noticing radius for larger homes.  Another option is that in addition to adjacent noticing, each site could be posted with a notice stating that an application has been submitted for a two-story addition. This notice would allow everyone along the street or who is interested in the neighborhood to be informed about the project and have the ability to contact staff if they have questions or concerns. The cost of staff time to do the posting would be less than the cost of the additional direct-mail notices.

FISCAL IMPACT

Since these new noticing practices were implemented on a trial basis, the Community Development Department did not request an increase in fees to cover the cost of the expanded noticing.  If the Council chooses to continue with the expanded noticing, staff recommends establishing an application fee to cover the cost. Currently, design reviews for properties of less than 45% FAR are free of charge. Design reviews for projects greater than 45% FAR (which are reviewed by Planning Commission) are $160.00, which does not fully cover the costs of project review, staff report preparation and the public hearing.

RTC# 03-371 previously included estimated costs for noticing. The following updated assumptions were used to estimate costs:

• Cost/notice is $2.16. (Support staff time and postage).
• New noticing for second stories typically includes 25 properties. Adjacent noticing typically includes 8 properties.
• On average, at least 15% of homes are renter-occupied.
• Approximately 10% of the adjacent notified residents call the City and want additional information. Approximately 2% of expanded notification residents call the City for additional information.
• Each request for information taking an average of 15 minutes.
• $64.13/hour rate for an Associate Planner (this rate was updated from 2003 and includes total cost to the City, including benefits), so each 15 minute call costs approximately $16.03 in staff planner time. 

Design review of a single-story design review greater than 50% of the area of the existing house:	$34.62
Design review for any addition or new home with a two story component (expanded noticing practice).	$113.64

Conclusion

There are two goals in public notification: increasing resident awareness of projects in their neighborhood and creating a process by which residents can comment and change the projects to better reflect their neighborhood values.

Staff finds the increase in noticing is successful at informing a wider public of projects in the neighborhood, but cumbersome to implement and unsuccessful in gathering additional input. The wording of the increased noticing radius (“adjacent to adjacent to adjacent”) makes it difficult to implement consistently and often captures properties on a nearby street which are not affected by the proposed project. Overall, affected neighbors are adjacent to the project and are much more likely to have interest in and participate in the review of second-story additions. Neighbors are unlikely to comment on a one-story addition or a property that is several doors down or on a different street.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public contact was made through the posting of the Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City’s Web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk’s office.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Eliminate the expanded noticing for two-story additions and large one-story additions.
2. Require posting a notice on-site of all pending design reviews for two-story additions and homes in addition to adjacent noticing.
3. Maintain the expanded noticing practice only for homes that exceed 45% FAR (requiring a Planning Commission Hearing) and notice adjacent properties for all other two-story home additions.
4. Eliminate expanded noticing and return to previous practice of notifying adjacent homeowner’s of pending design reviews for two-story additions and homes.
5. Continue expanded noticing requirement and adopt a Fee Resolution to increase design review application fees for affected projects.

RECOMMENDATION

Alternatives 1 and 2.

Because of the inefficiency and costliness of the expanded noticing, staff recommends ending the expanded noticing trial and returning to the previous practice of adjacent neighbor noticing for two-story additions only. This practice informs the residents most affected by the addition and gives them appropriate opportunities to participate in the review. To expand public awareness of a pending change in the neighborhood, staff also recommends posting a notice on the site for all two-story additions. This will give other neighbors on the block an opportunity to participate without the costliness of direct-mail noticing.

Reviewed by:

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer

Prepared by: Diana O’Dell, Senior Planner

Reviewed by:

Robert Paternoster, Director, CDD

Approved by:

Amy Chan

City Manager

Attachments

1. Minutes from City Council Hearing of October 21, 2003
2. Map Example of Expanded Noticing Requirements