City of Sunnyvale
Agenda Item
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Forward a Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 19.50 of Title 19 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to Allow Modifications of Legal Non-Conforming Single- Family and Two-Family Dwelling Uses in Non-Residential Zoning Districts (Study Issue 21-01) and Find that the Action is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Planning File Number 2022-7591)
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City of Sunnyvale maintains zoning regulations to ensure there is suitable land for necessary uses while maintaining compatibility between neighborhoods and separation of incompatible uses.
Development priorities may shift over time leading to changes in zoning patterns which can result in some uses and structures becoming legal non-conforming.
The City Council initiated this Study Issue in 2020 after receiving input from the owner of a legal non- conforming single-family home on Pastoria Avenue in the Peery Park Specific Plan (PPSP) area. The home was rezoned when the PPSP was adopted, shifting from M-S (Industrial and Service) to PPSP Mixed Industry Core (MIC), which no longer allowed residential with a Use Permit (UP). Therefore, when the property sold, the new property owner was not able to expand the existing dwelling (the original home was about 550 s.f.) beyond the addition of one detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Subsequent to the adoption of the PPSP, in 2018, the City removed the UP and Special Development Permit (SDP) allowances for residential dwellings in most commercial and industrial areas due to the passing of SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). In a review of parcels citywide, there are 12 single- family homes (Attachments 4 and 5) and 26 two-family dwellings (as defined in Sunnyvale Municipal Code [SMC] Section 19.12.050, subsection 13) (Attachments 6 and 7) that are legal non-conforming residential uses in non-residential zoning districts. Similar to the property owner on Pastoria Avenue, owners of these parcels have no legal ability to expand their homes other than by building a streamlined ADU (a streamlined ADU is one that requires no planning permit because it meets all of the zoning requirements and is up to 800 s.f. in size). The lack of expansion capability can be a hardship on families who may be living in a small, older home with inadequate space for their children or extended family.
In an effort to allow these single- and two-family dwelling property owners the rights for remodels and additions similar to property owners in residential zoning districts, staff is recommending amendments to SMC Chapter 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Title 19 (Zoning) to allow legal non-conforming single-family dwellings to be modified per the low density residential zoning district (R-0) standards and two-family dwellings to be modified per the low medium density residential zoning district (R-2) standards. Staff is also recommending that the Council direct staff to
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
begin the General Plan amendment (GPA) and rezoning process for 22 parcels (five single-family and 17 two-family dwellings, Attachment 8) to change the land use designation from Office to Low Medium Density and the zoning from Office to R-2.
BACKGROUND
There are properties in the City developed with single- and two-family dwelling residential uses that are currently located within non-residential zoning districts, rendering them legal non-conforming. A legal non-conforming use is one that was built within prior regulations but is now in a zoning district or specific plan area where the use is no longer allowed. Title 19 (Zoning) of the SMC does not currently allow legal non-conforming single-family or two-family dwelling uses to expand, which restricts the size of these existing residential structures to what exists currently. Until recently, limited residential development was allowed in some non-residential zoning districts, subject to approval of a UP or SDP. The previous process allowed property owners the opportunity to request additions or modifications to these dwellings and allowed the City to determine if those requests were compatible with surrounding uses. However, after several State housing bills passed in 2019, the City eliminated the UP and SDP allowances for certain non-residential zoning districts to better control multi-family residential development in the City and preserve those properties for the primary non-residential uses allowed by the zoning code.
The City Council initiated this study issue (Attachment 2) in 2020 after receiving input from the owner of a legal non-conforming single-family home on Pastoria Avenue in the PPSP area. The study issue fell below the line in 2021 and was ranked second by the Council in 2022.
The City Council is scheduled to consider this item on December 13, 2022.
EXISTING POLICY
The following General Plan and Council Policies apply to this study issue:
General Plan
Land Use and Transportation Element
Goal LT-6 - Protected, Maintained, and Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods Policy LT-6.1 - Improve and Preserve the character and cohesiveness of existing residential neighborhoods.
Community Character - Design
Goal CC-3 - Well-Designed Sites and Buildings - Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for private development are well designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts.
Council Policy Manual
Chapter 7 - Planning and Management - Goals and Policies Policy 7.3.26 Study Issues Process - The study issues process provides a method for identifying, prioritizing, and analyzing policy issues in an efficient and effective way. It provides a structured approach for addressing the large number of policy issues that are raised and considered by Council for study each year.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not require environmental review under the California
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant environmental effect. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).) Projects that are subject to the new regulations will be evaluated pursuant to CEQA on an individual basis as applicable. However, single-family and two-family dwellings are typically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and/or Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
DISCUSSION
Overview of the Study Issue
The City of Sunnyvale is authorized to adopt a zoning code and General Plan under the Constitution of the State of California. Title 19 (Zoning) of the SMC and the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the General Plan contain land use regulations and zoning requirements which serve to classify, regulate, restrict, and segregate the uses of land and buildings in the interest of protecting public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare. When a city is imagining the future of an area and enacts land use and zoning changes, there can be inconsistencies and non-conforming scenarios may arise based on the existing use of a parcel or structure. Many of the parcels considered in this study issue are holdovers from a time when residential uses were the dominant land use in the immediate vicinity. It is clear from these parcels that zoning has changed over time based on the demands for certain development typologies or to provide a transition between zoning districts.
Although there are some uses that would be incompatible with each other, it is unlikely that allowing modifications and additions to existing single-family and two-family dwelling dwellings would create compatibility issues in these instances in the City.
Existing Conditions
In a citywide review of parcels that contain single-family or two-family dwellings in non-residential zoning districts, staff found 12 single-family dwellings (list and map in Attachments 4 and 5) and 26 two-family dwellings (list and map in Attachments 6 and 7) that are considered legal non-conforming.
While the Study Issue did not specifically include direction to study legal non-conforming two-family dwellings, staff has included these dwellings because the property owners face similar restrictions in their ability to modify the units.
The legal non-conforming single-family residences and two-family dwellings discussed in detail below are currently zoned Office, Commercial, and PPSP.
The largest concentration are 16 parcels on the 400 blocks of Florence Street, Waverly Street, and Charles Street, and the south side of the 600 and 700 block of Iowa Avenue) near the Civic Center. These parcels are developed with non-conforming dwellings. The properties were developed as residential (single-family and duplex) in 1956 when the zoning was R-2.
Since at least 1965, these properties have been zoned Civic Center (CD) and later Office/Planned Development (O/PD). Nearby properties, in the block between Charles Street and Mathilda Avenue, were similarly zoned. With the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) in 1993, the Mathilda Avenue properties kept the primary use as office. In 2003 the primary use for the Mathilda sites was changed to residential in the DSP, leaving these small single-family and duplex lots on Florence and Waverly, as isolated Office zoned sites. As these
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
lots were developed under older zoning regulations there is no Use Permit/Special Development Permit to assure they are legal conforming uses, instead they are legal non- conforming.
Another entire neighborhood, seven parcels on Oxbow Court (south of Fremont Avenue near Hollenbeck Avenue), is zoned Office/Planned Development (O/PD) and were allowed to develop with two-family (duplex) dwellings in 1976 through the Special Development Permit process. These homes are not technically legal non-conforming as there is a valid Use Permit/Special Development Permit to allow the housing; however, modifications to the homes would require a new Special Development Permit, subject to a public hearing. This residential subdivision is adjacent to another O/PD property at the corner of Fremont and Hollenbeck that is zoned O/PD. Properties to the east are zoned R-2.
Regardless of their locations, many of the legal non-conforming dwellings have a low Floor Area Ratio (FAR), with at least fifteen of them under 25% FAR, and none of the sites have any non- residential uses on them despite their current zoning and land use designation. Additionally, most of the parcels with lower FAR are older and likely in need of repairs and/or modifications; while legal non-conforming uses and buildings are permitted to make repairs; no expansions would be allowed.
Ordinance Updates and Appropriate Zoning Standards
An action proposed in the Study Issue is to consider modifications to Chapter 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Title 19 (Zoning) in the SMC to enable expansions and modifications of legal non-conforming single-family dwellings. Currently, SMC Section 19.50.020 (Nonconforming Residential Building) allows non-conforming residential buildings to be repaired, altered, enlarged, or replaced provided there is no increase in nonconformities. The Office zoning district still allows the consideration of residential uses with a Use Permit; a future action may be to update that provision in the O zoning district to only allow a caretaker residence ancillary to a permitted use. Given that single - and two-family dwellings are prohibited uses in the most Commercial, and PPSP zoning districts, and are therefore non-conforming dwellings in existence, effectively any project that would enlarge or alter these dwellings would increase the nonconformity and would not be permitted.
The proposed changes to SMC Section 19.50.020 (Nonconforming Residential Building, Attachment 3) would create two new subsections applying directly to single- and two-family dwellings in non- residential zoning districts. The language would enable property owners of these dwellings to repair, alter, enlarge, or replace the dwellings in accordance with the development standards for the R-0 and R-2 zoning districts respectively. The language will now specify that property owners are able to propose ADUs that are compliant with SMC Section 19.79.030 (Streamlined Approval of Accessory Dwelling Units). Legal non-conforming dwellings in non-residential zoning districts are not eligible for dual urban opportunity (DUO) housing or an urban lot split (ULS). The full text edits can be found in the draft ordinance (Attachment 3).
In accordance with staff’s recommendation to use the standards for the R-0 and R-2 zoning districts for the legal non-conforming residential parcels, the table below shows the objective development standards that would apply. It is important to note that most of the subject legal non-conforming parcels currently fall below the maximum allowable FAR and lot coverage standards; therefore, if the ordinance updates are adopted, many property owners should have the ability to enlarge the existing dwelling units.
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
For example, the dwelling at 260 North Pastoria Avenue in the PPSP area is currently developed at approximately 22% FAR. If the draft ordinance is adopted, this dwelling would be eligible to enlarge up to 45% FAR which could allow the property owner to nearly double the size, if all other objective standards for the R-0 zoning district can be met.
Options to Consider
Including Two-family Dwelling Units
The original Study Issue paper (Attachment 2) for this item was limited to single-family dwellings; however, staff realized that there were several two-family dwellings that were similarly impacted by legal non-conforming status and made the decision to include those parcels in the recommended ordinance modifications. The benefit to the property owners has been explained above, but the Council could decide to limit the SMC modifications to only single-family dwellings in keeping with the original language of the Study Issue paper. It is important to note that one issue with excluding two- family dwellings would be that the largest concentration of these dwellings, on and around Iowa Avenue near the Civic Center, are developed with a mix of single-family and two-family dwellings.
Allowing the single-family dwellings to make modifications while the two-family dwellings would be left unchanged did not seem practical to staff, which is why two-family dwellings are included in the staff recommendation.
Potential General Plan Amendments and Rezonings
Some of the single- and two-family dwellings are located within a zoning district that is surrounded by, or adjacent to, other uses that meet the existing land use and zoning designations. Rezoning those parcels would result in spot zoning or a loss in a transitional parcel. Therefore, staff is not asking for direction from Council to change the land use designation and zoning district for all the legal non-conforming parcels. However, 22 of the legal non-conforming residential parcels (and parcels subject to a Special Development Permit) do appear to be good candidates to consider a change to the General Plan designation from Office to Low-Medium Density Residential and zoning from Office to R-2/PD. As mentioned above, changing the land use designation and zoning district of a non-conforming residential parcel would provide a positive benefit to the property owners by
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
offering them the same development allowances that changing the zoning ordinance would bring, but also forming consistent zoning to what is on the parcel now, the ability to redevelop the parcel fully with the same use. In addition, since the sites would have conforming LUTE land use designations and Zoning, they would have the ability to redevelop under SMC Chapter 19.78 (Dual Urban Opportunity Housing).
The Study Issue paper discusses the possibility of rezoning sites to be compatible with existing uses; the staff identified parcels for changes that would be best rezoned to the R-2 zoning district. A staff initiated potential Study Issue paper will be prepared so that the Council can prioritize this potential study along with other policy studies. If the Council agrees and the Study Issue ranks above the line, staff will move forward with these efforts. Appropriate community outreach will be conducted prior to presenting these changes for Council consideration. Additionally, the Council may want to direct staff to change the land use designation and zoning district for more, or less, of the suggested parcels.
Table 2 shows the properties staff has identified for a change in land use designation and rezoning.
Additional property characteristics are included in Attachments 4-7 and larger maps of these properties are in Attachment 8.
Figure 1 -West Iowa Avenue Area with Adjacent Zoning and Development Potential if Rezoned
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
For properties that contain a single-family dwelling but are large enough to have two units, strictly making modifications to the ordinance only allows the existing unit on the site to be expanded or modified to meet the standards of the zoning district associated with the existing use of the property (R-0) which only allows one unit. However, changing the land use designation and zoning district would allow these parcels to develop under the low medium density (R-2) development standards regardless of what is currently on the lot. As seen above, only two of the single-family residences recommended for rezoning in the study have the required land size (7,200 square feet) to accommodate the addition of a legal two-family dwelling. The other three (on Charles Street and South Murphy Avenue) have lot sizes too small to permit the development of a traditional two-family dwelling. The remaining two-family dwellings recommended for rezoning, regardless of lot size, would be allowed to be modified per R-2 standards whenever necessary. All rezoned parcels would retain the ability to add attached or detached ADUs and gain the right to add DUO units if the minimum criteria are met.
For the properties listed below, which have not been selected for changes to the land use designation or rezoning, modifying the language in SMC Section 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses), as proposed, still allows the owners of these legal non-conforming single-family and two-family dwelling residential parcels to make modifications and additions.
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed modifications to the Sunnyvale Municipal Code associated with non-conforming single- family and two-family dwelling units would have no fiscal impacts to the City.
PUBLIC CONTACT
As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has received no comments on the item.
Notice of Public Hearing, Staff Report and Agenda:
Notices mailed to tenants and property owners of affected properties Published in the Sun newspaper
Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Web site
Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library Agenda posted on the City's official notice bulletin board
ALTERNATIVES
Forward a Recommendation to the City Council to:
1. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 3 to the Report) to amend Chapter 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Title 19 (Zoning) of the SMC to allow modifications of legal non-conforming single-family and two-family dwelling uses in non-residential zoning districts and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
2. Introduce the Ordinance with modifications and find that the project is exempt from the
Attachment 1
22-0994 Agenda Date: 11/28/2022
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
3. Do not modify SMC Chapter 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) or direct staff to begin studying changing the General Plan land use designation and zoning classification for 22 recommended parcels and make no changes as this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 3 to the report) to amend Chapter 19.50 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to allow modifications of legal non-conforming single-family and two-family dwelling uses in non-residential zoning districts and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Adopting new language for legal non-conforming single-family and two-family dwelling uses in non- residential zoning districts will allow property owners to modify their homes in accordance with the same regulations applied to similar zoning districts.
Additionally, staff will prepare a Study Issue summary paper for consideration in 2023 for potential GPA and rezoning process for 22 parcels (five single-family and 17 two-family dwellings, Attachment 8) to change the land use designation from Office to Low Medium Density Residential and the zoning from Office to the R-2 zoning district to establish consistency between what is currently on the parcel and the land use designation which could allow the property owner to utilize their property to the fullest extent. Staff would work on the GPAs and rezonings if the Study Issue is ranked and falls above the line.
Prepared by: Drew Taplin, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Amber Blizinski, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Shaunn Mendrin, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Director, Community Development Reviewed by: Teri Silva, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Kent Steffens, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reserved for Report to Council
2. Study Issue Paper
3. Draft Ordinance
4. List of Legal Non-Conforming Single-Family Parcels in Sunnyvale
5. Legal Non-Conforming Single-Family Parcels Descriptions and Maps
6. List of Legal Non-Conforming Two-Family Dwelling Parcels in Sunnyvale
7. Legal Non-Conforming Two-Family Dwelling Parcels and Maps
8. Maps of Legal Non-Conforming Properties Suggested for Rezoning and Land Use Designation Study
Attachment 1