Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Variance
Application
(PLNG-2023-0642)
160 S. Pastoria Ave.
Wendy Lao, Associate Planner
City Council, March 25, 2025
2City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Site Context
Image Source: Google Maps, 2024
Washington Park
Project Site
3City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Site Plan & Photo
Image Sources: Applicant
Pastoria Ave.
•8’-7”
• 9’-11”
4City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Code Compliance
Minimum Setback Requirements
Height Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
Up to 8 ft. n/a 0 ft. 0 ft.
Between 8-15 ft. n/a 4 ft.
(Zoning setback)
10 ft.
Proposed Structure
Height Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
9 ft. 11 in. height n/a 2 ft. 5 in. 2 ft. 2 in.
5City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Background
7/10/23: Neighborhood Complaint
9/1/23: Applicant submitted Variance application
11/29/23: Zoning Administrator hearing; application denied 12/14/23: Applicant filed appeal of ZA decision
4/22/24: Planning Commission hearing #1
5/28/24: Planning Commission hearing #2: application denied 6/10/24: Applicant filed appeal of PC decision
6City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Applicant’s Justification Staff Response
Variance Finding 1
1. Lot is substandard in size; only
50 ft. wide.
2. Relocating the accessory
structure could negatively
impact neighbor privacy
or root area of a heritage
Magnolia tree
1. Standard 5,750 sq. ft.
rectangular-shaped lot (50’ W x
115’ D)
2. Code allows flexibility in
accessory structure height,
size, and location.
3. Community concerns
“There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or use involved which do not apply generally to property, improvements or uses within the same zoning district.” 7City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Neighbor Feedback
8City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Applicant’s Justification Staff Response
Variance Finding 2
1. Applicant received some
neighbor support for home
office
2. An ADU could be larger and
cause more significant impacts
to property and neighbors
1. Complaints received
2. Lack of permits is a safety
concern
3. Offices not the same as ADUs.
“The approving of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district.” 9City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Applicant’s Justification Staff Response
Variance Finding 3
1. Applicant would not be provided
special privileges not available
to surrounding property owners
2. Aerial view of neighborhood
shows many accessory
structures built with little or no
setbacks
1. Previous Variance granted for an
accessory structure brought the
project into compliance with
parking code requirements.
2. Satellite view is not adequate in
determining whether
neighboring accessory
structures are code-compliant.
“Upon granting of the variance the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners within the same zoning district.”
10City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Additional Justifications by Applicant
A. Some Commissioners encouraged applicant to appeal to City Council • Support home office
• PC lacks legislative authority to go beyond the current code in granting the variance
• Request to revise municipal code to allow increased height and reduced setbacks for detached offices when smaller than 120 square feet
B. Current ordinances encourage homeowners to construct larger ADUs, although smaller, simpler, and less costly structures serve the original purpose.
11City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Additional Justifications by Applicant (continued)
C. Home office would:
• Support housing affordability
• Help reduce climate impacts due to reduced traveling
• Generate less parking demand compared to an ADU
D. Significant personal costs
12City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Staff Response to Applicant’s Additional Justifications • Planning Commission voted to deny application,
with one abstention and 2 absent.
• California law requires city’s decision-making body
to evaluate project based on current regulations.
• The state law supports the development of ADUs,
and restricts cities’ ability to deny them.
• City staff has not conducted a study to determine
whether ADUs are primarily being used as offices
rather than residential purposes.
• Cannot review applicant’s financial circumstances
13City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Options to Modify the Structure for Compliance
Reduce structure to 8 feet in height
Relocate structure to comply with 4-foot side and 10-foot rear yard setback requirements
Expand structure and convert to ADU
Any option that includes power and where building is used as a “habitable” space requires a Building Permit.
14City of Sunnyvale – City Council: Appeal of Variance March 25, 2025 Alternatives
Recommendation
1. Deny the appeal and uphold decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Variance
2. If Findings can be made, grant the appeal and approve the Variance subject to draft conditions
3. Alternative 2 with modifications.
Staff Recommendation
Alternative 1. Deny the appeal and uphold decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Variance for the accessory structure.