On July 14, 1998, the City Council adopted a workplan to consider the rezoning of properties within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts and to consider the modification of development standards that affect appearance and ownership options of multi-family developments. This report sets forth recommendations for the modification of development standards such as, but not limited to, setbacks, height and lot coverage. The recommended changes to the development standards are not likely to significantly affect the number of units developed on a property; they may result in slightly smaller units to meet the more restrictive site planning criteria. The consideration of rezoning R-4 and R-5 zoned properties will be presented subsequent to this effort. This study issue was originally ranked number one out of five items to be studied by Community Development in 1998. The study issue is a continuing item in 1999.

Amending the R-4 and R-5 development standards in Title 19 is not expected to have a direct fiscal impact to the City. Changes to minimum construction standards could affect the affordability of housing.

A notice of the Negative Declaration and the public hearings for this project was published in the Sun newspaper and mailed to all property owners within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. Approximately 40 of the 1,260 owners discussed the issue with staff. None of these owners noted either concern or support for the proposed changes.

On February 22, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed modifications to the development standards. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval (7-0) with three modifications (7-0). The additional modifications consist of:

• Increasing the minimum landscape requirement
• Providing incentives to encourage underground or podium parking
• Requiring pre-wiring for cable, multi-phone lines and computers in each unit.

The Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the development standards at their meeting of February 24, 1999, and voted to recommend approval of the proposed modifications (11-1; 2 absent) including the Planning Commission’s three additional modifications.

Additional information regarding the Planning Commission and the Housing and Human Services Commission discussion and recommended modifications is provided below and in the meeting minutes in Attachment D.

Staff recommends modifications to the following R-4 and R-5 development standards:

1. Height: Decrease maximum height limit to 55 feet or 4 stories (as measured from finished grade adjacent to street)
2. Setbacks: Increase front yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet
3. Usable Open Space: Increase usable open space requirement from 300 square feet to 380 square feet per unit and require a minimum of 80 square feet per unit to be designed for private-use usable open space
4. Lot Coverage: Reduce maximum lot coverage from 45% to 40%
5. Elevators: Codify the council policy requiring elevators for four or more stories (including garage as a story)
6. Landscaping: Increase minimum landscape requirement from 300 square feet to 375 square feet - Added by Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission
7. Underground Parking: Provide incentives to encourage underground or podium parking - Added by Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission
8. Pre-wiring: Require pre-wiring for cable, multi-phone lines and computers in all units - Added by the Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission

1. Map of R-4 and R-5 Zoned Properties
2. Chart of Modifications to Development Standards
3. Negative Declaration
4. Meeting minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of 2/22/99 and the Housing and Human Services Commission meeting of 2/24/99

In July 1998, the City Council reviewed a staff report on this issue and adopted a work plan for addressing concerns associated with the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts (RTC 98-247). The July 1998 Report to Council included information on:

• Why cities have different residential zoning districts
• How people choose their housing
• What is happening to housing costs
• The issues surrounding R-4 and R-5 zoning

• Why should Sunnyvale consider limiting the amount of high density housing?
• Why should Sunnyvale not consider limiting the amount of high density housing?

• Alternatives to rezoning that would potentially address community concerns

The City Council adopted work plan for this study includes the following:

1. Staff was directed to review development standards for R-4 and R-5 to address appearance issues and ownership opportunities (primary focus of this report).
2. The properties currently zoned R-4 and R-5 were grouped into 11 study areas.
3. The study areas were placed in one of four categories to structure the study and provide rezoning recommendations. Category I includes properties to remain R-4 and R-5; Categories II-IV include sites requiring further analysis.
4. Criteria to evaluate R-4 and R-5 properties for potential rezoning were adopted.

Council adopted the work plan, requesting that the high density residential blocks of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Southern Pacific Corridor Specific Plan (Sites 4 and 5) be included in a fifth Category. Further, Council directed that review of the development standards precede any rezoning considerations.

The R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts are the high density zoning districts in the City (see Map—Attachment A). They provide for residential development at densities of 28 to 51 dwelling units per acre. The City Council and the Planning Commission raised concerns about development at the higher densities. The R-4 density range permits up to 36 dwelling units per acre. However, because of the requirement to provide 10% of the units for Below Market Rate, density bonuses of 15% that allow up to 41 dwelling units per acre are possible. Similarly, the R-5 density range permits up to 45 units per acre, with up to 51 units per acre given a 15% density bonus. In addition, R-5 allows for Single Room Occupancy Facilities (SROs) with no specified maximum density. The R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts correspond to the High and Very High Density Residential General Plan land use designations. The development standards (height, setback, landscaping, open space, etc.) are the same for R-4 and R-5; the only difference in the development standards for the two zoning districts is density. Because density is the only difference in the standards, it is likely that units developed in an R-5 zoning district would be smaller than those developed in an R-4 zoning district.

The City is comprised of 5,175 acres that are residentially zoned accounting for 34% of the total City acreage. Within the City, 289 acres are zoned R-4 and R-5, accounting for about 5% of the residentially zoned property (1.7% of total city acreage). The R-4 and R-5 properties contain approximately 7,726 dwelling units; this represents approximately 14% of the existing housing units (including those under construction).

In 1996, the City Council and Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the suitability of high density residential development during a joint Study Session on the preparation of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan. The Land Use and Transportation Element discusses these concerns and includes an Action Statement requiring the City to study the potential for rezoning properties in the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. The concerns include, that development at the higher densities:

• may negatively impact neighborhoods and change the character of the community;
• should primarily locate in the vicinity of transit stops as a means to support and enhance ridership; and,

• may no longer be necessary given the full range of existing housing opportunities within the City.

As required in the adopted work plan, the discussion and recommendations in this report do not address density or the reduction of units permitted per acre. Appropriateness of the density for a site will be addressed in the rezoning phase of this study. This report focuses only on the modification of development standards for R-4 and R-5 multi-family residential developments.

The following are key dates to implement the entire adopted work plan.

Goals, Policies and Action Statements of the Land Use and Transportation Element, the Community Design Sub-Element and the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element of the General Plan address issues related to the development of housing. The following statements specifically relate to this study issue:

Although originally expressed as a concern of the permitted density in the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts, Council modified the study to first address concerns regarding community character, the physical appearance of buildings and ownership opportunities. The next phase of the study will consider individual properties zoned R-4 or R-5 and whether or not they should be rezoned.

Staff has examined modifications to the development standards based on a variety of factors. Such factors include:

• Maintaining compatibility with the community standards/values and existing built community;
• Reducing the appearance of density, mass and bulk;
• Improving the quality of the living environment;
• Minimizing impacts on the potential to develop the maximum number of units;
• Providing for ease in interpretation and implementation of standards with minimal difficulty and ambiguity for both the City and the property owners; and,
• Reducing the possibility of creating major financial burdens for the property owners.

Attachment B includes a chart that lists the entire range of potential modifications to development standards set forth in Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Title 19, as well as the addition of construction requirements. The chart provides discussion points for each proposed modification. At this time, Staff is recommending proposed modifications to only some of those standards listed in the chart; others may follow. The chart below summarizes all issues discussed in the chart in Attachment B.

• Landscaping
• Usable Open Space
• Lot Coverage
• Parking
• Floor Area Ratio
• Unit Size Limitations

Staff has considered the preceding items and recommends the following modifications to the zoning code. Other than density (i.e., units per acre), the development standards for the both the R-4 and R-5 zoning districts are the same.

The Planning Commission and City Council have expressed concerns regarding height. The R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts allow a maximum height of 75 feet or 8 stories. All other residential zoning districts restrict height to 30 feet or 2 stories. Existing R-4 and R-5 zoned sites include developments with varying heights; several developments are 4 stories but only a handful of developments have structures with 5 stories. In order to maintain community character and achieve better compatibility with other residential zoning districts, staff recommends reducing the height to 55 feet or 4 stories. Staff believes with this height reduction, the densities of the R-4 and R-5 Zoning District can still be achieved. Therefore, this modification will not impact density or risk not meeting the goals of the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element, but will ensure better compatibility with community values, other zoning districts and existing development.

The required front yard building setbacks along a street frontage for R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts is 15 feet; the requirement is 20 feet in all other residential zoning districts. In order to effect some reduction on the appearance of bulk and mass of higher density residential buildings, staff recommends increasing the current required front yard setback to 20 feet. This would achieve compatibility of setbacks with other residential zoning districts, may increase the amount of landscaping located between the building and the street and should not result in an inability to achieve the R-4 and R-5 densities. Based on the definition of usable open space, which excludes areas within the front yard from counting toward this requirement, an increased front yard setback could reduce total usable open space for a project. However, a project would still need to comply with the minimum usable open space requirements, discussed below.

Usable open space is defined in SMC Section 19.04.160(3) as the following:

Usable open space contributes to the quality of a living environment and common or shared usable open space may help to create a sense of community. Additionally, outdoor open space enhances the appearance of a site and may reduce the overall appearance of building bulk and mass.

The current per unit requirement is 300 square feet, which is the least amount required in residential zoning districts. The R-3 Zoning District requires 400 square feet per unit. Staff is recommending requiring an additional 80 square feet of usable open space per unit (for a total of 380 square feet). In multi-family developments it is more common to provide common or shared usable open space, or perhaps a combination of private and common usable open space. The Code, however, does not specify any requirements regarding the type of usable open space to be provided. Staff recommends that a minimum of 80 square feet be provided as private-use usable open space (pursuant to the SMC, a balcony must be a minimum of 80 square feet to count toward usable open space). Staff believes the increase in usable open space, and the requirement for minimal private-use usable open space, will upgrade the living environment and possibly enhance the exterior design due to the provision of balconies, decks or terraces.

The maximum lot coverage in the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts is 45%. All other zoning districts allow a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Staff recommends reducing the lot coverage to 40%; this lot coverage will maintain consistency with the other residential zoning districts and could result in increased landscaping or usable open space. This change could result in the development of taller buildings. However, in conjunction with the recommended height reduction, this modification should not create an impact on height. Based on a review of several existing 4-story developments with R-4 densities, lot coverage of 40% and less can be achieved.

Elevators: Codify Elevator Requirement for Developments with Four or More Stories (Current Council Policy)

In 1992, the City Council adopted a policy that requires residential developments with four or more stories (including underground parking as a story) to provide elevators. Elevators do increase the cost of construction and maintenance (due specifically to the elevators) and require that units serviced by elevators be handicapped accessible. Medical emergencies requiring a patient to be transported to an ambulance are hampered if no elevator is available as continuous care (e.g. CPR) must be conducted on a stairwell. Elevators can assist residents when moving in or out, transporting groceries, or if physically disabled. Staff believes this construction feature addresses a quality of life concern, and is not an extraordinary expense.

The following are additional modifications from the chart in Attachment B recommended by the Planning Commission and the Housing and Human Services Commission:

The minimum landscaping requirement in the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts is 300 square feet per unit. Staff did not originally recommend the increase in the landscape requirement but did set forth an alternative of increasing the minimum requirement to 425 square feet per unit (see Attachment B), consistent with the R-3 Zoning District requirement. Staff had not considered this modification because an increased front yard building setback was included. Staff believes the increased front yard building setback will most likely yield additional landscaping between the street frontage and the building. However, the Planning Commission agreed that while the increased setback requirement may result in increased landscaping, the Planning Commission desires to ensure that additional landscaping will be provided. The Planning Commission modified the amount suggested in the chart in Attachment B and recommends increasing the landscaping to 375 square feet per unit. Staff believes this modification could result in a reduction of the size of the units but should not necessarily result in fewer units or numbers of bedrooms. The Housing and Human Services Commission also recommended this modification.

Currently no requirement exists to provide or encourage the construction of underground or podium parking facilities in conjunction with a multi-family development. In the chart in Attachment B, staff set forth a suggested modification of providing incentives such as, increased building height, to encourage the construction of underground facilities. In light of maintaining the effort to reduce the appearance of mass, bulk and density of the multi-family developments and to encourage a variety of unit rents/prices, staff had not originally recommend this modification. However, the modification will simply offer incentives to construct such parking facilities, it will not require underground or podium parking. The Planning Commission and the Housing and Human Services Commission added this to their recommendations, but did not indicate any other additional incentives.

There is no current requirement for pre-wiring as listed above. Staff believes that it is common for new developments to include such pre-wiring. In an effort to encourage a variety of unit rents/prices, staff had not believed it would be advantageous to require all developments to provide all of the pre-wiring; therefore, staff had not recommend this modification. The Planning Commission stated that these are very common and expected amenities and should be installed during building construction resulting in lower costs in the long run. Should an individual unit be retrofitted at a later date, this could result in fairly high costs to a renter or unit owner. The Housing and Human Services Commission also added this modification to their recommendation.

The remaining construction requirements (washer/dryer hookups, garages and outdoor areas for pets) were prepared to address ownership opportunities. These construction techniques are common among condominium developments and could increase the opportunities to convert apartment development to ownership. However, these construction requirements add to the cost of development and may increase the potential rents associated with such dwelling units. In a tight housing market (high demand for dwelling units), such as Sunnyvale has recently experienced, the rents for all units tend to increase disproportionately to the amenities in the unit or on the site. In more stable periods, lower rents will be offered for more basic units. In a strong housing market (more units being built), many project and built-in construction amenities are provided to improve overall competitiveness.

The trade-off becomes addressing ownership opportunities and providing less expensive rental opportunities. The Housing and Human Services Commission has indicated a desire to address affordability in the community. Staff concludes that requiring these additional construction techniques will not necessarily result in more ownership units, but may increase the rents and therefore recommends against requiring these features.

The development standards for the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts contribute to the final aesthetic effect of a development as well as the quality of life for a resident of that development. Because numerous standards exist, any number of changes are possible. It is helpful to keep in mind that changes to one standard could result in a corresponding change in another (e.g. limiting height could result in greater lot coverage, greater setbacks could result in less usable open space). Staff has reviewed the standards to address the most prominent concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, Housing and Human Services Commission and City Council. This study does not specifically address the issue of alternative or affordable housing (e.g. senior assisted living, single room occupancy, housing for the disabled). The development standards recommended for change are generally consistent with developments that the Planning Commission and City Council have noted as more successful in the community. The recommended changes to the development standards probably will not significantly affect the number of units developed on a property; they may result in slightly smaller units to meet the more restrictive site planning criteria.

Amending the R-4 and R-5 development standards in Title 19 is not expected to have a direct fiscal impact to the City. Changes to minimum construction standards could affect the affordability of housing.

A notice of the Negative Declaration and the public hearings for this project were published in the Sun newspaper and mailed to all property owners within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts. Approximately 40 of the 1,260 owners discussed the issue with staff. None of these owners noted either concern or support for the proposed changes.

On February 22, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed modifications to the development standards (see Planning Commission meeting minutes – Attachment D). Three members of the public spoke; one property owner of a single family home relayed concern that the modifications may not result in compatibility with the older established single family neighborhoods. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the modified development standards (7-0) with three modifications. The additional modifications consist of:

• Increasing the minimum landscape requirement
• Providing incentives to encourage underground or podium parking
• Requiring pre-wiring for cable, multi-phone lines and computers in each unit.

On February 24, 1999, the Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the development standards. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of the modifications on affordability and size of units. The Commission also expressed concern regarding the proposed additional 80 square feet of private-use usable open space per unit. The Commission mentioned the possibility that HUD financed developments may not cover private-use usable open space. However, the Commission decided to recommend the Planning Commission’s additional modifications. The Housing and Human Services Commission voted to recommend approval (11-1; 2 absent) of the proposed modified development standards. Note that the Commission did not recommend approval of Alternative 6, which directs staff to proceed with the rezoning hearings because of the potential for reducing the number and affordability of residential units in the City (see Housing and Human Services Commission meeting minutes, Attachment D).

1. Height: Decrease maximum height limit to 55 feet or 4 stories (as measured from grade adjacent to street)
2. Setbacks: Increase front yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet
3. Usable Open Space: Increase usable open space requirement from 300 square feet to 380 square feet per unit and require a minimum of 80 square feet per unit to be designed for private-use usable open space
4. Lot Coverage: Reduce maximum lot coverage from 45% to 40%
5. Elevators: Codify the council policy requiring elevators for four or more stories (including garage as a story)
6. Landscaping: Increase minimum landscape requirement from 300 square feet to 375 square feet. Added by Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission
7. Underground Parking: Provide incentives to encourage underground or podium parking. Added by Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission
8. Pre-wiring: Require pre-wiring for cable, multi-phone lines and computers in all units. Added by the Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission

3. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance ahead of the Title 19 schedule for the modifications to the R-4 and R-5 development standards listed in Alternative 2.
4. Modify the suggested modifications listed in Alternative 2.
5. Do not adopt modifications to the R-4 and R-5 development standards. Provide staff with alternative direction.
6. Direct staff to proceed with the rezoning hearings in accordance with the schedule listed in this staff report and as outlined in the work plan adopted July 14, 1998.
7. Direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance changes to effect modifications to the Constructions Requirements as outlined.
8. Determine that the modifications to the R-4 and R-5 development standards adequately address the concerns of the community and direct staff to not to proceed with the rezoning hearings.

Planning Commission: Alternatives 1, 2 and 6.

Housing and Human Services Commission: Alternatives 1 and 2

Staff: Alternatives 1, 2 and 6

Prepared by:

Dana Sonenberg Wolfe
Associate Planner

Reviewed by:

Fred Bell
Principal Planner

Reviewed by:

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

Reviewed by:

David S. Boesch, Jr.
Director, Community Development

Approved by:

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager