H and Shaded items are related to deviations from the code.

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

The applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Special Development Permit, and Tentative Map to develop 35 single-family homes and common area. Implementation of the project will require the demolition of the Sunnyvale Community Christian Church.

The project has two integral features in its design. The preservation of the existing street trees and rear loaded garages. Most of the existing mature street trees are to be preserved and by doing so the applicant will be able to create a pleasant streetscape that is accentuated by the individual architectural stylings of the homes. The key to creating such an atmosphere are the front porches and rear loaded garages that allow a home to be moved slightly closer to the street and contribute positively to the streetscape.

Since the General Plan Amendment study was initiated, staff and the applicant have worked to create a project that would meet the applicant's goals and preserve the interests of the neighborhood and city. Staff has reviewed alternative site plans and discussed different development options and City policy with the applicant. The applicant has met on several occasions with the residents in the area to discuss the proposed plan for development.

Although the parts of the plan are exceptional, staff has particular concerns about the project as a whole. Staff concurs with the following elements of the application: preserving the street trees, attractive streetscape, innovate site design, low-medium density, and the use of the combining district for flexibility. Elements of the project that staff believes require modification include the deviations of lot coverage, large individual FAR for each lot, and a variety of setbacks. Reducing the deviations will contribute to creating usable open space for the owners, reducing bulk in the neighborhood, and providing for a variety of housing opportunities with targeted affordability. Staff has considered the merits of the application in the context of the house design's relationship to small lot layout and the intent of the underlying zoning district.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project, as mitigated, would not create any significant environmental impacts (see Attachment 3, Initial Study).

An acoustical assessment was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. regarding the potential for noise impacts on residential units closest to Mary Avenue. The acoustical assessment concluded that exterior noise levels would not exceed City standards provided solid wood fences are installed at the side yards locations. Interior noise levels would not exceed City noise standards provided as recommended in condition 13.

A study was undertaken to determine sanitary sewer capacity in accordance with a preliminary study that was completed by CH2MHill in 2002. The study determined adequate capacity exists for the proposed development.

General Plan Amendment

Location: The proposed General Plan Amendment will encompass the entire site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Mary and Iowa Avenues.

Area: The project site consists of two parcels totaling 3.01 acres.

Change Under Consideration: A request for a General Plan Initiation Study was filed by the applicant on October 17, 2002. The applicant requested consideration by Council to change the Land Use designation of the subject property from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. On November 26, 2002 Council approved the General Plan Initiation Study.

General Plan Amendment Initiation: Staff supported the investigation of an increase in density. Staff voiced one concern at the time of the initiation request; that small lot development should be reserved for appropriately sized homes as is intended by the designation's General Plan description.

Objective: The objective of the General Plan Amendment is to allow for an increase in residential density to allow development of small-lot single family homes. It would also allow a gradation of density that acts as a transition from the Medium Density located to the south to the Low Density to the north and west.

Present Site Conditions: The project site is currently occupied by the Sunnyvale Community Christian Church. The existing church buildings will be demolished.

Streets: The project site is bounded on the east by Mary Avenue, on the south by Iowa Avenue and partially bounded on the north by Polk Avenue.

Nearby Uses: The local neighborhood is characterized by multiple family residential to the south (across Iowa Avenue), and single-family residential to the west, north and east (across Mary Avenue).

General Plan Consideration: The proposed residential development would exceed residential density currently designated by the General Plan and would increase the potential number of housing units in the City by a small number.

The existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation would allow the continuation of the lot pattern of the single family development to the west and north of the project site; however, it would not allow the for the density of 12 units per acre sought by the applicant for small-lot single family development. The project site is located between existing multiple family development (across Iowa Avenue) and single-family homes to the north and west. The proposed Low-Medium Residential density may serve as a buffer between these existing developments. The maximum density permitted would be 14 units per acre.

Maintaining single-family development concepts supports community goals to maintain and protect single-family residential property, as well as General Plan Goals and Policies to encourage ownership housing. Detached single-family homes are considered desirable by the community and allow for individual ownership, most often with comparatively larger private spaces. This general plan designation would meet those goals by facilitating that type of development at an increased density.

However, this site could also be considered for a Medium Density Residential designation due to the proximity of Medium Density Residential development just across the street, nearby mass transit, and its location on major streets. Although a higher density (max. 24 units/acre) would provide additional housing, the site location and proximity to existing single family detached development make multiple family development of the site less desirable.

Staff believes that the Low-Medium Density Residential is the most appropriate designation for the site. In summary, Low-Medium Density provides additional housing units, will provide a buffer between existing varied residential development, and facilitates the Land Use and Transportation Element Goals of providing for detached single-family homes for ownership and preservation of existing neighborhoods, as well as other General Plan Goals and Policies.

Change Under Consideration: Rezone the 3.01 acre site from R-0 (Low Density Residential) to R-1.7/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential / Planned Development). The R-1.7/PD Zone allows up to 14 du/acre, and is compatible with a General Plan Designation of Low-Medium Density Residential.

Objective: To allow for small lot development and corresponding construction of detached single-family homes. The proposed Planned Development Combining District allows for deviations from certain development standards necessary to accommodate special conditions and situations. The R1.7/PD Zoning District always includes the PD Combining District.

Discussion:

The Low-Medium Density General Plan Designation can be considered a method for single-family infill type of development. It correlates to Sunnyvale's desire for single-family homes while providing for housing needs in a taxed environment of scarce available land. Three zoning districts are provided as tools to carry out the General Plan's intent for such residential development. The Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) characterizes development in R-1.5 and R-1.7/PD as "small lot/small home development" and R-2 has been typified as townhouses, duplexes, garden apartments, and in some instances single-family homes. Each of these zoning districts has different standards and characteristics for providing a variety of housing opportunities and to discern between developments.

The objective of the three zoning districts is to provide for economically diverse housing opportunities for the City, particularly moderate income housing opportunities. Although not specifically mentioned as such in the current zoning ordinance descriptions, the legislative intent at the time of creation of R1.5 and the R1.7/PD was to provide economical alternative housing opportunities (RTC 91-227, RTC92-480). The discussion clearly states the intent to provide for affordable housing targeted at middle income families. The report also articulates a relationship between the allowable density and the permissible FAR to implement the concept of affordability.

R-1.5 Zoning is characterized as having the lowest maximum density of the Low-Medium Designation Zones and a minimum lot size of 4,200 square feet. A limitation of 50% FAR is also applied to the zone for preserving the development as comparatively small lots/small homes. This Zone would most closely approximate the existing development pattern while providing a slight increase in density over the existing zoning. The proposed project would need to be redesigned and reduce the number of units to satisfy density requirements. As an exclusively single-family zoning district no affordable (BMR) units are required. Affordability of the development is based on limiting the lot size and unit size. This zoning would support up to 30 units on the subject site.

R-1.7/PD Zoning (proposed by the applicant) allows the highest base density of the three Low-Medium Designation zones. This zone has more stringent FAR and lot size requirements than the other Zones to provide for neighborhood character and housing opportunities at the higher density. This Zone is most readily identifiable as designed for small lot/small homes due to these standards. As an exclusively single-family zoning district no affordable (BMR) units are required. Affordability of the development is based on limiting the lot size and unit size. This zoning would support up to 42 units on the subject site.

R-2 Zoning provides the greatest flexibility for development by permitting a variety of uses, lot sizes, and no FAR limits. The City Council has adopted a policy that the Zone may be used in accordance with the guidelines for small lot development of single family homes. This is the only Zone of the three to require Below Market Rate (BMR) housing. The Zone permits a maximum of 12 units per acre or 14 units per acre with a BMR density bonus, equaling the R-1.7/PD density. The subject site supports up to 36-42 housing units.

Upon reviewing the Rezone in conjunction with the SDP, staff cannot come to the same conclusion. The merits of the proposed application lack acquiescence with General Plan Goals and Policies in relation to housing variety and affordability. As discussed later, the excessive lot coverage, FAR, and setback deviations do not fulfill the potential of the underlying small lot/small home zoning districts. Therefore, staff recommends zoning the property R-2/PD. The inclusionary zoning standards of the R-2 will help ensure a component of affordability in the project and satisfy goals of the General Plan, while at the same time permitting the character of the proposed development to remain.

The applicant has provided justifications to support their application for R1.7/PD and believes the zoning request and project as a whole meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan. In addition, the applicant believes the project is consistent with Council action on the Mary Manor site (Classic Communities) located a short distance to the north of this site on Mary and Washington Avenue. Although there are similarities to above referenced project, this application does have significant differences that will be discussed in the section titled Compliance with Development Standards.

Planned Development: A property may be Rezoned to include the PD Combining District. The PD Zoning enables the consideration of deviations from the Code to accommodate the site's restraints to development.

The purpose of the Planned Development Combining District is to provide modifications, additions, and limitations to other zoning districts to address special conditions and situations within the context of that underlying zone. In 1998, the City Council approved guidelines for the use of PDs and accompanying Special Development Permits (SDPs). The subject request for a PD meets all of the three applicable established guidelines.

The project involves a complete redevelopment of the project site. In order to design a successful small-lot residential project, certain deviations will be necessary to allow for design elements such as an interior street, small ownership lots, setback, and lot coverage. Deviations proposed for the project are discussed in the following sections of this report. The Staff recommendation for R-2 also includes the PD Combining District. While R-2 does not expressly require PD for development, it is necessitated for R-2 when a project exclusively proposes detached single-family dwellings on small lots. (Guideline 3 above)

Traditionally, Planned Development is considered a "give and take" tool for implementing the objectives of the zoning district and foremost the General Plan. When evaluating the proposed project's deviations it is important to consider the intent of the PD of providing flexibility/control in context of the zoning. The Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan (Chapter 3 Issues) discusses three appropriate questions to consider when evaluating a proposal.

Staff has determined that the project design is well done, the higher density is compatible, and with modifications its design is integrated into the neighborhood; however, the project has not met the intent of the small lot/small home R-1.7/PD zoning request. The project does not provide for minimal open space or satisfy housing goals of targeted affordability and variety.

Use: The project would convert an existing church site to residential use. The detached single-family homes proposed by this project are consistent with the uses allowed by the recommended R-2/PD and the proposed R-1.7/PD Zone as well. The proposed project is at 11.6 du/acre, meeting the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-element goal of providing 75% of the maximum density allowed within the underlying zone for either R-2 or R1.7/PD.

Site Layout: The project contains 35 single-family homes on lots ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 4,200 sq. ft. in area. A critical element of the layout for each lot will be the incorporation of an access/maintenance easement along the side of the adjoining lots. This allows the use of the entire side yard area by the homeowner. The strategy allows for a larger, useable yard area much like a "zero lot line" design. The easement strategy is proposed in this case as it allows greater flexibility in wall design and penetrations (i.e. windows) along the side yard area.

Access- The site utilizes a private means of access in the form of an interior street to reach the individual garages for all 35 homes. This design (somewhat like an alley) moves the garages behind the homes out of view of surrounding public streets. The fronts of the homes face the adjoining public street and provide pedestrian access (the front door) to the street. This design also improves the appearance of the development along the public streets since there are not large expanses of garage doors facing the street. The absence of curb cuts benefits the neighborhood by increasing the available on-street parking. The homes would be addressed off of the existing public streets.

The proposed design results in a narrow, private street environment behind the homes creating a somewhat isolated area that may be perceived as less secure than a typical public street. The applicant has taken care to address the issue by redesigning the rear façade of the homes to incorporate second story windows allowing for some passive surveillance of the interior street. Lighting amenities are also provided. The proposed site design also may limit contact and interaction among neighbors surrounding the proposed development as typical garage access, automobile washing, lawn mower storage etc. that often lead to neighborhood socialization would be limited. To compensate for this, usable front porches are provided in the front of the homes.

Parking- Due to constraints of the project site configuration, the interior street design does not meet current parking standards for typical single-family vehicle parking. Current standards require two covered spaces and two uncovered spaces per unit. The uncovered spaces are located on the driveway approach to the garage in typical single-family development. Eleven of the lots are severely deficient in depth to provide parking. Three parking zones totaling 25 compact spaces are provided to address the issue. Staff considers this an acceptable solution to the problem with the inclusion of landscaping, pedestrian connections, and appropriate lighting. Although on-street parking is not counted towards total required spaces, the lack of driveway cuts does provide additional capacity.

Setbacks- The most extensive deviations are related to setbacks. Some of the deviations are essential for the appropriate development of the site and others are of concern to staff.

• Front yard
• Rear yard
• 1^st story side yard
• 2^nd story side yard
• Sight vision Triangle

The front yard setback for each home is generally 15 feet for both the 1st and 2^nd story, with some small exceptions. The rear-loaded garages remove the need for parking and vehicular maneuvering area in front of the home that pushes homes further from the street. Quality architecture adjoining a reduced front yard is necessary to support compatibility within the neighborhood. Staff finds this deviation to be appropriate for the type of proposed development, including the architecture, and that it helps ensure a more lively and interesting streetscape than otherwise could be accomplished.

The rear yard setback is a unique situation because of the interior street. The garages encroach as close as nine feet to the rear property line. The standard setback of 20 feet for two stories in the rear yard may not be necessary. Generally, the rear yard provides usable open space and a sense of privacy from neighbors. Individuals may not desire a large backyard depending on personal preferences, but most likely will desire some separation from their neighbor for privacy. When comparing the overall rear yard setback between two units there is a minimum of 49 feet between units. Standard minimum setbacks would only require 40 feet. Staff finds this setback deviation to be acceptable in providing a sense of separation and privacy while allowing for innovative development.

The application meets 1^st story minimum side-yard setback of 4 feet, but does not meet the combined total side-yard setback standard of 12 feet. In addition, the elevations for the homes do not provide relief in the sense of stepping back the second story of the home and as a result the homes do not meet 2^nd story setback minimums or combined totals. The side-yard deviation applies to the majority of the lots within the project. In combination with the Zoning Code standards, a small lot development guideline calls for a home to meet the maximum 2^nd story setback when abutting existing development. This particular guideline requires 11 feet for lots 6, 21, and 22 where six, eight, and five feet are provided respectively.

Staff does not believe the magnitude of these side-yard setback deviations is appropriate for the development itself or the neighborhood. The setback deviation lends itself to creating other deviations important to quality of life issues; such as open space, bulk, and character of a neighborhood. By not meeting setbacks, the project has grown to exceedingly large FAR for the all of the lots. The larger size of the homes then makes the amount of area deviating from setbacks greater for the project.

This intensity of development has provided minimal open space for small lot design. The applicant has provided an easement tool to allow use of the smaller yards by the homeowners. This tool may be appropriate for providing some relief from the deviation, but it does achieve open space or smaller home goals. Staff has included conditions that the applicant work with staff to reduce the degree of deviation internally amongst the lots. Because of inherit size issues attributable to small lots, some degree of internal side-yard deviation may be necessary for design and marketability of the home. A second condition requiring an 11-foot setback for 2^nd stories on lots 6, 21, and 22 is included in the report.

Lot Size- Individual lot sizes are within the required 2,600 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. range, with one exception. The lot located at the corner of Mary and Iowa Avenue is 4,160 sq. ft. Staff considers this single lot deviation insignificant in the context of this development. The individual lot has the greatest setback constraints and sense of personal private space issues. Secondly, the lot is less than a 5% deviation and is smaller in size than the related R-1.5 4,200 minimum lot size.

Sight Vision Triangle Front Yard- The intersections of the interior street with Iowa Avenue and then Iowa Avenue with Mary Avenue create sight vision triangles. The applicant has addressed the most critical location of Iowa and Mary Avenue intersection by placing the home towards the north property line. For public safety reasons, this vision triangle setback and restriction on height of objects over three feet shall be maintained. The other house encroachments linked to the interior street have been deemed acceptable by the Public Works Transportation Division. The relatively low speed of vehicles is similar to a driveway and accommodates the design. Staff finds there is an acceptable level of encroachment, that does not impair the safety of the travelling public, in support of the innovative site design. A condition requiring Lot 1 comply with sight vision triangle requirements is included in the report.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)- This standard is related to the site layout by establishing a dependency on lot size to control the dimensions of a structure. FAR is a measurement of land use intensity and comparative bulkiness of a structure or use, it does not relate to density. FAR is not only a physical site planning tool, but a socio-economic land use tool. Controlled FAR helps to implement the intentions of the small lot/small home development, which is to provide economical alternative housing solutions. Both standards and guidelines have been established by Sunnyvale to manage small lot/small home development.

Staff cannot make the finding that the General Plan supports such a liberal use of FAR. Staff's recommendation includes conditions to have the project comply with 55% FAR overall. Staff recommends R-2 development be permitted above the guideline of 50% due to the preservation of mature street trees. To compensate for potentially larger homes, the R-2 Zoning requires BMRs and usable open space for a component of affordability and livability. R-2 permits the same density of proposed development by the applicant and supports the concept of the higher intensity of use as proposed. If the property is Zoned R-1.7/PD, staff recommends the project be conditioned to maintain individual lot FAR of 50% for the same purposes of housing affordability.

Landscaping/Usable Open Space- While personal preferences will dictate the type of home and land that is desirable, Sunnyvale has committed to providing certain levels of amenities to reinforce community values. Sunnyvale has prescribed open space and landscaping requirements for all development. While single-family detached home development does not have specific landscaping area requirements, it is implied from the other development standards. R-2 development, regardless of use, does require usuable open space at a minimum of 500 sq. ft. per unit. Small lot guidelines require 500 sq. ft. per unit with a minimum dimension of 15 ft, regardless of zoning.

The proposal does not meet either the dimensional or area standards for the vast majority of lots in the project. The open space deviation is related to the lot coverage, setback, and FAR deviations. Staff finds that Sunnyvale single family homes do have an expectation of personal outdoor space as compared to a condominium or townhouse project where such expectations would be tempered. Small lot development is between townhouse development and standard development in the continuum of housing stock and accordingly a reduced expectation of open space for single family homes. Minimum open space does need to be provided to satisfy Sunnyvale's prevailing community values. As such, Staff has included a condition that requires 500 sq. ft. of minimum usable space in accordance R-2 standards and Design Guidelines. (Conditions of Approval No. 5)

Architecture: The homes have modern floor plans with somewhat traditional architectural elements. The homes consist of semi-prominent front porches with and a variety of front treatments. Each floor plan has different architectural details to create variety along the street. Staff feels that the proposed residential architecture is generally of high quality and meets the design standards for the City. The variety of front elevations is intended to provide visual interest.

Two different floor plans are proposed for the homes. The houses range in height between 24 – 28 feet. All plans entail the use of porch type entry feature. The front porches are located 13 - 15 ft. back from the edge of the sidewalk. The front façade's second story is then stepped back from the first story. Side setbacks (1^st and 2^nd story) are a minimum of 4 ft. on both sides, equaling 8 ft. between buildings. The architectural relief along the building sides provides areas of 10-12 ft. between buildings. (See Attachment 5 for a breakdown of individual unit sizes, setbacks, lot coverage, and requested deviations for individual lots.)

The applicant has enhanced the streetscape along Mary Avenue to soften the traffic impacts on the development. A decorative three-foot fence and ornamental pilasters are provided at the property line. These features denote the end of the public space and a beginning of the private space. This approach helps maintain a sense of personal space at the reduced setbacks.

The following Guidelines and General Plan provisions were considered in analysis of the project design and architecture.

Tentative Map

General:

Access: The houses will be oriented towards the various public streets with front door pedestrian access. All vehicle access will utilize the interior street to reach the rear-loaded garages and parking zones. Such an arrangement allows all vehicle access for the interior street to occur at two separate driveway entrances onto Iowa Avenue, thereby limiting curb cuts onto the streets and protects most of the existing mature street trees. The interior street is between 22 and 24 feet in width. The dimensions comply with access standards of the Department of Public Safety.

Right of Way: All of the right-of-way abutting the site is fully improved with street sections and sidewalks. Although Iowa Avenue appears to be dedicated right of way it has not been dedicated as such. Dedication of this area is included as a condition of approval. The interior street and parking zones will not be dedicated to the public and will remain as privately controlled and maintained space.

Easements: Various standard easements are to be recorded in conjunction with the tentative map. As mentioned earlier, the applicant proposes a mutual access easement between two individual property's to maximize the use of side yards. The easement will benefit one property owner for the general use and occupancy of the space and allow for the other party to use the easement to access their own home for maintenance purposes. This easement will only be in affect between two homes and provide for exclusive rights between these two property owners. An access and maintenance easement will be granted to the city for any service needs related to the sanitary sewer system. A common ingress/egress easement will be incorporated into the interior street layout.

Undergrounding: There are existing overhead utility lines. Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.38.090 requires that these and all new utility lines and service drops be undergrounded prior to building permit final.

The proposal has several deviations incorporated into the design of the site.

As staff stated earlier, some degree of deviation may be necessary to support innovative site design. In some situations the deviations not only support the design, but enhance the project as a whole (i.e. front yard setback to enhance the streetscape). However, staff cannot provide justifications for the project's combined level of deviation. Staff considers the proposal as R-1.7/PD to compromise the intentions of the underlying zoning district in providing for housing affordability and usable open space.

The following are proposed general modifications to the project that are also included as conditions. Staff has provided justifications for a modified project.

The applicant has also suggested the project is in accordance with the approved Mary Manor project by Classic Communities (2002-0359). The SDP did include a small-lot residential component Zoned R1.7/PD and a commercial section Zoned C1 (Neighborhood Business). The plan included 31 homes served by a private street and incorporated deviations for lot coverage, FAR, Setbacks, and garage sizes (parking). Council's action to approve the development as R1.7/PD above standards and guidelines may have reflected the inherent difficulties and costs of redeveloping an under performing commercial development. Although the two applications have similar residential designs, there are two primary reasons not to equate the applications. The intensity and diversity of the housing vary significantly between the two projects.

The FAR and Lot Coverage approved for Mary Manor exceeded both the standards of R1.7/PD and the Guideline for overall FAR. The project had an overall FAR of 53%; with individual FAR as high as 77-78% and lot coverage of 43% for the largest proposed unit. The subject proposal has an overall FAR of 63.5% and individual lot FAR exceeding 90% and 48% lot coverage. Almost 2/3 of the homes exceed the Mary Manor project's highest FAR. The greater extent and magnitude of the deviations distinguishes this project from the Mary Manor project.

A second difference between the two projects is housing diversity. Mary Manor incorporated seven different floor plans with varying unit sizes and bedroom options. The current application has not taken into account lot size variations and proposes 1 of 2 floor plans with different façade treatments for each lot. While individual lot FAR was similar for all of the Mary Manor floor plans, it did show responsiveness to the site's limitations with variable floor plans. The current proposal does not represent responsiveness with its 2 floor plans and large unit sizes.

The proposed project will have a temporary impact on the surrounding uses as part of the construction. The long term impacts such as noise and traffic are expected to be minimal. The concept of rear access garages and a transitional density above current R-0 levels is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff is concerned that combination of the proposed density and large homes will be out of character for the area and not mesh with the surrounding developments, despite their appealing individual architectural stylings.

There has been an ongoing dialogue between the applicant and staff about the appropriate development for this site and potential changes to the proposal. The proposal has merit as an innovative site design with detailed single family home architecture and streetscape elements. While the design work adds credibility to the concept, the proposal does not satisfy the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Planning staff reviewed this project based on land use principles and General Plan Goals and Policies. Many of these policies encourage developing more housing and attaining a denser product where feasible and providing for a variety of housing opportunities. These policies may not necessarily reflect developers’ or nearby property owners’ preferences, but should be recognized as a critical parts of the Land Use and Transportation Element and Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element’s Policies that are necessary for the welfare of the City as a whole.

In the discussion of the proposal's design or deviations, one should not lose track of the elements that are considered positives elements and those that should be adjusted to better suit Sunnyvale. Each piece of the project (layout, floor plan, streetscape, porches, architecture) has merit unto itself. However, Staff is concerned that the sum of the parts does not equal a project that is a congruent fit for Sunnyvale. The project's individual deviations in and of themselves also may be acceptable, but the extent and magnitude of the deviations when combined together does not create a project suited for the small lot/small home development as R-1.7/PD.

The proposed project does not fit precisely within any of the City's existing zoning districts, but it most closely approximates the standards and intent of R-2 rather than R1.7/PD. Staff finds that a 55% FAR overall limit will benefit the developer and at the same time provide variable housing opportunities in conjunction with BMRs. An R-2 zoned project will provide a long-term benefit to the City that is in conformance with the General Plan. Staff has addressed issues of open space and bulk with additional conditions regarding setbacks and required open space. By thoughtfully reviewing applicable standards and guidelines for small lot/small home development in the context of the qualities of this particular project, Staff believes that the proposed conditions will create a better project for the City, while allowing the project to be feasible and marketable for the developer.

Planning Commission discussed both the quality features of the project and their concerns. The consensus on the overall design of the project was positive; including the use of rear-loaded garages, individual house design, and streetscape. General concerns arose regarding unit size in relation to open space and providing for a variety of housing opportunities. The appreciation of the project overall and the desire to be consistent with the most recent similar approval led to a recommendation that application be approved as proposed with a modification on the intensity of development to the maximum levels of the Mary Manor Classic Communities project. The three dissenting votes expressed concern with unit sizes and expressed a desire for BMR units.

The recommendation includes the following:

Primarily, Staff believes that the Classic Communities project should be viewed as the exception, not the rule, for designing small lot developments. Viewing it as a precedent has created a de facto standard of development that circumvents the General Plan and Zoning Code's intentions for typical small lot development.

In light of the positive attributes that the Planning Commission endorsed as benefiting the City, Staff has revised their recommendation to be R-2/PD with an overall FAR limit of 55% (adjusted upward from an overall FAR limit of 50%). Nonetheless, Staff believes a component of affordability is needed in the project and does not concur with the Planning Commission's complete recommendation for several reasons.

Staff's evaluation of the Planning Commission recommendation has determined that the applicant could reduce the number of units to 30 and utilize the same floor plans. In the alternative, a project consisting of 35 units could average 2000 sq. ft. per home including the garage. Staff cannot predict how the applicant would meet these conditions, but believes the two examples are reasonable alternatives. The range of alternatives under the prescribed limitations does not significantly benefit the City or address site design issues.

Staff has not concluded that density is an issue with the project and the neighborhood has not voiced concerns about the development's design. The overall design has compensated for the higher density with high levels of architecture and design. As a result reduction in units will not necessarily address the issue of housing affordability. It does potentially address spacing and open space requirements of the site design. If the project maintained its density, the corresponding average unit size of 2000 sq. ft. will potentially address spacing and open space. Targeted affordability concepts have considered 2000 sq. ft. as the maximum intended size.

Staff was not able to make finding for the R-1.7/PD and recommends the R-2/PD Zone with a limit of 50% overall FAR. Staff is then recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map based on the revisions and conditions included herein.

• General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.

Fiscal impacts are the normally expected fees and taxes. The provision of four BMR units could be a boost to the affordable housing program.

The applicant has told staff that various neighborhood meetings have been held to inform the area about the proposal. Staff did not attend the neighborhood meetings. Staff has not received any comments concerning the project.

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 3.01 acres from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential; introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from R-0 to R-1.7/PD and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with attached conditions. (Applicant Request)
2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 3.01 acres from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential; introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from R-0 to R-2/PD and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with attached conditions. (Staff Recommendation)
3. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and introduce a Resolution to change 3.01 acres from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential; introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from R-0 to R1.7/PD and approve a modified Special Development Permit (53% overall FAR, individual lot FAR 55%, and individual lot coverage of 43%) and Tentative Map with conditions. (Planning Commission Recommendation)
4. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and do not introduce a resolution to amend the General Plan.

5. Do not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.

Alternative 2

Attachments:

• Policy C.3 Ensure that site design creates places which are well organized, attractive, efficient, and safe.

• Policy C.4 Encourage quality architectural design which improves the City's identity, inspires creativity, and heightens individual as well as cultural identity.

To approve a general plan amendment it must be determined the request is in the public's interest. The amendment must also be consistent with the other components of the general plan. As shown in the above general plan goals and policies section, there are policies that could support either a low-medium or medium density type of residential product. However, staff finds that the low-medium density residential is an appropriate designation for the site. The site provides a transition of density, preserves the existing neighborhood while increasing density and housing opportunities for the city, and it is not situated as to support high levels of transit usage, which would warrant medium density development.

To approve a Rezone request it must be determined that the request is in the public's interest. The public's interest is articulated through the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, therefore, the request shall achieve the objectives and purposes of the General Plan. Staff has evaluated the application against the above described objectives of General Plan to determine whether the application is in the public's interest.

Staff has recommended the property be Zoned R-2/PD in conjunction with the Special Development Permit application. To support the application's intentions of comparatively large homes on small lots, R-2/PD is the appropriate Zoning District. R-2/PD will allow for the creations of small lots, flexibility in site design, and provision of an affordable housing mixture by inclusion of BMRs. The variety of housing opportunities and innovative site development would then be in the public's interest and supported by the General Plan.

Although R1.7/PD would conceptually further the objectives of the General Plan, the application is deficient in justifications for its level of deviations. The extensive deviations to individual lot coverage, FAR, and setbacks circumvent the General Plan's objectives for the R1.7/PD Zoning District of small lot/small home affordable development at a higher density. These deviations actually impair the development's ability to provide for small lot/small home affordable housing as intended by the General Plan and the implementing zoning ordinance's 50% FAR limitation. The PD combining district has not been utilized as intended to accommodate development issues specific to the site and in the context of the underlying zone. Approving the proposal's deviations to this extent and magnitude would not be in the public's interest. The plan lacks a variety of housing types or consideration of the intent of small lot/small home development.

To support a finding that the site be Zoned R1.7/PD, a substantial redesign of the project would be required. The project would need to significantly reduce the size of the homes in comparison to the lot pattern to provide a variety of housing opportunities. General compliance with R1.7/PD development standards, such as FAR on individual lots, would ensure that project met a wide range of General Plan objectives, beyond just increasing the overall density and number of housing units in the city.

Rezoning the property R-1.5 would also meet the intent of the low-medium designation for affordable housing options at a slightly higher density. The project's proposed FAR would be suitable the zones lot standards. However, the proposed project would exceed R-1.5 density requirements and would need to be denied or significantly redesigned. Staff views the site as an opportunity for higher density than that of R-1.5 and does not recommend this Zoning District.

Designation of the site for medium density residential would require the site be Zoned R-3. R-3 Zoning would necessitate the denial of the SDP and Tentative Map applications.

The Findings for the Special Development Permit are dependent upon the General Plan and Rezoning Actions. Only one of the following Findings must be made to approve the Special Development Permit.

1. The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale; or
   
2. The proposed use ensures that the general appearance of proposed structures, or the uses to be made of the property to which the application refers, will not impair either the orderly development of, or the existing uses being made of, adjacent properties.

If the site is Zoned R1.5/PD in conjunction with the low medium density designation, the project would exceed density standards and could not be approved. The use would be inconsistent with the Zone and impair the orderly development and use of adjacent properties.

Staff has recommend R-2/PD as the appropriate Zoning for the site and the proposed development application. Conditions of approval have been included in the report to provide a basis for staff to find a R-2/PD Zoned application consistent with objectives and purposes of the General Plan. Specifically, requiring 55 FAR overall and changes to the setback deviations that will then support the General Plan's intentions for housing affordability and types of development. The required 4 BMRs will also add a component of housing affordability to the project to compensate for the larger homes.

An alternative condition is provided in the event the site is Zoned R1.7/PD. The project would be required to observe the 50% FAR limitation for individual lots to ensure the use of the site is in compliance with the many objectives of the General Plan. Without the conditions reducing the house size the project would be utilizing the PD Combining District for the purpose of circumventing the General Plan and not providing for the objectives of small lot/small home affordable development. The development would impair the orderly development and use of adjacent properties by not being compatible within the neighborhood.

The approving authority shall deny the Tentative Map if it makes any of the following findings:

Staff is able to make the findings that the Tentative Map, with the conditions of approval, is in conformance with the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and recommends approval of the map as attached.

Return to Attachments

In addition to complying with all applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations, including the Sunnyvale Municipal Code the permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following conditions of approval for this permit.

1. Execute a Special Development Permit document prior to issuance of the building permit.
   
2. The Special Development Permit shall be null and void two years from the date of approval by the final review authority at a public hearing if the approval is not exercised, unless a written request for an extension is approved prior to expiration date.
   
3. Reproduce the conditions of approval on the plans submitted for building permits.
   
4. Except as modified below, the project shall be in substantial conformance to the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes, major changes may be approved at a public hearing by the City Council.
   
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to approval by the Director of Community Development, the application shall be revised to include the following requirements:

1. Overall FAR of 55% as R-2/PD; not including porch areas up to a total of 84 square feet that are a minimum of 6 in depth and 8 feet wide.

2. A minimum average distance of 10 feet shall be maintained between the first stories of buildings and 15 feet between second stories of buildings on two abutting lots

3. 500 square feet of private usable open space per unit, with a minimum dimension of 10 feet and area of 200 square feet

4. Lots 6, 21, and 22 shall maintain a minimum 11-foot second story setback from the property line abutting the perimeter of the site

6. Lot 1 shall be developed to comply within the required sight vision triangle of the Iowa and Mary Avenue intersection and the interior street intersection with Iowa Avenue.
   
7. Specific deviations from the R-2 Zoning District are allowed with this Special Development Permit as follows:

1. Front yard setbacks of 13 feet for facades with porches.
2. 1^st story side-yard setbacks of 4 feet.
3. 2^nd story side-yard of 4 feet.
4. Rear yard setbacks of 9 feet.
5. Uncovered parking dimensions of 8.5x20 ft for on site parking.
6. Off-site uncovered parking as location denoted on the site plan.
7. Optional 2 bedroom floor plans shall provide a minimum of 1 covered parking space and 1 uncovered parking space and .5 visitor parking spaces. All other floor plans shall conform to parking standards of the SMC.
8. Sight vision triangle encroachments for lots 25, 26, 35.
9. Minimum lot width of 30 feet.
10. Minimum lot size of 2,690 sq. ft.

8. All existing boundary lines and proposed overhead service drops shall be undergrounded from the building to the nearest off-site pole prior to occupancy.
9. Any transformer placed between the face of the building and the street shall be placed in an underground vault. At any other location, the transformer shall be screened as approved by the Director of Community Development.
10. An Impervious Surface Data Calculation worksheet is required to be completed and submitted for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
11. The development of the site is subject to Stormwater Pollution Prevention's Best Management Practices (BMPs) and shall be incorporated into its design to the extent feasible.
12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a "Blueprint for a Clean Bay" shall be submitted and approved by the City.

MITIGATION MEASURES

13. In addition to complying with applicable City Codes, Ordinances, and Resolutions, the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to minimize the identified potential environmental impacts:

What and where: Install sound-rated windows to achieve 45dB or less and include mechanical ventilation systems for the first row of dwelling units along Mary Avenue.

How: Indicate each home and show details of both window and mechanical ventilation systems on the building permit plans.

When: Prior to building permit final.

Who: The City will require this to be indicated on the building permit plans prior to issuance.

BUILDING DESIGN

14. All exterior architectural details that are included in the residential home plans reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be included in the final building plans.
    
15. Final exterior building materials and color scheme are subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit.
    
16. All homes shall incorporate a porch entry feature with a minimum depth of six feet.
    
17. The homes final elevations shall be substantial conformance with the proposed maximum height of 28 feet in height to the top of the roof, including the foundation, as measured from the abutting top of curb.

LANDSCAPING AND SITE PLANS

18. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. The Landscape Plan shall include the following elements:

1. A tree protection plan shall be submitted for any existing trees on the site or adjacent right-of-way. Where possible, trees shall be protected and saved. Provide an inventory and valuation of any trees proposed to be removed prior to issuance of building permits.
   
2. Any protected trees, (as defined in SMC Section 19.94) approved for removal, shall be replaced with a specimen tree as approved by staff.
   
3. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution.
   
4. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
   
5. Pest-resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscaped area.
   
6. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible.
   
7. Ground cover shall be planted so as to ensure full coverage eighteen months after installation.
   
8. All areas not required for parking, driveways or structures shall be landscaped.

19. Fencing design and colors shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the building permit. Wherever the grade differential is one foot or higher, a concrete or masonry retaining wall shall be installed.
    
20. Submit details and specifications of all exterior lighting to be used on each house or in the front yards for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Lighting plan should include:

1. Sodium vapor (of illumination with an equivalent energy savings).
   
2. Pole heights to be uniform and compatible with the areas, including the adjacent residential areas. Light standards shall be of pedestrian scale and not be greater than 8 feet in height on the periphery of the project.
   
3. Provide photocells for on/off control of all security and area lights.
   
4. Lights shall have shields to prevent glare onto adjacent residential properties.

36. In the event that any BMR unit or portion thereof is destroyed by fire or other cause, all insurance proceeds there from shall be used to rebuild such units, or, in the alternative, shall be used to repay any encumbrance on such units, and the balance, if any, shall be distributed to the City of Sunnyvale. Grantee hereby covenants to cause the City of Sunnyvale to be named an additional insured party to all fire and casualty insurance policies pertaining to said assisted units.

Conditions of Approval - Tentative Map

A. PLANNING DIVISION

37. The Tentative Map shall be valid for a period of two years, measured from the date of approval by the final review authority.
    
38. A Final Map must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the building permit.
    
39. The Tentative Map shall be applicable only in conjunction with a valid Special Development Permit.
    
40. At the expense of the subdivider, City forces shall install street trees as required by the Public Works Department.
    
41. The "In-Lieu Park Dedication Fee" shall be paid in accordance with MCS 18.10. (currently $6,105.21/unit) prior to issuance of Final Map.
    
42. Deeds, covenants, restrictions and bylaws relating to the development are subject to approval by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development prior to action of the Final Map. In addition to requirements as may be specified elsewhere, the CC&Rs shall include the following provisions:

1. Membership in and support of an association controlling all common facilities shall be mandatory for all property owners within the development.
   
2. The homeowners association shall obtain approval from the Director of Community Development prior to any modification of the CC&Rs pertaining to or specifying the City.
   
3. The developer shall maintain all utilities and landscaping for a period of three years following installation of such improvements or until the improvements are transferred to a homeowners association, following sale of at least 75% of the units, whichever comes first.
   
4. The Agreement shall include the Conditions of Approval of this Special Development Permit.
   
5. Provisions for short and long term maintenance of landscaping, parking, interior street, and utility connections.
   
6. Posting of no parking signage in shared driveways and Emergency Vehicle Access areas.
   
7. Alterations to drainage facilities and or flow patterns of individual lots is prohibited without the approval of the City of Sunnyvale.

43. The private interior street and parking areas shall be designated as a letter lot on the Tract Map.
    
44. The Tract Map shall provide for adequate dedications for public use as determined by the Public Works Department.
    
45. All easements intended for public or private use shall be so indicated on the Tract Map.
    
46. Connect to all City utilities or private utilities operating under a City franchise that provides adequate levels of service.
    
47. Obtain Public Works approval of plans for utility line extensions, utility connections, meter locations, driveways, sidewalks, etc.
    
48. The sanitary sewer lines located within the private interior street and serve 2 or more homes shall be designated as part of the public sewer system with appropriate maintenance and access easements as approved by the Department of Public Works.
    
49. Individual water services and meters shall be provided to each lot, including lots 7, 8, and 9.
    
50. The fire and domestic water systems shall be privately owned and maintained beyond the meter.
    
51. Installation of the water system shall conform to City standards and shall be part of the City (or franchised utility) system up to the master water meter serving the project. The water system shall be privately owned and maintained.
    
52. Construct all public improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to occupancy, including but not limited to the following:

1. Realignment of the curb and gutter and the sidewalk of Polk Avenue

2. Handicap ramps at the two entryways located on Iowa Avenue.

3. Unused driveway approaches shall be converted to curb and gutter and sidewalk.

53. Existing and proposed on-site and street frontage electrical, telephone and cable TV services shall be placed underground or removed prior to occupancy (MC 19.38.090).
    
54. The developer shall execute a Subdivision Agreement and post labor/material bond and faithful performance bonds for the full cost of all public improvements prior to recording the final map (MCS 12.08.020).
    
55. Dedicate public utility easements at lot frontages as required by the utility companies.
    
56. Stormwater discharge calculations shall be submitted to the PWD to certify proper design.
    
57. The project shall provide funding for the installation of street trees as required by the Department of Public Works.