2004-0030 - City of Sunnyvale - Consideration of Amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code pertaining to Nonconforming Residential Buildings, Stormwater Runoff Management and the Pre-Appeal Process

Fred Bell, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that in order to keep Title 19 current and internally consistent, it is necessary for City Council to periodically consider non-substantive updates. He explained the non-substantive updates – 1) Non-conforming Residential Buildings – the amendment is intended to clarify legal single-family and duplex dwellings within the R-1/R-0 and R-2 Zoning Districts; 2) Stormwater Runoff Management – is intended to clarify the City’s implementation strategy for meeting the standards of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems and 3) Pre-Appeal Process – is intended to simplify Council appeal options and to reduce cost related to land development projects.  He also noted a revised ordinance was distributed to the Commission containing slight modification to the ordinance attached to the staff report.  Staff recommended Alternative 1 to recommend to City Council to introduce the Ordinance as presented.

Comm. Fussell asked staff whether the fiscal impact of the pre-appeal process is an annual cost.  Ms. Ryan responded yes and that it is the budgeted amount which has already been eliminated.

Comm. Simons recommended perhaps including the City Council in the noticing process before the item is considered by the hearing body.  Ms. Ryan responded that it is a potential cost saving; however, the appeal process will still provide the Council the 15-day appeal period after the decision is made.

Comm. Hungerford asked whether the proposed ordinance could be altered to further clarify what modifications are allowed to non-conforming residential building.  Senior Assistant City Attorney Borger responded that the exception is lot area per dwelling unit provided all other current development standards are met.  She stated that the ordinance could be modified for clarity and suggested the appropriate language.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the Arts Commission appeal is a recommended amendment.  Ms. Ryan responded no, and that the Arts Commission appeal process has been in existence and needed to be added as part of housekeeping.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Philip Brooks, resident, supported the proposed amendments to the Code allowing his growing family the ability to make modifications to his property.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff about the deletion of the Bingo Games and the FAR inclusion from the revised proposed ordinance.  Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that the entire pre-appeal process is proposed to be eliminated; therefore, Bingo Games may be eliminated.  The appeal process for Bingo Games is incorporated in Title 9.  The FAR elimination is also deleted as the final authority is the City Council; therefore, pre-appeal is not necessary.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Moylan was pleased that the amendment will now allow legitimate modifications to dwelling units.

Comm. Fussell concurred with Vice Chair Moylan.

Ms. Ryan stated that the item will be considered by City Council on February 24, 2004.