PROJECT DATA TABLE

	EXISTING	PROPOSED
General Plan	Medium Density Residential (24 du/acre)	Low-Medium Density Residential (14 du/acre)
Zoning District	DSP Blocks 4 and 6	DSP Blocks 4 and 6
RANGES FOR THE PROPOSED DISTRICT
Densities	1 unit/1,800 sq. ft. generally (24 du/acre)	1 unit/3,600 sq. ft. (14 du/acre)
Total Number of Units Possible in project area	38	23 (-12 units)
Total Number of Units Existing in the area	28	31 (assuming all non-conforming properties remain)
Lot Size (s.f.)	8,000 sq. ft. min. allowed	Same
Building Height (ft.)	30 ft. max. allowed	Same
No. of Stories	One and two-story structures	2 stories max

ANALYSIS

Background

This project is a part of an overall update of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The update made a series of land use, density and development regulation changes for properties in and adjacent to the DSP. One aspect of the plan was to lower permitted densities in outlying areas of the DSP such as the 300 blocks of Washington and McKinley Avenues (the subject properties). The reduced densities and heights were intended to maintain existing neighborhood character. The General Plan was amended in June 2003 to reduce densities for the subject properties from the previous designation of High Density Residential under the 1993 plan to a “townhouse density” of Medium Density Residential, or up to 24 du/acre.

Concurrently with this action, the City Council requested a Rezoning action for the properties immediately to the east of the DSP boundary (the eastern adjacent sites), adjacent to the subject properties. (The Downtown Specific Plan boundary bisects the 300 block of Washington and McKinley as shown on the map on page 2.) Council action reduced the permitted densities for the eastern adjacent sites, bringing the zoning from the previous R-3/PD (Medium Density/Planned Development) Zoning District to an R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density/Planned Development) Zoning District (approximately 12 du/acre).

At the public hearing on the Rezoning action for the eastern adjacent sites, a neighbor expressed a desire for the entire 300 block of Washington Avenue to have a consistent permitted density.  The Council directed staff to return with a rezoning study considering lower permitted densities for the subject properties consistent with the eastern adjacent sites (See Attachment 5, City Council Minutes of 2/10/04).

This item was heard at the Planning Commission Hearing of May 24, 2004. After receiving testimony from two property owners/residents who did not want their properties rezoned, and a third who had an inquiry about how this would affect his house, the Planning Commission  concurred with staff recommendation to make no change.

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

Description of Proposed Project

The project proposal would reduce permitted densities for the specified areas within Blocks 4 and 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan.

Environmental Review

As part of the Downtown Improvement Program Update, the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (“the Program EIR”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to consider and analyze the environmental impacts related to the Project, including adoption of amendments to the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan and the Zoning Code. The Program EIR was certified by the Council at its June 17, 2003 meeting (Resolution No. 123-03), where Council found that it presented an adequate and extensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the Project, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to certain impacts on traffic and air quality, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The proposed General Plan amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning action is a component of and consistent with the Project analyzed in the Program EIR; therefore, no additional review is required.

Discussion

Change Under Consideration: The project proposal is to reduce permitted densities from 24 du/acre to 14 du/acre for properties within Blocks 4 and 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan that front Washington and McKinley Avenues. This requires amending the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Sunnyvale Municipal Code.

Objective: To reduce permitted densities to be compatible with the zoning designation for adjacent properties to the east.

Present Site Conditions: Properties in this area consist primarily of small single-family homes and duplexes. Many of the properties are currently built to medium density.

Pending Developments:  In 2002, a 9-unit condominium project was approved at approximately 24 du/acre at 321 E. Washington Avenue.  This project is currently in building plan check. As long as construction commences before March 11, 2005, the approval for this project is still valid. Reduction of permitted density in this area would render the pending project legal nonconforming.  A legal nonconforming status for residential properties would eliminate the possibility for further additions, but the use may be continued.

Nearby Densities: As discussed in the Background section, the properties to the east were rezoned to permit Low-Medium density uses. Properties to the north and between the subject properties on Carroll and Washington are currently allowed to construct up to 36 du/acre.

Discussion: This project affects a 1.75-acre area made up of 17 properties with approximately 4,200 sq. ft. lots. Current uses are a combination of single- family homes, duplexes and a church. Currently 9 of the 17 properties are developed or approved for medium density (See Attachment 5, Map of Residential Densities). The current designation allows up to 38 units. If all property were to redevelop in accordance with the Low-Medium density designation, a total of 23 units could be achieved. The existing number of units is 28, already exceeding the Low-Medium Density maximum. If all non-conforming properties were to remain developed at their current levels, a Low-Medium Density designation would decrease the total number of allowable units to 31.

COMPARISON OF TOTAL DWELLING UNITS POSSIBLE

* Pending building permits

While it is unusual to have different zoning districts within the same block frontage and zoning consistency is typically a desirable goal, in this case staff does not recommend a Low-Medium Density designation for the subject properties for two reasons. First, staff does not believe the lowered density would fundamentally reduce impacts associated with residential redevelopment, such as building height, setback, and vehicular trips. The change in permitted units is so small it would not make a substantial difference in neighborhood character. Second, this reduction in density would render 9 of the 17 properties non-conforming, as they are currently built at medium density. Lenders have indicated reluctance to issue loans on non-conforming properties. A non-conforming property is not able to add square footage and is more limited in the redevelopment of the site. This non-conformity could inhibit future redevelopment of the properties. For these reasons, staff recommends that these properties remain at a Medium Density designation and no further action is taken.

Expected Impact on the Surroundings

This action would have no further impact on the surrounding area.  

Staff was not able to make the required Findings based on the justifications for the General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Amendment to the Specific Plan. Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.

No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

A letter was sent to affected property owners prior to the formal notice of public hearing. This letter explained the rezoning study in detail and encouraged property owners to contact staff regarding any questions or concerns they may have.

After the Planning Commission report was written, staff received two telephone calls from interested property owners/residents. One property owner did not want his property rezoned, and another property owner expressed her desire to see a consistent zoning designation along the entire block. In addition to these comments, three property owners/residents spoke at the Planning Commission hearing, as described in the Background section.

Alternatives

1.             Do not make any changes to the current General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning ordinance.

2.             Direct staff to return in one week with a prepared Resolution to approve the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and an Ordinance to make amendments to the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to permit Low-Medium Densities for the subject properties.

Alternative 1.

Prepared by: