The Sunnyvale City Council has denied a resident’s request to exempt an illegally built home office from zoning regulations.
The detached home office, located at 160 S. Pastoria Ave., failed to meet the height and setback requirements set forth in the zoning code.
The applicant, Scott McClennan, claimed the building, which is 112 sq. ft., meets special circumstances that would justify a variance. He said such home offices bolster housing affordability goals by allowing single-family homes to free up a bedroom. Home offices also minimize traffic and reduce neighborhood parking, he added.
However, the city disagreed.
“Staff has analyzed the subject property and does not find that it meets the required variance finding,” said Wendy Lao, associate planner. “The structure was constructed without the proper permits and without opening the walls and roof to verify how it was constructed. The city cannot confirm that the structure meets the necessary health and safety requirements.”
The planning commission rejected the variance, necessitating McClennan to appeal to the city council.
Nathan Iglesias, planning commission chair, spoke on his own behalf. He told the council the planning commission felt the authority to reexamine the code, and the parameters of such situations lay with the council, not the planning commission.
He said it was unfair to punish an applicant who “acted in good faith” and was likely confused about the rules.
“This is where principle, policy and being consistent doesn’t produce the best outcome,” he said. “The best outcome is using your seat as elected officials to make an exception.”
Several other members of the public also supported McClennan and his home office, saying the city rules are draconian. Many pointed to satellite images that seemingly show other properties in the neighborhood that are noncompliant, but since no one complains, the city simply looks the other way.
Stephen Meier, a public commenter, called the situation “grossly unfair,” adding that the city is putting McClennan through a “bureaucratic nightmare.”
However, city employees said, without going onto those properties — something the city cannot do without cause — it cannot make any assumptions about height or setbacks.
Two neighbors, one adjacent to his property and another a mile away, complained about the home office.
Despite some public support for McClennan, there were also detractors.
Duli Mao said approving the variance sets a “dangerous precedent,” adding that it is “unfair” that some people follow the rules while others get to ignore them.
“Approving this variance would send the wrong message that rules can be ignored and later justified,” he said. “If this variance is approved, it could encourage other homeowners to build unpermitted structures assuming they can seek forgiveness later.”
The council agreed. In order to grant the variance, the council needed to find that McClennan’s property met the criteria for exemption. Council members said they could not make the necessary findings, and, consequently, were duty-bound to reject the appeal.
Council Member Richard Mehlinger said the council was acting as a court, which meant the council needed to apply the law fairly without bias.
“The question here before us is not whether the studio is good, whether the applicant is good; it is not whether the ordinance is good. It is whether this structure meets the law, and unfortunately, I must reach the conclusion that it does not,” he said.
The council unanimously denied the request for the variance.
To bring the building into compliance, McClennan will need to either convert the building to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or adjust its height and footprint to meet the requirements.
State Housing Law Filters To Local Policy
On a related note, the council updated its ordinance that relates to ADUs to bring it into compliance with new state laws.
Aastha Vashist, senior planner, told the council the update will clarify definitions and increase readability for the public as well as tweak a few requirements.
Among those changes are a prohibition on owner occupancy requirements for approval of newly constructed ADUs. Another increases how many ADUs are allowed on multi-family lots. State law increased the number of ADUs allowed on a single-family lot from two to three and the number allowed on multi-family lots from two to eight.
Further, the updated ordinance streamlines the ADU permitting process.
“These efforts are simplifying our community’s understanding of ADUs,” Vice Mayor Linda Sell said. “That helps our staff service our community better, and it also supports our general plan and housing element to reduce barriers of ADU development.”
Council Member Alysa Cisneros said she appreciates that Sunnyvale takes a “yes, and” approach, adding that the city “throws spaghetti at the wall and sees what sticks” when it comes to housing. She said ADUs are a social investment.
“The only thing better than building more ADUs is staying in compliance with state law,” Mehlinger said.
The council unanimously approved the ordinance.
The council meets again at 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 8 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave. in Sunnyvale.
To submit public comments ahead of the meeting, visit http://Sunnyvale.ca.gov/PublicComments; Meeting online link: https://sunnyvale-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/96111580540; meeting call-in telephone number: 833-548-0276, meeting ID: 961 1158 0540
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Related Posts:
Sunnyvale Incentivizes Retail Space At Town Centers
Sunnyvale Ups Rental Assistance
Sunnyvale City Council Names New Park “Corn Palace Park”
