Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Let's call to order the Planning Commission meeting of September 14th at 7 p.m. The City does not tolerate disruptive behavior at our meetings. Sunnyvale prides itself on the rich diversity of our residents. We are committed to creating a culture of belonging where members of our diverse community feel included, safe, and respected. This Planning Commission meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments must be limited to the agenda items being considered by the Commission for consent c

All right, this is now the this is oral communications, this is now the public's opportunity to address the Commission. On topics not listed on tonight's agenda this section is limited to 15 minutes and maybe extended or continued after the public hearing general business section of the meeting individuals may only speak once during oral communication. This Planning Commission meeting is a limited public forum, and the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of a speech. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the Commission's authority, which

All right. so i will now close the public comments for oral communications um so now i will go ahead and open public comment on the consent calendar items Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. I don't have any cards in the room. Recording officer, do we have any remote speakers?

All right. I will close the... um comment uh period for uh close the public comment for the consent calendar and ask for a a motion uh from my colleagues uh commissioner pine thank you chairman of the consent calendar submitted commissioner iglesias second is there any comment all right uh recording officer please take the vote motion passes with seven yeses

right thank you now uh point of order uh on the vote slide I thought I it said commissioner cigar absent oh no it had a parentheses absent after his name that was uh just technicality uh commissioner cigar is present thank you for the record

All right, moving on to our next item, which is item 2, 26-0743. This item is continued from August 10th, 2026. proposed project, related applications on a 0.57 acre site, special development permit to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and construct a two-story single family dwellings with overall 65.8% floor area ratio. Vesting tentative map to subdivide the existing parcel into eight lots plus a common lot. The location is 781 South Wolf Road. Is there a staff presentation?

you for the presentation uh i will now ask for questions from my colleagues uh commissioner pine thank you chair thank you staff for the presentation two questions both of which are pretty are i think pretty just technical uh in the uh recitation of the waivers in the staff report and the requested waivers in attachment 8. I just note a slight discrepancy in that there's a requested waiver from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit on page 3 of attachment 8 that I didn't see in the recitation of waivers in the staff report. But it would appear to still be applicable given the proposed lot siz

I guess I'm not understanding how it's not required. I'm looking at the municipal code table and it says lot area per dwelling unit square feet are dashed to 3,600. I feel like we do need to waive it. Maybe I'm completely off basis here, but I feel like we need to have that waiver.

Okay. I'm still not sure I 100% follow, but as long as it's not going to cause any problems, I'm fine with it. Second, Second, this is, should the alternative one be modified for when we get to motion time? Would that be subject to the recommended conditions of approval in attachment 12, which would be the corrected version that was posted earlier today?

uh seeing no other hands uh i do have a a question and i'll ask staff but i'll ask the it's probably for the applicant but let me go and ask it's about the noise municipal code section 19.42 032 requires the operational noise not exceed 60 dba during nighttime hours or 70 dba during daytime hours um so um The applicant's acoustical consultant repaired a noise study, which found the noise level above the accepted level, approximately 74 LDN, which exceeds the maximum acceptable exterior level of 60 LDN. Traffic noise from Wolf is the primary source, as we might expect. So the solution was to...

Okay. And are you saying there is some soundproofing in the walls of the construction?

All right. Thank you. Thank you. So now I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. If there is an applicant presentation, 10 minutes is provided at the beginning of the public hearing to address the Planning Commission, along with five minutes at the end of the public hearing. Is there an applicant presentation?

Thank you for the presentation. I have questions about the trees. the one you have chosen um on the boundaries i understand that's more like for the mitigation uh can you a little bit tell me the how what are those trees in the in the center like in the front of the house i just don't know wonder tree or something so just wanted to know a little bit about the tree concept the the the trees that are currently on the site or the ones that we will be planting Or the one in the is that like a ornamental tree? Is it a native tree or just curious because I don't I don't think so. No, I'm not sure wh

Commissioner Galatius. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Just a quick question. So the renderings, the architectural renderings that you presented that gave the perspective from Wolf, beautiful homes, but per what the Chair said as well, there's a plan to have some type of sound wall, right? It's either, it's an eight-foot fence that would be right between, if I understand correctly, between Wolf Road and then the side of the houses?

Okay. So then maybe I misunderstood. What is the plan then for mitigating the sound?

So if I understand correctly, if you're going down Wolf and you look to the right, the houses are, it's the side yards you're saying they're exposed? Okay. And so then I think that I misunderstood because I thought that that's where the noise would be the most severe would be right off of Wolf.

I just didn't know who's the guy. So it's the house. It's through the backyard. It's not so. Yeah.

Okay. So I think I understand that I was going to follow up with the noise, I guess. Because the staff report clearly said the noise is coming from wolf, which obviously it would be. And if the fence is not along wolf, then it wouldn't help at all with that noise. So you're saying it's basically kind of a backyard fence. Correct. For those homes just to protect the noise in the backyard. And is there any soundproofing? on the Wolf side for those homes that are facing Wolf?

Okay. I guess so there will be, uh, apparently there will be some followup to that, uh, to ensure that it complies, um, uh, vice chair Davis.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. So I have a question. There's going to be an HOA for this community, correct? Yeah. Okay. So the fact that the fence along Wolf and to a lesser degree, Luster Leaf are not going to be directly on the sidewalks, right? So will it be the HOA's responsibility to keep those areas clean and tidy? Yeah. Okay. Not the individual homeowners? No. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Regarding all this, the inside street between the two units, sorry, is the HOA going to maintain that and make sure, like, You know, all drainage for the gutters and everything will be, um, taken care of or which area are you referring to the two units? Like if you enter from Wolf, like into the street, there is like a street between the two houses. Yeah. So is that something that they are going to maintain or the city?

Okay. So they're going to take off gutters, everything that's related to that.

Did you have a. All right, uh, commissioner.

Thank you. This is actually, I believe, a question for staff, but I think it would be appropriate to ask it now. Am I correct in understanding that condition of approval BP-30 would basically says that the acoustical consultant reviews all the final plans and make sure that all of the exterior noise requirements and the municipal code, et cetera, are being met before the project gets built, basically? For reference, this is page 11 of attachment 12.

Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure that was clear in the record.

Okay. Now, for members of the public, please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Online, raise your digital hand now or dial star 9 on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. I do not have any cards from anyone in the room. Recording officer, do we have any comments online?

All right. So now the applicant has, if you want, five minutes at the end of the public hearing for any additional comments. I think we've kind of said everything we need to say. Sorry. All right. I will... close the public hearing and ask for a comment, discussion or a motion from my colleagues.

I'm ready with a motion, but I saw a hand from staff.

At this point, I would normally make a point of order that this would require reopening the public hearing, but I also think this is important enough that we should reopen the public hearing to handle it.

Well, I can simply ask staff to verify the numbers. uh is it a total of eight units it's a total of eight but one is a bonus unit fifteen percent hey at this point i would actually insist on my point of order that this requires reopening the public hearing right uh since we closed the public hearing uh uh we shouldn't be hearing any more from uh the public but we can ask staff to verify that number. So by my calculation, eight times 15% is 1.2, which is what we have here, right?

I would suggest to the chair that it would be in order to both reopen. I would suggest to the chair that it is A, in order to reopen the public hearing if the applicant had something like 10 minutes of time that they didn't use.

well we can reopen the public hearing but i think the question is clear enough to check the math so it's a question for staff i the chair i would agree but also i would actually like to hear everybody agree that everything is good before i make a motion all right well uh Am I able to reopen the public hearing? Yes. All right. We'll reopen the public hearing and hear from the applicant's land use attorney.

So then that addresses the amount of the interlude fee.

Yeah, would it be helpful if we took like a brief recess for everybody to do math there?

So it should be just on the seven units. Yes. Okay. So that does make it. 1.05, correct?

Chair, would it be in order to move for like a 10 minute recess to just make sure we have everything figured out?

So does staff need some time to? Three minutes. All right. Can we keep the public hearing open through a recess? Okay. Vice Chair Davis?

I was going to second the motion, so that's why I have my hand up. But I think a three-minute recess is appropriate.

okay uh we'll take a three minute recess and come back at uh 7 44. what mass different

Just before we bring some of the questions.

All right, we'll resume the meeting now. I'll just ask staff, are you comfortable with the 1.05?

I have a question for applicant after I hear what staff says. So I would like to hear staff's proposed language and then ask a question for applicant.

Yeah, thank you. So insert the word vesting, reference to attachment 12, and modify GC-6, which is on page 2 of attachment 12, to reference 1.05, was it? I'm actually a little confused because I don't see where that number is actually cleanly replacing in GC-6. There's a 12.5% number and a 0.2 number. Oh, it's a 0.2, right? Sorry, just sanity checking. Payment of a fractional in lieu fee of 1.05 units in compliance with BMR requirements. Did I read that back correctly? Yes. Okay, cool. Question for...

Yes. So it would be GC6 with the final sentence amended to read for the subject product that equals one below market rate dwelling units for sale and payment of a fractional in lieu fee of 0.05 units in compliance with the BMR requirements, et cetera. Question for applicant. Is this the language you're looking for?

Cool. Thank you. Chair, I have no further questions for applicant.

Do you want to ask it before I close the... Okay. Vice Chair Davis?

Okay i'm reading GC GC dash six and it says 12 and a half percent not 15% so 12 and a half percent of seven would be. Seven eights point 875.

so then we should 0.05 it is um and um we will correct the conditions of approval to say 15 okay thank you sorry i had a follow-up question to commissioner davis's question which is that i'm not sure i actually understand i agree with that uh my read of that is that it's is that language was that was the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units in the project. And there are eight total units in the project. So I thought that condition of approval was just to require that one of the units was a BMR unit.

Okay. I understand that for the ENLU fee. What I actually don't understand, however, is Just reading the entire language of GC6, it says, as written, the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units in the project for sale of home ownership unit for the subject project that equals one below market rate dwelling units for sale and payment of the in lieu fee. So agree with all of the in lieu fee logic. My issue is that we're saying is that there are, eight units total in the project, and we're saying the project shall provide one of them as a BMR unit. If we're removing BMR dwelling units from

So my understanding is that the language that's currently there, that is just the project shall provide 12.5% of the total units, which is eight units in the project for sales BMR units, 12.5% of eight being one.

Which entitles them to add the bonus unit.

Okay. I think we're torturing the English language a little, but the math checks out, so I'm fine with it.

By Chair Davis? No. All right. Can we close the public hearing? All right. I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion from my colleagues, Commissioner Pai.

Thank you. Okay. We'll take a stab at this. I move alternative 2, adopt the addendum to the previously adopted negative declaration and make the findings in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15164 as noted in attachment 3 and approve the special development permit and vesting tentative map with the recommended findings in attachment 3 and subject to the conditions of approval in attachment 12 with modifications to condition of approval gc6 for these final two sentences to read as follows when dwelling units in the project are made available for sale the project shall provide 15 percent o

all right commissioner pine to your motion thank you chair uh we've seen this project and at least i've seen this project all the way from when it was a general plan amendment to now and i I'm kind of starting to run out of things to say about it, as I think many of us have. But it's a good project. It fits the neighborhood well. It adds a nice bit of extra density to what's currently just one kind of giant single-family dwelling lot. I think it's been improved significantly over the process. I think having the extra pedestrian, extra... that old pedestrian path there is great i mentioned at s

That's me. Vice Chair Davis, to your motion, to your second.

Yes, I'm supporting this motion. The developer has been incredibly responsive to all the stakeholders. Thank you for that. I won't go on with a lot of praise. I know you want to get out of here. So it's a good project. It, it conforms to all the rules. I urge my fellow commissioners to vote yes on the motion. Commissioner Shukla.

Thank you chair. I'll be supporting the motion and also I want to bring out just one more point that also the street improvement you did for the residential side. That is amazing. There are a lot of. I remember the projects when it came into the to the project. A lot of neighbors were there the whole neighborhood. was involved and you guys have taken wonderful care for every details and also I checked out the trees so I realized that the interior trees are dogwoods and they're wonderful they will have a season so I think they're they will look wonderful so I just want to refer respond to that

Thank you. I will be supporting it as well. I do think that you're adding to that neighborhood a lot with this development. It's designed very nicely and this area can use nice houses like that and high density will give us more homes to more people. So absolutely yes.

All right. Seeing no other hands, I will also be supporting the motion. And recording officer, conduct the vote.

All right. Thank you to staff and the applicant.

All right. Thank you. All right. Now we can move on to the next item. item number three 26-0709 forward a recommendation of the city council to take the following actions um proposed project introduced an ordinance to amend sunnyvale municipal code title 19 to repeal and replace chapter 19.7a dual urban opportunity housing in title 18 subdivisions to repeal and replace chapter 18.26 urban lot splits to conform with new state laws and to amend title 19 and title 3 to conform with state legislation regarding deferral and reduction of development impact fees for certain housing projects pursuant

All right, do we have any questions, Vice Chair Davis?

I guess this is a little bit procedural. When we get to the motions, how do we propose that staff make sure they bring up in the item for consideration not actually changing any of the proposed texts or anything but that they need to be aware of a certain item and debate it or consider it in the city council meeting and so how would we is that just a something we add to the motion

Okay. I think I should probably do that after the public hearing, though the gallery is empty.

So with SB 9, if it's within a half mile of a high transit area, there's no additional parking required, right? The law says, yeah, I believe. Can you double check that?

So with that in mind, if you're on El Camino and someone wants to do this and they want to build a dual unit and put additional units there, they don't have to have additional parking. So if the street's already busy and it's a residential neighborhood and you put three or four additional housing units there and people have cars, there's no additional room. What is the city looking to do to prevent this? I know you can't stop the development, but what is the city looking to do to address the potential parking impact on the residents? Is there a plan in place? Are you looking into... parking pe

Second question to that then. Thank you. Can those measures be put in place before SB 9 developments are approved?

What if we don't, what's the negative effect if we don't update the state law?

which it does already right now in the parking. So even if we come up with a plan to address the parking, it's already overridden right now. So I'm not understanding why are we trying to change our municipal code at this moment when it's already overridden?

design standards that would require those to have parking stalls in them so if they were two-story and the parking was underneath and this would kind of circumvent that problem right is there does the city have the latitude to do that i'm guessing no i'm just asking to to kind of have a design standard where if you're within a half mile of a high transit area then it should be a second story unit and that way the parking is underneath

Thank you. So if I understand correctly, under the AB 2553, the municipal can either discount or defer the payment for the whole process or paperwork. Is that correct?

Okay, so how is the city going to manage tracking on those fees before certificate of occupancy?

Okay. So I understand that you said based on distances, like being half a mile away, et cetera, et cetera, that the fees will be decided whether to lower the fees or higher fees, is that correct?

And what are the exact qualifying projects for those? Sure.

And all this is to incentivize people that are closer to those points or locations, public transportation, et cetera, to incentivize them to do more of SB 9? That's kind of what's behind it?

uh i noticed that uh on the uh in calendar 2025 per the housing element update that came through in march there had been a grand total of three sb9 projects in calendar 2025 is that typical

Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to kind of put some perspective in how frequently these laws are actually used. Thank you.

All right. I've got a couple questions. But following up on what Commissioner Pine was saying, The SB 9 was passed in 2021 and was supposed to end single family zoning. It opened up 6.1 million parcels statewide to new housing. Over these years, it has produced a total of 266 projects statewide, which is a utilization rate of 0.004%. So practically, you know, close to nothing statistically and, and several other bills, uh, housing bills have had no permits at all in that time. So it's good that we are updating our, uh, our, um, code, especially if HCD is interested in it. But, uh, as commissio

I think that was one of them. I think it was five charter cities.

Um, the regarding the reduced fees, uh, So we've talked about this projects may qualify for reduced transportation impact fee if they meet all of these criteria and one of them with the revised SP 358. Language is the housing development should be located within one half mile from three or more of nine. listed amenity types, supermarkets, parks, pharmacies, libraries, schools, childcare facilities, restaurants, medical clinics, and community centers. My question is if, uh, well, let's say they, uh, you know, three of those are there, um, but, So it qualifies for reduced impact fee, but one of

Okay. Another question on the intensification of use. The fees will be charged upon the incremental difference between the peak hour trips generated by a prior use and the peak hour trips generated by the proposed new use. And we've talked about this before in other contexts, but I just wanted to maybe emphasize it or clarify it. We analyze these by comparing the trips in and out of the old use compared to the new use. But if the old use, let's say, is retail or probably one of these other types of amenities, Let's say it's a grocery store or something. The assumption is that the old trips to

Okay, so we just look at the traffic in and out of that parcel, not the impact on the number of trips in general in the wider city or neighborhood. All right. That seems like kind of a hole in the methodology, but... All right. How do Sunnyvale's heritage designations intersect with state law? And I know it's AB 1061. There's a reference to a local agency may adopt objective standards for the purposes of maintaining the historical value of a historic district. Listen to the California register of historical resources, for example, are we are we using that kind of criteria, so my question is ho

Okay, and regarding the... the last the timing change on when the fees are due, at least when I looked at the California code, 66007, the one that's relevant to the timing, it seemed like in one place it says that the fees are due for final inspection or certificate of occupancy. In another place, it just says certificate of occupancy or first temporary certificate of occupancy, which seems a bit different, right? Do we know which one applies here?

But our language says we're overriding that with state law, right?

So is it, I mean, if I were a developer and I asked, so is it final inspection or certificate of occupancy? Or do those always happen at the same time?

okay thank you uh i mean hypothetically if the appeal fails then sunnyvale could also file a similar suit and expect a similar outcome if it if the appeal fails oh if the appeal fails theoretically yes so yes but i think it's very it's pretty unlikely that that would occur okay all right thank you very much So I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise or raise your digital hand now or dial nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I don't have any cards from anyone in the room or we don't have anyone

sorry, between screens and out there, I don't know whether to wear my glasses or not, on SB 937. This is so typically speaking, you know, the way it's being proposed is we have our fee arrangements in the ordinance and then we say, unless state law says you can't do this, right? And I just want to make sure this gets before City Council because this is not normally how we do things right. SB 9 is a great example of how much work has been put in in public deliberation to make sure we get the city implementation correct. I'm personally okay with this because the conditions under which this bill

I just, I think it's probably the, I think I'm just responding to your question about the final certificate of occupancy and the final inspection. So in the building, I mean, as far as I understand, that can happen sometimes very close to each other. As soon as you get the final inspection, you get certificate of occupancy because the, Panchali so I think what I understood is that I think they are whatever happens first that is I think it's a pretty good way to so they don't lose any time because they may not occupy the building for a long time but because so that way they can pay the fees or

Okay, we're still open for a motion. Okay, Vice Chair Davis.

OK, so I'm not going to put it into the motion. I trust that staff will make sure city council is well informed. So I am just going to follow staff's recommendation, follow alternative one, introduce the ordinance. Actually. Because we had a modified ordinance, it should be, I believe, attachment three, correct? Okay, I just checked it. Yes, so it says it's a slight modification to alternative one. Introduce the ordinance attachment three amending Sunnyvale municipal code title 19 zoning to repeal and replace chapter 19.78. Okay, I think, do I need to go through the whole list for staff for th

With the understanding that the motion also included the required SQL findings second. Yes, it does. Yeah, just like having that in the record from the maker of the motion.

Yes, this is one of those technical legislative things that we do periodically. I think staff's done a great job with this and parsing the state law and getting this into a form to make our code compliant and user-friendly. So I made the motion. I'll be supporting it. I urge my fellow commissioners to support it as well. Thank you. Commissioner Pyne, to your second.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for all of your hard work in putting this together. I agree. I think this is just mostly clarifying cleanup with another round of amendments to state laws. I do actually have some more significant thoughts on on the fee stuff but i'll save that for when we bring a broader look at the fees back uh in in concordance with our housing element promises uh so i'd urge and i vote tonight thank you all right uh seeing no other hands i will be also supporting the motion i think i agree staff that are

Excellent job with this. And it only makes sense to make our municipal code be consistent with state law. It simplifies things for everybody. So seeing no other comments, recording officer, please conduct the vote.

All right. Thank you. So what is the fate of this action?

All right. Now we will move to non-agenda items and comments. Do commissioners have any non-agenda items or comments? And in fact, I do have one. It's a public announcement. Seeking new members for the Advisory Committee on Accessibility and the Human Relations Committee. City of Sunnyvale is currently seeking new members for the Advisory Committee on Accessibility ACA and the Human Relations Committee, HRC. Applications to serve on these committees are accepted on a continuous basis. Applications received after vacancies have been filled will be considered for future openings. For more inform