City Council - Regular Meeting

Gabby Ventura, Okay, I think we are good to go. Gabby Ventura, So I will go ahead and get started Hello everyone, and thank you for joining us today, my name is gabby ventura and i'm an associate planner with the city of sunnyville. Gabby Ventura, And I am accompanied by Austin principal planner and matt assistant director of Community development. Gabby Ventura, And today's Community outreach meeting is about to recent California housing laws. Senate Bill 684 and Senate Bill 1123. So today's presentation will be broken into four parts. First, I will explain SB 684 and SB 1123. Because these laws overlap with SB 9 and ADUs, I will briefly explain those as well. And then I will talk through the policy options the city is considering and ask for your feedback And finally, I will conclude the presentation by discussing what the next steps are. So California recently passed two new housing laws, SB 684 and SB 1123. These laws are already in effect and the city is required to comply with them. However, the legislation leaves a few policy decisions up to local jurisdictions And that's why we're here today to explain those options and gather community feedback before the ordinance is finalized. So before we dive into the details of the bills, I want to introduce the two policy options we'll be discussing today. The first is whether the city should allow ADUs and junior ADUs on lots created through SB 684. The second is whether those newly created lots should also be eligible to use SB 9. These are the options and we'll return to them later in the presentation after we've covered the background. So what exactly is SB 684? SB 684 became effective on July 1st, 2024, and it allows eligible multifamily zone properties to be subdivided into as many as 10 lots, and it allows up to 10 dwelling units total. Applications will be reviewed through what's called a ministerial process. And you'll hear the term ministerial several times today. And a ministerial process is simply a streamlined approval process. So if an application meets the objective requirements established by state law, it must be approved. And unlike a traditional discretionary planning application, a ministerial application does not require public hearings or public noticing. Staff will review the application to make sure for SP 684 staff will review the application to make sure it meets all of the objective requirements by state law. And to qualify the existing property must be zoned for multifamily housing be five acres or smaller and the newly created lots must each be at least 600 square feet. And so SP 1123 became effective one year later on July 1 2025 and it expanded SP 684 to include vacant single families owned lots. And to qualify the property must be in a single family zoning district be vacant and no larger than one and a half acres and each newly created lot must be at least 1200 square feet. And the term vacant has a very specific definition under state law, and it means having no permanent structure unless the structure has been deemed abandoned and uninhabitable. So here is a graphic that shows an example of what an SB 684 subdivision could look like. The exact layout will of course vary depending on the property, so the graphic is for illustration purposes only. And again here's another example, showing a different subdivision layout, and this is only intended to help visualize how these projects could be configured. Now let's briefly talk about SB 9 because it relates to one of the policy options we're discussing. SB 9 is a separate law that we've already implemented into our municipal code under dual urban opportunity housing. and urban lots or DUO slash ULS for short. DUOs and ULS only apply to single family zoning districts and it allows homeowners to either construct up to two homes on one lot without a subdivision. Oh, I'm so sorry. Or construct up to two homes on one lot, sorry, subdivide one lot into two and build homes on each lot. And just like SB 684, qualifying SB 9 projects are also reviewed ministerially. And this example shows an SB 9 project without an urban lot split. The property remains one parcel, but additional housing units are built. So for this single family, for this property, we have one single family dwelling, and we have a second single family dwelling with an ADU. And for the second lot, we have two single family dwellings. And then this is an example that shows what happens when an urban lot split is used. The original parcel is divided into two lots, allowing additional housing opportunities. And again, this is only intended to help visualize how these projects could be configured. So we have one lot with a single family dwelling and an ADU. And for the second lot, we have two single family dwelling units. And for the second example, we have one single family dwelling with one ADU. And on the second lot, we have only one single family dwelling unit. And the last piece of background information are ADUs. An ADU is a smaller independent home located on the same property as a primary residence. It includes its own kitchen, bathroom, and living space, allowing someone to live independently. And ADUs may be attached, detached, or created by converting existing space. Just like SB 9, it is already incorporated into our municipal code under chapter 19.79. And we have an example that shows what an attached ADU or detached ADU can look like. And again, ADUs are allowed on both single family and multifamily zones. And to summarize, SB 684 and SB 1123, it requires eligible applications to be processed ministerially. Projects must satisfy all of the development standards established by state law. And the city's primary choices, policy choices, are whether to allow ADUs on parcels created under SB 684 and whether those parcels should also be eligible for SB 9. And for now, I'll walk you through the policy options were considered. Option A would allow both ADUs and SB9 on parcels created under SB684. This would result in the greatest potential number of housing units for a total of 21 for multifamily development lots and 40 for single family lots. single-family lots would result in the greatest number of units because SB 9 is not allowed in multifamily zones, it is only allowed in single-family zones. Option B would not allow either ADUs or SB 9 on those newly created parcels. Housing would be limited to the 10 units already allowed under SB 684. Option C would represent a middle ground approach. It would allow ADUs with a limitation while prohibiting SB9. So for example, in single family zoning districts, each lot could have one attached ADU or one JADU while detached ADUs would not be allowed. And this would result in 20 total units. Multifamily properties would continue following existing ADU rules found in our municipal code And it would allow eight new construction ADUs and three conversion ADUs for a total of 21 units total. And so now we'd like to hear from you and it doesn't have to be right now, it could be later, but do you have any questions or concerns about these options? Is there one option you prefer over the others? And for this, you know, your feedback will definitely help shape the ordinance that we present to planning commission and city council. So we'll go ahead and see if there's anybody willing to provide their feedback. If not, that's okay. Go ahead and see their hand up yeah i'll go ahead and unmute Melanie. Melanie you're unmuted yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, so I guess I feel like I don't have enough background information even with the presentation tonight to really say what exactly my concerns are and what option I prefer. And I did actually, because I have a little bit of a paralegal background, so I did pull up the California code that was cited in the Sunnyvale City newsletter. And it seems, I guess my first question is, why do the parcels have to be zoned as multifamily if it's going to be retained as a lot with single family homes? Because when I think of zoning for multifamily, I'm thinking of like small apartment buildings on a formerly like single family home lot.

Yeah, I can help answer that too. And thanks, Melanie, for joining in. There are some configurations that would allow a property owner to do something more like what you're thinking in terms of multifamily, like the units are attached or it looks a little bit more like a building. I think it's more likely that we'll see some property owners that maybe have a larger lot just put put several more units on the property and kind of a more spread out formation, you know, kind of more like a townhouse type development that that that would be a we don't I don't think we'll see many of these for a while. It'll take a long time for people to understand these better and builders to start being, you know, providing additional expertise with them, kind of like ADUs took a while to pick up in Sunnyvale to even And so we don't see many of them happening, but I do imagine it's more likely that we'll see more of a townhouse style development. And we still call that multifamily because we are talking about multiple units on a given property.

Right? Yeah. So my worry is that just the multi family zoning kind of does open the door to what you would call a townhouse like. Um. But, I mean, I, you know, having lived in California, like, my whole life, I mean, I've seen and I know personally friends and family and stuff where. They end up, they're the last single family home standing on a block that just has. blocks of apartment buildings there's no parking on the street you know and especially if you're in the middle of the street you know you can feel the like boxed in you have taller buildings on all three sides of you um I mean I have one friend in particular in Southern California where Their property is the only 1 left on the street. Cars are double parked in the street all the time. Crime has gone up. There's a lot of transient people around. I mean, it's just kind of all the worst fears of the homeowner. And I noticed from reading the code is once the city adopts this, the city is not allowed. To prevent certain kinds of my understanding certain kinds of. Developments as long as they meet the law, like, they can't say, well, in this particular neighborhood, we're going to have a parking issue. So we can't approve this. Or, you know, well, I think in this neighborhood, certain number of likes property line and set back things would work better. You know, I think. I think the city and and just. You know, the community gives up a lot of rights as far as how. How the development occurs.

Yes, thank you. That is correct.

How do you address that for us people who have, you know, owned a home in Sunnyvale for, you know, 30 years and then, you know, there's no advantage to us. And I can totally see because I actually also have a family member who has been able to take advantage of a small apartment building built in a neighborhood of single family homes and has had an affordable place to live. But I mean, just speaking as a homeowner, it just there's, you know, there's a lot of fear, I think. around this and how it could spiral out of control. Like I say, you end up with a block with one single family home and then basically a bunch of slummy apartment buildings around it.

Yeah, thank you for your thoughts. We'll definitely take those into consideration. I would say two points to that. One is you're correct. There has been a lot of state legislation that is preempting local laws. And this is one such piece of legislation. And then the other part of that is that this is geared towards vacant parcels, which there really aren't many of in Sunnyvale. So the takeover or march towards this change, I think, will be a very, very slow one. And so if that, you know, assuages your fears at all, I do think that'll be the case and that I don't see the uptake in this bill being that great.

Well, so what you're saying is even though the law, SB 684, Susan Peterson, A combined with the newer law, which is the 1123 that that would allow things on vacant lots you're saying that as implemented the city of sunnyvale would only allow it on vacant lots. Because it looked like there were options where it would include non-vacant lots.

Correct. Yeah, Gabby was presenting on two bills tonight. The one that allows the greater amount of units or potentially allows the greater amount of units is only for vacant lots. The other bill, the SB 9 and 1123, that does apply to all single family lots.

Right. So that could apply to the lots, the homes.

Yeah. The densities of those aren't apartment building kind of densities, though. They really are residential in nature. We're talking about up to four units.

Right, but I, you know, my read of the law, you know, I'm in Lakewood village, which is, you know, 1 of the below the median for the county neighborhoods in Sunnyvale and 5,000 square foot lots that currently have 11, about 1100 square foot homes on them. And I'm trying. I think the law would allow four homes on a lot our size and I'm trying to imagine what these lots you know I bounced it off my husband he's like are the homes going to be four stories tall you know because there also is a minimum unit size for that too so I guess I'm just trying to reconcile you know and I realize all these things can be worked out in the details and the planning and stuff going forward but just given the way the law is written I feel like if there are concerns that, you know, and this is coming from someone who I think is more generally a YIMBY when it comes to housing, I think is the best way to assuage our fears just to not let Sunnyvale change the code on this. You know, once the code is changed, can things spiral? You know, does it become beyond our control? You know, that I guess is my worry. And again, I'm trying to think of our neighborhood with four you know, for homes on a 5,000 square foot lot, what that would look like.

Yeah, I can just add a little bit here. So even if we don't adopt these laws, these are already in effect. and people can applicants can come in and they can apply for projects using these laws and about the vacant lot so the vacant lot is for single family home gabby if you can go back to those slides um so uh that is a provision that was uh updated as part of one one two three where it allowed um the vacant lots within single family zones to have this provision of SB 684. Irrespective of whether city adopts this as an ordinance or not, this is currently a state law. The option we have here and the reason we have this presentation today is to see if we should allow ADUs accessory dwelling units on these lots or SB9, which are dual urban opportunity. So we are we wanted to get your feedback on whether these optional things is something that city should consider. But the law, as it is, is in effect today and even if we adopt or not adopt an ordinance, it's still in effect. And the basic provisions of the law, including the number of units that are allowed, the minimum lot size that's allowed, the building height that's allowed, that's already in there. And that is beyond the local jurisdiction to change those basic things. We still have to figure out the details, but the way you read the government code, that's already in effect. But we really wanted to get your feedback, especially on the ADUs and SB9 provision.

Yeah, but I think because as far as the public not having input, if somebody does come along and apply, that would involve a zoning change, right, from single family to multi-family zoning. And that's a point of control, right, for residents. But my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that if these options are changed, then it would become more automatic.

No. So if you go back, Gabby, to the original slides, like the SB 684, go back to this one. Yeah. In this case, if it is the original SB 684, which went into effect on July 1st, 2024, and one thing also to note here is that this law has been in effect since July 2024, so two years, and we haven't received any application yet. It is unlikely that it's going to pick up very soon. But the eligibility criteria for this one is that it should be zoned for multifamily and we have identified zones that are multifamily and the existing lot must not be greater than five acres. Is it not greater than five acres? And the lot size should be at least 600 square feet. And then Gabby, if you go to the one, one, two, three. so this one went into effect last year one year ago and this expanded this eligibility requirement to weaken single family lot so it's a very narrow um implementation on single family property it's only vacant and gabby can you elaborate on what vacant means so vacant has a specific definition so if in order to be qualified as vacant a lot would have

no permanent structure unless the permanent structure has been deemed abandoned and uninhabitable.

So it really narrows down it to very few lots. There are very few lots in Sunnyville that would qualify as a vacant lot in single-family homes.

Okay, so what you're saying, Ben, is that my, yeah, that I was wrong, that basically the changes in the code would not make it easier to change something from a single-family home zoning to a multifamily in order to put four homes on a lot.

Correct. It wouldn't make it easier. It's adopting the state law. We're not changing that.

You're not changing the rezoning process.

Correct. Correct.

Okay. So there would still be a point where residents could come in and there could be public input on whether lots in a zoned for single family neighborhood are going to be changed to multifamily.

A lot of that state law still preempts that even, Melanie, unfortunately. So these would be still allowed under that state law, whether that's changing what the city currently allows or not.

The rezoning would be allowed.

Yeah. And one thing I did hear from you, we were asking about whether the state is allowing us to add even a greater intensity or even more units to these projects. And it sounds like you're concerned about the densities already as they currently are under that state law. Yeah.

um so i'm imagining you're not supportive of uh increasing that further am i correct not in a neighborhood of single family homes especially ones that have such small lot sizes and it's kind of frustrating i mean i know it's even you know it's much harder to go from you know Industrial light, industrial zone to multifamily, or, you know, something like that. But, I mean, I look around and I know the what is sunny veils may be doing better on the vacancy. Right for office buildings, but I think in Santa Clara city, Santa Clara, I think it's like 14% and we have, you know, just on the other side of our neighborhood. There's like, tons of vacant buildings and it just seems kind of sad to. you know, put higher density in neighborhoods that already have kind of small homes on small lots. And, you know, sometimes a lot of people living in those single homes. I mean, it just seems like it would become just a much less pleasant place to live with, you know, all those extra housing units. You know, a lot of the homes in our, you know, and other parts we, we have, we're on the part of the neighborhood that has 2 car garages. But if you go over to other parts of Lakewood village, where they have 1 car garages and look at what the street parking is like, you know, it's really bad, but, you know, and to think that it could be changed to where. you know there are no garages and everybody is just parking on the street or maybe there's one space per dwelling or something like that but i mean my understanding is that the city wouldn't be able to mandate anything around the parking situation other than what's in the state law yeah thank you thank you for your thoughts on that Yeah, thank you. I don't mean to monopolize the time if there are other people with their hands held up. But it was just something I, you know, having grown up with this and seen. And you can see it around here. I mean, I was driving through Santa Clara the other day. And, you know, there's some nice old homes there, you know, in one of the older neighborhood. And then all of a sudden there's this big brick of a, you know, I guess I don't town home or apartment building or something. And, you know, it's just, it just really destroys character of the neighborhood, but thank you so much for your time and for having, having this meeting. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Melanie. We can provide some contact info for you too. If you want to reach out any further, I did notice Anthony joined us as well. We're close to wrapping up here, Anthony, but happy to answer a question or two from you as well. Did you want to ask us anything at all? You can either raise your hand and we'll unmute you or you can type something into the chat if you like.

Gabby, do you have a slide with your contact information?

Yes, I was kidding. Anthony, an option to type or to raise their hand, but that's okay. We'll go ahead and keep moving forward. Just to quickly wrap up, you know, after today's outreach meeting, we'll continue collecting community feedback and begin drafting the ordinance. And eventually it will be presented at a study session in December before moving to a formal public hearing at a later date. and i really appreciate everybody participating today and if you have any other further comments or questions or concerns you can definitely contact me at gventura at sunnyvale.ca.gov that's g-v-e-n-t-u-r-a at sunnyvale.ca.gov or call me at 408-730-7407 If I see no other hand raised, I believe that concludes our community outreach. So I will go ahead and stop sharing my screen. And we can go ahead and conclude the public outreach. Thank you so much for your time, everyone. And feel free to email me with any questions or concerns you have. Thank you. Thank you.