Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

test. by Sure. We're all set for seven.

Good evening. Let's call to order the planning commission meeting on of April 13th to 2026 at 700 p.m. The city doesn't tolerate disruptive behavior in our meetings. Sunnyale 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. The planning commission meeting is considered limited public forum which means the commission can regulate the time, place and the manner of speech. Speaker's comment must be limited to the agenda item being considered by the commission for consent calendar or public hearing items. Speaker comments during oral comm oral communication must be limited to matters within the comm commission's authority generally referred to as within the commission subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not repeated to an agenda item, the preciding officer will rule the speakers out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreements with the content of their speech. Location and online meeting details are available on the planning commission agenda. Use the show caption button to view caption on the Zoom. Comments on matters not on the agenda item must be submitted prior to the time I call the item for oral communications. Comments on agenda item must be submitted prior to the time I close the public hearing on the agenda item. Speakers are requested to keep their comments to the time period set for public comments for the agenda item which will be strictly enforced. Guidelines are posted on the city's website and on the planning commission meeting agenda. Please join me in the salute to the flag. I aliance to the flag of the United

States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Recording officer, may we please have the roll call? Commissioner Davis, present. Vice Chair Shukla, present. Commissioner Fagonei present. Commissioner Cerrone present. Commissioner Pine present. Commissioner Sigura present. We have six commissioners present. The absence of Chair Glacias is excused.

Thank you. Um before we start oral communication I have some announcements. Uh this is the announcements for uh by uh by chair at board and commission meetings. Uh there is a board and commission uh um application deadline. Board and commission recruitment is underway for the following openings. Arts Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, Board of Library Trustee, Heritage Preservation Commission, Housing and Human Service Commission, Human Relations Commissions, Park and Recreation Commission, Personal Board, Planning Commission, Sustainable Commission. Applications are due by 400 p.m. on Thursday, April 16th. in order to be scheduled for an interview with council on Monday, April 27th and Tuesday, April 28th. General eligibility requirement includes Sunnyville residency. For more information, visit sunnyell.ca.gov and search boards and commissions or call the office of the city clerk at 4087307483 to request an application. Applications to serve on a board or commission are accepted on a continuous basis. Applications received after the deadline will be considered for future opening. Um we'll proceed to 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 may be extended or continued after the public hearing uh or general business section of the meeting. Individuals may only speak once during oral communications. The planning commission meeting is a limited public forum and the commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments during oral communication must be limited to matters within the commission's authority which is known at the commission's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are outside the commission

subject matter jurisdiction, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. This allows the commission to conduct its business in a reasonably efficient manner and protects the rights of other speakers. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of disagreements with the content of their speech. Please submit um speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star 9 on telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of public of public participating in person first followed by remote participants. Speakers will have three minutes to speak. Uh does anyone to one want to speak uh under oral communications before we hear from remote speakers. So I will go ahead and close or uh no I um oh does um because of the uh recording officer do we have any remote participants wishing to speak an oral communications?

No we do not.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and close oral communications. Uh I will go ahead and open public comment on consent calendar items. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star 9 on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on call on members of the public participating in person first followed by remote participants. Speakers will have three minutes to speak. Does anyone want to anyone else want to speak on a consent calendar item before we hear from remote speakers? I see none. Uh recording officer, do we have any remote participants wishing to speak on this on the consent calendar?

Would you not vice chair? Thank you. I will close the public comment and now I will ask for a motion from my colleagues. Um, Commissioner Pine. Thank you, Chair. I move the consent calendar submitted. Um, Commissioner Davies, I second the motion.

Is there um discussion or advocacy on motion? Okay, we are moving on to our item. Oh, and oh yes, sorry. Sorry. Yes. Um, I will now uh Okay, recording officer, please conduct a vote. I will conduct a uh roll call vote verbally since uh technology uh prevents me from doing it electronically. Uh Commissioner Davis, yes. Commissioner Sigura,

yes. Commissioner Cerrone, yes. Commissioner Pine, yes. Commissioner Fagonei, yes. Vice Chair Shukla, yes. The motion passes with six yeses and Chair Glaciius absent. Thank you. Now I'll move on to our next item 266-0159. Uh introduce an ordinance amending chapter 19.71 of the Sunnyell Municipal Code Code relating to the residential tenant protection program. Is there a staff report?

Yes, there is. Good evening, commissioners. Um, I'm Ryan Dyson, housing specialist, and I'm joined tonight with uh Samantha Luke, also housing specialist, and Amanda Stoaltz, our housing officer, is joining us remotely via Zoom. Excuse me. Tonight, we'll be discussing potential updates to the city's tenant protections program, specifically to relocation assistance for no fault, just cause evictions under chapter 19 uh.71 of the Sunnyale Municipal Code. And so, uh, we'll start off with a brief background, um, on tenant protections, uh, both in the state of California and in Sunnyvale. And we'll begin with AB1482, which is California's tenant protection act of 2019, which set a statewide tenant protections framework. Uh, and most relevant to tonight's discussion is it is that it established one month of relocation assistance for no fault, just cause evictions. Shortly thereafter, in April 2023, as part of the city's 2020 housing strategy, the city adopted its tenant protections program building off of AB1482. Notably, the city established a right to lease program and also increased the relocation assistance amount for no fault just cause evictions to two months rent. Uh at the council hearing when this was adopted in April 2023, council also directed staff to study increasing relocation assistance to three months, providing further protections for vulnerable and elderly populations, and starting just cause eviction protections on day one of a lease. Um normally they would start after 12 months of a lease. In February 2025, staff returned with the increased three-month relocation assistance uh ordinance for for no fault just cause evictions, but council noted that there was low community input on the item and directed staff to return with an amended ordinance um and

additional uh uh outreach. So, tonight we are back to introduce the ordinance along with the results of our expanded outreach and analysis. And I'll also note that uh staff inadvertently left out the further protections for vulnerable vulnerable and elderly populations and day one eviction protections from this ordinance. Uh that was not studied as part of tonight's uh agenda. Um or at the February 2025 hearing. Um, so, uh, this slipped through the cracks, uh, and was not included in our most recent round of outreach as well, but we've picked it back up and we will be asking for direction from, uh, this body and from council on whether to continue the study of those items tonight. Uh, and just a brief bit of background on no fault just cause evictions themselves. Um, no fault just cause evictions are not the fault of the tenant, but is still considered a legal cause for eviction. Uh, these can be for reasons such as uh a unit is uh demolished or substantially remodeled uh requiring the tenant to vacate the unit um or if an owner or family member uh occupies a unit. This is opposed to an atfall eviction uh which is most commonly from a non-payment of rent or other lease violations. and and the uh relocation assistance does not apply to at fault evictions, just the no fault just cause evictions. There are also some exemptions to the relocation assistance requirement for no fault just cause evictions. U those exemptions include properties that are single family owner occupied residences where they're renting a room um or a junior ADU. um a single family home that is not owned by a trust or LLC and a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units and that would also

apply to ADUs where the owner occupies a single family home and rents out an ADU. So those are exempt from the relocation assistance requirement. So for tonight, um we uh did expanded outreach for uh in response to council direction. Uh we completed a a robust round of outreach uh where we targeted uh landlords and property managers who are registered as businesses with the city. We sent out um over 2,700 mailers to landlords and and property managers. and uh uh with a link to a survey we received 212 responses uh from that link. Um and uh last time just for comparison in 2025 we received 14 responses. So we did a lot better this time. We also had a tenant uh oriented survey that was advertised through social media um primarily and 278 responses were received on that survey. Uh last time in 2025 we received 24 responses. So, a lot better there as well. Uh, these were heavily promoted at um farmers markets um on the housing division website and in city newsletters. Uh so, we're we're pleased with those responses that we received and we'll share with you tonight those uh results. Um both the landlord and the tenant surveys have essentially the same questions. They're mirror images of one another basically. Um and uh it we start off with uh just asking what the impact on landlords would be for increased relocation assistance. And you can see here in the graph um 75% of landlords said that it would be an unfair undue burden for the property owner. Uh other common responses were that it would consider they would consider increasing rents to offset the uh expenses related to relocation assistance and that would

cause an economic hardship and restrict their ability to move into a unit. On the tenant side, um over half of the tenants, I guess this is the same question but for tenants now. So how would uh increasing no fault just cause relocation assistance to 3 months impact them? Uh tenants say that it would prevent unjust evictions and it would make it easier to find comparable housing. Uh it's also interesting to note here that 43% of the tenants also said that they had concerns that landlords may raise rents in response to this. We also wanted to have an understanding of just how many uh tenants and landlords have been involved in a no fault just cause eviction. Um and so we asked that question in the survey and received responses uh where 8% of the tenants and 11% of landlords report being involved in a no fault just cause eviction. This is self-reported. Um and so it also shows that you know 5% of both tenant and landlords were not sure. Uh but I think that it still indicates that approximately 10% of both uh landlords and tenants have been involved at some point in their lives in a uh no fault just cause eviction. So it's it's fairly specific and fairly uh infrequent. And then we also wanted to gauge just the the public's general familiarity with the city's tenant protections program. Uh so we asked landlords and tenants how familiar they are with the tenant protections program and just under half of landlords uh reported that they were familiar with the city's requirements but only 15% of tenants uh were familiar with the city's requirements. So it's clear that we need to do additional outreach um and inform uh the public both landlords and tenants about the city's requirements. Uh so uh regardless of what direction um

the city takes with uh considering increased relocation uh assistance requirements, staff will still uh expand outreach to bridge this gap of awareness uh throughout the year. Uh we'll be sending out more mailers to landlords and property managers, doing more in-person events uh and expanding resources on our web page and on social media. And then finally, we looked at neighboring jurisdictions requirements for uh no fault just cause uh relocation assistance and tenant protections in general. Uh and so we've uh has a I have a larger uh chart in in the attachments, but uh this is kind of the abbreviated version of it uh showing some of our peer cities in the county. And uh essentially Sunnyville is somewhere in the middle of these jurisdictions. uh Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose consistently have adopted more robust requirements uh than what is part of uh AB1482 or the the state's tenant protections program. So, Mountain View uh for example has a relocation assistance amount of three months of median market rent. Palo Alto has about a fourmonth uh requirement for relocation assistance and San Jose has about a three-month requirement. They base that off of numerical figures that are adjusted with CPI but it equates to about that much. Uh and then we have Certino who is considering an ordinance for expiring affordable housing units. Uh and then other jurisdictions like the city of Santa Clara, Militus, Campbell uh they do not have additional tenant protections beyond AB1482. Uh similarly for uh additional assistance for special circumstances um Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose all have additional requirements. Uh for example, Mountain View has 8,000 uh an $8,000 requirement for households that

have um that are lower income uh have elderly uh household members um or children uh under the age of 18. And we also looked at the minimum occupancy requirement in order for those tenant protections to take in effect uh to get an idea of how common the day one protections are. Again, Mountain View, Palo Alto all uh and San Jose all have additional requirements there. Um Mountain View's tenant protection requirements essentially began on day zero of a lease. Uh Palo Alto at six months and San Jose after seven days. So uh that gives us a comparison for uh day one protections as well. And so um this leads us to our recommendation tonight uh which we base on the outreach that we completed and on the research into neighboring jurisdictions programs. Uh and essentially no fault just cause evictions are infrequent but have a significant impact on both tenant and landlords. Um for landlords uh these are financial and operational impacts to their businesses. uh and if they're undergoing a substantial renovation or moving into a unit uh to site some more common scenarios uh this could potentially cause an impact for them. For tenants the impacts are much more personal and can cause housing instability uh which can greatly impact uh personal and professional lives and even lead to homelessness. Uh and it's at no fault of the tenant. Uh the cost of relocation itself could easily exceed three months rent uh including uh first month's rent, security deposit, application fees, moving expenses, and potentially time off of work. So we want to balance these interests both protecting the tenant but still uh maintaining a feasible program. And we can see that Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose have all managed this and uh the city can as well. Uh and this also aligns with uh city council direction. So tonight we are recommending

alternative one to introduce the ordinance for three months relocation assistance for no fault just cause evictions. And we're also recommending alternative three to direct staff to continue to study additional tenant protections including day one protections um additional protections for vulnerable populations and fair market rent as the basis for re relocation assistance amount. And uh just to clarify, alternative three is not a part of the ordinance itself. This would just be directing staff to study and if there are particular op um topics that you want us to study, we will consider those as well. Um our next steps are housing and human services commission tomorrow and uh we'll be at city council on May 5th and that concludes our presentation and we're here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I will now ask for questions from my colleagues. The first is Commissioner Davies.

Uh thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Um so a a couple of one really technical question. Um you said there are exemptions unless single family homes, condos or town homes are owned by trusts. Um trust is a pretty broad term. Um, and it's a pretty common feature for families to uh to have trust that they hold their real estate in. Um, do is there a more precise definition in the in the laws?

Uh, we can check on that, but generally speaking, uh, the exemption would fall if you own the property under your own name. Uh there there may be some nuances there to the actual language around the trust. Um but I I can we can look into that. Okay. Um and then actually have three things, but I'll save one for after public comment. Um do we have any data? Has the city collected any data on how often these protections have actually been used?

That's a good question. And uh we've looked into um well, we have uh the city doesn't enforce the ordinance. I think as was discussed before. Uh so we generally rely on project sentinel to mediate in the event that there is a uh question about a no fault just cause eviction. Um we don't have any records from project Sentinel saying that there was any no fault just cause eviction that has taken place within the last fiscal year. Um, so no one sought that advice from or mediation from Project Sentinel where they actually opened up a case about it. Uh, we don't have any data in terms of if this was handled without the help of Project Sentinel. Um, so we're we're unable to say uh we do receive approximately 20 to 30 calls a year about this. Um I received one just last week asking about uh whether tenant u um relocation assistance would apply to their unit. It was a single family home. So uh we had to defer them to project Sentinel. Um and I haven't heard anything more about that one. But it does happen occasionally, but we we don't have data on on whether this has taken place.

Okay. So it seems like something of a blind spot. It isn't and that's part of the reason why we asked the question in the survey was to to have uh uh to hear it from tenants and landlords how often this happens. Okay. Um that's all my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Next one is um Commissioner Figon, please.

Thanks for your presentation. Um so I had a couple questions. One is um on slide seven. I'm just kind of curious why why is the city pursuing this when like my fellow commissioners kind of alluded to there's really not many it seems like there's not many occurrences of this. So I'm just trying to understand what is driving this right now that we need to the city wants to push going to three months and then follow up to that is there other agencies or or groups that are supporting this within the city that's giving you input onto that question to that is you said that the sample size was small

uh what would you have liked it to be? So, um, the no fault just cause eviction relocation assistance originally originated for the city as part of the housing strategy in 2020. Um, and we brought it to council uh along with a right to lease uh as part of a a twomonth relocation assistance amount. So, we've been pursuing it since 2020. Uh and then we were advised directed by council to return with three months eviction or relocation assistance amount. Uh so that's what's what's driving this. Um there's also the fact that uh tenants are are not at fault for these evictions and and so it's seen as a a way to um you know provide some uh stability to housing uh for cases of eviction that are not the fault of a tenant even though they may be rare. Um, you may have to remind me your other questions.

Well, I mean, I think when I was looking at some of the analytics that you presented, which were very good, um, the the owners or the or the property owners said it would increase the cost. They're going to pass that back on to the tenants and they think we're trying to get the rents down, right? That's the long-term goals, too. We don't want That's why we're building a lot and we're we're we're trying to do these things. So, it does seem counter a little bit counterproductive. I'm not sure if I'm really understanding what's driving the city council to do this when the data seems um not very strong at the moment. I mean, if there is there specific use cases you have or really good stories that you have that really drive this or that can help us understand better.

Well, I think the idea is to increase housing security. Uh we have people you know in these rare cases where no fault just cause eviction occurs um people would be out and and searching for an apartment at no fault of their own. So the assistance is intended to help them out um make sure that they have the uh ability the financial ability to be able to put down a first month's rent security deposit um be able to uh afford to move uh to a new place. Uh so it's directly benefiting uh the folks that are involved in a no fault just cause eviction and helping them stay housed. Uh so it's really part of an anti-displacement and tenant protections uh side of things. Uh we look at housing in in various different ways in the housing division and protection is part of that and making sure that people can stay housed um is a huge part of that.

Okay. Thank you. Next one is Commissioner Payne, please. Thank you. Uh just a couple questions. Uh do we have any uh empirical data on like the whether or not the we've whether or not like we've seen like when other jurisdictions have added more generous tenant protection ten protections along these lines whether that whether that has actually empirically led to a rent increase or not because I feel like I'm just curious if we've actually tried to because I know what the survey says but I'm just curious if we've tried to like actually track that.

Yeah, that that's something that would be very difficult to study um just because rents typically increase in general um and it would be difficult to say that the increased relocation assistance would be leading to that um amongst a bunch a bunch of other factors. Yeah, I I did very quickly do try to do a cross do a little cross-checking and I found the very unhelpful information that Mountain View rents are higher than Sunny are on average higher than Sunnyvale rents, but San Jose rents are on average lower than Sunnyvale rents, which honestly I think which to me honestly tells us more about land values in their respective cities than anything else. But that that was that was all I could come up with with like 30 seconds of googling. I was wondering if there was just anything more in depth.

No, we don't have anything more in depth than that.

Okay. Uh the other question I had is uh does staff have any kind of estimate on how long it and I recognize that this might be a question for like the city manager people that or other people that aren't necessarily here tonight but uh does staff have any kind of estimate on how long it might take for to come back with the additional 10 protections as per alternative Well, we would want to do another round of outreach. Um, and we could structure that uh with another round of um promotion and uh just getting the information out about the city's tenant protections program. Um, and then we would want to time that with of course the the calendar of the city too. So I I would say you know within within a year optimistically.

Okay. just I know I'm just Yeah, I I think that's reasonable. I I'll might have a couple more comments on that when we get after the public hearing, but that that's all I had for now. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Commissioner Cerrone, please.

Thanks and thanks for the presentation. Um so it was as you pointed out it's a little alarming that most tenants and um landlords don't seem to be aware of this policy at all. Um I was wondering for example for many state and federal programs they uh required to pace post flyers in the like common areas break rooms or whatever you know this is the law and uh um do we and most of these places probably all of them have an office uh that tenants get into. So requiring somebody to be posted there would both inform the landlord who has to post it and the tenants who come in there for various reasons. Uh do we require that or could we could we require that?

We do have posting requirements and we have um uh requirements to include in a in a lease packet. So they are required to post something in the office. Yeah. Oh, good. Um, is there anything about this that uh this proposal that makes it harder for landlords uh to uh evict tenants for bad behavior or uh in other words for cause type of eviction?

No. And and the city is really uh building just on AB1482. We incorporate 1482 as part of the the code. Uh so we don't um there's nothing to do with the actual technical aspect of evictions. It's really the relocation assistance portion of it.

Okay. And uh so as we've mentioned, it sounds like these just cause evictions are relatively rare. Uh so it doesn't seem like they would be an ongoing uh big financial burden to a landlord although there is some economic impact I guess uh looking at the public comments uh especially from landlords it's uh it seems like uh the end tenants it seems like they mostly do not understand the law. It's not like they think it applies to any eviction or is that your sense or didn't seem like the comments reflected the actual law as proposed here?

Well, I I I think that their comments do reflect a concern of uh this encroaching on their ability to to run the property the the way that they want to. Uh so I think that there is real concern from from landlords and property owners about that. Um and that's what's reflected in the the responses that we received. Um but yes, it it no fault just cause evictions are are quite rare. I mean we within the same survey landlord landlords are reporting that it only occurs in 11% of of for land 11% of landlords. So it is a rare occurrence.

Right. Right. uh for the uh I guess it's u alternative three but for the day one tenant protections just some feedback I 12 months does seem like too long a requirement uh so maybe something in between would make sense but you're also recommending looking at um like right now you give uh three months of rent uh based on the rent the tenant is currently paying right correct but You're suggesting looking at uh uh fair market. Does that mean like median rent for the area? What is fair market mean here?

The Yeah, fair market is is calculated by uh um the department of housing and urban development um at the federal level and it's calculated both for small zip code areas within the county and then also for the county itself. So, uh, it's, you know, supposed to reflect the median rent of a unit on the marketplace. So, then this, so then everybody who's who encounters this sort of eviction would get the same compensation regardless of what they were paying for rent. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I think I noticed uh Mountain View does that. Guess I'm not entirely sure what makes that a good idea, but that's something I guess we'd look at later. Um, the city contracts with Project Sentinel, right? That's correct. Do they but they do not re uh provide any reports on what they're doing back to the city?

They do. They do provide reports. Um, they may not be specific about every call that they receive. uh they often highlight cases that they take on. Um and just in reviewing their last uh um reports for the last fiscal year of cases, there was nothing involving a no fault just cause eviction. So, it's possible that they've received a call about it. Um I know that the city receives calls and we send them to Project Sentinel. So, they they likely have, but it hasn't made it to the point where it's become a case uh that they've taken on. It it could be that they've been able to mediate it or clarify something with uh either the the tenant or the landlord, whoever was asking about it. Um, in my experience, when uh members of the public call in about this, it's usually to clarify whether they're whether this would apply to their unit, and in many cases, it it it doesn't. So, so do you think this is a blind spot in or uh that the fact that they aren't reporting it reflects the fact that it's not happening?

I I think it it could be happening, but it's not getting to the stage where it becomes a a serious case where they have to do ongoing mediation or or anything like that. Uh they're able to settle it fairly quickly if it does occur, but uh we we don't have that fine grain data uh from them. Let me see. Um, if a landlord moves a tenant to another unit, say in the complex or something, uh, does that avoid this, uh, requirement?

Uh, that's a good question and we can we can double check on that as well. And um could the landlord give uh instead of giving them three months rent in cash effectively upon eviction, could they give them the last three months of rent free?

The way it's phrased in the ordinance right now is that the landlord could give two months of cash and then the last month rent for free. Um So three months the last three months waiting the last three months rent would would not fit into that narrow definition. So I see. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um we have uh Commissioner Seura, please.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Um when you guys did um all the survey, did you check what age group was the people that answered to the survey? We did not have a question about uh age or anything personal.

Okay. Um it's a really nice thing what is being trying to what's trying to be done here. But another question, what other measures did you guys suggest to protect the landlord from frivolous accusations, etc., etc. When somebody says, "Oh, they uh did not give me the three months or uh they did not offer me this or did not offer me that." Does anything um that you have in the law to protect the landlord as well? Well, the there are some nuances to the law. There are those exemptions uh to specific types of properties. Um but in general, if a property uh if the just cause relocation assistance requirement applies to a property, then it's pretty cut and dry uh that the landlord would um be required to pay the relocation assistance. We haven't had any I haven't heard any um calls about uh falsely claiming uh relocation assistance.

Okay. No, that you know maybe people said, "Hey, the landlord did not offer us when in fact they did." You know, uh that's what I'm trying to figure out if there's anything um that has to be done in writing or not uh on both ends. Um some correspondence between the two parties. Well, aside from the posting and and uh lease requirements, uh that that is included as part of the ordinance as well. So, that has to be right on both ends. Yeah. Okay. Uh thank you.

Thank you. Um I have a couple of question too. Uh when you said that um it fell through the cracks, it was the the detailing about the survey question.

Yes. So this was in reference to the uh additional protections that are are part of um alternative three. Uh so looking at additional protections for uh vulnerable and el elderly populations, day one tenant protections. Um and and this was simply left off of the 2025 uh uh report. Uh so it was not studied as part of that and um we didn't pick it up when we took over this in later on in 2025. Uh we then rediscovered uh that direction from council and and are now asking for uh additional guidance as to whether we want to continue to pursue that as a study direction.

Um okay so that's kind of makes a lot of I mean there's a large difference in that one. But other other question I have is um when you get when you did the survey the landlord did you ask them the landlords that how many units they were renting or like did they have that specific to because that answers does uh I I mean it'll be nice to know whether these landlords their response have some relevance with units they're renting uh because I think the survey now it shows that um um that they are concerned about it. So I'm just curious about it that what are we going to do? So do we have more details on that one?

Uh yes, we we asked a similar question um just asking landlords to describe the um types of units that they rent or or manage and own and they could you know respond with multiple responses there. So uh 30% 37% of the respondents uh are managing or owning a single family home and renting that. Uh 30% of the respondents have small complexes of 3 to nine units. So we were largely hitting the the smaller landlord uh portfolios. Um but they're also just a larger number of of folks that are renting out their their homes and smaller apartment complexes. So, so we we have lot of rental um apartments and we so we don't know exactly that what are the all the respondents might be from the lower like they are the one who are uh not breaking the laws they kind of they are the good citizens but we don't know the big companies who are renting I mean it's kind of nice to know

we heard from them as well uh 13% of the respondents had larger complexes of more than 20 or 25 or more units. Okay, I'm going to wait for the people to um say and then Okay, thank you.

Okay. So, so okay. So, there is um we have Okay. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. 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 followed by remote participants. Speaker will have three minutes to speak and um u we have um person one person from the from the hall wishing to speak. So um please speaker ro parent please come forward you have three minutes to speak you commission um my name is real parent um lifelong me uh resident of Sunnyville except for college and a few other years um uh my family my dad moved here in 1965 he bought the apartment he was living in at the time married my mom they lived in that apartment till they were able to afford a home He continued to invest in the community. Uh we now own 23 units. Uh and uh actually love the city. I I didn't hear about this and and all the outreach until the email last week. I was like, "Oh, this looks interesting." And I looked into it a little bit and and I I appreciate all the questions from the commissioners. There were a lot of questions that I had, too. Um there was one experience I had where actually we had planned to remodel our house. a tenant had moved out of one of our forplex units. And so

I arranged to do a short-term lease for um some people to live in it until I was planning to move into it. I was managing the property myself. I I mischecked something on the contract or or managed the payment a little bit wrong. Uh it was the end. I gave them notice like just a reminder, you're supposed to move out the first of this month. and they said, "Oh, I went to this, you know, um, lawyer someplace that the county offered or something, and they said that this this gives me another two weeks to stay in the unit. I'd already told the the demo people to come tear down my house." So, I ended up handling that myself, but if like this type of laws in in effect, then I'm legally obligated to pay three months of atmarket rent, right? Um, now my dad bought properties from 1965. I hate to say he was a a slum lord, but he didn't invest a lot into the properties. We're actually working to do that now, but like we rent to the the lower end of the market. Our properties are up off Dwayne and Fair Oaks. Um, and uh, you know, paying at market is above like what our rents are. Three months then would become like four and a half, five months of income from a pro of from a unit. Um I I don't think we've ever actually had besides that one incident incident and I don't even know if it would have been qualified as just cause because I screwed up, right? If if we went to court or something, they would said, "No, you made a mistake. You can't actually kick them out." So I paid them. I like gave them back their money to go away and they were happy to take the money and leave. Um so I I wonder a you know is this is this a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist? But perception's important, right? As a landlord, we're going to have this perception that this could be a problem. You know, we're going to cause, you know, concern from landlords and and maybe expectations from tenants that

aren't really justified. I heard a lot of comments about how um it was just cause, but like they they use the other term, what's the other term? No fault. They emphasize the no fault, but not the just cause. It's like it's not the inexcusable evictions that are being limited. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, so does anyone um else want to speak on this item before we hear from the remote speakers? I do not see any other card or any other person. So remote speakers are warned to limit their comments to the agenda item being considerate. Speakers who are ruled out of order will not be given another chance to speak on this item. Uh and the title of this item is um yes got it. It's introduced uh an ordinance amending chapter 19.71 of the Sunnyale Municipal Code relating to the residential tenant protection program.

Um recording officer, do we have any remote participant wishing to speak on this item?

Yes, we do. We'll hear first from Anil Babar. Uh thank you chair and uh planning commission members. Anel Babar with the California Apartment Association. We're an organization that represents uh rental property housing providers in the city of Sunnyville and the state of California. Uh I like to talk about this this uh recommendation tonight. Um specifically uh regarding AB1482, it struck that balance of providing reasonable protections including the one month of relocation payments without uh negatively impacting housing production and maintenance. That assertion was recently supported by a academic paper by UCLA that found that AB1482 did not encourage the conversion of existing rental to another use and it did not push property owners to exit the rental market. These basic and reasonable protections provide the necessary protections for the city yet maintaining an environment where um both developers can continue expanding housing availability in Sunnyville and property owners can uh have the resources to maintain their existing homes and provide habitable housing for Sunnyville residents. um you know by staff's own admission through the uh survey that was red produced there isn't a an issue I mean 85 to 80% of respondents claim they've not received a no fault eviction so I want to ask what is the problem we're solving as was suggested by the previous speaker um furthermore I think uh a better use of time would be to educate property owners and tenants of the existing laws rather than provide new laws that I I would

imagine the tenants and property owners would still not be aware of. Um I I I believe that we need to enforce existing laws instead of enacting new ones. When the council adopt did this recommendation uh a couple years ago, they did so without the benefit of the survey results. Um and I think that survey results would demonstrate that there isn't a need for this for expanding the relocation to three months. Uh it would just provide more of a burden to property owners and we haven't seen the evidence that two months is isn't isn't adequate. So in closing I would recommend that the planning commission reject the recommendation before you and maintain the existing protections as it is. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Agnes Feith.

Agnes, if you're speaking, you might be on mute. We can't hear you. I just unmuted, but I'm not seeing the clock starting. Okay, we can hear you now. As soon as you you you start, I can start the timer.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, city staff, and members of the public. I am Agnes Vice, a member of Livable Sunnyvil, and tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf. In 2025, Santa Clara County conducted their point in time count, commonly referred to as the pit count, to determine the number of our unhoused residents. In Sunnyville, the total number of individuals counted was 421. Of this number, 328 were unsheltered, which means individuals sleeping outdoors or in places not designated for habitation, such as vehicles, streets, parks, or abandoned buildings. 93 were sheltered, which includes individuals sleeping in an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or safe havens. When the pit count is taken, it is understood it is an undercount because it is impossible to locate all places within our city where an individual may be sleeping. Tonight, you have the opportunity to prevent more of our residents from ending up homeless by supporting both alternatives one and three, and I urge you to do so. I was speaking with Rose Gregorio today, who many of you may know works with our unhoused community. She shared with me that in the month of April, five of our community members living on Sunnyville streets died. It is completely unacceptable and morally wrong for us to fail to support programs that will keep our residents housed. Supporting alternatives one and three is a step to help keep our residents off the streets. Thank you for listening to my opinion.

Thank you. And vice chair, we have no further hands raised. Thank you. Now I'll have um questions or motion from my colleagues. Vice Chair, if I may. Uh can I add that uh to res sorry to respond to Commissioner Davis's question earlier? Oh, you have um Okay. I think yes. As an applicant, you can you have another five minutes to an applicant. You have to close a public hearing. Oh,

that's true. So, I know I know I'm just I'm just rushing. Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll close the public hearing and then I will ask my uh colleagues for discussion, questions and motions. Uh on a point of privilege, I believe I'd like to hear staff's response before we So, uh that's true because we I the applicant. Yes. Generally, we have a response another five minutes for the response to the staff isn't an applicant. staff is just staff. They can they Yeah, please go ahead. Yeah.

Okay. Yes. Uh we have some clarification on Commissioner Davis's question about the what types of trust. Uh and so if a home or condo is owned by a revocable trust, which is the common way for uh most folks to hold property, uh that would be exempt from uh this ordinance. Um, and it would only be the real estate investment trust or rate that would would uh trigger it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Now, now it's okay. So, uh, we have a question. Uh, so, Commissioner Davies.

Uh, thank you, Sharon, and thank you to the public for for your comments. Um, first I had Um just a a little bit of feedback to give about the outreach. Um I thought we might hear something from the public on that so I held that back. Um so it's I think something like 55% of the city is are renters, right? And um they're the people who really need to hear about this program and so on. So, um I suggest that we consider a mailer to every address. Uh we should definitely be hitting all the newsletters, um maybe utility inserts and so on, letting people know about this. Uh even when you put it in front of everybody, um most of the people still aren't going to read it, but you still have to do it, right? Um, that's that's my feedback on that. Um, let's see. I don't see anybody else's hands up. So, uh, I I'll just move to general commentary u before we make a motion. So, this is a really small change to the ordinance, right? I I think there are three red lines um in in the document. Having said that, uh I we don't have very concrete circumstances put before us where this occurs, right? Um or examples of it. Uh so it's really hard to say that there's a lot of harm going on right now because we just don't have numbers on how often it's being used right now. So we're looking at this kind of circumstantial uh hypothetical circumstantial

uh case. So, I looked up AB1482, right? And and there really 1482 lists four circumstances that this uh no fault, just cause or is it just cause, no fault? The order doesn't matter, right? So, if an owner or family member moves into a unit, uh that would qualify um withdrawal from the rental market, which is also governed by the Ellis Act. I know that doesn't that's not a it's not used a lot in Sunnyville. I know it's used a lot in San Francisco. Um substantial renovation or demolition. Um I'll come back to that one. That one's a pretty big deal. And compliance with the govern government government order. So substantial renovation or demolition. I keep thinking of scenarios where this would occur. And this comes in when we're updating older housing or redeveloping properties. And so I I I feel like this is going to occur well um it gets more complicated the larger the property is, right? Um because you can you can a smaller property you can manage it with the timing of your leases. You move people when their lease expires, move them to monthtomonth. And so you you avoid all of this. Um but obviously that gets more complicated the more tenants you have, right? So, if you have a four if you have a four-unit building and you need to update it, which uh I don't know, maybe you have asbestos in it or something, right? Or something some and you just need to get people out so you can do this. Um then uh you could probably manage that with just the with just the timing of your leases. Um and good planning essentially. Uh if you have a couple of hundred units, uh you're gonna you're I'm seeing the linear program in my

head, but um you're going to end up having to pay some people relocation. So I'm thinking where's the public interest in this? Um we obviously want our housing to be updated. Um the city is not young anymore, right? Um my house was built in ' 62. can tell you it costs a lot to and upkeep, right? Um, so I'm I'm disincined to discourage uh property owners from from updating their buildings. Having said that, I don't think that's too much of an issue because uh you can manage through this, right? Um I I don't think it's too big of a burden to ask landlords to be I don't know smart. Um so um so so that's uh that's kind of a moot point. Um for the larger units I kind of we're talking about more people affected. So in my mind there's a public interest in in making sure the people who are impacted are uh made as whole as possible. Right. So that that seems pretty compelling. Um from from the other thing uh the government orders is where it gets interesting. Uh because government orders are usually some kind of condemnation. The building's being condemned or it's redlined for some reason or uh perhaps um now this isn't the tenants not complying with something, right? and you're getting a if you get a government order because your tenant, let's say, put too many people in the unit and you got redlined and you had to evict them, that's an at fault eviction. So, this doesn't apply. Um, this is more along the lines of, uh, uh, if you're a classic slum lord, right, and you're not

taking care of your buildings and we redline you, uh, uh, and you have to and to correct it, you have to move people out so you can actually correct it. And I think there's a very compelling interest uh for the city uh to discourage that situation and really the only lever you have is to make it more expensive. Right? If you don't maintain your bu the cost of not maintaining your building um will be more than the cost of maintaining your building, right? Um so I I see a compelling interest there. Um, but this is something these are all hypotheticals. I really wish we had data on it and I understand that we're really not going to get data unless we have a rent registry and that's way out of scope for this discussion. Um, so that's my commentary. Um, and uh, I'll yield the floor. Maybe someone else will make a motion.

Thank you. U, we have a commission ceremony, please. Uh thanks vice chair. So yeah this is uh I agree with uh commissioner Davis. Uh this is uh something of a close call and without uh some more data. I mean my sense is that uh um that the requirement as you know that that exists whether it's two months or 3 months it um encourages the landlord and the tenant to um me make another accommodation of some kind. kind of uh sounds like what's happening with the project sentinel cases. I mean, people don't really want to be looking for 3 months for a place to live. If if they could move to another place within the complex or even another place owned by the the landlord or or what, you know, whatever, you know, that's what they would want. So it seems like um even the 10% may be overstated and making it three months instead of two months does kind of uh encourage uh that kind of resolution to uh to happen. And um definitely uh so the problem we're trying to solve is that I think we we believe probably the council believes that it's harder to find housing now than it was 10 years ago or whatever or even 5 years ago. So that's why it may take you know nominally 3 months instead of two months. So I think there is a real problem and homelessness is an issue which starts in many cases with an

eviction. Um and uh and the you know for the community the most cost effective way to address that is preventing it by uh with things like this with re basically relocation assistance. So in that sense I think uh that there is a problem we're trying to solve and um um and and this would address that and there's a reason why neighboring a lot of neighboring cities are also doing this. Um um of course if we again if we had some more substantial data that would show something different you know that would be very persuasive but given what we have here it seems like it's something that would be relatively relatively low impact to most landlords and provide some level of uh uh security to um what is kind of half the population. So, I think it's uh worth doing. Um, as far as notification, it seems like the notification that would count is when someone is notified of the eviction that then they are told at in that same document, this is the law. These are the requirements. It's like you if you get laid off or something, they tell you about COBRA, right? If you send a mailer to somebody and then 5 years later they're evicted, they're probably not going to have that mailer sitting around. And uh so uh you know that I think that's kind of the problem. So, if there's any way to

get that information and in their tenant packet when they move in, maybe people keep that around and care carefully file it and they go to it if they're evicted. But it just again, it seems like the proper place to have that notification is um with the uh eviction notification when that's provided to them. Uh if there's a way to do that is uh uh for staff, is there a legal restriction that would prevent that from happening or for for noticing as part of the lease packet

when when someone's notified of an eviction, right? Yes. When they're notified of the eviction, they need to also be notified of their right to relocation assistance as well. So they already get that now. Yeah. That's interesting. All right. Well, that's sounds like the best thing you can do. That's when they need that information. All right. Thanks. Thank you. I have a I can you Commissioner Payne, please. Yeah. Thank you. Uh I uh did Shukla have questions? Yes. Okay. I I will defer. I I was already with the motion, but I'll defer.

Thank you. Yeah, I have a question that um I do believe that like you did the whole survey and we got response and I feel that um we need to have extra information for the survey because I think if we are going to take any action based on the survey then it doesn't make sense because it's more like um uh landlords um all the landlords have complained about what can happen to them. So that can be extra burden. And also the thing is I'm kind of surprised that the surrounding cities have a different problem like we have Mountain View has a housing shortage while San Jose um people don't want to live there. So you know that's like two cities and both have this uh uh this program uh tenant protection more than the 1948. So while Santa Clara doesn't have it and so I don't know I'm just kind of curious about that. Um but why I mean um we have other problems. It's more more like unhoused people. They are um if they are renting they get assistant and they are they generally paid somehow they manage to pay the rent and not get evicted. I'm not sure but I think we need some more. I feel that with our um the result is not somehow it's confused me more what the results we have got. So I feel kind of that we need to do little bit more thorough survey or research based on the uh like how many uh you said that how many cases were in Sunnywell which were eviction happened and what were the situations and where did they go. I think we need some more data before we uh put the burdens because the economy is changing

and a lot of people uh it's that one of the way they make money they survive is um uh the to rent the apartment. So I think it's kind of extra burden. That's what even I feel even though when we had the last time meetings I was more like wanted to really pursue uh further protection for the tenants but I question based on the survey and it's it's not completely gives me clear idea. So that's where I am at. So just I don't know wherever the council takes us and if you are going to do further studies so please include uh include um some more nuances surrounding cities and like some cases to support it. So I think it's very necessary. Thank you. That's just my guidance. Thank Okay, Commissioner Payne, please. Yeah.

Uh thank you. I'm still ready with the motion, but I saw Commissioner Sigur put his hand off. Sophie has a question, I'd be happy to yield.

Yes. Um, I have a another question. In a sense, when they get the 60 days notice, that gives enough time for people to go and look for a new place, right? Um, and then they get one month's worth of rent. um when they get actually 3 months worth of rent that's giving them kind of beyond just um the expenses to move. It's not that the people going to be homeless if if they get the notice of 60 days and they get one month rent which should cover their expenses to to move out. I'm trying to understand what is triggering the three months.

I think the the three months is considered an adequate amount for a uh if if you're searching for a new rental unit. It can cover the first month's rent for that unit, security deposit, which uh is now limited to one month's rent at due to state law. Um and then covers moving expenses. So,

so don't they get their their uh deposit back when they move out? They do. So, they get one month's rent. That's two. That's So, that should cover just it doesn't make sense what you guys are saying. I mean, everything you say, I understand. But when a tenant moves out, he gets back his deposit, especially if the guy has to remodel the house or do any major remodeling. And obviously, they do have to give documentations that they have permits, etc., etc., Right. Correct. You have to submit documentation to your tenant showing that you have a permit. You cannot just come and say, "Hey, I'm remodeling the house. Get out." That's correct. Yes.

So, they get them they they will get all the deposit back and they're getting a first month. So I don't see again I'm not trying to be not nice to people or want to take advantage of people but my I'm trying to understand what making it logically okay to make the landlord pay 3 months versus okay they have expense to move I understand that should be covered because they're at no fault. I do understand that they they getting enough time 60 days is sufficient time to look for a new place. Again, we're not talking about people that have problems renting a house, right? Because it's not that we're talking about homeless people. We're talking about any normal person who rents a house for $3,000, $4,000, $7,000 in Sunnyville and $9,000 in Sunnyville. There are there are neighborhoods that that's what the house is being rented for, right? So, it's not poor people that I agree that if somebody is poor, we should come and help 100%. and help them to to get ahead in life. However, we're not talking about most of the time about these kind of people. Yes, there are people that it's more difficult for them to rent. I agree. But if we look at Sunnyville and most of the population, um the rent, the average rent will be at least $3,000 a month in Sunnyville for a house. Okay. Um, so if the landlord show the paperwork that he's remodeling the house and he gives back the deposit and he gives one month rent, why does he need to pay three months rent in addition to the deposit back? It's It doesn't sound fair. I'm honest.

Do you want me to respond to that?

Yeah, please. I mean I can say from from personal experience too that that moving costs can exceed um a month of rent. Uh so uh the the total cost uh of one month rent um if you get your security deposit back then you can put that towards the next security deposit and then you would need additional funds for uh uh moving expenses which can be uh it can exceed a month's rent depending on the size of your unit and and uh the you know complications there. I I'm a little bit in the industry from both perspectives. I'm just want to I'm I'm doing real estate and I'm a general contractor and I do see I have clients that moving houses due to landlords selling their homes and they get compensation for that. Um and moving can be expensive and can be not expensive. It depends really who's your mover like anybody else. So, um I understand why we we kind of try to protect the tenants, which is great and good and I'm all for it, but I feel that it has to be with just and I feel that the data that we have is not big enough to support something like that in my opinion. Um and I wish uh if possible to do another inquiry and to come back maybe with more data. um because the city is pretty big and I think there are a few more people that could give more input for such a big decision that will impose on on landlords um um um such a such a tariff or or you know expense.

Go ahead.

Thank you madam chair. Um I think sometimes when the data is not um robust then we kind of resort to anecdotal um discussion and so I just wanted to add um to what Mr. Dyson had said. So um I think it depends on one's perspective um what's fair or not fair but um in terms of a security deposit I too can say from experience that you don't always get the entire security deposit back. Um, sometimes when you have resided at a place for an extended period of time, the security deposit doesn't always keep up with what the landlord could require of a new tenant. And so sometimes the amount that you get back is much less um than what you would need for to pay first month's rent. Also, moving costs can be significant, especially if um you are being um evicted from a unit in Sunnyville. you may not be able to find another unit in Sunnyville. And so it could be more than just um driving a mile away. So I mean there are many many potential costs. Um that's not to say that you know that there it's it's a fair or unfair to any party, but I just wanted to note that you know all of all of our experiences can inform this discussion. Um and I think that's why it is a benefit to have more information if the commission desires it.

I would sorry thank you. I would be highly uh supporting to have more data and um again I think if we had more data which is better and also um you know if possible checking demographic of people or or certain ages because for example people that are younger can have certain perspective than people that are a little bit older uh in in age and many other factors that can can come in. Um, so I would definitely urge to get more data and maybe to come back to it. I'm not 100% opposing it. It's just that I I would love to see at least on my end uh more data supporting uh supportive of that. So um I can be fair towards both parties, both ends of the spectrum and and support and give the right decision that I can with with educa educated data or educational uh information that I have. Thank you.

Uh before we make motion, uh Mr. Commissioner Figoni, please. Um yeah, I think where I'm struggling is just we've gone over with I think all the commissioners is for me personally the data just doesn't support the proposal at the moment. So I think there's room for you know getting better data which if that was brought back to this commission I think we um would be able to make a a better informed decision. Um, the only thing I want to say is that, um, I would caution the city with putting too many restrictions on landlords because like the gentleman that presented, and I appreciate his input, he seemed very willing to work with his tenants in the past. And I think that's what we want, that type of behavior. If you put too many controls, too many constraints on landlords, they're going to go by the book. And I I think that can be detrimental to tenants. And so I think that we need to be a little bit aware of that that um you know the state has mandated uh two months. There must have been a reason for that. They did some analysis on that I would assume. Um the city of Sunnyville is proposing to go above and beyond that. But I just don't see the data supporting the reasoning behind that. So, um, and I think we want to promote good behavior from our our landlords. And so, um, not all of them are are I hate to use the word slower, that's a I just they're not all like that. So, some are very good people and really do try to work with their tenants and, um, I'm just concerned if we put too many constraints on them, they might go the opposite direction and I don't think we want that. So, and the only thing I will say is um you know if I got three months when I got if I if I um was like let my job and I got three months that's pretty

good. So um it's not very common to get that many months nowadays uh especially in in the workforce. So um that's something to think about but um I do appreciate the presentation and the inputs and from the audience and and from everybody else. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Commissioner Fain, thank you. Uh, I move Yeah, I'm not going to yield at this point. I'm sorry. I'm not yielding. Um, I

I I would at this time I would like to move alternatives one and three. uh int recommend a city council to introduce the or the ordinance in attachment uh the ordinance in attachment 4 uh amending municipal code chapter 19.71 residential time protections to in program to increase relocation assistance required during no fault just cause evictions to three months and to direct staff to study all additional time protections for day one just cause evictions for the protections for vulnerable populations in fair market rent for re relocation assistance.

Um, Commissioner Davies, I second.

Thank you. Uh, I am in the somewhat odd position of making the motion after almost all of my colleagues have substantially appined on the merits, which is kind of upside down from a procedural perspective. But, uh, but, uh, I substantially agree with what with in particular with what commissioners Davis and Cerrone said. I just wanted to add in particular that I I don't think we have a whole lot of empirical data on on this. I can throw in anecdotally that my security deposit back when I moved into my apartment, which is at this point over a decade ago, was was 1,500 and getting that back, which honestly I doubt I would get all of it back. But if I did get all of it back, it would not cover I don't even I do not know if there is a single unit in Sunnyville that it would cover that month's rent for it. It wasn't even a month's rent when I moved in, but like it I I if you if there's a unit for rent in Sunnyville for 1,500, please write into the planning commission because I would be curious. Uh but that again, that's that is just one anecdote that doesn't really mean a whole lot. Uh I I that's but yeah, one of the reasons I asked it whether we had any information about the the effects of the the effects of this in like Mountain View or San Jose is that like for me if we had information like for like when I'm looking at this it applies to somewhere around again 10% was the number being cited of which is not that which is it's not nothing but it's also not huge like it's And so I don't know that so I don't know that this makes a huge difference overall. If it if there was evidence telling me that this had a substantial upward honestly even much of any upward pressure on rents that would I think be a substantial argument to the contrary.

I just again I don't have that evidence and I will say that uh there was a member of the public who stud who cited a study relating to the statewide protections. I I would highly encourage them to send that study to city council. I don't and I'd also highly encourage any member of the public if they have a study they want to site in public comment, please send it to the planning commission in advance of the public hearing. I know I would personally love to read it. So uh uh so the one thing I have seen a lot of studies on is that is that uh making is that temp protections and especially relocation prevention protections do a really are the single best thing you can do to to prevent homelessness and lower and lower homelessness outcomes. And to me that's that is such a big deal that it that absent significant evidence that there will be other harmful effects to me that's a that's a strong argument for adding for adding more generous protections here. I I think avoiding homelessness is one of the single biggest things we we should be doing as a city. Uh, regarding alternative three, since that actually hasn't been discussed much, I I and I think that's more mostly continuing previous direction on this. I would say that I'm not going to do it here, but I would say that if I was on city council, I would actually be asking some pretty pointed questions about how a direction from three years ago fell through the cracks. So, I would just suggest to staff that they be ready to do that because I've had I know I have had conversations with city council members not on this topic, but other topics that they felt were taking inordinately long to get staff reports that they weren't happy about it. So, that is just

something I would suggest to be prepared to answer pointed questions from from city council because it it's the kind of thing I would expect to come up. Thank you. I don't think we're getting a unanimous vote on this motion, but please vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh uh Commissioner Davis for your second.

Uh thank you, Chair. Uh thank you for the motion, Commissioner Pine. Uh so I'm largely seconding the motion because when I look at the data itself and uh for those who don't know me, um I work with data for a living. Uh so I feel pretty confident in uh looking at these bar charts. Um I I see a big disparity uh in the population of the respondents. Uh the landlords uh 37% of the respondents are single family home landlords, 13% are um town homes or condominiums. So that's 50%. Um those two categories are exempted from AB1482. So that doesn't apply. So we already have to reduce the data set by half. uh duplex. If the owner lives in one of the units in a dup duplex, it's exempt, right? So maybe it's it's it's not 100% of 16%, but it's more than zero, right? Um and then ADUs is another 5% and ADUs are a little bit complicated, but most of them are going to be exempt, right? So we're looking at probably 60% of the respondents are exempt from this ordinance in the first place, right? Uh then when I look at the uh tenant responses, we see that most of the tenants actually live in units that would uh uh that would be covered by this ordinance, right? So um so looking at the data, you know, it it's you have to kind of factor out some of the the more heated uh more impassioned um comments that came in because they're likely not covered by the ordinance in the first place, right? and and surveys are a very um they're kind of a crude

instrument because you can't qualify people for the situation before you you get their input, right? And we just have to make us try to make sense of it afterwards. Um, when I go through the situations where this would actually apply, um, they're usually going to apply because of landlord discretion. And the landlords have other tools um to to manage their leases, uh, to to manage the timing. Uh, if they plan around this, they can avoid the relocation assistance. There's nothing that says you have to sign another lease. There's nothing that says you can't take someone to a month-to-month lease once their lease expires. Um you're just going to have to plan and and do that well. Um the larger landlords who have larger properties um will this is going to be a sign doing any kind of renovation um replacement new redevelopment and so on uh is is going to bring in is going to require a lot of capital. um this relocation assistance is going to be so far down the list uh in terms of the budget that it it's going to be immaterial for whether or not it pencils out, right? So, uh so I'm supporting this because yes, it would be great to have more data. It's I love data. I always want more of it. Um, but I think we have enough here to act and uh I I don't think it's going to we hear all we hear all the applications for new rental housing in the city.

AB1482 has not been mentioned by a single applicant. uh if if this was a factor in housing production uh rental housing production uh they would tell us if it was even remotely close to being a factor if it if it worked out anywhere in their spreadsheets they would have told us right so uh I I think this is uh I think this is a reasonable measurement measure that is customizing AB1482 to Sunnyville's unique circumstances being in the heart of Silicon Valley, which means you are in the heart of the worst housing crisis in the country. Uh so I think it's a reasonable and that's why I'm supporting the motion. I hope everyone else does as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Cerrone, please.

Uh thanks. Uh so I will also be supporting the motion. Now you know we say two months or three months and then we can say well what are they doing for two or three months? really this is just a a way to scale the um the amount of uh of relocation expense. Um just uh uh looking at uh uh uh Google AI summary which as we know is never wrong. uh the they initial payments to rent an apartment in Sunnyvale, California include uh first month's rent, a security deposit often ranging from one month's rent to two months rent plus application fees. So they say the total moving costs often equal 3 to four months of rent um frequently exceeding $8,000 to $10,000 for a one to twobedroom unit. So it's really, you know, equating it to time is is not exactly the point. It's it's a way to scale the amount of relocation assistant. And these are people who are presumably good tenants living somewhere and for no fault of their own, they are evicted and have to find a new place. and this this amount that uh which uh you know I think I think has increased uh over the years the amount of security deposit and so on. So um I I really feel like we're just it's not that they're sitting around for three months, right? It's a it's a way to scale the amount of uh um um relocation assistance. Um as far as the complexity of implementing this, the complexity is

um exactly the same as it is under current law except that it costs more. There's no additional um you know requirements beyond it. it costing more, right? So, u I don't think we're adding complexity that isn't there already under the current law. So, um I'll be um supporting the motion. Um, I think it's a good uh and based on the uh you know the uh average costs of of relocating to another apartment, it seems appropriate for where we are at this point in time. Uh so thank you.

Thanka please.

Thank you. Um so based on the information and some of the arguments that my colleagues made here um kind of making me wonder and kind of uncertainty of what is the right thing to be honest um I am not a person that reads data all day so I don't have the experience that my colleagues have here but um I'm I'm listening and hearing what everybody say and um I personally don't feel that there is enough that for me um so I will not be able to support it and I'm still debating whether just to uh vote abstain versus uh opposing it. So, um I understand that the intentions are at the end of the day are really good and and to to help the week. Um and I hope I'll make a decision by by by the end of this run and we'll we'll vote one way or the other. Thanks.

Thank you. Um I think it's my turn. Oh, it's a commissioner just to add I the only thing I would concern about is adding this yes it seems what what some of the data is proposing it's small but I think it could could be confusing to tenants because there's going to be tenants out there that think oh I'm going to get three months and you don't because of the particular property you're in. So here it is that we're trying to do something like that and I think it could cause a lot of confusion. So that's still why I I won't be supporting this.

Thank you. uh so okay so for me if I can add one exemption I would support otherwise I won't support it because the exemption I would like to have is the uh exemptions of the rental units with more six or seven uh like you can have because they are still small um small family running the rental business they are not this large corporation so it's a un that's a big burden on them. If they have to do it um uh to give you know extra more than one month's money they may have uh tenants for years and they they may not have updated their um places. So people won't even you know like all these new technologies and the new IT people or other people would not be they would not like to move in and it will be difficult for them to rent their place. it will be burden financial burden to them. So I would not completely I like I I was part of it uh when it came to the council and planning commission last couple of years in 2025 and I really think that there should be the I I saw one the presentation which you had centers at home where you had the exemptions of um mountain view and now I don't see it so they have updated the presentation so there were exemptions of family of less than um six I mean family rental units more than six, seven or eight or something like that. Do you remember sending that?

Was this from the 2025 presentation? Yeah, I know that Mountain View has an exemption for uh certain income levels u but I'm not aware of an exemption for particular uh units sizes. So it's based on the income levels of the tenants. Mhm. Uh so then they they they were exempt from they were that landlords were exempt to pay more than a month or something. That's right. Um uh any household that is over 120% of the area median income plus $5,000 is exempt.

Oh, okay. Uh I think um so I mean why we why staff didn't add some other exemptions? I mean I wish we have some more exemptions uh because uh we have our uh we have a unique community in our city and I think that we need to take care of them too and I think um I so I won't be supporting what the way it's um presented um even though I'm favor of um uh like I do care for the ordinance one but I would like to have some more exemptions but that's where I stand. Thank you. I I have a question for staff.

Oh, now sorry the so so if we vote it will be 33. So what happens? Wait, can I ask staff a question first? Sure. Okay. Uh thank you vice chair. Um the exemptions from AB 1482 they they apply based on the characteristics of the property not the number of properties a landlord owns. Right. That's correct. Yes. Okay. So, for example, let's just throw it out there. If someone owned eight different condos and they rented them out, all of those would be exempt

as long as it meets the ownership requirements. Uh, if it's owned under uh as long as it's not a REIT, it's not real estate investment trust. Okay. And they would need to notify the tenants as well. Okay. That's how I thought it was. Thank you. So, so I think um staff I have a question for staff. What happens if um we have like split um can we um can we like because the council is going to decide? So we just um give the uh we take the vote and that's it. So that can be and it will be forwarded to council.

So there are a couple options. You can if if the vote is um tied then you can keep discussing it to see if someone will be convinced to vote in the majority. Um if you feel that you are um unable to reach a point where um there's a majority on one side then you could someone could make a motion to move the item forward to council with no recommendation and you can vote on that. Okay. So, uh so I I I think um let me u let me ask the motion maker to add the exemption of um of uh limit of rental units into the ordinance.

I am not entirely okay. So, I'm not entirely clear which exemption you're specifically asking for. And also, I would actually be inclined to ask for a clean vote on this motion and then as I would expect the motion to fail and then I would suggest that Vice Chair Shukla return with return with her own motion that incorporated that and then we could vote on that. Okay. I I would prefer to have a clean vote on the staff recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Uh okay. So here I'm going to make motion to

point of order that unless it's a motion unless it's a subsidiary motion that would not be in order at this time. You could make a you could move a you could move a formal you could move a formal amendment if you to my motion if you wanted to. But also I will I will signal that I am disincclined to support any formal amendment. But you would be in it would be permissible to make it.

Okay, I got it. Thank you so much. Um so I just want to say something uh to my colleagues first before I even make a formal amendment or motion that um uh for commissioner um um commissioner um my other commissioner members commissioner Figgon and Sigura that um you guys were not part of our um discussion before we had um uh this um this item came into our uh our planning commission and it was sent to it was um uh it went to uh council and council made council everybody was uh worried about what's happening in the city lot of unhoused people lot of eviction I I think that as u commissioner pain mentioned that evict the unhoused people the situation comes because they are evicted and then they become homeless that is the major reason or the drugs. I mean there are two reasons major but the one major reason is that they get evicted and they have no other help or no other um um you know like financial support so they get um homeless and that's very common almost um I mean I can't I don't have the survey or studies or data but I most of the time like as I as my understanding that many of the homeless that's a major cause of it if there there is no drug addiction So I think it's um so council were concerned and they wanted to study further and make it happen. So there is a lot of exemptions are there. The exemption for single family home people who run ADU they don't need to they have the basics 14 um for uh 1482 uh which

covers state exemptions of one month and they are exempted from three months. So lot of people are taken care uh out of um this. So what your concern was I it can make sense but it is they're all exempted from the landlords the people who single own family or they have side income they will not be affected by that. Um the major reason is that the larger corporations who uh have the many many buildings and they rent and they make tons of money uh because they charge you know 4,000 3,000 4,000 the tech people are ready to pay people want to live in Sunnyville. So this is a good thing only I am concerned about that uh we had heard from um some people local residents one this time and I remember um from the last meeting we had two or three uh local residents were complaining that they run um a very uh not dilapidated but like not very upscale rental facilities and they have a smaller number of rentals and they take care of their tenants. So there are a lot of people who take care of their parents and it'll be really burdensome for them um if we have this blanket ordinance across the city for everybody. So I would like to u make uh make an a formal amendment as adding exemption um in the in the ordinance one there are already exemptions are there if you see it in the in the things like um uh if you look at it um um I'm just trying to find it um it's in the presentation the slides if you can

um take it out the if you have the slides can you just put it up so we everybody can see it the exemptions for the alternative one oh um I think the slides are I'm trying to find the slide number. Oh, we don't have the slides. Okay. So, I think the um so if you see the slide number is the third or fourth um not not the not fault just cause eviction and exemptions. the slide page three. Yeah. So yeah, so if you see the slides, uh, so all your concerns, you had the single family owner occupied residence, single family homes not owned by trust, duplexes in which the owner occupies one of the units and deed restricted. So these are the exemptions um from the no fault tenants. So I would like to add the the the uh the rental units with like eight or or maybe 10 more than 10 rental units uh or less than 10 rental units they are exemp exempted because they I would

consider them as a small business owner. So that's my So my uh my um sorry I'm going to I know this is the first time I'm like kind of trying to put my uh I'm trying to say so I would recommend that the formally uh approving um one second. I don't know why it's not working. Okay, there you go. Uh recommendation to council approving alternative one and alternative three pro and providing formal amendments in alternative one uh in the no fault just cause eviction. Um the rental or rental apartments owning um uh rental apartment renting less than 10 units. Can we is that the am I saying correct? Do I

vice vice chair do I understand your amendment to be to at the end of alternative one insert amend alternative one to read introduce new ordinance vending blah blah blah requiring require during no fault just cause evictions to three months for properties with with fewer than 10 units is that what I how I would understand it is that what you're saying staff was my phrasing up that clearly Yes. Thank you. That to be clear, that's not a second. That's just clarification. So, let's see. Is there is there anybody for second for that one?

I'll second that. Okay. U So, so uh I think I already I already said that what I want of order. Um, so we have an active motion. Um, so are you proposing this as an amendment? Friend? Yeah. As a friendly amendment? Yes.

A formal amendment? Okay. So I I don't quite know what the process is once we're doing a formal amendment. Could staff help us out? So, um, if there's a motion to amend the mo the main motion, um, that motion to amend needs a second and then Sorry. Okay. Which he has. Which he has. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Sigura. Um, and then you vote, the commission votes on the motion to amend, and if it passes, then the main motion is amended. and then you vote on the main motion as amended. Okay. All right. Thank you. Fair enough.

Thank you. So, so um Okay, we have a second. So, I know I just I was this is the first time I'm doing it. Like I just uh So, I think my wordings may not be correct the way I expressed it, but I I wanted to take care of u residents with um I hear both sides. I'm just I'm talking about my motion. So, uh I do I do agree with council's um motives and as staff's research and all the survey has been done. So we do want to be forward thinking and help our our city to be a model but at the same time we need to take care of what we have and we have to have a good faith on the tenants uh the the the uh the renters the our um you know our son Sunnyale they are renting properties because they they do good business. We had some we also heard comment from one of the um public comment that they are they are doing what they need to do. They are aware of the laws. Uh they are the one who responded the maximum survey. So hopefully they I mean we have to believe that they will take care of them and we should have other system to to if something like uh if they are evicted we should have a system to take them in the net rather than punishing all the people so some few are taken care so that's my goal of like um that's why I am I'm thinking from that perspective and that's why I made this um um motion so hopefully people can my colleagues can understand from which side I'm talking and maybe support it. I would really appreciate it.

Can I ask a question, a clarifying question about uh uh so if uh if a particular property owner owns let's say 10 9-unit uh complexes all of those are exempt. That's what you're saying. They will follow 1482. That means they would have a no uh they are going to follow still the state law. They are going to they are going to be exempted by giving not they don't have to pay 3 months rent when somebody is evicted. Somebody is um you know evicted from the property but they will pay whatever the legal required one month.

A a question for the maker of the Yeah. Uh the way I phrased it I know the was that it would be so the current ordinance is two months for everybody. I unders the and the way I rephrased it was that it would be was that you were asking for three months for 10 or over but status quo for 10 or under. Were you actually trying to decrease from the status quo for under 10? because I think that would need to be worded differently. No, I I I'm pardoned. I'm I'm excused for that because I what I meant was the uh don't want to decrease. It's a status quo. Okay.

So, sorry about it. As if we were proposing to move it toward that. Definitely. Okay. Okay. Okay. May May I just quickly clarify? So basically um the motion is to uh rather than phrase it as an exemption, it's to um increase the um tenant relocation payments to 3 months of rent for um apartments uh containing 10 or more units. Exactly. Okay. Can we say units instead of apartments? Excuse me. Can we say units instead of apartments? Does it have to be apartments? units. Yeah. I mean, not apartments, sorry, the units,

but it basically is apartments because they're rental units and they're those. So, that's what I mean rental units. A development with 10 or more rental units. Yes. Okay. Not the buildings. I mean, he is asking about the because you can have apartment buildings with many in the one building having 30. So, units or rental units.

Rental units. Yeah. because you can have the the point that she's trying to make is that you can have a building that has apartments. An apartment is kind of um distin distinction of what the house is. It's a condo or an apartment versus unit that it can be maybe somebody has um nine condos that he rents or 11 condos that he rents then the the exemption will work based on that. So that's why I think the the wording should be units and not apartments. I I completely I understand what that that's what you're saying.

He understood what I meant when I didn't mean that apartment or condo town homes. I'm talking about the number of rental units. It can be apartment or it can be condo uh or it can be you know the I mean you can because what I'm okay so I don't know the wordings but what I'm trying to come up with that the the when you you rent 10 less than 10 units they are they are making money off it the whole families there are a lot of older family Italian family they have these um uh the buildings where they have seven six units. They are rented. They take care of their tenants uh and they are they don't have that much money to update the whole apartments and make the rent higher. So we have lot of apartment the tenants apartment or building doesn't matter apartments or condominiums but basically they make the income from their seven or eight rental units.

Okay if I may. Uh so this would just apply to the number of units that a particular entity owns. Uh because there are some complications here. Units may be owned by multiple entities, LLC's, corporations, but that are potentially managed by a single person or individuals. Uh so that there are some some serious complications in terms of monitoring this if it is just a uh particular building with less than 10 apartment units. Uh that is potentially easier to to monitor. However, that does introduce different levels of relocation assistance that would be required for different types of properties with the exemptions that you saw on slide three not requiring any relocation assistance. uh apartment units with 10 or less units requiring two months and then everything else requiring three months.

Thank you. I know you it's like see so many nuances. Yeah, you are right that so now it's a more complicated than so that's like not easy to to add the wordings because it is I um I mean if you can help me out I'm talking about the not the entities. So they are not they are still will be included into if they are the REIT I'm not the I mean they are exempt if they are like the charitable foundations or something but the uh they can be corporation too

what's the use case we're trying to finish here I don't understand because what are we trying to solve with this so I'm just trying that's already in the exemption Isn't it? I at this point I'd like to make a point of order that a motion has been made and seconded and that we should be discussing and voting on it and if the motion was unclear that would be I would like to I think that is a matter for the commission to and at this point if is staff unclear of what the motion is is I is what I would ask. That's part of my point of order.

Is staff unclear about the motion? I'm not I'm stay clear not the effect of the not like whether it's a good or bad idea just is the motion before the properly before the commission. I think there might still be some confusion um as to whether it applies to an owner's an owner versus a particular property and that's what we're trying to to point of order. Could staff please read back the motion as it is as it is before the commission.

Can you I I I apologize but I would actually like but the amendment has been made and seconded and therefore and I would actually like to have it read back because I I would like to actually debate and vote on this and not spend I got it. Okay. So, Vice Chair, um there was a motion from Commissioner Pine to do alternative one and three, seconded by Davis. Then, uh Vice Chair Shukla had a formal amendment and it was worded to increase the relocation assistance to 3 months for properties that have 10 or more units. And that was seconded by Sigura. Thank you. You're welcome.

I is this something the commission can debate and vote on? to Stephanie further clarification on the motion. Uh I think the the only clarification that Ryan um may have concern with is just the complexity of prop ownership. There's the complexity there. I think the motion itself I'm not like I get that staff may have concerns of the effect of the motion but I would I believe this is properly something that we can debate. Okay. The motion is understood then. Thank you. I call for the regular order.

Thank you. Uh you you know I'm just going to add that. So I really want to make this as a part of the motion because the it will go to council. This our words are not final right now but that way they can hear the concern I have and I'm sure there will be public there to talk about it and they will make the decisions. But I I really appreciate if you if it can make sense and we can just put it into the minutes and add into it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, so now can we uh can we have the vote for that?

I would like to debate the motion. I would also you'll note that Commissioner Cigar would have the next would if he wishes to speak to the amendment would have the next to speak. So, Commissioner Davies. Yeah. and then pay. Uh I think Commissioner Sigura has the right to speak to a second. Yes, I'll second it.

Okay. So, no commentary on it. Uh no, I understand um you know her her concern. The idea is to protect small businesses that own not a lot of units uh because for them it will be harder to come up with the cash if needed. So I I I do get it and I do think it makes sense. So uh that's why I'm supportive of a motion.

Okay. So now it's me. Okay. I do not support the motion to amend the motion. Um, for practical purposes, I think I think it will confuse the hell out of city council when they look at this. First of all, um, it's confused the hell out of us. And that's that's not what we're here for. Uh, next, um, I just categorically don't support exempting I I think the exemptions in AB1482 are already strong enough. Um, if you have a 10 unit property, you're pulling in, even if you're charging below market rates, you're pulling in 25 grand a month. Um, so the arguments that you can't fund, you're that this is going to be a burden. Um, you've likely owned the property for a very long time. You're sitting on millions of dollars worth of equity. Um, I'm sorry. Uh, this is welfare for the rich and I, you know, I I just don't support it. Um, and it's confusing. So, I'll be voting no against the measure to the motion to amend. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Payne, please.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll not be supporting the amendment. I agree that I think this adds significant complexity to what is, as was stated earlier, the proposed ordinance amendment is a change of literally three red lines. This would add a significant degree of complexity to create, as as Steph was pointing out, this would add a significant degree of complexity to both the actual implementation of the ordinance and frankly to the text of the ordinance. I I think as a renter it would be very confusing to renters to find that they had significantly different ten tenant protections based on where they lived in a 9-unit apartment complex or an 11 unit apartment complex. I don't I while I'm sympathetic to what Commissioner Shukla is attempting to do here, Vice Chair Shukla is attempting to do here. I do not I think it would make things much more complicated for and what is and I as already stated this is 10% of total evictions that we're looking at. This is this would be an edge case of an edge case. I think the I do not think the juice I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze at all. And I don't like I don't even think I just I don't think we get really anything out of adopting this. Please vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Cerony, please. Um so I uh yeah I'll be opposing this for the reasons uh already stated that uh uh it does add complexity I think in those small units as well the landlord does have the opportunity as people naturally move out there's a opportunity to upgrade or remodel uh without evicting people but uh I think it does add complexity and uh Well, just based on what the other commissioners have said, I won't repeat that. Thanks.

Thank you. I know I'm not going to speak again about my motion. Uh, but that's what that's what we do, complex things because we have a different types of people, different types of housing, different types of things and we need to have a complexity. Can't just make it blanket simple. But anyway, it doesn't passes uh uh looks like. So uh but um we will have again the same problem. So okay so maybe we can we have a vote please? Yeah. The motion fails with four nos and commissioner Shukla and Sigura voting yes. Commissioner chair glasses is absent. Thank you.

Um before the commission continues, may I make just one clarification about the process? Um and that is uh so uh if so now we we're moving to the main motion and if the main motion um the the commission um is dead is tied three to three. Uh then the options are actually to continue discussing the item to see if you can have reach a majority. um and and vote again. Or um if the commission at some point believes that they are deadlocked and cannot reach um a majority vote um and the vote remains 33, then it automatically will be sent to council with a recommendation for denial. So that is the default under the Sunnyville Municipal Code.

Thank you. So here I'm going to ask u uh the main motion maker if they want to convert um any of three or any one of us to change it. Please go ahead.

I I actually put my hand up. I don't know that and I think we've laid out all the arguments here but I I would this was a question to staff. Uh would it be in order to make a motion at the appropriate time that just recommend alternative three, which is to continue outreach on the other items and just omit alter and just omit one and two just to just to straight out move alternative three because I feel Icau and I'm saying this because based on the tenor of the discussion, unless somebody's flipped their vote, I don't know that we are actually going to be able to reach consensus on all on anything regarding alternatives one or two, but I think we might be able to get alternative three across the finish line.

Um, well, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. However, I have to go to our code. Um, which says that following a public hearing, the commission shall make a recommendation on the zoning amendment, um, a recommendation for approval shall be by the affirmative vote of a majority. Um, in the event the vote is tied or lacks the majority required to recommend approval or denial and can't be resolved by subsequent motions, the vote shall be deemed a recommendation for denial. So that is particular to the city of Sunnyville. Can I ask would it be an order to move a division of the to request a division of the question on the pending motion

on the grounds that alternatives one and three are divis are divi are divisible are divisible proposals are divisible motions. Yes, they may be divided. Okay. I request a division of the question. I at this point I would request to divide the question on alter on the pending motion before us. Uh, I I'm a little my mind is blinking between Roberts and Sturgis here. So, I'm not sure if we can just do that or whether we have to vote on it. I think we can just do it if the chair exceeds.

Okay. So uh uh so I just so I'm being a part so what I'm asking for is a separate vote on alternatives one and alternatives three. Yeah I I think that will be if we can do that that I know that then we'll be have some solution for that one.

Yes. Um and can the commissioner state the motion of part one? Uh yes, part one is alternative one and part two is alternative three. I can read alternatives one and three if that's necessary. Um so the chair can divide um the question by um general consent of the members. So general consent meaning I should ask the other commissioners. Well, and it can be by just, you know, they should say. Yeah. Okay, fine. Thanks. We can that. Go ahead.

Okay. And so then the first part that the commission will be voting on is a motion to uh um to approve alternative one. Is that correct? So we will be doing two motions separately. Yes. The commission will be voting first on the motion as to alternative one. One. Okay. So,

I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to conduct it verbally once again. Um, my system's down. Apologies. So, this is the vote on alternative one. Yes. Alternative one. Commissioner Fagoni. Take the votes. Commissioner Fagoni. Oh, you're take I'm connecting. Thank you. Yeah, it's okay. Commissioner Fagoni, I'm staying. Okay. Um, Vice Chair Shukla. Um, no. Commissioner Pine, yes. Commissioner Cerrone, yes. Commissioner Sigura,

no. Commissioner Davis, yes. Okay, we have three yeses, two nos, and Commissioner Fagoni abstaining. Comm. Uh, can we have a vote on alternative three now? That means Yeah. Does that pass or fail? ATSM.

It's Yeah, it's unfortunately it's not very clear. I mean, nor because it says a recommendation for approval shall be by the affirmative vote of a majority of its members. And it's usually helpful when it says members present, I would think. Yeah, I would think members would be four if it was present in voting that it would be right. Yes, I agree. It just is kind of unusual I think for a planning commission but that is so are you going to make the alternative three motion now or

please uh take the conduct the vote please on uh alternative three the motion as to alternative three commissioner pine Yes, Commissioner Sigura. Yes, Commissioner Cerrone. Yes, Vice Chair Shukla. Yes, Commissioner Davis. Yes, Commissioner Fagonei. Yes. The motion passes with six yeses and Chair Glacius absent. Thank you for putting up with my procedural weirdness.

Thank you. Thank you. uh our previous commissioner uh chair commissioner Payne kind of helped us and you know uh staff thank you so much. Okay. So, um, now I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. May I May I Um, so I I do think that now we need a vote um to not recommend alternative one. Although, um, let me just double check on one. I I I mean I would ask what happens when that vote fails

because it probably would I I do think that if if it is going to Well, actually it was three to two. Was it 3 to2 on that one? It was 3 to It was 3S2 no one abstension. Okay. Um I I think it's still I think it was it's a deemed um denial. So

yeah, I'm I'm not contesting that. I'm just I I would suggest that I don't think we I would suggest to my colleagues that I do not believe there is a motion on alternatives one or two that is likely to pass. I if some if we are required to take additional votes, we can take them, but I don't think we're getting to four votes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I would though s with with the vice chair's

I I I think this um I I I hope council gets uh what what uh the the half of the commissioner's intentions or what their things are but anyway. Okay. So, we are going to have tonight. So, Oh, sorry about it. Moving on to our next item. Uhhuh. Oh, okay. Before we move on to next item, 5 minutes recess and we meet at 9:20. Thank you.

to the next item. Uh item number 26-0354. Uh it's um consider approval of draft 2 2026 housing plan and urban development M HUD action plan and uh is there a staff report? I'm not sure if this is Andy Miner. I'm on the uh Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can hear you.

I wasn't sure if I heard the correct item being called was it? Can you just wait uh till I read the whole subject because I I just

Thank you so much for just let me just read the whole subject. uh uh the introduce an ordinance of the city of Sunnyville amending chapter 19.96 heritage preservation of title 19 of the Sunnyell municipal code temporary temporarily excluding the Murphy Station Heritage Landmark District located at the 100 block of South Murphy Avenue and surrounding parcels that make up the Heritage Landmark District. a historic resource on the local historic register from applicability applicability of SB79 provisions and amending the zoning map to add a note including this ex exclusion. Thank you so much for the

thank you that I can talk to I don't and the other one not so much. Um so my name is Andy Miner. I'm an assistant director temporarily uh for planning. I used to be the assistant director in the past, retired, came back for a short time here, uh, helping out. And if again, if you could put up the, uh, the maps, that would be great, especially since I didn't blur my screen, and you guys can see my background. Andy, I'm wondering if you could share the PDFs on your end. We're running into

I don't think I can. I don't think I can. Well, I'll just I'll just speak to this. It's It's going to be fairly quick. Um, so SB79 is a bill that was passed last year, signed by the governor in uh October. Um, it's been a a pretty uh a pretty well attended or well looked upon bill. Lots of people have had lots of conversations about it and um tonight I'm only going to cover a small part of SB79 as it relates to Sunnyale. We're going to be coming back at a later date to talk about it in a much larger scale and how how that can affect uh Sunnyville. But tonight, the only thing we're really taking action on, thank you very much, is um how uh SP79 affects the the downtown Murphy Street Heritage um district because um there's an interest. Let me just really quickly show you. This is how these are all the the um stations that the city of Sunnyvil would be um are affected by for SB79. We have 15 stations. They're all class one stations in the city of Sunnyville. They're all the light rail along North Sunnyvil into Muffet Park and along the Woods and in the the mobile home parks and then along Kyle Train, Lawrence Station and downtown. Um we have more to tell you about the other areas. Um, but we are under the a time crunch to get an ordinance in place. If you can go to the next map, GIA, if it's possible. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Okay, so this is the uh the Murphy Station, they call it actually called the Murphy Station Heritage Landmark District and and it and really is the 100 block of of Murphy Avenue, South Murphy Avenue. Uh, and some of the properties that extend along along Washington. These are the properties that are in the landmark

district. And according to SB79, if you have an area that is a recognized a local landmark, you can have those exempt from SB79, provided you do an ordinance that uh puts that in the zoning code that codifies that. So, the only action we're taking today is we're not adding any properties to the Heritage Landmark District. We're not taking any out. All we're doing is codifying that this heritage landmark district uh in the zoning code does exist. So, it's a pretty straightforward action. Again, we can talk a lot more about the rest of SP79, but tonight the only thing we're really focused on is this one aspect. So, I'm going to keep it really short and say that you have an attached ordinance. It does exactly what I just mentioned. Uh and u we hope you take action on that and move it forward. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you. I will ask um for my colleagues for questions.

Uh uh Commissioner Cerrone, please. Uh thanks, Vice Chair. Uh and thanks for the presentation, Mr. Miner.

Nice to see you in this spot. Um so uh so my first question is this is temporary right and if I read it correctly it uh it lasts until the uh one year after the next housing element adoption. Uh so will we need to do this again uh after the next housing element or they imply that if we we need to come up with some sort of a uh to uh between now and then or um I guess I'm saying can we uh worst case can we just do another exemption after the next housing element or is the clock ticking there? So, I'm going to answer one part and then I'm going to hand you off to Sandy for the other part just to make sure we're clear. It's not temporary. We're obviously will be doing a long-term commitment to maintaining uh the Murphy district as a heritage district as far as how it works next. C. Uh Sandy, can you explain I you know that better than I do about the next step after this?

Yes. Um so SB79 um because it's going to become effective so soon uh carved out these few areas where uh cities can very quickly exempt certain sites that includes these historic landmark sites so long as they were on the register prior to 2025. Um, I think what the legislature had in mind was that uh as part of the next housing elements or before um that cities would adopt an alternative to plan and in that plan um cities can continue to exempt these historic landmarks um so long as it doesn't encompass more than 10% of that to area. Um, so it's anticipated that jurisdictions who are going to adopt this u temporary exemption would continue to include that in their alternative to plan, which would be a whole separate effort.

All right. Thank you. Um,

thank you. Maybe you're giving uh maybe you're giving legislature a little more credit than they deserve, assuming they had something in mind at all for this fabulous bill. We're in familiar territory here trying to mitigate the uh damage of a bill that uh doesn't seem like anybody was reading at the time. Um so if we don't act downtown is potentially impacted and uh there's a separate effort going on to exempt the mobile homes along light rail. Um are there any other parts of Sunnyale that are potentially impacted for example uh Mafett Park specific plan? So right now the um there I my understanding is there are two other bills besides the mobile home bill kind of cleanup bills to your what your is maybe your favorite bill to try to even clarify some of these things that are a little you know it's a little hard to understand a lot of cities are struggling with this. Um I don't exactly know what all of those are and it kind of doesn't matter because they're just being introduced. I'm not sure if they've even been introduced. Maybe they were just recently. But um that's why we're going to we're going to come back. We'll probably want to see an alternative present an alternative plan possibly. Um Moffett Park is included in that. Um we I don't think there would be an issue. The one thing that we'd probably want to do is look to see if we can protect the commercial aspect to some of the mixed use uh areas so you don't just get all residential when the whole intent of Moffet Park was to have that mix of use. Um so that's something that we're going to look at. But yeah, that's a conversation uh later just just so we don't uh complicate this one relatively straightforward uh process.

And uh has this ordinance been submitted to HCD and approved? No, not yet. After it's after it's passed and um is that right, Sandy?

So there's two submittal requirements. One is um 14 days before uh the ordinance is adopted. Um and so that's before the council action. uh and um and then I think within 60 to 90 days uh after adoption it needs to be provided to HCD as well. So we don't need to get HCD's pre-approval. Um some cities I think may have are trying to do that but since HCD has a substantial period to act um we probably are not going to be able to get any pre-approval.

Okay. Yeah, I guess I misunderstood the uh wording in SB79. Okay. All right. Thanks. Um Okay. Nobody has questions. So, I have a question. Oh, uh Commissioner Sigura, please. Um I have a quick question just to understand uh the people who owns the the the restaurant street on the street are private owned or eventually it's going to be uh owned by the city. No this doesn't change I'm sorry this doesn't change

this doesn't change ownership. All it's doing is codifying what already exists which that they're in the heritage district. Okay. Thanks. Uh I have a question. The um so when you are you making it so there is a parking lot behind I'm trying to read the number. Um does it own is it a separate property owner? It's owned by the city. It's owned by the city. Correct.

Can we um so I just was wondering that to make this successful like this we want to preserve this part. So to make that successful, is it possible to like add that lot into uh into uh because uh into the Murphy Street uh historic district part because then the that way it can become successful in a way that like in the future all the housing development happens that that street to make that successful people need to still come and park or their service road. So I was just wondering that if that otherwise there can be a housing project though it's owned by city so it there is not it's not possible correct I mean just curious about it

right so first of all there is obviously no heritage value to the parking lots so they aren't included in the heritage district um just the buildings on on along Murphy and then kind of going around the corner to Washington so we want we can't take action today to add anything to the district. We're only only taking advantage of this to include the ones that are already designated as a heritage in the heritage district. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, thank you.

Welcome. Vice Chair, if you could I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. Please submit um speaker card to the recording officer. 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. speaker will have three minutes to speak and um we have um the first one is uh Triana Kot close enough.

Thank you. Is this okay? Good evening commissioners. I'm Tron Cryen. I'm a planner with the VTA in the land use and development review department. It's my first time at this beautiful city hall and what an honor to see it both in the day and the nighttime. It's really beautiful in both. So, just to make my uh formal comment. So, VTA has been following SB9 very closely and is very interested in continuing dialogue with our jurisdictions on its implementation. Uh VTA staff has been very involved with countywide meetings as well as some regional meetings with MTC in regards to mapping and things like that on the technical side of its implementation for the past several months, ever since we heard about it. um incoming. So, we believe that SP79 can play an important role in creating more vibrant, complete communities around the rail stations in Sunnyvale, generating transit ridership and reducing vehicle mouths travel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of the concerns that we've even heard tonight, we've heard around other jurisdictions as well affected by SP79. And we recognize that the implementation is complex as we noted here. There's a lot of nuance and things not defined SP79 as well as cleanup bills incoming. And with that, we're all just collectively still awaiting for additional guidance on various things such as definitions, mapping, etc. Um, and VTA staff stands ready to serve as a resource for our jurisdictions, including Sunnyvale, uh, to assist with SB79 implementation. So, again, we're doing a lot of work with MTC on the mapping, which we've looped in city staff on, and we are just open to continuing to be a resource to our jurisdictions, and we're also following it very closely. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh we have next one is uh Gabrielle. Hello. Uh some of you folks really need to read up on your Robert's roles. Uh thought that there's some kind of procedural incompetence in the and for the first first in item. But moving on to this. Hi, I'm Gabriel. I live in downtown Sunnyvale. I live there precisely because it's a dense, walkable, mixeduse development right next to Cal Train. Um, I'm concerned about the proposal to exempt parts of downtown from SB79's upzoning requirements. Sunnyvale has a severe housing shortage in part because you folks in the city government in general have made it illegal to build costs efficient, dense housing in the vast majority of the city. Uh SB79 is a vitally important bill that corrects some of those faults uh by legalizing housing development around transit stops. I understand the desire to main the charact to maintain the character of Murphy Avenue. Uh I personally love the uh walkable car-free block of great restaurants. However, if I'm reading the discussion that's attached to the online agenda correctly, and I hope that I'm not uh mis misinterpreting it, staff proposed to exempt um uh staff propos to to exempt Murphy Avenue or at least the 100 block of Murphy Avenue from upzoning while punting the question of where to make up the missing housing units to future consideration. I think that that's a mistake. It jeopardizes potentially hundreds of otherwise permitted units. um there's plenty of space in in the downtown district, including multiple massive, perpetually empty parking lots and garages. Um that where we could be building more apartments. We should not uh we should be removing useless parking lots like the like the ones behind like the ones that are always empty near Murphy Avenue. Uh not um not pretending that they have any heritage value. If those parcels are already zoned uh

for dense development and are merely awaiting developer interest, we can then we should consider that there are uh that there's plenty of artificially sparse space on the north side of the Calrain tracks and and that area would be a great candidate for upzoning. I urge that any action to exempt parcels from upzoning on Murphy Avenue uh be immediately contemporaneously paired with corresponding action to permit equivalent or greater additional density um on on other parcels in the in the area. If that can't happen now, then we should let the upzoning take place automatically for the 100 block of Murphy Avenue, not do any action today. and uh otherwise we'll be harmfully postponing urgently needed housing relief uh and rent competition for thousands of Sunnyville residents like myself. Thank you.

Thank you. Um uh so that this is just applicant staff report so we don't have five extra minutes. Correct? Unless you have questions for Andy, but you're you're good to go. Uh, I'll go ahead and that's what I'm doing. Yeah. Is there any other I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Is there anything any public online? Okay. Yeah. So, I'm going to go with that one. Thank you. Sorry.

I I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this. Um Um Oh, sorry about it. Yes. Uh so now we does anyone else want to speak on this item before we hear from remote speakers? Uh remote speakers are allowed to limit their comments to the agenda item being considerate. Speakers who are ruled out of order will not be given another chance to speak on this item. Um so recording officer, do we have any remote participant wishing to speak on this item? We do not vice chair.

Okay. So I will close the public hearing and now I will have go ahead and um ask for the motion from my colleague

Commissioner Payne. Yeah, thank you. I'm ready with a motion. Did Commissioner Davis have a question or No, it's just Okay, cool. Thank you. I uh move alternative one introduced an ordinance of the city of Sunnyvale in attachment 5 amending chapter 19.96 of title 19 of the municipal code temporarily exclude the Murphy station heritage landmark district located at the 100 block of South Murphy and surrounding parcels that make up heritage landmark district historic resource and local historic register of Senate Bill 79 provisions and amending the zoning map indicating this exclusion. Thank you. Now I have um uh we have a second or we have comments or question.

I Okay. So, Commissioner Davies. Yeah, I second the motion. Thank you um for your um Thank you. Okay. Couple comments. Uh first of all, my interpant has to note that at in Sunnyale we use the standard code of parliamentary procedure and not Roberts of order. Uh so honestly some of my confusion ends up the fact that I actually use Roberts of order more in day-to-day life but uh uh the but yeah uh no yeah uh I'm first of all uh to assistant director minor it is great to see you here uh thank you

uh to but just to other comments uh I I actually broadly agree with the sentiments especially member of the public that we should be looking to do comp compensatory upzoing elsewhere in the city honestly and in particular that area of that area of Sunnyville north of the tracks that's all low density residential some public use that frankly frankly it is embarrassing that that area of Sunnyale north of the tracks is is so low density when it frankly should honestly have as frankly it should have as high density as as south of the tracks. But that is that would honest and honestly first of all that will take a long time. Even if we upzoned it tonight, it would take a long time to develop out just because you'd need all the individual homeowners to sell and it all to redevelop and it would it would not be fast. uh the other I think that but more broadly I think this is something we all we're going to have a very comprehensive discussion on when we get to the full SP79 proposal that staff is going to bring back and I think it's worth discussing in a more holistic fashion when we get there. I don't think we do any good trying to I I think trying to just in spot zone tonight would be would be counterproductive. Uh the I with especially given that I there's there are a lot of considerations that I don't think anyone wants to hear me go through tonight. Uh the area that we're protecting is very limited. It's not gonna I don't anticipate any trouble with HCD given that it's less than 10 given it's way way less than 10% of that area. It's it's like it's our one

historic it's like our one historic block in the city. I I'm all for upzoning. I'm all I'm all for increasing our housing supply. I think I think we can live with one block of one kind of historic block that honestly is still higher density than than significant parts of the city. So, uh, please vote yes. Uh, and I very much look forward to our SB fuller SB79. I like I very much hope that both the members of the public in attendance tonight show up for that. I it'll be a good I think it'll be a good discussion and I would also note to V to to our VTA representative. Uh, I'm a little sad that there aren't any bus that there aren't any bus sites that are eligible for that are eligible for SB79 because we don't have the bus frequency in Sunnyville to support an SP to support SB79. I think I was going to say memory serves I think it also would require a designated bus lane with or bus rapid transit which it would also be nice to have somewhere in Sunnyville. So uh I would highly encourage at would highly encourage VTA to look at increasing the frequency particularly on the 55 and 50 56 to at least 15 minutes. So so there's the intersection of those routes is right by my apartment and I would not cry if my apartment was suddenly in the SP79 zone. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Davies, please.

Uh yes, I I agree with uh Commissioner Pine wholeheartedly on it. Um I I would love to pair this with uh some spot upzoning. Um the complexities of of that um well I don't think staff would have been able to bring this before us this quickly. Uh so uh it's it's just impractical. Um I supported a stronger version of SB79 than what what the final version was. Um I was actually calculating how much I could build on my own property. Um but uh yeah, I I look forward to the SB79 future SB79 discussion as well. Uh I think it's a great opportunity um for us to extend more opportunity within Sunnyville. Um we're really constrained by our current housing situation. Um those of us who managed to get here earlier um are are living somewhat luxuriously off of that. But um yeah, I'm I'm getting off point. Um I support the motion. It's simple. It's uh it's tightly constrained. Uh and I think it will be hard to challenge. Uh and Murphy Street carries huge emotional pull uh within Sunnyville. uh res effectively reszoning it for housing um would require a a large public debate. Um I'm open to having that um but not this quickly. Thank you. Please vote yes for the motion.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Cernis,

uh thanks. Uh so for me this uh bill essentially creates a kind of a builder's remedy around transit uh even for cities with an approved housing element. As usual the intent is to remove control over land use from the residents and local officials. Now, uh, I want to be clear. This county, this country, this region, uh, has a long history of some local laws, zoning, and other land use regulations being used to block housing and being motivated by racism and uh, uh, other things, and it's well documented, the color of law, and in many many uh, books, articles, and so on. But that doesn't mean that everything the community wants or that every action our elected officials have ever taken or will ever take is malevolent and should be stopped. So uh it also does not mean that developers are always acting in the public interest and that giving them free reign to do whatever they want will give good results. So we've had hundreds of housing bills and very little housing as a result. Uh we did complete a housing element that makes it possible to meet our uh Reena housing numbers if the economy will permit that. Um I don't think because of this bill we need to find alternative places for housing to re place what could have been accomplished by tearing down uh Murphy Murphy Street. But uh um not that there aren't plenty of other reasons to we need as much housing as we can get and there's plenty of reasons to upzone different places uh which we continue to do but uh I don't think we need to tear down every

you know every inch of the city in order to do that. Some level of urban planning is is not necessarily a bad idea. And uh so I mean I think SB979 is just a bad bill. Any bill that immediately after passing triggers a flurry of fix it bills to mitigate the unintended consequences is a bad bill. Some of these things should have been thought of. Anybody who's taken the train from San Jose to San Francisco can just look out the window and see that most of the train stations are located in historic downtowns. And again, I don't think we need to tear down those uh historic blocks. They're they're it's not that much real estate and uh and they and they do serve a purpose. So, uh I'll be supporting the motion. Um I'm glad we're able to do this and uh do it in a timely manner. Um um and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sigura, please.

Thank you, Mr. Miner, for the short and to the point presentation and I will try to be just like you. I do support 100% um this motion. I do think we should even uh try to invest and do more to preserve this uh block and to make it even more with more livelihood um and to maintain the beauty and the charm that this street has and uh part of the the the city. We going to see new buildings coming up but we especially when this street is so much alive um it will be beautiful to preserve it and and and maintain it. So, I will be 100% supportive of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Figgoni, please.

Yes, I'll be supporting the measure, too. Um, I agree with fellow commissioners. Uh, it's very important to protect the, uh, history of Sunnyale, and I think there's a lot of it in that Murphy district. So, um, yeah. Thank you. Um and um uh and I'll be supporting this motion as uh uh we have crisis of housing. I understand it. We need to take care of it. But if you remove the heart, the whole body starts fun doesn't function. So sometimes I feel that every city has a a special uh special city which which thrives which makes the city thrive and I feel that Murphy city is the one which um uh is for Sunnyville. So I would definitely be supporting and we can preserve and it's a very small area. So I would um and I think we should be proactive and make sure that even the uh so the support system of that for that street also is still preserved. So anyway like parking lot behind but that's good. So thank you. So I mean I really will be supporting. Thank you. So, can we just a second? Can we conduct recording officer can please conduct a vote? The motion passes with six yeses and cherles absent. Thank you. Uh so any standing uh item motion passes. So standing item or consideration of potential study issues from anybody

that should uh this might be a commissioner comment but I would actually suggest note that that should be dropped from the chair script given that study issues have been killed. Okay. Okay. Thank you. It's I the knowledge and items or comments. No. Okay. Um commissioners. Okay. Vice chair. No. Any any Yes, I had a commissioner comment. Any commissioner comments?

Thank you, vice chair. Uh, just for the record, since I don't think we heard it, one of the items we discussed tonight going to council. Uh, Commissioner Davis, I I'll I'll speak up on the on the last item. It's going to go to them on May 5th. Thank you. You're welcome. And the and the previous agenda item. And will when will that go to council? That's a good question. Give me a couple minutes. I can find out for you. Said the May 5th also.

I think um housing staff said it's going to another commission tomorrow and then to city council on May 5th. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And uh um my commissioner question I guess is I know city council picked up one of our approvals. Um it was in the minutes. Um do we know do we know how that uh was what the final outcome of that? Uh is that for the dine project? Yes. Yeah. Um they heard the they heard the project. Um they denied the uh appeal request. So the project was approved. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. So the meeting is adjourned at 9:55. be fine.