Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Press. Chair, we're all set for 7.

Good evening. Let's call to order the Planning Commission meeting of September 14th at 7 p.m. The City does not tolerate disruptive behavior at our meetings. Sunnyvale prides itself on the rich diversity of our residents. We are committed to creating a culture of belonging where members of our diverse community feel included, safe, and respected. This Planning Commission meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments must be limited to the agenda items being considered by the Commission for consent calendar or public hearing items. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the Commission's authority, generally referred to as within the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not related to an agenda item, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreement with the content of the speech. Location and online meeting details are available on the planning commission agenda. Use the show captions button to view captions on Zoom. Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time I call the item for oral communications. Comments on agenda items 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. uh now the salute to the flag please stand if you are able and join me in the salute to the flag i pledge allegiance to the flag united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible liberty and justice for all uh recording officer may we please have the roll call

Commissioner Shukla. Present. Vice Chair Davis.

Present.

Commissioner Pine.

Present.

Commissioner Fagoni.

Present.

Chair Cerrone.

Present.

Commissioner Iglesias.

Present.

Commissioner Segura. Present. We have seven commissioners present.

All right, this is now the this is oral communications, this is now the public's opportunity to address the Commission. On topics not listed on tonight's agenda this section is limited to 15 minutes and maybe extended or continued after the public hearing general business section of the meeting individuals may only speak once during oral communication. This Planning Commission meeting is a limited public forum, and the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of a speech. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the Commission's authority, which is known as the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer or in the room or online, raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. And I don't have any speaker cards. Are there any online comments?

No, there are not.

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

No, we do not.

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

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

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

Yes, we do have a staff presentation. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Aastha Vashishtha. I'm project planner for this application, which is at 781 South Wolf Road. This item was continued from August tenth planning commission hearing because of a concession request from the applicant. The project requires a special development permit and tentative parcel map to redevelop the site, which has currently a single family home, which is proposed to be demolished. The applicant proposes to construct eight new two-story single-family homes and subdivide the lot into nine lots, including one common lot. The overall FAR would be around 66%. The site is zoned R2, which is low-medium density residential with a planned development overlay. So this slide here, it provides the neighborhood context. The site is located to the south of San Francisco and South Wolf Road intersection. It is in proximity to Willett Center 3 site. The site itself, it has two frontages, one along South Wolf Road and other along an internal residential street, Luster Leaf Drive. It's surrounded by a mix of residential uses, including single-family homes to the south and the west, a planned development, single-family home development, which is Firethorn Terrace, which was developed in early 2000s to the north. It is also in proximity to Braley Elementary School. Looking at the site plan here, the proposed vehicular access is proposed from the Luster Leaf Drive, the internal street. The applicant also proposes a pedestrian connection which will be publicly accessible to the south of the central private street. The 20 feet wide central private street will provide access to these single family homes. And in addition to that, the applicant is proposing off-site improvements, including new curb driveway approaches, slurry seal along the frontages and sidewalks. These homes, all of these homes are four bedroom units. They have two car attached garages with driveway for two uncovered parking spaces. They are around 2,500 square feet floor area. uh it's immediately surrounded by uh the fire corn terrace two-story homes to the north and it's adjacent to two one-story single-family homes to the south Looking at the architecture, the proposed architecture is a mix of traditional and contemporary style. These are the elevation of the typical traditional architecture style design, which has a mix of material, including siding, vertical board and batten, and stucco. The applicant is also proposing high-cell second-story windows along the elevation that are facing adjacent existing single-family homes to minimize the privacy impact. Next is the elevation for contemporary architecture style, which again uses a mix of stucco, stone veneer, siding, standing metal seam roof over the entry porch, which helps in articulating the facade. This project is subject to the single family home design technique as the preliminary application, SB 330 preliminary application was submitted prior to adoption of lower density residential objective design standards. So overall the project is in compliance with the single family home design techniques and the principles. Here is a rendering showing view from Wolf Road. Here we can see the wraparound entry porches for the corner units. And here's another view from Luston Leaf Drive, the internal street. uh elevation overall elevation looking through the private street on both the sides uh and as mentioned before they're using a mix of different materials to articulate the building facade The project is proposing 1.2 below market rate units, so they'll be proposing one below market rate unit for moderate income level, and they'll be paying annual fee for 0.2 BMR unit. This allows them for the state density law an additional unit, and they're proposing one additional unit based on the net lot area. it also allows them one concession and they're requesting one concession it allows them for unlimited number of waivers and they're requesting a total of 14 waivers from various development standards so the requested concession it is from undergrounding of the overhead electric wires and poles along wolf road the applicant states that this would result them in cost saving of around half a million dollar Next, we have 14 requested waivers, including from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, various setbacks, including the front, reducible front, total, and second floor setbacks. They're also requesting a waiver from setback for the mechanical equipment towards the rear side. And finally, from the rail yard encroachment requirement, the max open space requirement, as well as the driveway depth. Overall staff finds the requested waivers and concessions to be reasonable. The waivers from the setbacks is pretty typical for projects like this, and the requested waivers and concessions are consistent with the state law density bonus allowance the applicant hosted a virtual neighborhood community meeting in may which was attended by three neighbors they were generally in support of the projects and there were some questions regarding the construction timeline parking screening trees and construction truck access and street signage uh on june eighth uh planning commission study session was held uh the discussion mostly revolved around the requested uh waivers there were questions about the waiver from the stormwater treatment requirement This was something which was previously requested by the applicant, and this was from the treatment of impervious surface along the public right of way. Since the study session, applicant has worked with Public Works Department, and they are no longer requested a waiver from this requirement. So they're meeting that. additionally there were questions about the pedestrian connection ADA requirements and second floor windows since then we haven't received any additional public comment except for a letter of support from California housing defense fund which is a non-profit organization supporting the project So in conclusion, the project, it is consistent with the city's general plan goals by creating additional ownership units within the city. It will create one below market rate unit. It is in compliance with the applicable single family home design techniques, and the project will enhance the existing site and streetscape condition. We are recommending alternative one, which is to make the required findings to prove the CEQA determination pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15164, as noted in attachment three, and approve the special development permit and tentative map subject to finding in attachment three and the corrected recommended conditions of approval in attachment four. This concludes TAS presentation. Thank you for your time.

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

um so I think you're referring to this uh the justification letter provided by the applicant right it includes um so that is not required because uh so that we are they included the density as one of the waivers but that's not required because the project complies with the minimum density requirement okay

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

So the that's a requirement from the zoning code. That's related to the density. It's the minimum required. And the project does comply with that requirement. And specifically because of the proposed BMR unit, they are allowed one additional unit. So by using that, they do this as a separate waiver. So that's why it was not included in the staff report.

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

Yes, that's correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

Okay. Okay, cool. Thank you.

Thank you.

uh seeing no other hands uh i do have a a question and i'll ask staff but i'll ask the it's probably for the applicant but let me go and ask it's about the noise municipal code section 19.42 032 requires the operational noise not exceed 60 dba during nighttime hours or 70 dba during daytime hours um so um The applicant's acoustical consultant repaired a noise study, which found the noise level above the accepted level, approximately 74 LDN, which exceeds the maximum acceptable exterior level of 60 LDN. Traffic noise from Wolf is the primary source, as we might expect. So the solution was to... achieve acceptable exterior noise levels up to 60 ldn the study recommends installing an eight foot tall solid fence along wolf road frontage and six foot fences and other yard areas so my question uh is uh you know that the units are well are much higher than eight feet tall so Most of the dwelling is exposed to the higher noise level and also I would assume the fence does not block the removable bollards. uh driveway uh so then it seems like the noise will just be echoing down that road uh so you know my question is how is that monitor do do does the applicant just need to do something to mitigate this or their follow-up measurements or some sort of analysis or something that demonstrates it actually meets the required noise levels

yeah thank you for your question so the applicant did provide a noise assessment from the consultant Salter and they have included the consultant's recommendation to meet the interior noise level so those will be incorporated in their construction and for the outdoor noise we only standards to the usable open space, which is the backyards in this case, rail yards. So for the rail yards, there will be 8 feet tall fence along Wilford and then 6 feet tall fence on the other sides. Additionally, we do have a standard condition of approval, BP 30, which requires the noise reduction verification to be done prior to issuance of occupancy of certificates. So we'll have that.

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

Yes, there would be including, yeah, there are some specifications that they would for the windows and all the details, which is in their report.

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

We're just pulling it up. One moment.

Good evening, Planning Commission. We meet again. I feel like I've seen you guys 50 times in the last year. I'm going to keep it short because my architect has a short presentation, and I don't want it to get too repetitive. But Asha, thank you. It's been a pleasure working with you on this project. We love this project. I wish there was more of these around, little single-family small lots. I'm excited to take the next step and start building this thing. I think there's going to be eight families that will love this so it's going to be beautifully landscaped and we've worked, I think, as close as we can with the neighbors, so I think we have happy neighbors and. that's all I got I let my architect give a short presentation.

Jamie Matheron- Thank you for us thanks i'm Jamie mother on but dollin and the architect on project and so. We have, thank you again to ASTA for your presentation. So most of these slides are similar to what you've seen, but we'll just go through this quickly. So next slide, please. We have the project site here, and you can see to the north of our project site is a similar eight-home small community. And next slide. These are some photos of the existing conditions of the site. Next slide. Here is our site plan with the eight proposed homes. And as discussed previously, there's the removable bollards along South Wolf. So the driveway access for the residents will be along Lusterleaf and there's pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access along South Wolf. Next slide. The Community meeting had some good feedback and those neighbors to the north express to that it is a little bit treacherous for them going with their their driveway access onto wolf so they supported the approach to access from less relief, instead of from both for the vehicular circulation. Then these are some of the other items discussed. Asta had a slide about this as well. Some conversations about street parking. As noted, there are two-car garages for each home and a driveway that can accommodate two additional vehicles for each home. Talking about the traffic control, the noise and dust control, and then the neighbors were generally supportive of the design. Next slide, please. So along the north property line, there are some trees that would be removed. And so you see the blue circles are trees that are remaining, and then the green circles are new trees that would be planted. So we're maintaining a strong privacy tree canopy along that north edge. And then as mentioned in the presentation as well, let's go to the next slide, the windows along that rear side, next slide please. The windows along that rear elevation are high, so they allow light into those rooms, but they don't have any privacy impact on the neighbors to that other parcel. Next slide. And here again is that rendering and a before and after below and what it will look like now along South Wolf. And next slide. And then from Luster Leaf as well, the entry there. And that is it. So I'm available for any other questions about the architectural or the site plan if anyone has any further questions. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Shukla.

Thank you for the presentation. I have questions about the trees. the one you have chosen um on the boundaries i understand that's more like for the mitigation uh can you a little bit tell me the how what are those trees in the in the center like in the front of the house i just don't know wonder tree or something so just wanted to know a little bit about the tree concept the the the trees that are currently on the site or the ones that we will be planting Or the one in the is that like a ornamental tree? Is it a native tree or just curious because I don't I don't think so. No, I'm not sure which one you're referring to the one on the the center center on the main road in front of the house both sides. You know the one the both boundaries you have those very it's just the tree which helps to mitigate the view. for the neighbors but the one on the front of the houses yeah i think we're trying to save everything we can um if you know we're gonna i'm gonna try and put as big of a tree in the backyard as i can to screen those neighbors off okay i mean i feel that they're very standard trees like very but anyway i mean you have um you have provided the whole a row on both sides so that is necessary as a functional so that's okay i just was curious that if you can have any idea that like what trees but that's okay it doesn't take a lot of water but they are a very generic tree anyway thanks i can add that the landscape plan does call out all the tree species so i can uh we could look that up but that should be available in the landscape yeah thank you i see that that's why i was asking that um yeah thank you

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

No, there's no fence on the Wolf Road frontage.

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

I think we have we have a 6 foot high on one one side and an 8 foot high on the other. Those are and those are the backyard fences, not the front and like not the wall frontage or the luster leaf.

So if I understand correctly, if you're going down Wolf and you look to the right, the houses are, it's the side yards you're saying they're exposed?

Yeah.

Okay. And so then I think that I misunderstood because I thought that that's where the noise would be the most severe would be right off of Wolf.

Yeah. The noise thing, I'm pretty sure we mitigated that with the consultant. I'm not sure about this fence along Wolf. I don't know where that came from.

I can, I can address that. Yeah. So, in the site plan, it's shown, it's flushed with the wall face. So the fence will be flush. So you won't see it all the way. So, just mitigate the noise for the backyard for those 2 homes.

Yeah, okay. It'll go for part of it, but not the whole stretch.

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

All right. Thank you. That was a clear.

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

I don't, I don't think it required the study required that to get below the 60 number.

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

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

Commissioner Segura.

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

There's a public utility easement.

Yeah. So is that something that they are going to maintain or the city?

No, that should be the HOA area. Yeah.

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

Like, the gutters on the house or the street that would be city. That would be the city maintaining that, but if it's on the property, it'll be the.

Okay, thanks.

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

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

So this is a very standard requirement for all the projects where we require the project's acoustical consultant to review it and make sure that it's in compliance with all the measures. So yeah, it is a standard requirement that will also be subject for this project.

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

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

No, we do not, Chair.

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

Chair, sorry if I may, for the alternative to motion, I'm going to add the word vesting in front of tentative map because it's a vesting tentative map. I think whatever Commissioner Pines said, we can read it out loud again, I guess.

OK. Commissioner Pines?

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

Is it my hand you see, Dana Kennedy's?

Yes.

I just have a quick question and I'm sorry, I'm Land Use Counsel for the applicant. So I don't know if this would be a comment for the public comment portion or for the applicant's presentation, but I just wanted to double check the math on the BMR in lieu fee. I see that it's one unit plus 0.2 for the fee. And I want to make sure that's correct because I think it should be applied to the seven units that would be allowed by code. And my math is different. I just want to make sure we have it correct before this is final. And I may be missing something, so I just want to throw it out there.

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

Thank you, and sorry for the late comment.

Just a point of clarification, Chair. Who is this that's talking?

Oh, this is my land use attorney. She's been on the call.

She's had the conditions all day. What's that? She's had the conditions all day, and she calls a no. All right, we'll figure it out.

I'm sorry. It was an exceptionally busy day. I'm really sorry for the late comment.

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

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

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

Hello. Dana Kennedy, Land Use Counsel to the applicant. My concern is that the 15% should be applied to the seven units that are allowed by code and not to the bonus unit. And so that comes out to 1.05.

So then that addresses the amount of the interlude fee.

Correct. And changing it from 0.2 to 0.05.

Chair.

Commissioner Pai.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the 15% should be on the base and it shouldn't be on, it shouldn't include any density bonus units.

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

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

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

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

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

Just before we bring some of the questions.

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

Yes, I believe we are. We double-checked the calculations. So she's correct. So would you like me to read a motion out for you? If I get it right, or do you want to take a stab? Well, the public hearing is still open. Okay.

Okay. I think we can close the public.

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

All right. The motion would be alternative 2 with the addition of the word vesting to tentative map and with the revised conditions of approval provided on September 14th with the change of condition GC-6 with the number 0.02 to 1.05. And, um, the conditions of approval and attachment wouldn't be attachment for the ones provided tonight and recommended findings and attachment three. Hope you got all that.

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

Sorry, it should be 0.05. Okay, 0.05. Okay.

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

Yes. Thank you for checking.

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

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

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

So make that connection, it should be 15% I think it may be from the template okay yeah.

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

Is that to me or to staff?

To staff.

Yeah, I can address that. Thank you. So the base units without using the state density bonus additional units is seven based on the net lot area, which is 0.57, which allows them units of seven units. And they're using the state density to have one additional unit. Based on the state law, we can apply the PM requirement on the base units and not the total number of units that include the state density. So that's why we are applying it for seven and not eight units.

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

They still have to provide one moderate income level project. Right. I agree with that.

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

So the 12.5% is the, that's why I was talking to, like, Commissioner Davis about that it should be 15%. So it is something from, that was left over from the previous template. But now our requirement is 15% for the home ownership units. So it should be 15%. It should be connected to 15 and not 12.5. But if,

So under density bonus law, total units excludes density bonus units. So the total units are actually, it's seven units. And so it's 15% of seven units, which is 1.05.

Which entitles them to add the bonus unit.

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

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

Thank you. Okay. We'll take a stab at this. I move alternative 2, adopt the addendum to the previously adopted negative declaration and make the findings in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15164 as noted in attachment 3 and approve the special development permit and vesting tentative map with the recommended findings in attachment 3 and subject to the conditions of approval in attachment 12 with modifications to condition of approval gc6 for these final two sentences to read as follows when dwelling units in the project are made available for sale the project shall provide 15 percent of the total units in the project for sale as bmr homeownership unit For the subject project, that equals one below market rate dwelling units for sale and payment of a fractional in lieu fee of 0.05 units in compliance with the BMR requirements set forth in SMC 19.67 and the BMR program guidelines.

By Chair Davis. I second the motion.

all right commissioner pine to your motion thank you chair uh we've seen this project and at least i've seen this project all the way from when it was a general plan amendment to now and i I'm kind of starting to run out of things to say about it, as I think many of us have. But it's a good project. It fits the neighborhood well. It adds a nice bit of extra density to what's currently just one kind of giant single-family dwelling lot. I think it's been improved significantly over the process. I think having the extra pedestrian, extra... that old pedestrian path there is great i mentioned at some point here that when i walked this project first walked up way back and i think at the general plan amendment stage hey there was you actually there's a you actually have to walk a pretty long way to get to it from wolf and that's going to be a nice little shortcut for everyone in the area uh something i'd also call out is uh is uh that is we we have actually heard a decent amount of public comment on this item over the course of its initiation. And we did not hear a lot of public comment on it tonight. And I think that goes to show that the, I certainly hope it goes to show that the changes made over the course of the project have mollified the neighbor's concerns, which is great. I'd also like to specifically call out the one noted improvement from the study session, which is the, let me note on, the the stormwater management there There was a lot of discussion at the study session regarding concerns about stormwater management, the impervious surface issue, whether there'd need to be a waiver for that. And I'm really happy that that got resolved. So thank you to the applicant. Thank you for staff for getting that worked out. I'm able to make all the CEQA findings and I'm able to approve all the required conditions of approval. I'm glad we got all the fee stuff worked out. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

The motion passes with seven yeses.

All right. Thank you to staff and the applicant.

What is the fate of this project? The decision is final unless it's appealed within 15 days. That would be September 29.

All right. Thank you. All right. Now we can move on to the next item. item number three 26-0709 forward a recommendation of the city council to take the following actions um proposed project introduced an ordinance to amend sunnyvale municipal code title 19 to repeal and replace chapter 19.7a dual urban opportunity housing in title 18 subdivisions to repeal and replace chapter 18.26 urban lot splits to conform with new state laws and to amend title 19 and title 3 to conform with state legislation regarding deferral and reduction of development impact fees for certain housing projects pursuant to senate bill 937 and Assembly Bill 2553. Is there a staff presentation?

Yes, thank you. Before I begin, staff would like to make one correction for the record regarding the AB 1061 discussion in the staff report. The report states that AB 1061 does not include changes to the DUO requirements that would affect Sunnyvale. AB 1061 does include changes related to the applicability of DUOs on certain heritage resource sites. This correction is limited to the discussion in the staff report. The proposed ordinance correctly reflects the requirements of AB 1061. So no changes to the ordinance are necessary. So tonight i'll be presenting proposed municipal code amendments related to dual urban opportunity housing and urban lot splits, as well as amendments related to the timing and reduction of certain development impact fees. I'll first provide some background on SB 9 and discuss the changes required by SB 450 and AB 1061, which affect the city's duo and urban lot split regulations. I'll then cover the development impact fee amendments required by SB 937 and AB 2553. Following tonight's planning commission hearing, these ordinance amendments are scheduled to go to city council on October 27th. For some background, SB 9 has been in effect since January 1st, 2022, and the law requires cities to ministerially approve qualifying two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits within the single-family residential zoning districts. Because these applications are ministerial, they are reviewed against objective standards and do not require a discretionary hearing. Sunnyvale adopted its local SB 9 regulations in December 2022 through Chapter 19.78 for duo housing and Chapter 18.26 for urban lot splits. Since then, the state has adopted additional legislation that requires the city to update those regulations. Before discussing the changes this graphic provides a quick refresher on the types of development allowed under SP nine on the left is a two unit development which sunnyville refers to as duo housing. And this allows to primary dwelling units on an eligible parcel on the left is a two unit development which sunnyville sorry. The examples on the right show urban lot splits where an eligible parcel is divided into two lots with development permitted consistent with SP nine. The first major update is sb 450 there are three key changes, I would like to highlight first qualifying applications must be approved within 60 days after the application is deemed to be complete. Second development standards apply to do and urban lots split projects must apply uniformly within the underlying zoning district. And third cities cannot impose additional development standards, specifically on SP nine projects if those same standards do not otherwise apply within that zoning district, the those ordinance updates the city's existing regulations to reflect these requirements. Maybe 1061. Sorry. AB 1061 also changed how SB 9 applies to certain properties containing heritage resources. Previously, the city's ordinance generally prohibited duos and urban lot splits on heritage resource sites. Under AB 1061, the applicability is more nuanced. For duos, development may now be permitted on a heritage resource site if the site does not contain a contributing structure. Urban lot splits may also be permitted on these sites provided the lot split does not require demolition or structural alteration of a contributing structure or removal of an existing structural wall. Local landmarks, however, continue to be ineligible for both duos and urban lot splits. so overall ab-1061 expands sb9 eligibility for some properties associated with heritage resources while maintaining protections for contributing structures and local landmarks Based on those changes in state law staff is proposing several corresponding amendments to the city's duo and urban loss by ordinances. These include updating the heritage resource provisions I just discussed removing standards that do not uniformly apply within the underlying zoning district and establishing the required 60 day review timeline. In addition to the changes specifically required by SB 450 and AB 1061, staff is proposing several clarifying amendments to improve implementation of the City's existing ordinance. These include clarifying which objective development standards apply and clarify that the newly adopted lower density residential objective design standards apply to these projects, as well as clarifying tree removal and stormwater requirements the amendments also update tenant replacement provisions prohibit the use of duo units as short-term rentals and clarify the findings that may be used to deny the application in application these changes will also help staff provide accurate and consistent information to the community the primary that concludes the primary amendments affecting duo and urban lot split projects I will now move on to the development impact fee amendments SP 937 changes when certain development impact fees may be collected for qualifying housing development projects. Generally, rather than requiring payment earlier in the development process applicable fees are deferred until final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy for projects utilizing this deferral a fee deferral contract must be executed before issuance of the building permit. The proposed amendments update the code to reflect the state requirements. AB 2553 relates to transportation impact fees for qualifying housing projects near transit. The legislation revised the definition of a major transit stop by changing the applicable service interval from 15 to 20 minutes. Under the amended ordinance, a qualifying housing project may receive a 9% reduction in transportation impact fees when located within one half mile of a VTA light rail or Caltrain station. or a 2% reduction when located within one half mile of a qualifying major bus stop. SB 358 made some minor updates to AB 2553 and revised the characteristics for qualifying housing development projects, which I'll go over in the next slide. Specifically, it updated the characteristics for qualifying housing projects located within one half mile from three or more of the use uses listed on the slides. i'm sorry. um. Oh.

I go sorry about that. Everyone, Matt, assistant director of community development. We just realized there is a one slide missing here too. We'd like to think vice chair Davis earlier today. He brought up the fact that we had also needed to include SB 358. as part of our AB 2553 discussion. SB 358 was approved last year and went into effect on January 1st and also added one additional qualification to the AB 2553 process. And those changes have been reflected in the updated ordinance in the packet. Thank you.

Thank you. To implement SP 937 and AB 2553 amendments are required across several sections of the municipal code that regulate housing and transportation related impact fees. The amendments to these chapters are intended to ensure that the city's view collection requirements are consistent with new state legislation. And that concludes my presentation. Staff recommends alternative one as described in the slide. Staff also recommends finding that the action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the provisions identified in the staff report. And this item is scheduled to be considered by the city council on October 27th. I'm available for any questions.

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

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

Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair. You're welcome to make comments, and we can take notes and make sure that your comments are reflected in our report to Council.

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

And may I just add that if the Commission can also add it to the motion so there's certain amount of influence that comments individual comments have but then if it's if you'd like it to come before the Council, then you can include it as part of your motion.

Commissioner for going.

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

Yes. That is what the law says. Okay.

So with that in mind, if you're on El Camino and someone wants to do this and they want to build a dual unit and put additional units there, they don't have to have additional parking. So if the street's already busy and it's a residential neighborhood and you put three or four additional housing units there and people have cars, there's no additional room. What is the city looking to do to prevent this? I know you can't stop the development, but what is the city looking to do to address the potential parking impact on the residents? Is there a plan in place? Are you looking into... parking permits? Are you looking into timed parking? What are some things the city might be looking into? Because I can see this becoming a potential problem in neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are already getting crowded right now. And so if you're allowing this high density housing on lots and people are not required to have parking for those places, for those facilities, if they're within a half mile and a half mile is not very far.

just kind of curious what the city's thoughts are around this and what what plans there might be in place to uh be proactive on this um so we cannot require backing for sb because it's it's dictated by the state law but city does have additional studies that we're conducting study for residential. That's going to come to the Commission end of October. So we're looking at that too. Additionally, the city is also looking at strategies to the traffic division cities traffic division also has the studies that that um the um residential parking permits and that's something which is which to have the residential park considered when that city's traffic pollution so there are some other things that are going specifically for sb uh at that requirement it's regulated by the state law

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

So SB 9 is already in effect. SB 450 and . with the state law.

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

It's something which is defensible.

That is to say that the state law would override our local regulations?

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

had that existing municipal code for SB 9, which is two years and a split. And based on recent state laws, now it is not in compliance. So it's not something we can enforce in the project. The state law supersedes that. So our goal here is to make it in compliance with the state law. and then we also have some provisions in there that uh gabby talked about in her presentation which are related to the heritage resources so we clarified that so the goal here was to make it in compliance with the state law and also ensure that we are able to provide um uh consistent and accurate information to the members of the public um so that is the intent of this project i also know too the uh the city's code um

usually doesn't nor nor should it reflect state law there's a lot of times where we don't we aren't incorporating state law sp9 in particular was of interest by the state hcd to be incorporated by by agencies statewide so that is something we took into took into account when we initially adopted the sp9 ordinance and this is merely updating it to reflect the current requirements of those state laws i'll also note too uh that parking discussion that we that asta just mentioned uh there will be a community meeting on our on our draft ordinance on that on september 30th so just throwing that out there for folks to keep an eye on that discussion thank you so on the adus is there any

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

uh uh yeah correct even prior to sb9 uh the state uh now prevents cities from requiring parking uh as part of adu's uh parking requirement so in that case they couldn't they couldn't drive a require a certain design standard of a piece of property if it's within a certain range you can

So so the doors and open lots will be subject to the lower density residential objective design standards that were recently adopted by the city. One of the provisions of Sb. Four fifty, which is one of the state laws that were adopted in the last few years, is that we cannot apply additional requirements. We apply for all other projects. So beyond what we apply for zoning code, zoning districts. So because of that, we cannot have special design standards or requirements for tools which are more prohibitive than otherwise applicable for the zoning district. So we cannot have that.

Thank you. Commissioner Segura.

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

Hi, just a point of clarification. Hi, this is Cindy Hom. I assisted Gabby with the ordinance amendment. So for AB 2553, it's the reduction of the traffic impact fee, and it's for qualifying projects. So they have to meet a certain criteria to be eligible for this traffic impact fee reduction. So it's 9% if it's within a half mile of a major transit stop. and then it's two percent if it's within a half a mile of a major bus stop and sb 937 is basically allowing certain designated housing projects to defer their fees until building final or occupancy

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

Certainly. So as part of the state law requirements is that the city could enact a fee deferral contract. And so when our project is coming in with their building permit, staff will have that conversation to see if they would like to take advantage of the fee deferral. If they do, then they do have to enter in this contract. There is an exhibit B to the fee deferral contract that lists all the fees. And so we've also built in mechanisms in our permit system to track the payments.

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

So for AB 2553, it would be a reduction of fees if they meet the criteria for a qualifying project.

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

So basically it has to be within a transit priority area. Secondly, it has to be within a half mile of three or more land uses. And those land uses, Basically, if they're in half a mile of a supermarket grocery store, public park, community center, pharmacy or drugstore, a medical clinic or hospital, public library, a school that maintains kindergarten or any grades through 1 to 12, a licensed child care facility and restaurant. If they are within three of those, then they're eligible for a TIF reduction. um, basically the parking, um, either they meet the code or they're providing, um, one parking space for zero to two bedrooms and then two spaces for, um, I believe it's. Sorry about that. two on-site parking spaces for three or more bedrooms.

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

I would say so, yes. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Klein? Thank you.

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

I think overall we had, since its adoption, we had five SB9 projects total and three included urban lot splits.

If that... Yeah, I would just add anecdotally, I think that's a fairly standard percentage or number across the board that I've heard in terms of SB9 uptake. I think like a lot of bills, even ADUs, it took a while to really get rolling.

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

All right. I've got a couple questions. But following up on what Commissioner Pine was saying, The SB 9 was passed in 2021 and was supposed to end single family zoning. It opened up 6.1 million parcels statewide to new housing. Over these years, it has produced a total of 266 projects statewide, which is a utilization rate of 0.004%. So practically, you know, close to nothing statistically and, and several other bills, uh, housing bills have had no permits at all in that time. So it's good that we are updating our, uh, our, um, code, especially if HCD is interested in it. But, uh, as commissioner Pine was saying that we aren't seeing a huge, uh, outpouring of housing as a result of these. Let's see, another question. I noticed that in 2024, a superior court, I think in Los Angeles, ruled that SB 9 was unconstitutional for several charter cities. Sunnyvale was not one of them, but Sunnyvale is a charter city. Does that have any effect on the legality of SB 9-4 Sunnyvale. I think the state has appealed that court decision, but

Sorry, which case are you referring to? I'm just, I'm not sure which city you're referring. Is it the Redondo beach case?

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

Okay. Can I look into that and I'll respond.

Um, the regarding the reduced fees, uh, So we've talked about this projects may qualify for reduced transportation impact fee if they meet all of these criteria and one of them with the revised SP 358. Language is the housing development should be located within one half mile from three or more of nine. listed amenity types, supermarkets, parks, pharmacies, libraries, schools, childcare facilities, restaurants, medical clinics, and community centers. My question is if, uh, well, let's say they, uh, you know, three of those are there, um, but, So it qualifies for reduced impact fee, but one of them, let's say a grocery store is scheduled to be demolished, does that impact the qualification for the reduced impact fee? Or if we all know it's going to be demolished, but it's still standing, does that enable the reduction in the fee? Do we just deal with the way it is at that second, even if we know it's going to be torn down?

I'd have to look into that in a little more detail, but my guess is that through SB 330 at the time of when you know an application is deemed complete, those requirements that are being met at that time would qualify the project, regardless of what may or may not happen soon after that.

Okay. Another question on the intensification of use. The fees will be charged upon the incremental difference between the peak hour trips generated by a prior use and the peak hour trips generated by the proposed new use. And we've talked about this before in other contexts, but I just wanted to maybe emphasize it or clarify it. We analyze these by comparing the trips in and out of the old use compared to the new use. But if the old use, let's say, is retail or probably one of these other types of amenities, Let's say it's a grocery store or something. The assumption is that the old trips to and from this location go away and are replaced by the new residential trips. So it would look like a reduction in trips. If some sort of a community amenity goes away, then people are not going to stop eating. Let's say it's a grocery store or restaurants or whatever. So they're going to have to go farther to get to those same services. But it seems like we just look at... what's going in and out of this particular location rather than the impact of the trips, you know, citywide or neighborhood wide or whatever. So do we have a way to capture that or how do we characterize the old trips versus the new trips? The old use versus the new use.

So when we calculate our traffic impact fee, it's based on the parcel. So whatever the existing use is, there's a credit, a trip credit, that's applied to what is going to be the delta from the new use. So that's a basic principle of how we calculate the TIF. So there's an existing use that has, you know, a certain number of trips, and then you have a proposed use that has a certain number of trips. And then you have a delta, and that delta is what we assess for the traffic impact fee. Our calculations don't consider surrounding uses. It is only parcel-based.

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

I believe the state's requirements are 50 years or older, and then our designations are done through our Heritage Commission, which would be the Tate Francis neighborhood and some of the other landmarks that we do have around the community, including the trees, too.

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

Chair or staff may answer that question. So basically, state law states that you can collect the fee at the building final or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. And in City of Sunnyvale, it's the building final.

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

We are making our code consistent with state law.

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

so building final typically occurs first and so yes procedurally what happens is you submit your project for building permits it gets reviewed before it's the permit is issued um it's verified that you've complied with all the requirements of the conditions of approval then you go into construction phase at that point the developer is going to schedule finals with various departments including planning so at that point that is when we verify that what the what fees that they need to pay and then once we've received the payment of those fees we can then issue the building permit final

okay all right thank you uh seeing no other hands raised i will uh commissioner i mean sorry chair cerrone may i respond to the question that was pending okay so uh the decision out of la was a superior court decision as um you noted and so it applies and it said that um sb9 could not be applied to charter cities, because it violated the home rule rights of charter cities. And that ruling applies to the five plaintiff cities. And so the appeal is pending. And so at this time, Sunnyvale will consider to will continue to follow SB nine.

okay thank you uh i mean hypothetically if the appeal fails then sunnyvale could also file a similar suit and expect a similar outcome if it if the appeal fails oh if the appeal fails theoretically yes so yes but i think it's very it's pretty unlikely that that would occur okay all right thank you very much So I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise or raise your digital hand now or dial nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I don't have any cards from anyone in the room or we don't have anyone in the room. So do we have any remote speakers? no we do not chair all right so i will uh close the public hearing and ask for uh a motion from my colleagues um vice chair davis um not quite ready to make a motion but i just wanted to bring up uh talk about sp937 um

sorry, between screens and out there, I don't know whether to wear my glasses or not, on SB 937. This is so typically speaking, you know, the way it's being proposed is we have our fee arrangements in the ordinance and then we say, unless state law says you can't do this, right? And I just want to make sure this gets before City Council because this is not normally how we do things right. SB 9 is a great example of how much work has been put in in public deliberation to make sure we get the city implementation correct. I'm personally okay with this because the conditions under which this bill applies I would be surprised if they ever came up in Sunnyvale, to be honest. I mean, it's a bill by Scott Wiener. It wasn't written because of places like Sunnyvale. But I just want to make sure that this gets before city council that, look, we're doing this a little bit differently, and that if this actually comes into play, the ambiguity that Commissioner Cerrone was pointing out between is a certificate of occupancy is it is it some other milestone or something um because of ambiguity in the state law it there is a potential for friction and um i'm fine with it i just want city council to know about it that's my comment thank you

Commissioner Shukla?

I just, I think it's probably the, I think I'm just responding to your question about the final certificate of occupancy and the final inspection. So in the building, I mean, as far as I understand, that can happen sometimes very close to each other. As soon as you get the final inspection, you get certificate of occupancy because the, Panchali so I think what I understood is that I think they are whatever happens first that is I think it's a pretty good way to so they don't lose any time because they may not occupy the building for a long time but because so that way they can pay the fees or they want to occupy and still there are Panchalis that that is left out so then they they will be allowed to occupy because it's not safety hazard and they can finish that work later so i have um so i think it's a kind of writing right words they've used so they though so the city can collect the fees as soon as either of these happens they happen very close so i just wanted to bring out the clarification thank you

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

OK, so I'm not going to put it into the motion. I trust that staff will make sure city council is well informed. So I am just going to follow staff's recommendation, follow alternative one, introduce the ordinance. Actually. Because we had a modified ordinance, it should be, I believe, attachment three, correct? Okay, I just checked it. Yes, so it says it's a slight modification to alternative one. Introduce the ordinance attachment three amending Sunnyvale municipal code title 19 zoning to repeal and replace chapter 19.78. Okay, I think, do I need to go through the whole list for staff for the motion? No. Yeah, and that is the motion that we recommend this to city council. I trust that city staff will cover SB 937 appropriately.

Commissioner Pine.

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

Vice Chair Davis, to your motion.

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

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

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

The motion passes with seven yeses.

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

It'll be going to city council on October 27th. What date? 27th of October. Oh, October 27th. Okay.

All right. Now we will move to non-agenda items and comments. Do commissioners have any non-agenda items or comments? And in fact, I do have one. It's a public announcement. Seeking new members for the Advisory Committee on Accessibility and the Human Relations Committee. City of Sunnyvale is currently seeking new members for the Advisory Committee on Accessibility ACA and the Human Relations Committee, HRC. Applications to serve on these committees are accepted on a continuous basis. Applications received after vacancies have been filled will be considered for future openings. For more information and to apply, visit sunnyvale.ca.gov and search advisory committees or call the Office of Equity, Access and Inclusion at 408-730-7950 do we have any other commissioner comments uh seeing none are there any uh staff uh no staff comments all right then I will adjourn the meeting at 846 p.m. Thank you.