REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Proposed Project: APPEAL of a decision by the Community Development Director approving a MISCELLANEOUS PLAN PERMIT for a personal service use within an existing multi-tenant office building.
Location: 422 S. Murphy Ave. (APN: 209-26-041)
File #: PLNG-2026-0399
Zoning: Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
Combining District: Sub-Block 10
Applicant /Appellant/Owner: Danyelle Gamch (applicant) / Brenda Hamberry-Green (appellant)/ Guy B. Nelson Trustee & Et Al (owner)
Environmental Review: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1).
Project Planner: Cindy Hom, (408) 730-7411, chom@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
General Plan: Transit Mixed Use
Existing Site Conditions: One-story office building
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Mixed Use with Commercial and Residential developments
South: Office and residential uses
East: Residential
West: Office and residential uses
Issues: The appeal letter contends an unfair denial to expand into Suite 1 and claims negative impacts such as loss of economic opportunity, competition, and intimidation by the new tenant.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on the Recommended Findings for Approval in Attachment 2 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
BACKGROUND
The sections below are provided for the Planning Commissioner’s context and timeframes for the administrative action and record.
Existing Office Building
The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Murphy Avenue and Iowa Avenue. The site is developed with a 3,191 square foot one-story office building on a 6,500 square foot lot. The original building did not include any residential units or structures. The site does not provide any on-site parking and relies on the Downtown Parking District parking.
The building was constructed in 1942 under the General Business (C-2) zoning. Under the previous C-2 zoning, commercial uses such as office and personal services were permitted uses. The site was rezoned to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) zoning in 1993 and subject to the Sub-Block 11 zoning regulations. Based on Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Table 19.28.080, office, commercial, and personal service uses require a Special Development Permit (SDP). Massage services are permitted uses. See Attachment 1 for a map of the vicinity and mailing area for notices.
The building is currently occupied by the following five tenants listed in Table 1 below.
Based on the available permit history, only Suite 3 (chiropractic care and massage therapy) is a permitted use, the other four suits have are legal non-conforming uses because they existed before the requirement for an SDP. Staff was able to locate business licenses but did not find any related SDP permits for the office uses and hair salon.
Table 1: List of existing tenants:
Suite 1- Glamour D (Applicant)
Suite 1 is the subject of the appeal. The Applicant entered into a lease with the property owner on April 21, 2026. The Applicant contacted the City and staff informed the Applicant via email on April 24, 2026 that under the Zoning Code a personal service use had to be incidental to a residential use and required an SDP. The City issued a business license on April 27, 2026. A business license is not a zoning permission for land use. The purpose of the business license is to collect local and sales tax. Staff received a complaint on May 27, 2026 about the hair salon use and tenant improvements that were underway. Staff determined an SDP or building permit for any tenant improvements had not been issued for Suite 1. City’s Neighborhood Preservation division initiated code enforcement action on June 2, 2026. The Applicant and property owner then contacted Planning staff and provided a more detailed business description including operational details. The Applicant stated the business focuses on hair consultation for individuals experiencing hair loss, damage, and other related scalp issues and does not operate like a typical hair salon. They also inquired how a similar salon was permitted in the same building. On June 8, 2026, staff conducted further research on the proposed use and identified a permit path that would allow the proposed hair salon to locate in Suite 1, specifically the exclusionary zoning provision in SMC Section 19.98.220 with a miscellaneous planning permit (MPP). The exclusionary zoning provision will be explained further in detail under the appeal section. The applicant submitted an MPP application on June 8, 2026, and the Director of Community Development approved the MPP on June 30, 2026. Applicant’s letter responding to the appeal is provided in Attachment 4.
Suite 5 - B-Jeanee Therapeutics (Appellant)
The existing business in Suite 5 started operations in 2006 with a business license. The Appellant inquired with City staff if a hair salon business would be allowed in Suite 1 on multiple occasions between April and May 2026 and was informed of the zoning requirements for an SDP and that the use would not be allowed since it was not in conjunction with or incidental to a residential use.
On May 27, 2026, the Appellant notified City staff and claimed she was unfairly denied the opportunity to expand her hair salon business into Suite 1 because she saw that the Applicant’s hair salon was moving into that same space. This was the first time City staff became aware of the Applicant’s activities in Suite 1 and staff did not find any related permits for the new hair salon. As noted above, on June 2, 2026, a code enforcement case was opened. In a follow-up with the Appellant, staff explained the permit history and confirmed that the proposed use would meet the criteria for the exclusionary zoning provision in SMC Section 19.98.220. Staff also informed the Appellant that the Applicant would be submitting a planning application and that staff could keep the Appellant updated as an interested party. Staff provided a copy of the MPP conditions of approval to her on June 30, 2026. Appellant filed an appeal on July 14, 2026. The appeal can be found in Attachment 5.
Description of Proposed Project
The Miscellaneous Plan Permit allows for the operation of a 400 square foot hair salon that consists of two chairs, one hair wash sink, a restroom, and lobby space. Clients would be seen by appointment only with the following operating hours:
• Tuesday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM
• Wednesday: 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM
• Thursday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM
• Friday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM
The MPP application and approval are in Attachment 6
Previous Actions on the Site
A sign permit was granted on September 11, 1997. A code enforcement case was opened on June 2, 2026 for the new hair salon in Suite 1 for a zoning violation and tenant improvements without permits.
EXISTING POLICY
General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element
The following are key goals and policies from the Land Use and Transportation Chapter of the General Plan which pertain to the proposed project:
Goal LT-12: Develop a balanced economic base that can resist downturns of any one industry and provide revenue for the city.
Policy 7 LT-12.4c: Encourage independent local businesses.
Policy LT-12.8: Provide quality neighborhood, community and regional retail centers/uses to meet the needs of residents.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301). Class 1 Categorical Exemptions consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project consists of a change of use from an office to a hair salon focusing on hair consultation involving minor tenant improvements.
DISCUSSION
Appeal
Appellant lists the following reasons for the appeal:
1. Unfair denial: The exclusionary zoning provision was not offered to the appellant when she inquired about the site.
2. Loss of economic opportunity: The appellant is negatively affected because they cannot expand the hair salon business, resulting in a loss of economic gain and opportunity.
3. Competition: Two hair salons will compete in the same location, negatively impacting the appellant's business.
4. Intimidation. The appellant claims antagonizing behavior from the applicant and fears for her and her clients’ safety.
Staff Analysis
The Appellant was given accurate zoning information during their inquiries. Per SMC Table 19.28.080, Hair salons are classified as personal services, which are permitted only when they are incidental to a residential use with a Site Development Permit (SDP). However, the building has never included residential uses, either in the past or present. Therefore, a hair salon is not allowed under the current zoning code.
However, based on the detailed business operation information provided to staff by the applicant, the exclusionary zoning provisions were identified as a potential option to allow that use in Suite 1.
SMC Section 19.98.220 (Exclusionary Zoning) provides: “When a use is not specifically listed as a primary or conditional use, it shall be assumed that such use is prohibited unless it is determined by the director of community development that the use is similar to and not more objectionable or intensive than the uses listed…. Requests for determinations for specific uses shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development in writing with a detailed description of the proposed use, its proposed location, and intended hours of operation.”
The applicant's business will operate on an appointment-only basis, four days a week, from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. It will be located in an office complex with various businesses, including insurance, chiropractic, massage, real estate, and a hair salon. The applicant's operations will be similar to uses that are listed in the land use table for Sub-Block 11 Zoning District as well as existing uses in the office complex. The proposed hair salon is similar to a massage establishment because both provide personal care services and are available by appointment only. Massage services are permitted uses in this zoning district.
This permitting route under the exclusionary zoning provision was only considered after receiving additional information from the Applicant. The Appellant’s claims of loss of economic opportunity, business competition, and intimidation are not land use considerations that factor into City’s findings and permitting decisions under the Municipal Code. In order to approve a MPP, the Director of Community Development, or the Planning Commission on appeal, must find: the MPP attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan, Specific Plan, Precise Plan or other specialized plan of the City of Sunnyvale; or ensure that the general appearance of the proposed structures, or the uses to be made of the property to which the application refers to, will not impair either the orderly development of, or the existing uses being made of, adjacent properties. (SMC Section 19.82.040.)
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impacts are expected.
Public Contact
The Planning Commission meeting agenda on the City's official notice bulletin board at City Hall. In addition, the agenda and this report are available on the City's website and at the reception desk located on the first floor of City Hall at 456 W. Olive Avenue (during normal business hours).
The City sent 143 notices to surrounding property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject site. The notice was posted on the public notice bulletin board at city hall in accordance with the requirements in SMC Section 19.98.040ices. As of the date of the staff report, staff has not received any letters, emails, or calls from the public.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on the Recommended Findings for approval in Attachment 2 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on the Recommended Findings for approval in Attachment 2 with modified Conditions of Approval.
3. Grant the appeal and deny the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on findings for denial (to be articulated by the Planning Commission with the motion).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on the Recommended Findings for approval in Attachment 2 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
The root of the appeal is the claim that the Appellant was not given the same option to utilize the exclusionary zoning provision during her inquiries. The Appellant and Applicant were both told that a hair salon as a personal use was only allowed with a SDP as a use incidental to residential use. But the Applicant further pursued the issue and provided staff with additional information showing the proposed use would not operate in the fashion of a typical hair salon. It was at that point that staff determined the flexibility offered by the exclusionary zoning provision could be considered. Therefore, staff believes there was no unfair treatment.
Staff supports the MPP because it aligns with the exclusionary zoning provisions. The hair salon as proposed is not more objectionable or intensive than the other listed uses for the DSP Block 11 zoning. The Zoning district allows for office, commercial, personal service, and massage services. The hair salon operates by appointment only, adheres to standard business hours, and provides personal care services similar to those of a massage facility. Additionally, the MPP is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, which encourages support for small, local businesses and services that benefit the community.
Levine Act
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (Gov. Code Section 84308) prohibits city officials from participating in certain decisions regarding licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use if the official has received a campaign contribution of more than $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the previous 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
An “X” in the checklist below indicates that the action being considered falls under a Levine Act category or exemption:
SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
_x__ Land development entitlements
__ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use
___ Contract or franchise
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
___ Competitively bid contract*
___ Labor or personal employment contract
___ Contract under $50,000 or non-fiscal
___ Contract between public agencies
___ General policy and legislative actions
* "Competitively bid" means a contract that must be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Staff
Prepared by: Cindy Hom, Senior Planner
Reviewed and approved by: Shaunn Mendrin, Planning Officer
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity and Noticing Radius Map
2. Recommended Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Applicant’s Letter
5. Appeal Letter
6. Miscellaneous Plan Permit Application Documents and Approval