City of Sunnyvale  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning Commission  
Monday, October 27, 2025  
6:00 PM  
Online and Council Chambers, City Hall,  
456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  
Special Meeting: Study Session - 6:00 PM | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM  
6 P.M. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Study Session)  
Call to Order  
Vice Chair Shukla called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.  
Roll Call  
Present: 7 - Chair Nathan Iglesias  
Vice Chair Neela Shukla  
Commissioner Galen Kim Davis  
Commissioner Chris Figone  
Commissioner Martin Pyne  
Commissioner Michael Serrone  
Commissioner Ilan Sigura  
Study Session  
Proposed Project: Planning Commission Study Session for  
discussion and comment only for related applications on a 1.17-acre  
site:  
A.  
25-1021  
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP): to consider the  
redevelopment of a commercial site into four 3-story residential  
buildings with 28 townhome-style condominium units.  
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (VTM): to create 28 condominium  
units.  
Location: 845 Stewart Drive. (APN: 205-21-010)  
File #: PLNG-2025-0080  
Zoning: MS/ITR/R3/PD (Industrial and Service with Industrial to  
Residential/Medium Density Residential/Planned Development  
Combining District).  
Applicant / Owner: Julia Koppman Norton, City Ventures (applicant) /  
Jenab Family Ventures (owner).  
Environmental Review: The project is anticipated to qualify for a  
Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) exemption per California  
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines section 15332.  
Project Planner: Wendy Lao, (408) 730-7408,  
WLao@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Adjourn Special Meeting  
7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING  
CALL TO ORDER  
Chair Iglesias called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.  
SALUTE TO THE FLAG  
Chair Iglesias led the salute to the flag.  
ROLL CALL  
Present: 7 - Chair Nathan Iglesias  
Vice Chair Neela Shukla  
Commissioner Galen Kim Davis  
Commissioner Chris Figone  
Commissioner Martin Pyne  
Commissioner Michael Serrone  
Commissioner Ilan Sigura  
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS  
Chair Iglesias advised Himanshu Sethi that he may offer comments regarding  
Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 later in the meeting when the item comes before the  
Commission.  
CONSENT CALENDAR  
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.  
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Commissioner Davis seconded the  
motion to approve the Consent Calendar.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 7 - Chair Iglesias  
Vice Chair Shukla  
Commissioner Davis  
Commissioner Figone  
Commissioner Pyne  
Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Sigura  
No: 0  
Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2025  
1.  
25-1022  
Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2025, as submitted.  
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS  
The Commissioners agreed by general consent to consider Agenda Item 3 before  
Agenda Item 2.  
Proposed Project: Related applications on a 5.28-acre site:  
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: Redevelop three  
non-contiguous lots with:  
3.  
25-0975  
1) A new two-story commercial building totaling 23,104  
square feet on the commercial lot; and,  
2) 101 new market-rate townhouse units, distributed  
among 15 three-story buildings on the residential  
lots.  
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: Subdivide one existing lot into 26  
lots and 101 residential condominium spaces, and merge two  
existing commercial lots into one.  
Location: 1119-1163 Lawrence Expressway (APN 110-23-110);1037  
Lakehaven Drive (APN 110-23-109); and 1051 Lakehaven Drive (APN  
110-23-108)  
File #: PLNG-2023-0302  
Zoning: VCMU-22 (Village Center Mixed-Use) and VCC (Village  
Center Commercial) [formerly C-1/PD (Neighborhood  
Business/Planned Development)]  
Applicant / Owner: The True Life Companies (TTLC;  
applicant)/Dick’s Lakewood Corporation (owner)  
Environmental Review: No additional review required per CEQA  
Guidelines Section 15183 - environmental impacts are addressed in  
the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) Environmental  
Impact Report (EIR)  
Project Planner: Jeffrey Cucinotta, (408) 730-7424,  
jcucinotta@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Senior Planner Jeffrey Cucinotta advised that staff requests the continuation of this  
agenda item to the November 24, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and  
explained why.  
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that this meeting will  
not count toward the total number of public hearings permitted under Senate Bill  
330 (SB 330).  
Commissioner Serrone proposed that the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda  
Item 3 be continued to a date uncertain since November 24, 2025, occurs during  
the week of Thanksgiving. Since there is great community interest in the proposed  
project, Commissioner Serrone advised that an alternative meeting date should be  
selected.  
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Planner George Schroeder that  
continuing the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 to a date uncertain  
would require new meeting notices to be mailed. This requirement does not apply  
to continuing discussion on the item to a date certain.  
Chair Iglesias opened the Public Hearing.  
Hillel Hachlili, Sunnyvale resident, advocated for the restriction of night clubs on the  
proposed project site. He stated that the permitted noise level there should be  
minimal since it is close to surrounding residential developments.  
Himanshu Sethi requested that the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 be  
scheduled to a date other than November 24, 2025, since that date falls on  
Thanksgiving week. He explained that the selection of a new date would allow  
greater community participation.  
Vanessa Scudder spoke in agreement with Himanshu Sethi’s comments and noted  
that that new meeting date should not coincide with any holiday week to ensure full  
community participation and availability.  
A Sunnyvale resident providing audio public comment spoke in favor of selecting a  
new date that will allow a greater number of people to participate and voice their  
concerns.  
Z C spoke in support of a new meeting date in December 2025 or later to allow  
more people to participate.  
Larry Chan expressed his appreciation for Commissioner Serrone’s suggestion to  
continue the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 to a date uncertain and  
offered his support for public comments made before him.  
Benjamin Dawson, Sunnyvale resident, agreed that the discussion on Public  
Hearing Agenda Item 3 should not take place during the week of Thanksgiving.  
Chair Iglesias closed the Public Hearing.  
MOTION: Commissioner Davis moved, and Commissioner Pyne seconded the  
motion to continue the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 to a date  
uncertain.  
Commissioner Davis stated that in the interest of inclusion and transparency, a new  
date should be chosen to discuss Public Hearing Agenda Item 3.  
Commissioner Pyne proposed the regularly scheduled Planning Commission  
meeting date of December 8 since it does not overlap with any major holidays. He  
also requested that Attachment 7 clearly outline the applicant’s justifications for the  
requested waivers.  
Chair Iglesias confirmed his support of the motion.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 7 - Chair Iglesias  
Vice Chair Shukla  
Commissioner Davis  
Commissioner Figone  
Commissioner Pyne  
Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Sigura  
No: 0  
Principal Planner George Schroeder noted that the discussion on Public Hearing  
Agenda Item 3 will be continued to a date uncertain, and the neighborhood will be  
re-noticed once a new meeting date has been chosen.  
Proposed Project: Appeal of a decision by the Director of Community  
Development denying a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT for a 21-inch  
diameter Fruitless Pear tree in the front yard.  
2.  
25-0987  
Location: 385 Redondo Terrace (APN: 165-46-025)  
File #: PLNG-2025-0521  
Zoning: R1.7/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential Zoning District  
with a Planned Development Combining District)  
Applicant/Appellant/Owner: Kaye Suyama  
(applicant/appellant)/Kamayatsu-Peterson Erika L Trustee (owner)  
Environmental Review: Categorically exempt from the provisions of  
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA  
Guidelines Sections 15301 (Class 1) and 15304 (Class 4).  
Project Planner: Cindy Hom, (408) 730-7411,  
chom@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Associate Planner Cindy Hom presented the staff report with a slide presentation.  
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Urban Landscape Manager Travis Rios that  
the roots of the subject tree did not appear to cause significant damage to the  
hardscape surrounding it.  
Chair Iglesias confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that one of the standards  
under Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Section 19.94.060 must be met to approve  
the protected tree removal permit.  
Kaye L. Suyama, applicant and appellant, provided an oral presentation to support  
her case.  
At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Ms. Suyama explained that the subject tree was  
pruned as recently as last year and explained that this was in response to Liberty  
Mutual revoking her homeowners insurance after deeming the tree as a risk for  
property damage.  
Commissioner Pyne asked whether there is any record of other tree removal  
actions taken in this neighborhood. Ms. Suyama answered affirmatively, and  
Associate Planner Hom responded that staff would need to conduct some research  
to verify.  
Commissioner Davis confirmed the following with Associate Planner Hom: the  
decision made by the Planning Commission on this item will be considered final;  
one of the standards under SMC Section 19.94.060 must be met to approve the  
protected tree removal permit; the staff-recommended conditions of approval that  
must be met in the event the protected tree removal permit is granted.  
Commissioner Davis and Ms. Suyama discussed the cost associated with safely  
removing the subject tree.  
Commissioner Figone and Ms. Suyama discussed the costs she incurred by  
maintaining the subject tree, applying for the tree removal permit and appeal, and  
replacing her homeowners insurance.  
Ms. Suyama provided details about the distance from the subject tree to her home  
and to the sidewalk. She noted that there is an area on the hardscape on her  
property that has been damaged by the subject tree’s roots.  
Associate Planner Hom explained to Vice Chair Shukla that violations of tree  
pruning or removal are subject to penalties.  
Associate Planner Hom advised Commissioner Pyne that there were about six tree  
removal permits within the subject neighborhood.  
Vice Chair Shukla and Associate Planner Hom discussed the process by which a  
tree removal violation complaint is addressed and what is required once a tree  
removal permit is approved.  
Commissioner Serrone and Urban Landscape Manager Rios discussed the subject  
tree in detail and the pruning methods that would allow it to continue to grow  
healthily and provide community benefits.  
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that since the subject  
tree did not meet criteria for removal, the applicant was not given the option to  
remove it and replace it with additional mature trees.  
At Commissioner Sigura’s request, Urban Landscape Manager Rios shared his  
observations about the subject tree and its roots from his site visit.  
When asked by Chair Iglesias whether it is normal for a healthy tree branch to fall,  
Urban Landscape Manager Rios explained that summer limb failure is a normal  
occurrence among certain tree species.  
Chair Iglesias opened the Public Hearing.  
Vanessa Scudder urged the Planning Commission to consider that maintenance of  
the subject tree requires the homeowner to possess knowledge beyond what is  
expected of the average citizen.  
Gail Rubino sympathized with concerns raised by Ms. Suyama and spoke in  
support of removing the subject tree and replacing it with a smaller tree elsewhere  
on the property.  
Diane noted that the subject tree’s proximity to the property’s entrance will prevent  
the property owner from installing an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp.  
Ms. Suyama provided closing comments.  
Chair Iglesias closed the Public Hearing.  
Vice Chair Shukla spoke in support of Alternative 2 and explained why.  
Commissioner Figone sympathized with Ms. Suyama’s struggle to maintain the  
subject tree and the challenges she faced to seek approval for the subject tree’s  
removal. He voiced his support for granting the appeal and provided justifications  
for the subject tree’s removal.  
Commissioner Serrone noted that there are numerous trees throughout the City at  
risk for dropping branches and questioned what makes the subject tree uniquely  
dangerous. Urban Landscape Manager Rios emphasized that the community  
benefits that trees provide outweigh the risks associated with their presence.  
Commissioner Serrone cautioned that the approval of the subject tree’s removal  
may set the wrong precedent and spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to  
deny the appeal.  
Commissioner Davis noted that it has become increasingly difficult to secure  
homeowners insurance in California and recognized that the subject tree may  
prevent Ms. Suyama from retaining her homeowners insurance.  
Commissioner Sigura emphasized the subject tree’s ecological importance, but he  
added that approval of its removal must be accompanied by the stipulation that it  
must be replaced with at least two or three mature trees.  
Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandra Lee advised the Planning Commission that a  
motion to grant the appeal must identify the standard that is met under SMC  
Section 19.94.060.  
Chair Iglesias noted that the Planning Commission may specify conditions of  
approval that the applicant would be subject to if her appeal is granted.  
Chair Iglesias shared his thoughts on the standards under SMC Section 19.94.060  
and how they apply to the subject tree.  
Vice Chair Shukla attempted to make a motion to grant the appeal with a  
modification to the conditions of approval, but she withdrew this motion since it did  
not identify which of the standards under SMC Section 19.94.060 have been met.  
MOTION: Commissioner Davis moved, and Vice Chair Shukla seconded the  
motion to approve Alternative 3 – Grant the appeal based on a finding that the  
proposed removal meets standards (b), (c)(6), and (c)(7) under SMC Section  
19.94.060 with modified Condition of Approval DC-1 listed below:  
DC-1. TREE REPLACEMENT:  
The applicant shall install one 36-inch box replacement tree in the front yard of the  
property within 90 days of removal of the subject tree. There is no in-lieu fee option  
available. [COA] [PLANNING]  
Commissioner Davis elaborated on how approval of the protected tree removal  
permit meets standards (b), (c)(6), and (c)(7) under SMC Section 19.94.060.  
Vice Chair Shukla explained that, in general, the approval of tree removal permits  
must be considered on a case-by-case basis. She expressed her support for the  
approval of the subject tree’s removal in this case.  
Commissioner Serrone stated that while he is sympathetic to Ms. Suyama’s  
concerns, he is not supportive of motion since it overrides the judgement of City  
staff. He also noted that a replacement tree will inevitably grow and produce  
branches that may be at risk of falling. Lastly, he proposed the inclusion of a new  
standard under SMC Section 19.94.060 that considers the loss of homeowners  
insurance since, in his opinion, the protected tree removal permit does not meet  
any of the existing standards.  
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Commissioner Pyne proposed a friendly amendment to  
indicate that the appeal is being granted based on a finding that the proposed  
removal meets only standards (b) and (c)(7) under SMC Section 19.94.060.  
Commissioner Davis and Vice Chair Shukla accepted the friendly amendment.  
Commissioner Pyne shared his conflicted feelings surrounding the matter.  
Ultimately, confirmed that he can make the findings that support the subject tree’s  
removal.  
Commissioner Sigura spoke in strong support of denying the appeal and explained  
why.  
Chair Iglesias, like Commissioner Pyne, expressed his conflicted feelings on this  
matter. He confirmed his support for the motion since he believed the identified  
standards under SMC Section 19.94.060 to have been met.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 5 - Chair Iglesias  
Vice Chair Shukla  
Commissioner Davis  
Commissioner Figone  
Commissioner Pyne  
No: 2 - Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Sigura  
This decision is final.  
STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES  
None.  
NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS  
-Commissioner Comments  
At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Principal Planner George Schroeder elaborated  
on the changes made to the City’s Study Issues Process at the City Council  
meeting of October 21, 2025. Commissioner Pyne noted that a list of potential  
Council Priority Project ideas proposed by Council may be found on the agenda for  
the City Council meeting of October 28, 2025. Principal Planner Schroeder  
explained that a discussion of potential Council Priority Project ideas will likely be  
agendized for the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2025. He also  
assured the Commissioners that additional guidance on this matter will be provided  
in the coming weeks.  
-Staff Comments  
Principal Planner George Schroeder announced that since he has accepted a  
position with the City of Mountain View, this will likely be his last Planning  
Commission meeting with the City. The Commissioners wished him well, and  
Principal Planner Schroeder thanked them for their support over the years.  
INFORMATION ONLY REPORTS/ITEMS  
None.  
Planning Commission Proposed Study Issues, Calendar Year: 2026  
(Information Only)  
4.  
25-1023  
ADJOURNMENT  
Chair Iglesias adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM.