City of Sunnyvale

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Monday, June 16, 2025

7:00 PM

Online and Council Chambers, City Hall,

456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Special Meeting: No Study Session | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM

NO STUDY SESSION

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: 6 -

Chair Nathan Iglesias

Commissioner Chris Figone

Commissioner Martin Pyne

Commissioner Michael Serrone

Commissioner Neela Shukla

Commissioner Ilan Sigura

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Galen Kim Davis

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

There were no public speakers for this agenda item.

MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved and Commissioner Shukla seconded the

motion to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 6 -

Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Figone

Commissioner Pyne

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

Commissioner Sigura

No: 0

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Davis

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2025

25-0684

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2025 as submitted.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS

Proposed Project: Forward a recommendation to the City Council to

take the following actions:

25-0520

1. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO:

a. Adopt the Village Center Master Plan;

b. Amend the General Plan Land Use and Transportation

Element (LUTE) text to implement the Village Center Master

Plan;

c. Change the General Plan land use designation for certain

sites in the seven General Plan Village Mixed Use areas

throughout the City from Village Mixed Use to Village Center

Master Plan;

d. Change the General Plan land use designation for 1388-1390

Bremerton Drive (APN 323-01-017) from Village Mixed Use

to Low Medium Density Residential;

e. Change the General Plan land use designation for 901 Reed

Ave. (APN 213-040-48) from Village Mixed Use to

Commercial;

f. Change the General Plan land use designation for 519

Borregas Ave.(APN 204-29-029), 206 East Arbor Ave. (APN

204-22-052), and 216 East Arbor Ave. (APN 204-22-053)

from Village Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential;

g. Change the General Plan land use designation for APN 110-

23-104 (no address) from Village Mixed Use to Public

Facilities; and,

h. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the changes in

land use designation for the parcels noted above.

2. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO:

a. Rezone certain sites in the seven General Plan Village Mixed

Use areas throughout the city from Neighborhood Business

(C-1), Neighborhood Business/Planned Development (C-

1/PD), Highway Business/Planned Development (C-2/PD),

Office (O), or Office/Planned Development (O/PD) to Village

Center Master Plan (VCMP);

b. Rezone 1388-1390 Bremerton Drive from Neighborhood

Business (C-1) to Low Medium Density Residential/Planned

Development (R-2/PD);

c. Rezone 206 and 216 East Arbor Ave. from Neighborhood

Business/Planned Development (C-1/PD) to Medium Density

Residential/Planned Development (R-3/PD);

d. Rezone APN 110-23-104 (no address) from Neighborhood

Business/Planned Development (C-1/PD) to Public Facilities

(P-F);

e. Amend the Zoning Districts Map for the zoning changes for the

parcels noted above; and,

f. Amend the following Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC)

Chapters: 19.12 (Definitions), 19.16 (Precise Zoning Plans -

Zoning Districts - Zoning Maps), 19.27 (Site and

Project-Based Specific Plan Districts), 19.34 (Front, Side,

and Rear Yards), 19.44 (Sign Code), and 19.54 (Wireless

Communications Facilities).

3. ADOPT AN URGENCY ORDINANCE TO:

a. Rezone certain sites in the seven General Plan Village

Mixed Use areas throughout the city from Neighborhood

Business (C-1), Neighborhood Business/Planned

Development (C-1/PD), Highway Business/Planned

Development (C-2/PD), Office (O), or Office/Planned

Development (O/PD) to Village Center Master Plan

(VCMP);ꢀand

b. Amend the Zoning Districts Map for the zoning changes for

the parcels noted above; and

c. Amend the following Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC)

Chapters: 19.16 (Precise Zoning Plans - Zoning Districts -

Zoning Maps) and 19.27 (Site and Project-Based Specific

Plan Districts).

Locations: Citywide

File #: 2021-7371

Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Business), C-2 (Highway Business) and O

(Office)

Applicant: City of Sunnyvale

Environmental Review: An addendum to the 2017 Land Use and

Transportation Element (LUTE) Update Environmental Impact Report

(EIR) has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164.

Project Planner: Jeffrey Cucinotta, (408) 730-7424,

jcucinotta@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Senior Planner Jeffrey Cucinotta presented the staff report with a slide presentation.

Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that a market

analysis was not conducted for the properties in the Village Centers that would be

impacted by a change to their land use designation. Commissioner Sigura shared

his concerns about how changes to land use designations might be advantageous

for certain Village Center sites but detrimental for others.

Commissioner Sigura asked whether the Planning Commission may choose to apply

the proposed resolution, ordinance, and urgency ordinance to only select Village

Center sites. Senior Planner Cucinotta answered that the Planning Commission

may choose to approve an alternative to staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Sigura noted that despite the proposed changes to land use

designations, developers may still request waivers to avoid the inclusion of

commercial space on sites designated for mixed use. Senior Planner Cucinotta

explained that the proposed Village Center Master Plan is designed to entice

developers to utilize sites for nonresidential land use to eliminate the need to

request these waivers.

Commissioner Sigura expressed his fear that, when applicable, a reduction in

minimum parking requirements will result in street congestion and issues with

parking overflow to surrounding neighborhoods. Senior Planner Cucinotta and

Interim Transportation and Traffic Division Manager Angela Obeso emphasized that

the proposed Village Center Master Plan accounts for the existing Active

Transportation and Vision Zero Plans and aims to create neighborhoods that are

accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians. Commissioner Sigura stated that visitors of

sites where parking minimum requirements do not apply may not live locally and

may arrive by vehicle.

Commissioner Serrone stated that although the Village Centers currently permit only

commercial or office use, there are pending proposals for all-residential

developments for two Village Center sites. Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin

explained that these developments are permitted by the General Plan land use

designation for those sites. Principal Planner George Schroeder added that the

proposed update to the General Plan land use designations will clearly indicate that

residential developments will not be permitted on any Village Center site with a

Village Center Commercial (VCC) zoning designation.

Commissioner Serrone and Senior Planner Cucinotta discussed that consideration

will be given later to increasing the density from 18 to 30 dwelling units per acre in

the Village Centers’ high-resource areas. Senior Planner Cucinotta explained that

this would involve a separate environmental study.

Commissioner Serrone specified that the proposed Village Center Master Plan will

prevent owners of adjacent properties with different land use designations from

reconfiguring the lots or altering the permitted uses for new developments. Senior

Planner Cucinotta responded that the Planning Commission may suggest revisions

to the proposed zoning boundary lines for Village Center sites to change the

designated use proposed for those sites. He added that rezones for Village Center

sites cannot result in a net loss of capacity of residential units.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that parking spaces

do not count toward the required nonresidential floor area ratio (FAR).

Commissioner Serrone recognized that the State Density Bonus Law allows

developers to request waivers for requirements outlined in the City’s General Plan.

Senior Planner Cucinotta responded that the City’s objective standards address this

concern, but even objective development standards may be subject to waiver

requests under the State Density Bonus law.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that three

applications for redevelopment projects on Village Center sites have been approved

since the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) was adopted in 2017. They

also discussed pending applications for redevelopment projects on the Village

Center sites that would not be subject to the proposed Village Center Master Plan.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Cucinotta provided reasons for

the proposed zoning for certain sites.

Commissioner Serrone and Senior Planner Cucinotta discussed how the proposed

Village Center Master Plan will not impact the San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way located in the City’s Lakewood Shopping Center.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with City Attorney Rebecca Moon that, to enact

the proposed urgency ordinance and deny pending redevelopment projects for the

Village Center sites, the Planning Commission must make the findings for applicable

health and safety impacts.

At Commissioner Shukla’s request, Senior Planner Cucinotta explained why certain

sites with a current land use designation of Village Mixed Use (VMU) are being

rezoned.

Commissioner Shukla questioned whether adjacent Village Center properties with

different proposed Village Center Master Plan zoning designations (for example,

Village Center Mixed Use [VCMU] and Village Center Commercial [VCC]) could be

expressed as percentages to give developers greater design flexibility. Senior

Planner Cucinotta responded that the proposed Village Center Master Plan aims to

retain as much of the existing neighborhood-serving commercial and retail spaces to

prevent scenarios that involve all-residential redevelopments on sites to be rezoned

VCMU. He added that the Planning Commission may recommend changes to the

proposed rezoning of Village Center sites.

Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that although

developers may utilize state laws to develop all-residential projects on VCMU sites,

the proposed Village Center Master Plan is designed to preserve sites that are

designated only for commercial use. He reiterated that any changes to the approved

rezoning of Village Center sites would require the City to make new findings

regarding “no net loss” of residential units.

Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that the proposed

Village Center Master Plan includes all seven Village Center sites. Senior Planner

Cucinotta further clarified that pending applications for Village Centers 5 and 6 are

subject to existing zoning standards since they were submitted before the proposed

Village Center Master Plan has been approved.

Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that, if the proposed

Village Center Master Plan is approved, proposed changes to bicycle paths within

the Village Centers will apply to any development applications submitted after this

approval.

Commissioner Pyne voiced his support of staff’s approach to the proposed Village

Center Master Plan, commented that it would be interesting to designate different

land uses to floors of a multistory development, and asked about the timeline for

approving a development application with land use locations that do not follow the

proposed Village Center Master Plan zoning boundaries but that do not result in a

net loss of residential units and preserve enough retail space. Senior Planner

Cucinotta noted that such an application would still be subject to the standard

rezoning process and would not involve amending the LUTE. Principal Planner

Schroeder added that the rezoning would require City Council approval as well.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with City Attorney Moon that a majority is required for

the Planning Commission to make any recommendations to the City Council

regarding the proposed urgency ordinance.

Commissioner Pyne asked about how the retail preservation incentive program for

certain Village Center sites will interact with the proposed Village Center Master

Plan. Senior Planner Cucinotta responded that the retail preservation incentive

program applies only to Village Centers 5 and 6.

Commissioner Pyne noted that there are differences between the proposed land

use types for VCMU and VCC sites. Principal Planner Mendrin provided details on

this matter, and Senior Planner Cucinotta advised him to provide specific instances

for staff to reassess before the proposed Village Center Master Plan is considered

by City Council.

Commissioner Pyne and Senior Planner Cucinotta discussed the minimum

non-residential FAR requirement for sites to be rezoned VCC and VCO.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Planner Schroeder that Village Center

7 is the only Village Center that Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) applies to since it is

within a half mile of a major transit stop. As such, it is not subject to minimum

parking requirements.

Commissioner Pyne shared his concerns regarding the permitted density for Village

Center 4. Senior Planner Cucinotta answered that the Planning Commission may

approve a motion that includes the revision or reassessment of applicable

standards.

Chair Iglesias opened the Public Hearing.

Donna Winslow, representing Wrightmont Corners in Village Center 1, suggested

the inclusion of language in the proposed Village Center Master Plan to protect the

existing wall for the development. She explained that this wall allows the

neighborhood to remain quiet and accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Deanna Gonzales, Sunnyvale resident, spoke of the insufficient number of

resources in north Sunnyvale and how the existing resources there are threatened

by the pending redevelopment project for Village Center 5. She added that the

elimination of parking requirements for that proposed project will encourage parking

overflow on adjacent streets.

Dawna Eskridge, Sunnyvale resident, advocated for a livable Sunnyvale that allows

small retail businesses to thrive, spoke of the negative impacts of redevelopment

and the need for resources in all communities throughout the City, and urged the

Planning Commissioners to consider how the decision they make today will impact

the future.

Himanshu Sethi, Sunnyvale resident, implored the Planning Commissioners to reject

the proposed Village Center Master Plan and the pending redevelopment project for

Village Center 5. He also spoke of the negative impacts of eliminating existing

essential services currently offered there if they are replaced by the proposed

housing-only redevelopment.

Zainab Memon, Sunnyvale resident, voiced her support of the essential services

that currently exist in the Fair Oaks Plaza located in Village Center 5. She spoke in

detail about how the proposed redevelopment project for this site will negatively

impact traffic and the environment and fail to offer the employment opportunities,

retail services, or affordable housing that the community needs.

Chuck Fraleigh, speaking on behalf of Livable Sunnyvale, acknowledged that the

proposed Village Center Master Plan strikes a balance between providing housing

opportunities and preserving commercial square footage. He questioned whether

spaces reserved for retail use on proposed VCMU sites could be relocated to larger

sites that will be rezoned for commercial use so that they may be completely exempt

from state housing laws. He also asked about whether the proposed amendment to

the General Plan to convert the land use designation for VMU sites to commercial or

office will apply only to Village Center sites or sites throughout the entire City.

Gilad Salamander, shared that the redevelopment project at Village Center 1 will

result in the loss of essential services and negatively change the existing

neighborhood.

M.J. Bisted noted that the proposed Village Center Master Plan should include

requirements for construction noise levels and hours and consider transportation

impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. He also asked whether the proposed

rezone for the site at 1388-1390 Bremerton Drive (APN 323-01-017) will prevent this

site from being included in the Village Center Master Plan.

Joseph Coelho, Sunnyvale resident, thanked the Planning Commissioners for

considering residents’ needs and implored them to not adopt the proposed Village

Center Master Plan or recommend it to City Council. While he spoke in support of

mixed-use developments and affordable housing opportunities, he noted that the

allowance of all-residential redevelopments by state housing laws result in the

elimination of critical resources and an increase in emissions.

Daniel Alvarez, representative for Nor Cal Carpenters union, emphasized the

importance of healthcare and apprenticeship programs for construction workers.

Larry Chan, Sunnyvale resident, spoke of how the proposed Village Center Master

Plan does not adequately protect retail services.

Mohi, Sunnyvale resident, urged the Planning Commissioners to deny the proposed

Village Center Master Plan since it does not consider protections for impacted

communities. In particular, he spoke of how the addition of high-density housing will

negatively impact existing traffic and reduce the amount of retail services that

nearby communities will need.

A Sunnyvale resident asked whether his home, located within the vicinity of a

Village Center site, is at risk of being taken away. Chair Iglesias explained that since

his home is near a proposed redevelopment project on a Village Center site, he

received notification of the proposed redevelopment. Chair Iglesias assured the

speaker that his home is not being specifically impacted.

A representative of SV@Home recognized that the proposed Village Center Master

Plan aims to address both housing and retail needs and offered solutions to

maximize residential densities, preserve commercial square footage, and protect

existing retail services.

Sharlene Liu, Chair of Sunnyvale Safe Streets speaking on behalf of the

organization, voiced her support of a Village Center Master Plan that is pedestrian

and bicyclist oriented. She also emphasized points made in the organization’s letter

to the Planning Commission (Attachment 12 to the staff report).

Gail Rubino proposed the inclusion of an exhibit that compares the vision for the

Village Centers in the General Plan’s LUTE to that of the proposed Village Center

Master Plan. She also encouraged more outreach opportunities to gather the input

of residents from impacted communities.

Cece, Sunnyvale resident, posed questions pertaining to Village Center 3. Namely,

she asked about the height requirements for developments there and whether the

existing grocery stores will continue to exist.

Chao-Yang Lu, Sunnyvale resident, advocated for the retention of the existing wall

along Kitimat Place for safety purposes. He also requested an updated traffic and

noise analysis due to an increase in the area’s residential density, maintenance of

mature trees along Kitimat Place, and implementing low density residential

developments near Kitimat Place. Commissioner Pyne advised Chao-Yang Lu of the

process to provide presentations to City staff prior to a public hearing in preparation

for the City Council to review the proposed Village Center Master Plan on July 1,

2025.

Cortney Jansen, speaking on her own behalf as a Sunnyvale resident, called

attention to the small businesses at Village Centers 5 and 6 that will be impacted by

the proposed redevelopment projects at those sites. She also asked that when the

proposed Village Center Master Plan is brought to City Council for review, City staff

should include a table that reflects relevant changes to the amount of housing in

each of the Village Centers, clearly define FAR, and explicitly mention that the

VCMU land use designation is intended to mean residential mixed use.

Jasmin, whose father is the owner of Speedy’s Tacos and Tia Juana Grill in Village

Center 5, spoke of how the pending redevelopment project at that site will impact

her family’s businesses.

Chair Iglesias closed the Public Hearing.

Senior Planner Cucinotta reiterated that the proposed Village Center Master Plan

aims to address residents’ needs and concerns and that, without it, any of the

Village Center sites would be subject to a redevelopment application like the ones

pending for Village Centers 5 and 6.

Chair Iglesias and City Attorney Moon discussed the consequences associated with

the denial of the pending redevelopment project for Village Center 6.

Chair Iglesias offered staff the opportunity to provide a response to public comments

made. Senior Planner Cucinotta responded that a written response will be provided

after the hearing and that a revision to the proposed plan standards will be

considered.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that the Planning

Commission may make recommendations to the City Council that differ from the

staff recommendations.

At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Principal Planner Schroeder explained why Dual

Urban Opportunity (DUO) housing is not a permitted use in Village Center 1D.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Planner Schroeder that a residential

development on a site that permits residential use that is later rezoned for

commercial use would then be considered a legal nonconforming development.

Principal Planner Schroeder explained that in such a case, the residential

development would be unable to expand or add units if it becomes subject to

commercial use requirements.

Commissioner Serrone and Senior Planner Cucinotta discussed how the residential

density for each Village Center is in alignment with what is in the City’s Housing

Element and that this influenced the proposed zoning boundary lines.

Commissioner Serrone asked why the proposed Village Center Master Plan did not

include a contingency plan for Village Centers 5 and 6 in the event the

redevelopment projects for those sites fail to move forward. City Attorney Moon

advised him that the Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council

direct staff to work on such a contingency plan.

Commissioner Serrone received additional information from City Attorney Moon

about how the General Plan currently allows residential use for sites that are zoned

for commercial use. She explained that the proposed Village Center Master Plan

designates specific sites with a proposed zoning designation of VCC or VCO to

prevent residential developments from replacing existing commercial land uses.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with City Attorney Moon that, if approved, the

proposed ordinance will not be effective until 30 days after the second reading of

the ordinance which may not be until the end of July 2025.

Commissioner Serrone questioned how impacted businesses are not aware of

redevelopment projects that may eliminate their ability to provide services. Principal

Planner Schroeder answered that property owners may not be relaying this

information to the businesses they lease to.

Commissioner Sigura expressed his concerns about how small businesses that are

displaced due to redevelopment are unable to relocate due to high costs. Senior

Planner Cucinotta answered that the City’s Economic Development Division is

considering ways to address this issue.

Commissioner Sigura asked whether there will be protections in place to prevent a

developer from redeveloping a site zoned for mixed-use for an all-residential project.

Senior Planner Cucinotta responded that zoning designations do not dictate real

estate transactions.

Commissioner Shukla spoke in overall support of the proposed Village Center

Master Plan and empathized with members of the public who voiced their concerns

regarding the proposed redevelopment in Village Center 5. She explored options for

retaining retail services on that site including recognizing them as cultural heritage

resources. Senior Planner Cucinotta explained that this site may not be converted to

a purely commercial site since it is included in the Housing Element’s residential

sites inventory and must meet a certain residential capacity. He also clarified that all

sites in the proposed Village Center Master Plan that are to have a land use

designation of VCMU are identified in the Housing Element’s residential sites

inventory. City Attorney Moon advised Commissioner Shukla that she may make a

recommendation to City Council to study an anti-displacement program for retail

since zoning standards do not dictate such matters.

Commissioner Figone asked whether sites zoned for commercial use may be placed

near transit stops to prevent the parking minimum requirement from applying to

them. Senior Planner Cucinotta noted that only Village Center 7 is near a light rail

station, and he explained how AB 2097 would apply.

At Commissioner Figone’s request, Senior Planner Cucinotta provided additional

details on consequences associated with the denial of the proposed Village Center

Master Plan.

At Commissioner Figone’s request, City Attorney Moon offered her perspective on

the Builder’s Remedy.

Commissioner Figone commented that, in his opinion, commercial spaces on

mixed-use sites should provide enough parking to accommodate visitors and not

residents of the site alone.

Commissioner Serrone noted that the retail preservation incentive program for

certain Village Center sites was not included in the proposed Village Center Master

Plan. Senior Planner Cucinotta explained why. Commissioner Serrone voiced his

support of a motion that includes staff’s recommendation and a recommendation to

include the retail preservation incentive program in the proposed Village Center

Master Plan. He specified that this recommendation would apply to all Village

Center sites. Senior Planner Cucinotta advised that the Planning Commission may

propose such a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Officer Mendrin

noted that the application of the retail preservation incentive program to all Village

Center sites would result in the loss of Below Market Rate (BMR) units.

Chair Iglesias responded to comments made by the public.

Chair Iglesias confirmed with Senior Planner Cucinotta that the proposed Village

Center Master Plan is staff’s best attempt to preserve the commercial square

footage in the Village Centers.

Chair Iglesias responded to comments made by Planning Commissioners who

spoke before him.

Commissioner Pyne questioned whether the area designated for VCMU on Village

Center 5 could be relocated to the site frontage while the area designated for VCC

could be placed at the rear of the site.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that the sales office

located in Village Center 2 is permitted on a site designated for commercial use

since it is temporary.

Commissioner Pyne and Senior Planner Cucinotta discussed why most land use

types that fall under education, recreation, and place of assembly are not permitted

in sites to be zoned VCC.

Commissioner Pyne shared his concerns about permitting a restaurant

drive-through with a Special Development Permit for sites to be zoned VCC.

MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved and Commissioner Shukla seconded the

motion to approve Alternative 2 – Alternative 1 with modifications.

The modifications direct City staff to do as follows:

1. Identify to the City Council the reasons why the Village Center Master Plan Table

4-3 (Planning Permit Required per Land Use Type and Zoning District) identifies

certain land use types under education, recreation, and place of assembly as

permitted in the VCMU zoning district but prohibited in the VCC zoning district.

2. Explore and, later, present alternative zoning boundary locations for Village

Centers 5 and 6 that do not reflect the land use locations of the proposed

development plans currently under review by City staff.

3. Return to City Council after the July 1, 2025, public hearing to consider further

incentive programs to preserve existing retail and reduce barriers for small

businesses in the Village Centers, including but not limited to, a first right of refusal

for businesses that are displaced during redevelopment and potential

anti-displacement density bonus incentives.

Commissioner Pyne spoke in support of the proposed Village Center Master Plan,

agreed that it is needed, and highlighted the imbalance of equity between north and

south Sunnyvale.

Commissioner Shukla thanked City staff for developing a comprehensive Village

Center Master Plan, acknowledged the negative impact that redevelopment has on

small businesses, and voiced her support of the motion.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed his support of the motion and shared his hope

that the proposed Village Center Maser Plan, and especially the urgency ordinance,

may be enacted as soon as possible.

Chair Iglesias stated that he is in support of the motion as well.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 5 -

Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Pyne

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

Commissioner Sigura

No: 0

Absent: 1 - Vice Chair Davis

Abstained: 1 - Commissioner Figone

This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the

July 1, 2025, meeting.

STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES

None.

NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS

-Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with City Attorney Moon that the Planning

Commission is not subject to a policy that would mandate approval of a motion to

continue a meeting to a later date if the meeting was to go past 11:30 p.m.

Chair Iglesias reminded the Planning Commissioners that they must request

permission to speak and be recognized to speak to avoid speaking out of turn.