City of Sunnyvale  
Meeting Minutes  
Heritage Preservation Commission  
Thursday, January 23, 2025  
7:00 PM  
Online and Redwood Conference Room,  
City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale,  
CA 94086  
Public Participation  
Accessibility/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Notice  
CALL TO ORDER  
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order  
SALUTE TO THE FLAG  
Chair Johnson led the salute to the flag.  
ROLL CALL  
Present: 4 - Chair Sue-Ellen Johnson  
Commissioner William Garrett  
Commissioner Charles McManis  
Commissioner Parthiv Rawal  
Absent: 2 - Vice Chair Aaron Sofaer  
Commissioner Ashmita Rajkumar  
STUDY SESSION  
1.  
REPORT TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION  
25-0210  
SUBJECT  
Receive the Public Review Draft of the Study to Update the Heritage  
Resource Inventory to Include Potential Resources Associated with  
Technological Innovation (Study Issue CDD 19-05)  
File #: PLNG-2024-0298  
Environmental Review: The action is categorically exempt from the  
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA  
Guidelines Section 15306.  
Project Planner: Momo Ishijima, (408) 730-7532,  
mishijima@sunnyvale.ca.gov <mailto:mishijima@sunnyvale.ca.gov>  
Consultants Sarah Hahn and Jon Rusch with the Architectural Resources Group  
presented and noted the recommendations they are seeking from this Commission  
is to formally nominate the recommended properties as heritage resources, clarify  
the historic review requirements for heritage resources designated as “sites” due to  
their diminished physical integrity, and develop project review requirements tailored  
to technological properties.  
Commissioner McManis discussed several ideas, noting that he found the report  
interesting to read and it would be useful to see if patent holders had an address in  
Sunnyvale and whether staff could see if inventions occurred at the Sunnyvale  
location. He shared that when Google introduced Google Maps, it placed the pin for  
"Silicon Valley" on his house. He noted that the virtual center of Silicon Valley has  
always landed in Sunnyvale.  
Commissioner Garrett asked staff regarding the recommendations, particularly if  
the commission was looking at the suite within the building or the entire site. He  
noted Computer Literacy bookstore as an example. Senior Planner Momoko  
Ishijima noted that the entire site is typically listed.  
He likes the site framework and that the place can be important without the  
structure being important, and would be good to create two categories in the  
inventory, one being the resource itself and the other would be the site. He noted  
that many of the sites have non descript buildings and that any future development  
should acknowledge what happened there.  
Commissioner Sharma thanked the consultants for the presentation and noted her  
enthusiasm of the study. She asked if there is a limit to the number of sites that  
could be listed and Ms. Ishijima responded no. She then asked about recognition  
tools, such as plaques and posting on the website. Ms. Hahn noted that she will  
take note to acknowledge the sites on the City web page. Ms. Ishijima responded  
regarding plaques that the Commission should recommend this to Council.  
Chair Johnson noted that visitors of Sunnyvale tend to tie it to “Silicon Valley" and  
the City should give visitors a sense of Silicon Valley when they come to  
Sunnyvale. She noted that she likes public art to acknowledge resources  
associated with the technological innovation resources. She also suggested  
plaques specifically for tech resources. She then asked staff whether the listed  
properties could be modified in the future.  
Commissioner Sharma asked whether the Commission's recommendation affects  
the project budget, and whether the final cost of the study be available to them and  
the public.  
Commissioner Garrett noted that there should be a template for technological  
innovation resource plaques.  
Commissioner Rawal noted that there may be both benefits and restrictions for  
property owners and asked what are the impacts if their property was on the  
Heritage Resource Inventory. He noted it may increase or decrease the property  
value.  
Ms. Ishijima noted that any changes to a heritage resource in the future would need  
a Resource Alteration Permit for any exterior modifications. She noted that any  
property owners that would like to de register their property from the Heritage  
Resource Inventory would have to seek approval from the Heritage Preservation  
Commission.  
MOTION:  
Commissioner Sharma made a motion and Commissioner McManis to discuss the  
technological innovation resource recommendations for the Heritage Resource  
Inventory.  
Yes: 5 - Chair Johnson  
Commissioner Garrett  
Commissioner McManis  
Commissioner Rawal  
Sharma  
No: 0  
Absent: 2 - Vice Chair Sofaer  
Commissioner Rajkumar  
Chair opened the public comment period.  
Resident Sarosh Patel spoke about the study and noted page 77 of Attachment 3,  
where he noted that the former CEO of Tandem Computers used to live in his  
home and started his company in this location.  
Commissioner Sharma noted comments and recommendations on the draft study  
should be made before the February 10 deadline.  
Consultant Rusch noted that it’s a good idea to determine which properties may  
need more stringent review.  
Chair Johnson closed the public comment period.  
Commissioner Garrett noted he has no objections and wanted to reiterate that  
updating the Municipal Code to make the distinction between a building and a site  
may be a good idea.  
Commissioner Sharma asked staff what code restrictions apply to the Heritage  
Resources and Ms. Ishijima responded.  
Commissioner McManis noted technological innovation resources should include  
the single family homes which where a significant technological event took place.  
Commissioner Sharma agreed with Commissioner Garrett's comment that a code  
review may be needed.  
Rawal asked the consultants for clarification of what they are seeking from this  
Commission and staff responded that they are seeking comments.  
Commissioner McManis asked the Commission to make a motion to merit the  
historical significance in the report.  
Ms. Ishijima noted that this study session item is to present the findings from the  
report and seek comments, she noted that a motion is not necessary.  
Council Liaison Sell discussed the direction that Commissioner McManis is asking  
and noted that the Commission may make statements regarding the study and  
come to a consensus for the consultants to take in account.  
Commissioner McManis found all the properties recommended are historically  
significant and Chair Johnson agreed. Comm. Sharma dissented, noting that the  
list of properties need to be categorized for each current situation (demolished,  
existing, etc.) and for residential and commercial. She asked for the consultants to  
come back with recommended residential properties.  
Comm. Garrett agreed the list of properties are significant, however some may  
have more significance than others. He further suggested having a secondary list  
with a lower threshold.  
Comm. Rawal agreed with Commissioner Sharma and Commissioner Garrett that  
more study is needed regarding how the Municipal Code will affect the properties.  
Comm. McManis asked staff about the process and concluded that the  
Commission is only making recommendations to City Council for approval.  
Council Liaison Sell clarified the process for approval or denial with staff, where Ms.  
Ishijima discussed a final report will be sent to this Commission for a formal  
recommendation to City Council for approval. Councilmember Sell noted to the  
Commission that the final draft will be more difficult to make any changes.  
Recommendations should be stated tonight to give time for the consultants to apply  
any revisions.  
Commissioner Sharma asked for clarification of how the current code applies and  
Mr. Schroeder discussed how the code may apply to these properties.  
Commissioner Sharma noted that plaques are a good way for recognition, asking  
for a more comprehensive list.  
Commissioner Rawal said that he wouldn’t want to see these homes limited in  
development due to any restrictions of a heritage resource property.  
Commissioner Sharma asked for a matrix of which owners submitted their approval  
to be listed.  
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS  
None.  
CONSENT CALENDAR  
Approve the Draft Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting  
Minutes of December 4, 2024  
2.  
MOTION:  
25-0209  
Commissioner Garrett motioned and Commissioner Sharma seconded to approve  
the Draft Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes of December 4,  
2024, as submitted.  
The motion carried as follows:  
Yes: 5 - Chair Johnson  
Commissioner Garrett  
Commissioner McManis  
Commissioner Rawal  
Sharma  
No: 0  
Absent: 2 - Vice Chair Sofaer  
Commissioner Rajkumar  
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS  
Selection and Ranking of Study Issues  
3.  
25-0056  
Chair Johnson asked whether it matters if a study issue costs 10x more than  
another study issue.  
Commissioner Garrett asked why CDD 18-02: Update and Review of the Heritage  
Resource Inventory should be dropped.  
Commissioner Sharma asked the Commission to think thoughtfully about dropping  
or deferring a study issue.  
MOTION:  
Commissioner McManis motioned to defer CDD 25-04: Expanding the Role of the  
Heritage Preservation Commission.  
The motion failed for a lack of a second.  
MOTION:  
Commissioner Sharma motioned to defer OCM 25-01: Explore Establishing a  
Japanese American Incarceration Memorial in Sunnyvale.  
The motion failed for a lack of a second.  
Commissioner McManis ranked the study issue by the priority order of CDD 18-02  
first, OCM 25-01 second, and CDD 25-04 third.  
Commissioner Johnson ranked the study issue by the priority order of CDD 25-04  
first, CDD 18-02 second, and OCM 25-01 third.  
Commissioner Sharma ranked the study issue by the priority order of CDD 25-04  
first, CDD 18-02 second, and OCM 25-01 third.  
Commissioner Garrett ranked the study issue by the priority order of CDD 25-04  
first, OCM 25-01 second, and CDD 18-02 third.  
Commissioner Rawal ranked the study issue by the priority order of CDD 25-04  
first, CDD 18-02 second, and OCM 25-01 third.  
MOTION:  
Commissioner Garrett motioned and Commissioner Sharma seconded to accept  
the commission’s overall ranking of CDD 25-04 first, CDD 18-02 second, and OCM  
25-01 third.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 4 - Chair Johnson  
Commissioner Garrett  
Commissioner Rawal  
Sharma  
No: 1 - Commissioner McManis  
Absent: 2 - Vice Chair Sofaer  
Commissioner Rajkumar  
STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES  
None.  
NON-AGENDA ITEMS & COMMENTS  
-Commissioner Comments  
Commissioner Sharma asked staff regarding the plaque at Redwood Square and  
Ms. Ishijima responded that there was an email from the developer that the plaque  
is in the process of getting installed.  
INFORMATION ONLY REPORTS/ITEMS  
None.  
ADJOURNMENT  
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:18 PM.