City of Sunnyvale

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Monday, April 22, 2024

7:00 PM

Online and Bay Conference Room

(Room 145), City Hall,

456 W. Olive Ave.,

Sunnyvale, CA 94086

No Study Session | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM

NO STUDY SESSION

7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Pyne called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

SALUTE TO THE FLAG

Chair Pyne led the salute to the flag.

ROLL CALL

Present: 7 -

Chair Martin Pyne

Vice Chair Nathan Iglesias

Commissioner Galen Kim Davis

Commissioner Daniel Howard

Commissioner John Howe

Commissioner Michael Serrone

Commissioner Neela Shukla

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Chair Pyne announced that board and commission recruitment is underway for

openings on the City’s various boards and commissions. He provided some details

on the application and interview process for these openings.

There were no public speakers for this agenda item.

CONSENT CALENDAR

There were no public speakers for this agenda item.

MOTION: Commissioner Howard moved and Commissioner Howe seconded the

motion to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 7 -

Chair Pyne

Vice Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Davis

Commissioner Howard

Commissioner Howe

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

No: 0

This decision, as it applies to Agenda Item 1.B, is final unless appealed or called up

for review by the City Council by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, May 7, 2024.

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2024

1.A

24-0581

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2024 as submitted.

Proposed Project:

Related applications on a 0.21-acre site:

1.B

24-0515

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP to subdivide a 9,397 square foot lot

into two lots (Lot 1 - 4,978 square feet and Lot 2 - 4,269 square

feet);

USE PERMIT to allow lot area and lot widths less than the

minimum required; and

DESIGN REVIEW to demolish an existing one-story single-family

home and construct two new, two-story single-family homes

resulting in 2,587 square feet for Lot 1 (2,184 square foot living

area and 403 square foot garage); and 2,570 square feet for Lot

2 (2,166 square foot living area and 404 square foot garage),

resulting in 55.7% total floor area ratio (FAR).

Location: 258 West California Avenue (APN: 204-51-005)

File #: 2019-7552

Zoning: R-2

Applicant / Owner: George Novitskiy (applicant) / Hanson America

LLC (owner)

Environmental Review: A Class 3 Categorical Exemption relieves this

project from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions.

Project Planner: Cindy Hom, (408) 730-7411, chom@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Alternative 1: Approve the Use Permit, Design Review, and the Tentative Parcel

Map with the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS

Proposed Project:

Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administrator

24-0491

denying a VARIANCE to legalize an existing 112 square foot detached

accessory structure in the rear yard of a single-family property with a

two-foot, five-inch side setback where four-feet minimum is required, and

a two-foot, two-inch rear yard setback where ten-feet minimum is

required.

Location: 160 South Pastoria Avenue (APN: 165-15-007)

File #: PLNG-2023-0642

Zoning: R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential)

Applicant / Owner: Scott McClennan (applicant) / Tracy and Scott

McClennan (owner)

Environmental Review: Class 3 Categorical Exemption relieves this

project from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions.

Project Planner: Robby Miller, 408-730-7429,

rmiller@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Associate Planner Robby Miller presented the staff report with a slide presentation.

Commissioner Serrone acknowledged that the structure does not meet setback

requirements and asked whether a permit for the structure would have been

approved had it not included electricity. Associate Planner Miller clarified that

accessory structures exceeding 8-foot in height trigger Planning review.

Additionally, the structure does not meet side and rear setback requirements which

trigger the Variance application.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Associate Planner Miller that a Variance

would still be required if the applicant submitted a permit for the accessory structure

before it had been built.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Associate Planner Miller that the unpermitted

accessory structure was reported to the City’s Neighborhood Preservation division.

Principal Planner Julia Klein added that since these complaints are filed

anonymously, staff is unable to provide additional details.

Commissioner Serrone asked about the applicant’s options in the event the

Planning Commission denies the appeal. Principal Planner Klein explained that the

applicant may appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. If the

City Council denies the appeal, the applicant may sue the City, remove the

unpermitted accessory structure, or convert the structure to an Accessory Dwelling

Unit (ADU) that meets City requirements.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin explained

why the rear setback requirement is ten feet.

Commissioner Serrone asked whether the shed in the rear yard of the lot behind the

proposed project site is compliant. Associate Planner Miller answered that he did

not find a permit for that structure.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Planner Klein that it is uncertain

whether the proposed project meets life and safety regulations as it was constructed

without benefit of building permit and City inspection.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Planner Klein that according to

California Fire Code, habitable buildings and structures must be fire rated, so

fire-proofing the fence would not be a viable option to address the Fire Code

requirements for the detached accessory structure. Principal Planner Klein added

that since the accessory structure is unpermitted, staff does not have the ability to

verify whether it meets fire code requirements or is safe in general.

Chair Pyne asked whether the proposed project will need to be demolished if it is

unable to comply with Condition of Approval BP-6 in the event the Variance is

granted. Principal Planner Klein responded that it is difficult to answer this question

since the structure’s design is uncertain. She added that the applicant may be better

able to provide a response to this question. Chair Pyne noted that if the structure

does not comply with fire safety codes, Finding 2 could not be met.

Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.

Scott McClennan, property owner and applicant, presented additional images and

information on the proposed project.

Chair Pyne asked Mr. McClennan whether the accessory structure has a

fire-resistance rating according to the California Building Standards Code or

whether it may be modified to attain this rating. Mr. McClennan responded that while

he is unsure, he would take the proper steps to ensure that the structure complies

with the California Building Standards Code and Condition of Approval BP-6.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Mr. McClennan that moving the accessory

structure to a different location in his backyard would not be cost effective and may

result in damaging the structure.

Vice Iglesias asked whether the height of the accessory structure may be reduced

to meet the maximum height requirement of eight feet. Mr. McClennan responded

that he has not found viable means to reduce the height of the structure and

explained why.

Commissioner Shukla noted the importance of Building and Planning review of

applications for accessory structures. Mr. McClennan explained why he did not

submit an application for the accessory structure and stated that he is willing to go

through the permitting process and necessary inspections now.

Commissioner Davis confirmed that Mr. McClennan reviewed a brochure pertaining

to accessory structure requirements on the City’s website prior to having his own

structure built.

Planning Officer Mendrin stated that the “Work Not Requiring a Building Permit”

brochure on the City’s website notes that approval from the Planning Division may

be required for one-story detached accessory structures depending on the location

and height of the accessory structure. Mr. McClennan claimed that the link on this

brochure to the “Accessory Structures” brochure was broken at the time he

reviewed it.

Commissioner Howard asked whether the applicant’s architect or contractor

considered whether a permit would be needed for the subject accessory structure.

Mr. McClennan explained his understanding that a permit would not be needed.

There were no public speakers for this agenda item.

Mr. McClennan presented additional information to support his case.

Commissioner Howe confirmed with Associate Planner Miller that there were four

approved Variances within the vicinity of the subject accessory structure, and three

of them were for ADUs. Commissioner Howe questioned whether those ADUs had a

building permit, but research conducted by staff to date focused only on Variances

in the area and not building permit history.

Commissioner Howe confirmed with Associate Planner Miller that the neighborhood

definition considered in this instance included the blocks adjacent to the proposed

project site’s block as well as three additional blocks south of the proposed project

site on both sides of the block face.

Commissioner Howe questioned the number of detached structures on properties

surrounding 480 Lincoln Avenue. Mr. McClennan was uncertain about how many of

these structures were granted a Variance and/or a building permit.

Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Howe questioned whether the Variance for the accessory structure

should be approved or denied and provided additional comments on the matter.

Commissioner Howard pointed out that the property on 480 Lincoln Avenue is not in

the immediate vicinity of the subject accessory structure.

Commissioner Shukla emphasized the importance of obtaining City approval and

required permits for all project types. She added that while she is empathetic to the

applicant’s case, the subject accessory structure may need to undergo changes to

meet state law and City requirements for health and safety. Lastly, she stated that

she is in support of denying the appeal.

Vice Chair Iglesias observed that nearly every parcel within the vicinity of the

subject accessory structure has an accessory structure in the rear yard.

Commissioner Davis asked whether it would be possible for the Planning

Commission to continue this item to a different date to allow staff additional time to

research the permit history of accessory structures within the vicinity of the

proposed project site. Planning Officer Mendrin advised that the Planning

Commission should continue this item to a date certain and noted that staff

generally researches the permit history of structures within the noticing radius of the

proposed project site which is normally 300 feet.

Commissioner Serrone stated that the Planning Commission does not have the

ability to overrule City requirements in the same way that the City Council does.

Planning Officer Mendrin added that if the appeal is denied, the applicant may

appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council or the City Council

may call the item up for review within fifteen days. Commissioner Serrone noted that

while he believes the appeal should be denied, he has no concerns with the subject

accessory structure if it is fire resistant.

Chair Pyne stated that while the proposed project is subject to existing ordinances,

a study issue to reevaluate such ordinances as they apply to similar properties on

lots with an R-2 zoning designation would be worth considering.

Commissioner Howard commented that he is unable to make the Findings to

support the requested Variance. He added that it is not in the City’s interest to grant

the Variance for the subject accessory structure since it is unable to serve as an

independent living unit that would address the City’s housing need. He agreed with

Chair Pyne that a study issue to reevaluate applicable standards for accessory

structures would be better than determining whether to grant Variances on a

case-by-case basis. Lastly, Commissioner Howard confirmed his recommendation

to deny the requested Variance.

MOTION: Commissioner Howard moved and Commissioner Shukla seconded the

motion to recommend Alternative 1 – Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning

Administrator’s decision to deny the Variance for the accessory structure based on

the Recommended Findings for Denial in Attachment 2.

Vice Chair Iglesias stated that he may make the Findings to approve the requested

Variance and explained his reasoning.

Commissioner Davis confirmed his support of the motion since he lacks the

information necessary to approve the requested Variance. He also added that he is

in support of continuing the item to a different date.

Commissioner Howe confirmed his agreement with Vice Chair Iglesias and

confirmed that he is not in support of the motion.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Planner Klein that an ADU does not

require additional parking.

Commissioner Serrone noted that he is in favor of continuing the item to a different

date so that staff has the opportunity to research and present additional information.

He added that granting the requested Variance would be problematic and revealed

that he would also like the City Council to consider this item.

Chair Pyne offered his thoughts on whether the proposed project meets the

Findings for a Variance. He suggested that continuance of this item to a different

date would be appropriate since he does not have sufficient evidence to grant the

requested Variance.

Commissioner Howe advised that it would be acceptable to propose a substitute

motion to continue the discussion on this item to a later date.

AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE: Chair Pyne moved and Commissioner Howe

seconded the motion to substitute the main motion with a motion to continue the

discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 2 to Tuesday, May 28, 2024 and direct

staff to do the following:

Provide the planning application and building permit history for: 1) accessory

structures located on properties on both sides of South Pastoria Avenue, between

West Evelyn Avenue and West McKinley Avenue, 2) accessory structures located in

the vicinity of the proposed project site, and 3) Variances that were referenced by

staff during the November 29, 2023 Zoning Administrator hearing.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Commissioner Howe offered a friendly amendment to

specify direction to staff:

Provide the planning application and building permit history for: 1) accessory

structures located on properties within 300 feet of the proposed project site and 2)

Variances that were referenced by staff during the November 29, 2023 Zoning

Administrator hearing.

Chair Pyne accepted the friendly amendment.

Commissioner Howe explained that the continuance of this item will allow staff more

time to conduct applicable research and the Planning Commission to make an

informed decision once additional information is presented to them.

Commissioner Davis voiced his support of the substitute motion.

Commissioner Shukla stated her support of the substitute motion.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed his support of continuing this item to a later date.

The motion for a substitute motion carried with the following vote:

Yes: 6 -

Chair Pyne

Vice Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Davis

Commissioner Howe

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

No: 1 - Commissioner Howard

MOTION: Chair Pyne moved and Commissioner Howe seconded the motion to

continue the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 2 to Tuesday, May 28, 2024

and direct staff to do the following:

Provide the planning application and building permit history for: 1) accessory

structures located on properties within 300 feet of the proposed project site and 2)

Variances that were referenced by staff during the November 29, 2023 Zoning

Administrator hearing.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 6 -

Chair Pyne

Vice Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Davis

Commissioner Howe

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

No: 1 - Commissioner Howard

Proposed Project:

Related applications on a 45.6-acre site:

24-0464

USE PERMIT: to demolish an existing recreation center, surface

parking lot, and six-level parking structure to allow a new 592,567

square-foot research and development (R&D) building along Central

Expressway; demolition of four buildings (928 East Arques Avenue, 242

Commercial Street, 230 Commercial Street, and 222 Commercial

Street) to allow for a new seven-story parking structure along

Commercial Street; demolition of one building at 930 East California

Avenue to allow for the expansion of an existing PG&E electrical

substation; and installation of associated site improvements around the

proposed R&D building and parking structure. The site would retain four

existing industrial/office/R&D buildings, including an office building (930

East Arques Avenue), Building 81 (974 East Arques Avenue), Building

85 (978 East Arques Avenue), and a central utility plant. The project

includes merging seven existing lots to form a larger campus parcel, with

one existing lot remaining at 222 Commercial Street.

VARIANCE: to exceed the maximum height limit and floor plate sizes

specified in the Arques Campus Specific Plan.

Location: 974 East Arques Avenue (APNs: 205-36-006, -007 and

-008); 928-930 East Arques Avenue (APN: 205-35-017); 222, 230 and

242 Commercial Street (APNs: 205-35-006, 007 and 008, respectively)

and 930 East California Street (APN 205-35-003).

File #: PLNG-2023-0134

Zoning: M-S

Applicant / Owner: Applied Materials (Applicant/Owner)

Environmental Review: An addendum to the Arques Specific Plan EIR

and the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) Update EIR has

been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and

15164.

Project Planner: Cindy Hom, Associate Planner (408) 730-7411,

chom@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Associate Planner Cindy Hom presented the staff report with a slide presentation.

Chair Pyne disclosed that he had met previously with the applicant and toured the

existing building on the proposed project site.

Commissioner Howard confirmed with Principal Planner George Schroeder that the

Arques Campus Specific Plan was not given priority over other specific plans for

national security reasons. Commissioner Howard also confirmed with Principal

Planner Schroeder that the basis of national security is not included as a finding for

variances.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Associate Planner Hom explained that the

proposed project involves development of the remaining unbuilt square footage in

the Arques Campus Specific Plan adopted in 1999. She added that the proposed

project is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared

for the adopted plan.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that the proposed

project’s promenade and research and development (R&D) building will take the

place of the Central Commons originally included in the Arques Campus Specific

Plan.

Commissioner Serrone questioned the reasoning behind the seven stories and 75

feet maximum height limit and 50,000 square foot maximum floor plate allowance

stipulated in the Arques Campus Specific Plan.

Commissioner Davis confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that the Central Arques

Specific Plan is anticipated to be completed midyear 2025.

Commissioner Davis confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that the 18-foot

dedication required for future Central Expressway improvements will consist of a

12-foot-wide auxiliary lane and a six-foot-wide sidewalk.

Commissioner Howe disclosed that he had a brief telephone conversation with a

representative of the applicant.

Commissioner Shukla revealed that she has visited the proposed project site and

viewed a presentation prepared by Applied Materials.

Chair Pyne confirmed with Associate Planner Hom that approval of the proposed

project’s permit will expire in two years and that the applicant may request a

one-year extension before this expiration date.

Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.

Joe Pon, Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs at Applied Materials,

presented additional images and information on the proposed project.

Mary Bradley, Sunnyvale resident and former Finance Director for the City, spoke in

favor of the proposed project and the economic benefits the City will yield from it.

Marie Bernard, speaking in her personal capacity, commended Applied Materials

and the proposed project.

German Guerrero, field representative for Carpenters Local 405, stated that the

proposed project presents an opportunity to employ a responsible contractor who

understands the importance of such labor standards as livable wages, local hire,

healthcare coverage, and apprenticeship programs. Mr. Guerrero confirmed that the

proposed project will be utilizing a responsible contractor.

Doug Bloch, speaking on behalf of Silicon Valley MEPS and UNITE HERE Local 19,

advocated for the support of the proposed project since it serves as an opportunity

to create good paying union jobs for the local community.

Louise Auerhahn, speaking on behalf of Working Partnerships, shared her

excitement for the proposed project and its potential to create good

family-supporting career pathways for community members during its construction

and operational phases.

Maria Hamilton requested that the proposed project meet the standards set forth by

the Arques Campus Specific Plan and that any deviations or variances should not

be approved since a new plan has not been adopted.

Joe Pon presented additional information about the proposed project.

Commissioner Howard confirmed with Mr. Pon that the proposed development is not

a fabrication facility but rather a place where machinery for fabrication facilities is

built.

Commissioner Davis disclosed that he also toured the existing building on the

proposed project site.

Commissioner Davis asked for an estimated average number of customers that

might be on site at any given time. Mr. Pon answered that the proposed project

includes a dedicated space for these customers and provided examples of potential

customers.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Mr. Pon that although one is not included in

the proposed project plans, Applied Materials is open to establishing a bicycle and

pedestrian bridge over Central Expressway as a benefit to the community and

employees of Applied Materials.

Commissioner Shukla proposed the inclusion of a visitor center or a plaque to

inform members of the public about Applied Materials. Mr. Pon responded that this

may be considered at a later phase for the proposed project.

Vice Chair Iglesias confirmed with Mr. Pon that if the proposed variance to exceed

the maximum height limit specified in the Arques Campus Specific Plan is not

approved, the proposed project will need to be developed elsewhere outside of the

City.

Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: Commissioner Howe moved and Commissioner Howard seconded the

motion to recommend Alternative 1 – Make the required Findings to approve the

addendum to the Arques Campus Specific Plan EIR and LUTE Update EIR and no

additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections

15162 and 15164; and approve the Use Permit and Variance based on the

Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and Recommended Conditions of Approval

in Attachment 4.

Commissioner Howe commended Applied Materials for its contributions to the City

and asked that the proposed project’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

plan be reevaluated.

Commissioner Howard confirmed that he may make the Findings for the variances

and spoke in support of updating the TDM plan.

Commissioner Serrone voiced his support of the motion and the proposed project

and explained why.

Commissioner Davis confirmed his support of the motion and spoke in agreement

with comments made by Commissioner Serrone.

Commissioner Shukla spoke in support of the motion and the requested variances.

She also noted that the proposed project will be financially beneficial to the City and

it will enhance the area’s sophistication due to the materials it will use.

Vice Chair Iglesias shared his support for the motion and the proposed project.

Chair Pyne stated that he is in support of the motion, can make the Findings for the

requested variances and use permit, and described the proposed project as a great

boon to the community and the country.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 7 -

Chair Pyne

Vice Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Davis

Commissioner Howard

Commissioner Howe

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

No: 0

This decision is final unless appealed or called up for review by the City Council by

5:00 PM on Tuesday, May 7, 2024.

Proposed Project:

Related applications on three sites totaling 1.74

24-0412

acres:

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Amend the General Plan land

use designation from Commercial to either Medium Density

(15-24 du/ac) or High Density (25-36 du/ac) Residential.

REZONE: Rezone from Neighborhood Business with a Planned

Development combining district (C-1/PD) to either Medium

Density Residential (R-3) or High Density Residential (R-4) with a

Mixed Use (MU) and Planned Development (PD) combining

district.

File #: 2022-7146

Location: 1313 South Wolfe Road (APNs 309-10-026 and 309-10-027)

and 898 East Fremont Avenue (APN 309-10-015)

Current Zoning: C-1/PD (Neighborhood Business with a Planned

Development combining district)

Applicant / Owner: 4Terra Investments (applicant)/Desmond Family

Real Estate Limited Partner (Owner)

Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration

Project Planner: Mary Jeyaprakash, (408) 730-7449,

mjeyaprakash@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Senior Planner Mary Jeyaprakash presented the staff report with a slide

presentation.

Commissioner Howard shared his concerns regarding the permitted use of state

density bonuses, waivers, and concessions for developments to waive requirements

to build commercial space. Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin confirmed that this is a

possible outcome of rezoning.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Jeyaprakash explained that

Sites 2 and 3 are already suitable for residential use, but soil remediation is

necessary for Site 1 since it is currently used as a gas station.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Jeyaprakash that an

economic evaluation deemed a residential and mixed-use development to be

feasible for Site 2.

Commissioner Serrone and Senior Planner Jeyaprakash discussed how current

state laws permit residential developments on sites designated for Medium Density

Residential or High Density Residential with a Mixed Use and Planned Development

combining district.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Principal Planner George Schroeder explained

why townhomes are more financially feasible to develop than rental apartments.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Planner Schroeder that the

Commissioners may consider impacts to the City’s General Fund when determining

whether to rezone the subject site. Derek Braun, Principal at Strategic Economics,

provided additional information on this subject.

Commissioner Serrone and Mr. Braun discussed the chart depicted on page 18 of

Attachment 9 and the implications that Findings have on the City’s retail spaces.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed the intended uses of Sites 1, 2, and 3 with Senior

Planner Jeyaprakash.

Commissioner Davis questioned why developments of higher densities on smaller

parcels are not being considered. Senior Planner Jeyaprakash responded that

developments must meet City standards for such items as parking, zoning,

setbacks, open space, and landscaping.

Commissioner Davis disclosed that he has been in continuous email communication

with the applicant for the proposed project. He also mentioned that while he lives

within 1,000 feet of the proposed project, the Fair Political Practices Commission

(FPPC) ruled that his recusal is not required.

Commissioner Davis inquired about whether the proposed project will involve

widening Wolfe Road. Senior Planner Jeyaprakash answered that this detail will be

reviewed at the development stage of the proposed project. Principal Planner

Schroeder added that the South Wolfe Road expansion study contains additional

information on improvements for Wolfe Road.

Chair Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Jeyaprakash that the inclusion of Site 1

would increase the overall square footage on the proposed project site. Chair Pyne

stated his support of increased retail on the site adjacent to the proposed project.

Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.

Amir Massih, applicant and President at 4Terra Investments, presented additional

images and information on the proposed project.

Commissioner Howard questioned the types of businesses that might succeed in

the designated commercial space on Site 1. Mr. Massih responded that a coffee

shop might be one such business.

Commissioner Howe confirmed with Senior Planner Jeyaprakash that Butcher’s

Corner is designated for both retail and office use.

Mr. Massih addressed earlier concerns shared by Commissioner Serrone regarding

soil contamination on the proposed project site.

Commissioner Davis commented that the inclusion of a daycare and/or preschool on

the proposed project site might be beneficial.

Commissioner Serrone presented feasible strategies for integrating retail on the

proposed project site. Mr. Massih assured the Commissioners that any project he

proposes to the Commission would be the one developed. Mr. Massih also

explained that retail spaces are currently not economically viable.

Chuck Fraleigh, Vice Chair of Livable Sunnyvale, noted that Livable Sunnyvale is in

support of the proposed General Plan Amendment since it will provide the

opportunity to build needed housing, especially affordable housing units, in the

southern portion of the City. He added that the proposed project will make better

use of the existing site.

Agnes Veith, Sunnyvale resident and Livable Sunnyvale member speaking on her

own behalf, noted that Livable Sunnyvale sent a letter of support to the City Council

in September 2021. She also spoke in support of the General Plan Amendment and

emphasized that the proposed development will provide needed housing.

Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Jeyaprakash explained why a

Planned Development combining district would be retained for Site 3 rather than

proposed for Site 2.

MOTION: Commissioner Howard moved and Commissioner Howe seconded the

motion to recommend that the City Council take the following actions related to the

General Plan Amendment and Rezoning:

a. Make the Findings required by CEQA (Attachment 3) and Adopt the Mitigated

Negative Declaration (Attachment 10);

b. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 4) to Amend the General Plan Designation for the

two parcels at 1313 South Wolfe Road from Commercial to Medium Density

Residential;

c. Make the Finding that the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is deemed to

be in the public interest (Attachment 3); and

d. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 5) to Rezone 1313 South Wolfe Road (APN

309-10-026) from Neighborhood Commercial with a Planned Development

Combining District (C-1/PD) to Medium Density Residential with a Mixed-Use

Combining District (R-3/MU) and 1313 South Wolfe Road (APN 309-10-027) from

C-1/PD to Medium Density Residential with a Planned Development Combining

District (R-3/PD).

Chair Pyne confirmed with staff that the motion should be interpreted as including

the stated modifications to CEQA Finding 4 in Attachment 3 and the language in

Attachments 4 and 5 clarifying that the environmental mitigation measures will be

incorporated into the future project.

Commissioner Howard stated that there is much to gain from this General Plan

Amendment and rezoning and explained why.

Commissioner Howe commented that the proposed development is a nice change

since it will include for-sale housing.

Commissioner Davis voiced his support of the motion since the proposed project

addresses the City’s housing needs.

Commissioner Shukla spoke in support of the motion and the proposed project.

Chair Pyne stated that he is supportive of motion, shared his wish that the proposed

project site could support a higher density, and noted his preference for the

development of additional housing with potential retail space instead of a vacant lot

that will be the alternative.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 7 -

Chair Pyne

Vice Chair Iglesias

Commissioner Davis

Commissioner Howard

Commissioner Howe

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

No: 0

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

May 7, 2024 meeting.

STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES

None.

NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS

-Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Howard, in honor of Earth Day, announced news that the world may

have reached peak carbon emissions either last year or this year. He added that

while there is still work to be done, this is an indication of progress.

-Staff Comments

None.