City of Sunnyvale

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Monday, April 28, 2025

7:00 PM

Online and Council Chambers, 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 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 Galen Kim Davis

Commissioner Chris Figone

Commissioner Martin Pyne

Commissioner Michael Serrone

Commissioner Neela Shukla

Commissioner Ilan Sigura

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Girl Scouts Troop 60506 presented on the negative impacts of light pollution and

the importance of implementing a Dark Sky Ordinance.

Lisa McManis, Sunnyvale resident, shared her concerns regarding the

encroachment permit that allows PG&E to demolish a large portion of City sidewalks

when restoring them. She explained that a smaller sidewalk repair is consistent with

the City’s climate and zero waste goals.

Rani Fischer, Chair of the Environmental Action Committee for the Santa Clara

Valley Bird Alliance, spoke in solidarity with the Girl Scouts and encouraged the

creation of a Dark Sky Ordinance for the City.

Tim Kirby, City Manager, introduced himself to the Planning Commission and

provided a brief overview of various City projects that are ongoing or upcoming.

Daniel Alvarez began to share comments regarding the proposed project located at

777 Sunnyvale Saratoga Road, but Chair Iglesias advised him to reserve his

comments until the item is called up for review later in the meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR

There were no public speakers for this agenda item.

MOTION: Vice Chair Davis moved and Commissioner Shukla seconded the motion

to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 6 -

Chair Iglesias

Vice Chair Davis

Commissioner Figone

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

Commissioner Sigura

No: 0

Abstained: 1 - Commissioner Pyne

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2025

25-0543

Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2025 as submitted.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS

Proposed Project:

Related applications on a 5.24-acre site:

25-0513

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to redevelop a

commercial site into a 242-unit multi-family development (80

townhomes and 162 apartment units) and 2,050 square feet

commercial; and,

TENTATIVE MAP: to subdivide the existing lot into 31 lots and

create 80 condominiums.

Location: 777 Sunnyvale Saratoga Road (APN: 201-36-002)

File #: PLNG-2023-0807

Zoning: ECR-MU54 (El Camino Real Specific Plan - Mixed Use)

Applicant / Owner: Valley Oak Partners, LLC (applicant) / Mardit

Properties, LP (owner)

Environmental Review: Environmental impacts of the project are

addressed in the El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECRSP) Environmental

Impact Report (EIR). No additional review required as per CEQA

Guidelines 15183.

Project Planner: Momo Ishijima, (408) 730-7532,

mishijima@sunnyvale.ca.gov

Senior Planner Momo Ishijima presented the staff report with a slide presentation.

Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that since the proposed

project is located near a major transit stop, it is not subject to minimum parking

requirements.

Vice Chair Davis received an explanation from Senior Planner Ishijima about how

the proposed project may apply waivers and concessions from development

standards under the State Density Bonus Law since 15% of its units are Below

Market Rate (BMR).

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

that once the proposed project is approved, approval of its Alternative Compliance

Plan will be considered by the Housing and Human Services Commission and then

by the City Council. He added that, per BMR requirements, approval of the

proposed project must precede approval of its Alternative Compliance Plan.

Commissioner Serrone asked whether approval of the proposed project would still

be valid if the major transit stop it is near is later removed. Senior Planner Ishijima

explained that its approval would be subject to conditions at the time of approval.

Principal Planner Noren Caliva-Lepe added that if the proposed project is approved

under current conditions, it would not be subject to the minimum parking

requirements even if the major transit stop near it is later removed. Senior Assistant

City Attorney Sandra Lee provided additional clarification on this matter.

Commissioner Serrone and Senior Planner Ishijima discussed the allocation of

parking spots for the proposed project’s townhomes and apartments. Senior

Planner Ishijima noted the proposed project’s Parking Management Plan

requirement in the conditions of approval and the Covenants, Conditions, and

Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the townhomes will include the Parking Management Plan.

Commissioner Serrone received an explanation from Principal Transportation

Engineer Lillian Tsang regarding the need for a local traffic study to be conducted

for the proposed project.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Transportation Engineer Tsang that

the location of the proposed project’s hawk light will be determined when developer

provides actual design plans of the proposed project’s roadway.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that the proposed

project includes a pedestrian walkway to the proposed project’s northwest driveway.

At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Ishijima explained that the lot

size of the proposed project was reduced due to street dedications.

Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Principal Transportation Engineer Tsang that

while the proposed project does not include any improvements to the bicycle lane

on Mathilda Avenue, improvements to the bicycle lane on Sunnyvale Saratoga Road

will be made when the median on that road is built.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that if the

proposed project is approved by the Planning Commission, it may still be appealed

or called up for review by the City Council within fifteen days.

Commissioner Shukla asked about the next steps for the proposed project once it is

approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Officer Mendrin explained that

upon its approval, its Alternative Compliance Plan will be considered by the Housing

and Human Services Commission and then by the City Council.

Commissioner Shukla shared her concerns regarding the noise levels within the

proposed project’s courtyards. Senior Planner Ishijima responded that Attachment

14 to the staff report addresses this matter, and the applicant’s presentation may

provide additional details.

Commissioner Figone questioned whether the cost for the proposed project’s rental

units will be lower since there will be fewer parking spaces. Planning Officer

Mendrin answered that the affordability of these units will be determined by the

proposed project’s Alternative Compliance Plan and acknowledged that the

proposed project will still include parking spaces.

Chair Iglesias confirmed with Principal Transportation Engineer Tsang that a

midblock crosswalk coupled with a hawk light will be incorporated to allow

pedestrians from the proposed development to safely cross the intersection and visit

the retail developments on the other side of Sunnyvale Saratoga Road.

Chair Iglesias received clarification from Senior Planner Ishijima about how the

definition of a major transit stop under Assembly Bill 2553 released the proposed

project from minimum parking requirements. Still, Chair Iglesias questioned why this

bill would apply when it was adopted after the submittal of the proposed project’s

Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) formal application. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe and

Senior Assistant City Attorney Lee confirmed that the project may utilize AB 2553

and that parking requirements do not apply.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Assistant City Attorney Lee that state

legislature can amend SB 330 to change the way it applies to relevant projects.

Chair Iglesias opened the Public Hearing.

Doug Rich (Entitlements at Valley Oak Partners) and Chek Tang (President at

Studio T-Square) presented additional information on the proposed project.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with the applicant team that the width of the

proposed project’s pedestrian walkways will all be appropriately sized.

Commissioner Pyne and Mr. Rich discussed the balance between the number of

parking spaces offered by the proposed project and the number of cars owned by

potential residents. Mr. Rich stated that since the proposed project is located near a

major transit station, the aim is to encourage residents to use public transportation.

Commissioner Pyne expressed his concerns about the negative impacts of the

elimination of minimum parking requirements, namely overflowing street parking and

the use of adjacent lots. He noted that government regulations must be created to

mitigate these impacts.

Commissioner Pyne highlighted some positive features of the proposed project,

including its bicycle parking, pedestrian connectivity, and hawk light.

Commissioner Pyne asked whether the proposed project’s walkways will be

adequately lit. Mr. Rich responded that photometric studies were conducted for the

proposed project to ensure that its walkways will be well-lit, accessible, and safe.

Commissioner Serrone noted that, compared to similar projects, the proposed

project’s parking does not reflect its projected occupancy as closely. He asked

whether the proposed developments’ units are intended to cater to those who do

not have a car or those who are not in need of one. Mr. Rich responded that a

decline in parking spaces coincides with current trends in the decrease of driver’s

license applications, state laws eliminating minimum parking requirements, and the

rise of automated vehicles.

Commissioner Sigura stated that the proposed project’s townhomes may lack a view

or ample natural light because they will be adjacent to a tall building. He added that

this may negatively impact their resale value. Mr. Rich responded that these issues

were addressed by increasing the setbacks for the proposed developments.

Commissioner Sigura asked whether the proposed project’s landscaping on the

north and south sides of Mathilda Avenue may be reduced to increase the width of

the sidewalk. Mr. Rich answered that the proposed sidewalk width will remain as

such to disincentivize pedestrians from using the back alley since it is intended

mainly for Emergency Vehicular Access (EVA).

Vice Chair Davis asked why the proposed project does not include the maximum

number of units permitted by the State Density Bonus Law for that site. Mr. Rich

explained that due to constraints from fire codes and structural requirements, this

maximum number of units could not be met.

Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Mr. Rich that the proposed project’s townhomes will

be ownership units.

Vice Chair Davis asked about the kind of networking that the proposed project’s

units will be wired with, but Mr. Rich was unable to provide an answer.

At Commissioner Shukla’s request, Mr. Tang provided the distinction between the

proposed project’s community play area and its courtyard. Commissioner Shukla

asked whether anything could be done to mitigate noise levels for these areas.

Commissioner Shukla and Mr. Rich discussed the vision for the proposed project’s

retail space.

Commissioner Shukla suggested that a partnership be formed so that residents of

the proposed project’s developments may use parking spaces in adjacent lots.

Commissioner Figone asked about the types of businesses that would allow this

area to thrive. Mr. Rich noted that the area is already thriving but shared his

preference for Topgolf in particular.

Chair Iglesias asked whether the exterior materials for the proposed project’s

courtyard can absorb sound. Mr. Rich explained that consideration was given to the

material for and the landscaping around the courtyard to minimize noise levels

there.

Chair Iglesias confirmed with Mr. Rich that residents of the proposed project’s

townhomes will not have access to the amenities available to residents of the

proposed project’s apartments.

Chair Iglesias suggested that although not required, additional consideration be

given to increasing the amount of parking spaces for the proposed project.

Daniel Alvarez, field representative for Nor Cal Carpenters Local Union 405, spoke

of the proposed project as an opportunity for Valley Oak Partners to hire

responsible contractors from accredited apprenticeship programs who are skilled

and live locally.

Larry M. questioned whether any consideration was given to the environmental

impact of the proposed project’s exclusion of recessed windows. He also suggested

that the Planning Commission approve Alternative 3 since solutions to the issues

that will result from a lack of parking spaces have not been provided.

Kim, Sunnyvale resident, highlighted her concerns regarding several aspects of the

proposed project including its height, the imbalance between the number of its

parking spaces and residential units, and its appearance. She encouraged City

leaders and staff to stand up for their rights and suggested that the proposed

project be put on pause until these concerns are addressed.

Arati Gerdes, Sunnyvale resident, shared her apprehensions regarding the

proposed project’s lack of parking, retail, and recreational spaces. She offered

solutions to these concerns and advocated for a more accessible path on Mathilda

Avenue for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Stephen Meier spoke in favor of state laws that allow the proposed project to move

forward, commended the proposed developments, and encouraged the Planning

Commission to address local impacts of the proposed project and improve

accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists by inserting midblock crossings,

extending the City’s shuttle system to this area, and considering speed reductions

on roads like Sunnyvale Saratoga Road.

Yelena Martynov, Sunnyvale resident, shared comments regarding the existing

traffic congestion on Mathilda Avenue and El Camino Real and noted that traffic

there will only worsen with the addition of the proposed development. She added

that the proposed development will negatively impact the look, feel, and culture of

the existing neighborhood and suggested that it be built closer to a Caltrain station.

Chair Iglesias closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that story poles were

previously required for single-family developments for a short period of time.

Planning Officer Mendrin added that story poles for a seven-story development

would be challenging to do.

Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that it is the proposed

project’s exterior windows that will be recessed and that their recession will have no

impact to interior window treatments such as blinds or curtains.

MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved and Commissioner Shukla seconded the

motion to approve Alternative 1 – Make the required findings to approve the CEQA

determination that the project is consistent with the ECRSP EIR and no additional

environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and

approve the Special Development Permit based on the Recommended Findings in

Attachment 3 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.

Commissioner Pyne emphasized that the Planning Commission has limited

discretion to deny the proposed project under existing state laws and recognized

that the proposed project offers much-needed housing, is close to transit, retail, and

resources, and is accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. He also advocated for

incentivizing community amenities, retail spaces, and the use of public

transportation to increase livability throughout the City. He concluded that the

proposed project, and other ones like it, make great additions to the City.

Commissioner Shukla spoke in agreement with comments made by Commissioner

Pyne. She also applauded the proposed project for its ability to provide housing

opportunities, open space, and accessible pathways.

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

He also spoke in favor of the proposed project’s proximity to amenities and transit

and its provision of potentially affordable rental and ownership housing

opportunities. He expressed his hope that transit in the area will improve over time,

the surrounding retail developments will thrive with the addition of more residents,

residents of the proposed project will avoid parking in adjacent streets and lots, and

the proposed project’s hawk light will be visible enough to promote the safety of

crossing pedestrians and bicyclists.

Commissioner Figone sympathized with concerns raised by the public and

encouraged members of the public to continue voicing their concerns at the state

level. He also noted that the proposed development is great.

Vice Chair Davis spoke of the housing and affordability crisis and emphasized the

importance of making the City more affordable and livable. He commended the

proposed project’s developers for their thoughtful proposal and its compliance with

City and state guidelines. Lastly, he confirmed his support of the proposed project.

Chair Iglesias stated his support of the proposed project and recognized the positive

relationship between the developer and City staff. He also encouraged incentivizing

public interests and noted that the proposed project is a solution to an area that

needs improvement.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 7 -

Chair Iglesias

Vice Chair Davis

Commissioner Figone

Commissioner Pyne

Commissioner Serrone

Commissioner Shukla

Commissioner Sigura

No: 0

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

5:00 PM on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. The Alternative Compliance Plan for the

proposed project will be considered by the Housing and Human Services

Commission in May 2025 and again in June 2025 by the City Council.

STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES

None.

NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS

-Commissioner Comments

Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin that a special

Planning Commission meeting will be held on June 16, 2025, and it will replace the

regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 2025. Vice Chair

Davis stated that he is unable to attend the special meeting since he will be out of

the country and will not return until June 27, 2025. Chair Iglesias noted that since he

will be out of the country on June 23, 2025, the Commission’s Chair and Vice Chair

will not be present for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on

June 23, 2025. Chair Iglesias asked whether the Planning Commission meeting on

June 23, 2025 may be canceled instead of the one on June 9, 2025. Planning

Officer Mendrin responded that he will consider other options and present them to

the Planning Commission soon.

Commissioner Sigura shared that he will be out of the country for the entire month

of July.

Commissioner Figone confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that the regularly

scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 2025, will be canceled.

-Staff Comments

Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin informed the Planning Commissioners that staff

did not receive any General Plan initiations for this quarter.

INFORMATION ONLY REPORTS/ITEMS

None.

Planning Commission Proposed Study Issues, Calendar Year: 2026

(Information Only)

25-0544

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Iglesias adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM.