City of Sunnyvale  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning Commission  
Monday, January 9, 2023  
5:30 PM  
Online Meeting: City Web Stream |  
Comcast Channel 15 | AT&T Channel 99  
Special Meeting: Study Session - 5:30 PM | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM  
5:30 P.M. STUDY SESSION  
Call to Order  
Pursuant to Government Code Subdivision 54953(e), the meeting was conducted  
telephonically; pursuant to state law, the City Council made the necessary findings  
by adopting Resolution No. 1089-21, reaffirmed on December 13, 2022.  
Vice Chair Iglesias called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.  
Roll Call  
Present: 7 - Chair Martin Pyne  
Vice Chair Nathan Iglesias  
Commissioner Daniel Howard  
Commissioner John Howe  
Commissioner Michael Serrone  
Commissioner Neela Shukla  
Commissioner Carol Weiss  
Study Session  
Proposed Project:  
Related applications on a 6.13-acre site:  
A.  
23-0135  
USE PERMIT: to demolish existing medical office buildings and  
construct a mixed-use development project including 110  
condominium units and 35,393 square feet of office space.  
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: to create 110 condominiums.  
Location: 877 West Fremont Avenue (APN: 202-23-007)  
File #: 2021-7922  
Zoning: O (Office)  
Applicant/Owner: Silver Lake Foothill LLC (applicant and owner)  
Environmental Review: No additional review required as per CEQA  
Guidelines 15168(c)(2) and (4) - environmental impacts of the project  
are addressed in the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE)  
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  
Project Planner: Aastha Vashist, (408) 730-7458,  
avashist@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Proposed Project:  
site:  
Related applications on a 5.82-acre combined  
B.  
23-0131  
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to demolish an existing  
surface parking lot at the rear of two existing office buildings  
and construct 225 apartment units at a density of 112 dwelling  
units per acre in an eight-story building inclusive of three levels  
of above-ground parking.  
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: to relocate the existing lot line  
between the two office building lots, resulting in a 3.82-acre lot  
for the office buildings and a 2-acre lot for the apartment  
development.  
Location: 1150-1170 Kifer Road (APNs: 205-50-034 and 205-50-035)  
File #: 2022-7168  
Zoning: MXD-I  
Applicant/Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group (applicant) /1150  
Kifer LP (owner)  
Environmental Review: No additional review required as per CEQA  
Guidelines 15168(c)(2) and (4) - environmental impacts of the project  
are addressed in the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) Subsequent  
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)  
Project Planner: George Schroeder, (408) 730-7443,  
gschroeder@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Adjourn Study Session  
7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING  
CALL TO ORDER  
Pursuant to Government Code Subdivision 54953(e), the meeting was conducted  
telephonically; pursuant to state law, the City Council made the necessary findings  
by adopting Resolution No. 1089-21, reaffirmed on December 13, 2022.  
Chair Pyne called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.  
ROLL CALL  
Present: 7 - Chair Martin Pyne  
Vice Chair Nathan Iglesias  
Commissioner Daniel Howard  
Commissioner John Howe  
Commissioner Michael Serrone  
Commissioner Neela Shukla  
Commissioner Carol Weiss  
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS  
Jaime Vasquez, field representative for Carpenters Local 405, spoke of labor  
standards, such as livable wages and medical and retirement benefits, that will  
enable constructions workers and their families to live in the communities where  
they work. He urged the City to rely upon the local workforce for developments to  
reduce commutes for workers and allow them to spend more time with their families  
after work. Mr. Vasquez also suggested that the City’s establishment of an  
accredited apprenticeship program will produce an experienced workforce with the  
ability to complete high quality projects safely and in a timely manner. Lastly, he  
requested that the Planning Commission adopt area labor standards in all projects  
being built throughout the City.  
CONSENT CALENDAR  
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.  
MOTION: Commissioner Howe moved and Commissioner Howard seconded the  
motion to approve the Consent Calendar.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 6 - Chair Pyne  
Vice Chair Iglesias  
Commissioner Howard  
Commissioner Howe  
Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Shukla  
No: 0  
Abstained: 1 - Commissioner Weiss  
Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12,  
2022  
1.  
23-0132  
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS  
Forward Recommendation to City Council to Approve the  
2.  
23-0130  
Non-Residential Housing Mitigation Fee Nexus Study and Adopt a  
Resolution Amending the Housing Impact Fee for Non-Residential  
Development (Study Issue) and Find the Actions are Exempt from the  
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines  
Section 15378 (b)(4)  
Housing Specialist Ryan Dyson and Stephanie Hagar, Principal at BAE Urban  
Economics, presented the staff report with a slide presentation.  
Commissioner Weiss confirmed with Housing Specialist Dyson that the City  
Council already has the ability to approve alternative compliance options for  
mixed-use developments that incorporate affordable units in the project.  
Commissioner Serrone questioned to what extent space per worker was  
considered, how current the data used for the study is, and to what extent remote  
work was incorporated into the study. Ms. Hagar answered that a variety of  
resources were used to examine employee density and noted that they were  
conservative when estimating the impact of new development when considering the  
fee amount to ensure that the maximum fee amount is legally justifiable.  
Commissioner Serrone questioned the reason for two tiers for the mitigation fees.  
Housing Specialist Dyson responded that the lower tier fee is targeted for smaller  
developments.  
Commissioner Serrone noted the high percentage of above-moderate-income  
employees in the Industrial/Warehouse land use category. Ms. Hagar explained  
that warehouses and industrial spaces are used for a wide variety of purposes and  
business types including tech start-ups. They considered the types of employees  
within each building type in the context of which industries occupy those spaces.  
Commissioner Serrone proposed the idea of eliminating the housing mitigation fee  
for developments that serve as a strong source of revenue for the City. He added  
that doing so might encourage more of those development types within the City.  
Commissioner Serrone inquired about whether it is concerning that retail, hotel,  
and industrial developments face feasibility challenges under the current fee  
structure and do not support a fee increase at this time. Housing Specialist Dyson  
and Ms. Hagar discussed other external economic and development factors that  
are posing challenges for retail, hotel, and industrial developments. These include  
increased land value and construction costs as well as uncertainty of the future due  
to the pandemic.  
Commissioner Howe confirmed with Housing Specialist Dyson that fees for all land  
use categories are adjusted annually for inflation.  
At Vice Chair Iglesias’ request, Ms. Hagar explained income distribution across all  
land use categories and the impact this would have upon affordable housing need  
and the fee rate.  
Vice Chair Iglesias confirmed with Housing Specialist Dyson that the mitigation fee  
rate does not intend to target a certain percentage of the affordable housing need.  
Instead, the aim is to offset the affordable housing need.  
Chair Pyne commented that only three developers participated in the developer  
focus group session described in page 13 of Attachment 3. Housing Specialist  
Dyson stated that a low response rate is fairly typical, but discussions with those  
developers allowed great insight into the budgets associated with non-residential  
development.  
Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.  
Mason Fong, author of the study issue, advised that more time is needed to  
effectively address the study issue and advocated for lower fees for retail, hotel,  
and industrial developments.  
Commissioner Howard asked whether Mr. Fong has a call to action for the  
Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Fong advised the Planning Commission to  
defer the study issue to allow more time to address Commissioner questions and  
thoroughly educate the Commission on all aspects of the study issue.  
Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.  
Commissioner Shukla agreed that a more comprehensive study of developmental  
impacts may be needed before considering increasing the fee.  
Vice Chair Iglesias also shared that he would like more time to review the  
information that has been provided since he has questions about the impacts that  
the fee rates may have.  
Commissioner Serrone noted that the city of Santa Clara does not impose a fee on  
retail developments below five thousand square feet and that the city of San Jose  
does not impose fees on retail developments altogether. He also asked whether  
there is an urgency to complete the study issue and proposed the consideration of  
differentiating fees based upon City location or project type. Housing Officer Jenny  
Carloni responded by providing an overview of the nexus study, explaining why one  
is needed, and stated that this study includes the information and analysis required  
for a standard nexus study. Ms. Carloni noted that, historically, fees imposed by  
neighboring cities fall within a very comparable margin. She added that the urgency  
to adopt fees stems from the adoption of the Moffett Park Specific Plan in the near  
future.  
Commissioner Howard spoke in overall support of recommending the staff  
recommendation to the City Council and explained why.  
Chair Pyne stated that he is prepared to advocate for the recommendation that the  
Planning Commission approves when he attends the City Council meeting that is  
scheduled to review this study issue.  
Commissioner Shukla voiced her support of staff’s recommendations.  
MOTION: Commissioner Shukla moved and Commissioner Weiss seconded the  
motion to recommend to City Council Alternatives 1 and 3: 1) Approve the  
Non-Residential Housing Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 3) Adopt a Resolution  
Amending the Housing Impact Fee for Non-Residential Development for  
Office/R&D Development to Increase the Fee to $11 per Square Foot for the First  
25,000 Square Feet and $22 per Square Foot for All Remaining Square Feet,  
Adjusted Annually for Inflation, with No Changes to the Fee Schedule for Retail,  
Lodging, and Industrial.  
Commissioner Weiss spoke in support of the motion and urged her fellow Planning  
Commissioners to do the same.  
Commissioner Howard expressed his support of the motion and shared his hope  
that the Planning Commissioners would arrive at a consensus.  
Chair Pyne stated that he is in overall support of the motion.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 7 - Chair Pyne  
Vice Chair Iglesias  
Commissioner Howard  
Commissioner Howe  
Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Shukla  
Commissioner Weiss  
No: 0  
This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the  
January 24, 2023 meeting.  
Proposed Project:  
Related applications on a 0.93-acre site:  
3.  
23-0134  
USE PERMIT for a new six-story hotel with 152 rooms, and  
VARIANCE to allow 14.5% parking lot shading where a  
minimum of 50% is required.  
Location: 1220 Oakmead Parkway (APN: 216-44-048)  
File #: 2022-7080  
Zoning: Industrial and Service (M-S)  
Applicant / Owner: Arris Studio Architects (applicant) / BPR  
Properties UCSC LLC (owner)  
Environmental Review: The project is consistent with the Land Use  
and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City’s General Plan and no  
additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA  
Guidelines Section 15183 and Public Resources Code Section  
21083.3.  
Project Planner: Kelly Cha, (408) 730-7408, kcha@sunnyvale.ca.gov  
Associate Planner Kelly Cha presented the staff report with a slide presentation.  
Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Associate Planner Cha that the project is  
exempt from public art requirements based on the size of the lot.  
Commissioner Serrone commented that the proposed project’s parking lot will  
largely be covered in shade due to the proposed building.  
Commissioner Serrone received clarification from Associate Planner Cha that the  
proposed project’s checklist is reflective of Leadership in Energy and  
Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Level.  
Commissioner Serrone stated that he has additional questions regarding the  
proposed project’s gas lines that he will follow up on later in the meeting.  
Chair Pyne requested clarification on page A1.3 of Attachment 7 concerning the  
calculation for LEED level. Associate Planner Cha assured him that this clarification  
will be provided by the applicant.  
Chair Pyne questioned whether updated Audible Pedestrian Systems (APS) will be  
included on the street opposite of the proposed project. Associate Planner Cha  
answered that the requirement improvement is limited to the project frontage.  
Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.  
Perry Patel (owner of Radiate Hospitality) and Adriana Cook (Architect at Arris  
Studio Architects) presented information about the proposed project.  
Commissioner Weiss confirmed with Ms. Cook that the proposed project’s meeting  
room accommodates approximately 113 individuals.  
Commissioner Weiss questioned whether the proposed project has the capacity to  
supply enough parking to accommodate conference or meeting attendees. Ms.  
Cook assured Commissioner Weiss that the proposed project offers more parking  
spaces than the estimated demand and that other modes of transportation (i.e.,  
ride share and public transportation) will be encouraged. Mr. Patel added that, in  
his experience, meeting and conference attendees are generally already hotel  
guests. He also mentioned that meetings are conducted during daytime hours  
when a greater amount of parking spaces is available.  
Commissioner Weiss noted that page E-1 of Attachment 7 features bollard lights  
that do not appear to offer downlighting. Associate Planner Cha responded that,  
due to Recommended Condition of Approval PS-3, the proposed project’s light  
fixtures must all be fully shielded to prevent unwanted glare or light spillage.  
Commissioner Weiss proposed that a mosaic design be implemented for the blank  
white wall located on the proposed project’s west elevation since such a design will  
offer long-lasting visual interest that will not experience wear over time.  
Commissioner Howard shared his concerns about covering the blank white wall on  
the proposed project’s west elevation with artificial plants. He suggested that a  
decorative metal panel or a mosaic design might be more suitable.  
Commissioner Shukla commended improvements made to the proposed project  
since it was last reviewed at a Planning Commission study session. She also spoke  
in support of the artificial plants that are being considered for the blank white wall  
located on the proposed project’s west elevation.  
Rani Fischer, Sunnyvale resident, expressed her gratitude for the proposed  
project’s LEED Gold Level, the avian collision risk assessment that was conducted,  
and the proposed project’s inclusion of glazed windows. She also voiced her  
opposition to the use of artificial plants for the blank white wall located on the  
proposed project’s west elevation.  
Ms. Cook presented additional information about the proposed project.  
Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.  
Commissioner Howard confirmed with Associate Planner Cha that Recommended  
Condition of Approval EP-29 has been corrected and may be found in Attachment  
13 of the staff report.  
MOTION: Commissioner Weiss moved and Commissioner Howard seconded the  
motion to Alternative 1 – Make the findings required to approve the CEQA  
determination that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and no  
additional environmental review is required as noted in the checklist in Attachment  
5, and approve the Use Permit and Variance based on the Recommended Findings  
in Attachment 3, and Recommended Conditions of Approval in corrected  
Attachment 4 (Attachment 13 of the staff report).  
Recommended Condition of Approval EP-29 of Attachment 4 has been corrected in  
Attachment 13 and reads as follows: “TRAFFIC SIGNAL – Developer shall install  
two (2) new Audible Pedestrian System (APS) push buttons with touchless feature  
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Oakmead Parkway and Lakeside  
Drive, including the required control unit in the traffic signal cabinet. Modifications  
requested at the intersection of Oakmead Parkway and Lakeside Drive that are  
signalized may require traffic signal improvements which shall be designed and  
constructed in accordance with current City design guidelines. [COA] [PUBLIC  
WORKS]”  
Commissioner Weiss recognized the proposed project for being carefully thought  
out and incorporating such technology as CoolSeal for its parking lot. She also  
acknowledged the applicant’s amenability to suggestions and stated that she looks  
forward to the seeing the proposed project’s progress.  
Commissioner Howard spoke in overall support of the proposed project and  
anticipates seeing the art that will be showcased on the blank white wall located on  
the proposed project’s west elevation.  
Chair Pyne expressed his support of the proposed project. He also called attention  
to his ability to make the variance findings and the applicant’s efforts to mitigate the  
proposed project’s heat island effect.  
The motion carried by the following vote:  
Yes: 7 - Chair Pyne  
Vice Chair Iglesias  
Commissioner Howard  
Commissioner Howe  
Commissioner Serrone  
Commissioner Shukla  
Commissioner Weiss  
No: 0  
This decision is final unless appealed or called up for review by the City Council by  
5:00 PM on Tuesday, January 24, 2023.  
Selection and Ranking of Potential 2023 Study Issues  
4.  
23-0133  
Principal Planner Amber Blizinski presented a brief overview on the study issue  
process and the procedures for dropping or deferring study issues before ranking  
them.  
Commissioner Serrone asked if all of the Community Development Department’s  
(CDD) study issues were on the list. Principal Planner Blizinski answered that only  
the CDD study issues that fall under the Planning Commission’s purview are on the  
list, but that some CDD study issues that were sponsored by the Heritage  
Preservation Commission do not come to the Planning Commission for ranking.  
Commissioner Shukla, regarding study issue CDD 23-03, inquired whether the City  
imposes an in-lieu fee for rental housing. Principal Planner Blizinski explained that  
this study issue would study an increase to the existing in-lieu fee for rental  
housing.  
At Commissioner Howard’s request, Principal Planner Blizinski provided details on  
study issue CDD 22-05.  
Vice Chair Iglesias confirmed with Principal Planner Blizinski that the link to the  
study issue papers were included in the staff report and that the Planning  
Commissioners are required to verbally vote on each study issue.  
At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Principal Planner Blizinski explained what is  
meant by the asterisked sentence in Attachment 1 of the staff report.  
Chair Pyne opened the Public Hearing.  
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.  
Chair Pyne closed the Public Hearing.  
Commissioner Serrone shared that he is surprised that staff is not in support of  
study issue CDD 22-04 even though he would rank that study issue higher than  
others. He added that he thought that previous action to address study issue CDD  
23-02 was taken by the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Blizinski explained  
that this is essentially a second Phase of an older study issue to rezone the  
properties.  
Chair Pyne advocated for and spoke in support of study issue CDD 23-02 and  
offered his reasons why.  
Together, the Planning Commissioners accepted the ranking of the Study Issues  
as follows:  
1.) CDD 23-02: Consider General Plan Land Use Designation Amendments and  
Rezoning for 22 Legal Non-Conforming Single- and Two-Family Dwellings  
2.) CDD 23-01: Consider Increasing Inclusionary Housing Requirements to 20% in  
New Residential Development  
3.) CDD 22-04: Adopt Personal Electric Vehicle (PEV) Parking Standards  
4.) CDD 23-03: Review and Potentially Update the Housing In-Lieu Fees for Rental  
and Ownership Housing  
5.) CDD 22-05: Consider Modifications to the Sunnyvale Municipal Code Related to  
Undergrounding Utilities  
6.) CDD 23-04: Explore Expanding Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.52 (Art  
in Private Development) to Include a Public Art Requirement for High Density  
Residential Developments (Including Affordable Housing)  
This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the  
Study Issues and Budget Proposals Workshop on February 16, 2023.  
STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES  
None.  
NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS  
-Commissioner Comments  
Commissioner Howard revealed that he is prepared to return to in-person Planning  
Commission meetings.  
Commissioner Serrone mentioned a quote from the Land Use and Transportation  
Element (LUTE) regarding the City’s lack of designated scenic vistas and shared  
that, in his opinion, this was a very sad thing.  
-Staff Comments  
Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin announced that a virtual community on the draft  
plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of the Moffett Park Specific Plan  
(MPSP) will be held on January 17, 2023. He added that this item will be reviewed  
by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2023.  
Planning Officer Mendrin informed the Commissioners that at the City Council  
meeting of January 31, 2023, the City Council will conduct a community benefits  
prioritization workshop on the MPSP.  
Planning Officer Mendrin stated that the City Council will consider the introduction  
of an ordinance to amend Chapter 19.36 of Title 19 of the Sunnyvale Municipal  
Code (SMC) on February 7, 2023. He explained that this item is also scheduled to  
be reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2023.  
Chair Pyne confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that the City Council will  
consider amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan for Block 20 on January 10,  
2023.  
ADJOURNMENT  
Chair Pyne adjourned the meeting at 9:56 PM.