Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Let's call to order the Planning Commission meeting of August 24th, 2026 at 7 p.m. The city does not tolerate disruptive behavior in our meetings. Sunnyvale prides itself on the rich diversity of our residents. We are committed to creating a culture of belonging where members of our diverse community feel included, safe, and respected. This planning commission meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means the commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. The speaker comments must be limited to the agenda item being considered by the Commission for con

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Recording officer, may we please have the roll call.

Now, this is the public's opportunity to address the Commission on topics not listed on tonight's agenda. This section is limited to 15 minutes and may be extended or continued after the public hearing's general business section of the meeting. Individuals may only speak once during oral communications. This Planning Commission meeting is a limited public forum and the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the Commission's authority, which is known as the Commission's subject matter jurisdict

All right. So I will go ahead and close oral communications. Now I will go ahead and open public comment on consent calendar items. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I have no cards from in the room. Is there anyone online? All right. I will close public comment and ask for a motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Pine.

Thank you, Chair. I move the consent calendar is submitted.

Is there discussion or advocacy on the motion? All right. Recording officer, please conduct a vote.

Okay, so we can move to our first General business item This is item 26-0713, the appeal of a decision by the Director of Community Development approving a design review to construct a 693 square foot first story addition, 1253 square foot second story addition, and a 714 square foot accessory dwelling. at 1413 Bedford Avenue. Is there a staff report?

OK. Thank you for the presentation. I'll now ask for questions from my colleagues. First, we have Commissioner Segura.

Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. I have a few questions, a few things to staff. How do you guys define the mass on the second story or the bulk build on it where most of the street is really one story? How we justify that?

OK. I believe I saw that the setback is 18 feet from the front. Is that correct?

So the first four feet, two feet of overhang and two feet inside for the roof slope is going to stay the same as existing, right?

Okay. The last thing I want to ask is about the houses close to the creek and did the Santa Clara Valley Water Company, did they do evaluation over there?

Vice Chair Davis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation.

So, yes, our new objective design standards come into effect on Thursday, right? And there's no, in these new objective standards, the two claims that are made in the appeal, they appear nowhere in the objective design standards. So going into a hypothetical idea, if we were to grant the appeal and deny the permit and then the applicant reapplied on Thursday, what would the process be then?

So it would be a similar process. We would do this all over again. Okay, thank you. That's my only question.

Thank you, Chair. Three questions. First one was the staff's opinion of all the adjustments that the applicant made. Had they not made those, would the staff have still supported the project?

Okay. Thank you for that. Second, so I have a question about massing as well. It's different. Generally when we talk about, when I generally think about massing, it's the view from the street. How does staff think about massing from the view of a neighbor?

Okay, and then does staff recall, is there any precedent that you can think of that we've used massing from the perspective of a neighbor to either support or deny a project?

My last question was, can you please remind me what the setback, the requirement is and what their setback is for the second story?

All right. Thank you. Any further questions?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. Just one question. This project involves an ADU. Does state ADU law pay any bearing onto this?

My question was similar, like my commissioner fellow said that about ADU. So I was just wondering that even if they have junior ADU or ADU, because we are promoting the extra residences, can they ask for concession or waivers or something like the terminologies that they can use as public other buildings are using it?

I'm not sure I understand. We are talking about the objectives, standard guidelines. But within that, even though they will have to follow certain things, but can they ask for concession or waivers because they are providing a new APU or something?

Thank you. That was a great, helpful, yeah.

Okay, and I just had a question about the I notice that's the gas meter remains are there gas appliances inside the Inside the house if I can punt that question to the architect who's here tonight. Thank you All right Seeing no other questions i will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item now in this case we have appellants and an applicant team the appellants will have ten minutes to address the planning commission first followed by ten minutes for the applicant team members of the public will then have an opportunity to speak uh... afterward the applicant team will have f

Can you pull the microphone a little closer to you? Thank you.

All right. Thank you. I think we may have a question from Vice Chair Davis.

Yes, thank you for your your comments in your presentation this is quite likely the The best articulated appeal I've seen I've been on Planning Commission Just bringing up the hypothetical from before right that the guidelines that you're stating were passed in 2003 They are being replaced this Thursday and the applicant has spent a good amount of time and money and I'm sure energy and emotion on putting these plans together. So I imagine that they would reapply if we were to grant the appeal. Have you gone through the new guidelines that are coming into effect and do you foresee?

Okay, so you have not considered if you're granted the appeal, what happens next?

Okay, you've answered my question. You have five minutes at the end to further express yourself.

I have a couple questions. You said that the house would extend across your full property line, but your property line effectively extends clear to the creek, right? You mean it would extend the length of your house?

So your current view also includes that big PG&E tower, is that right?

And I had the question earlier about the gas meter remains. I thought it said somewhere that this is a considerate of, this doesn't apply to you. Never mind, sorry. Sorry, thank you. Oh, Commissioner Shukla?

I mean, I have a thank you for presentation, and I understand it completely that your living area and bedroom area are facing on that side. I was just wondering that... That are you planning to add second story sometime or if you sell?

I didn't see that, that it's like your living area. But I was just thinking that many times it happens that people add second. Sorry, then it's the same situation. Happens, correct? Then you have to also completely block that wall. Anyway, but just was thinking that when people start adding both sides, five years later or something.

Thank you. So when I look at this project, and the laws are changing very soon, even if we voted in your favor, they can go in a week and apply again. And then with the new laws, there's nothing that can be done. In addition, the first thing I was asking about massing, the size, et cetera, et cetera, and it looks like the applicant did everything they could to raise the window seals higher and to go with obscure windows, so both parties have some privacy. I just want to recommend something to you. Behind my house, I have a yard of PG&E. which is not a beautiful sight to look at. And what I did

I do understand that, but you need to also understand that the planning process Division of the city try to accommodate you guys as much as possible by asking them to put up skewed windows and To raise the window since if you look at the front and the back everything is way lower which not affecting not you or the other neighbors I just want to put it out there. So maybe it will make you feel a little bit better.

You'll have five minutes at the end of the public comment to add any additional comments.

Thank you. Thank you. So now the applicant team will have 10 minutes to speak. So that's Eliza Ridgeway, Morgan Maeger, and Bill McIntosh.

All right. Any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Pine.

Thank you. This is actually a question to staff that was prompted by something that was mentioned by applicant. Does staff have any idea of just offhand of when the other two-story homes on Bedford were approved? Like was it before or after the current single-family home design guidelines?

OK. Yeah. I didn't expect you to have that off the top of your head, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. I had some questions about it. how SF6 interacts here, just because there's language in there about transitional massing. And I'm not really sure how there would be transitional massing here, given that it's one story, have homes on both sides rather than one side. But I think that's a matter for later on in this proceeding. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. A question. Just to confirm, you said that the neighborhood to the north would be impacted by shade. Did you do a shade study? Okay. What was that? Yes, we did.

Yeah, I have a question. So the financial part of it also will affect your design, correct? Like design meaning that I see that if you are building on the other side of it, first of all, it will create a shadow on the other house because the direction. And also, I feel that you will have to spend more money because this existing, the structure and everything is like the fine. Right.

And I just wanted to follow up on the gas question. At some point a remodel, maybe this is for staff now, At some point, a remodel is extensive enough that it triggers you have to comply with the reach codes and things like that. This is not that extensive?

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. And thank you. You'll have five minutes at the end to provide closing comments. Thank you. So now I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. The members of the public now have an opportunity to provide comments on this item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. And if online, raise your digital hand or dial star 9 on the telephone to indicate you wish to speak. Recording officer, do we have any cards in the room?

All right. So I will close the, well, I guess before we close the public hearing, the applicant team will now have five minutes to provide any closing comments.

Thank you. And now the appellant team, Jim and Anna French, you have five minutes to share any closing comments.

I was watching the clock closely, and I think that appellant was only given three minutes.

So appellant should have two additional minutes if they wish to use it.

All right, thank you. I will now close the public hearing and will ask for a discussion or a motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Pyne.

Thank you, Chair. Question to staff. Historically, when SF6 has been applied, how has that been interpreted for two-story homes that are adjacent to one-story homes? Because I thought appellant raised Interesting point regarding SF6, but I'm also struggling with how to apply it in this case because it's very much worded as transitional.

Yeah, no, thank you for that. I would actually have a rant about the vagueness of the standards, but I'm... But that's something that we spent a great deal of time addressing in previous hearings. So I am grateful that this is probably one of the last times you will be looking at this document.

I'm not quite ready for a motion just yet. But yes, I went through and read the whole 2003 standards. They're so vague and grant so much discretion that honestly, it's kind of hard to call them standards. I think what is coming into effect is maybe returning us to the rule of law because those standards are frankly an invitation for amateur architecture from the dais. So under these standards, I can find a way to justify just about anything I want to say. And that just bothers me. So I think we have a big improvement coming forward. We spent a lot of time on them. You can ask Ashna. I had a lo

First of all, even though I know that in our objective standard, we don't consider the importance of sky view. Correct, like we don't have any standard which decides that We have I mean because it's objective innovation because it affects health and say I mean Health like air fresh air and sky view is like when people can obstruct Certain percentage or 100% I'm just curious because as we are building more and more two-story homes and it's going to be more density We need that but do we have any mention of? The way we have a solar study, and which talks about the shadow of the building, how muc

Because in Los Altos Hills, because every neighbor, I mean, they are very powerful. I don't want to say powerful, but they all are not willing to cooperate. And they go really, they fight a lot for the view. But that's the neighborhood. And they have their guidelines that they have a hillside. And they have views of sky. So you can't just block. You have a hill coming. Then you can't just make the house on top of the hill and lit the whole house. And all the houses seem just like a little lighthouse. So I just think, I don't know, what will be the way to go and maybe I can inquire more about i

Thank you. So looking at the plans, and I myself doing design build, and I build a lot of houses in Sunnyvale, and I work with the city a lot. From looking at the setbacks and easements and considering what the applicant wants, there is not a whole lot different that they could have done. In this, I do know that the city of Sunnyvale always watching to follow the guidelines and regulations that they're putting for us. I want to make sure that everybody understands that also we have to obey those guidelines, and when we're going to make our vote, we're going to go based on the guidelines and th

And I'd just like to clarify, if we were looking at the new standards that are coming out in a few days, can you clarify, would anything be different about this or we don't know, we haven't looked at it?

Okay, and I thought we did have daylight plane requirements. I thought it was part of the El Camino Real specific plan where you have commercial buildings up against potentially single-family homes, that there was an angle of 40 degrees or something. Forty-five, correct, yeah.

Right, it doesn't apply in this case. All right, thank you. Commissioner Davis.

I'm ready to make a motion, actually. So my motion is to take the staff recommendation, which is alternative one, deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director of community development to approve the design review based on the recommended findings of approval in attachment three and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in attachment four.

I second the motion. Vice Chair to your motion. Yes, and to my motion. I want to thank the applicant for All the information that you shared, it showed that it's harder to build in this area than one would suspect. I look at the lot sizes, and I see 11,000 square foot lots, 9,000 square foot lots, and it's just like, oh, my God, you could go crazy. And then we see all the easements. I know there's the floodplain, and so it's actually pretty restrictive. I was very curious as to why the houses are angled here. And that explanation was really helpful. I've been talking since before I got on the

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I can make the findings. I concur with the City's comments of findings we met across all seven basic design principles in Attachment 3. Furthermore, I think that this case is exactly actually why the Planning Commission exists. I think the reality is, as much as we try to create language that's clear, It's hard to interpret it consistently. This commission exists in partnership with the planning department for that interpretation purposes. And I absolutely commend the appellate. I think you put together a very, very compelling case. I think that you were very articulate

So thank you And Seeing no other hands, I'll just comment that first of all I want to thank both the applicant and the appellant for their very well thought out detailed presentations and can fully understand the you know, the feelings on either side of this issue. I think many if not most of us who are homeowners can point to specific things that have changed our sidelines from our house it happens a lot for various reasons and so I fully appreciate the the issue and maybe our city standards should be different but Given the standards as they apply here, it seems like the applicant has follow

OK. And so what is the fate of this project?

All right. Thank you very much. So moving on to the next item. This is item 260725. This is the appeal of a decision by the community development director approving a miscellaneous plan permit for personal service use within an existing multi-tenant office building on 422 South Murphy Avenue. Is there a staff presentation?

All right, thank you. And now I'll ask for questions from my colleagues. Vice Chair Davis.

This may actually be for the city attorney. Okay, so we have an appeal of an MPP here and we have an appeal letter. So what is the scope we consider? Are we limited to issues that are raised in the appeal letter? Can we consider the MPP as a whole, whether it was properly granted? If you could just tell us what the ground rules are here. Yes.

Okay. So it's like the approval doesn't exist and we're adjudicating it. Okay. Thank you. That was my question. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I just had a question. If you could help me understand the required finding, the second one, a little bit more. When it says the proposed use ensures dot, dot, dot, will not impair either orderly development of or existing uses being made of adjacent properties. When they say existing uses being made, what does that mean?

OK. And then just to confirm, is the opinion of staff that something that could be construed as a competitor, let's just say a direct competitor, would that not be something that would impair the existing use?

I guess that's why I asked, because for the required finding, that's the part that, because it says, or the use to be made will not impair the existing uses being made.

So I understand. So I'm just wanting to know how to. I still don't know how to interpret that if it's saying, so the uses of the property are not impaired in development of or existing uses being made. Could you give me an example? Maybe an example might help me.

Thanks, that was a really helpful example.

Thank you. Can staff clarify for the record that under the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and California Code, or California law, commercial competition between private businesses and tenant leasing disputes cannot form the legal basis for denying or approving and land use of permit?

Okay, so given the fact that previously this suite was lacked of active personal services permits, can staff confirm that miscellaneous plan permits MMP process under the SMC is fully meets all the procedural requirements for the downtown commercial use?

Okay, so I think I know the answer for that, but just to clarify, I don't think that because of the nature of the downtown and all the additional parking that there is, that particular business would not require an additional parking because they can use the public parking, right? Okay, thank you.

Thank you. So this is zoned low-medium residential. Would it even be possible for a residential use of this property to happen without the building being torn down and redeveloped?

But I would it be possible for any but Would it be possible for the are the like are these sweets even habitable? like would it be possible to even get an occupancy permit for any of these and

Yeah, I appreciate staff is not willing to, is not going to speculate on this, but it was my instinct when I saw 1942 office building that it was not, it would not be likely that we could say no, it would not be likely that we could reasonably require a residential use in this one suite of buildings. the property, given its likely condition. I do think that's relevant and I do think that's relevant to the finding about achieving the objectives and purposes of the plans because I think you could make the argument that the thing that would most attain the objectives and purposes of the relevant

Yeah, that was obviously somewhat of a rhetorical question, but thank you.

Thank you. I have a question too. When you have miscellaneous plan permit, does it have a time attached to it? If the building is old, and let's say, they are coming up with to add to make the building you know useful land uses like we encourage it but does it have any time limit or like we don't so meaning that you give permit for like five years and then they have to come back or like is there because sure

So I suppose that if the building owner decides to demolish the building or do something else, then they will directly work with the business. So that time when they are, then that permit goes away.

So the city doesn't have any control over whether the building is very old. You just want to give the permit if they want to build that. Yes. Understood. Thank you.

Vice Chair Davis. Thank you, Chair. I was able to collect my thoughts here. So I'm looking at table in the municipal code, table 19.28.080, specifically at 4C. This is permitted, conditionally permitted and prohibited uses in residential DSP blocks. So this is block 10, right? So looking at 4C, accessory uses, commercial and personal service uses, incidental to and in combination with residential uses. So my understanding of commercial and personal service is that's... what you tend to think of hair nails estheticians but but not massage because massage is called out separately is my understan

And the fact that perhaps there's a neighboring business that is a personal service but no one's living there really is an independent factor. It has no bearing on this.

that's that's interesting when did this requirement come in 1993 1993 okay and so I guess sweet five has been salon since before 1993 so our research seems to indicate that it existed we have a sign permit that was issued okay excellent excellent Okay, and circling back, this is a de novo consideration. So we have to be able to make the same finding that the services offered by the applicant are different enough that they are not included in personal services, personal and commercial services.

Okay, and so really what we're talking about is once the finding is made, was the law properly applied? Or what would be the proper application of that finding? Maybe that's a better way to say it.

Okay, I think I got it. Thank you. Okay, well, maybe I don't understand it. The statement was made that it's as if the original approval, the MPP, never happened. But if we deny the appeal, then the MPP stands, right?

Okay, so it is as if that never happened.

Right, and is that why, so I had another question about why do we care, you know, the business is distinct from a traditional beauty salon, focusing primarily on hair consultation for individuals experiencing hair loss, and they were by appointment and hours, and It seemed like there was a lot of detail about what specifically is going on there. And there's already a beauty salon there, right? If it was a beauty salon, wouldn't that also fall within this similar type of services category? Why are we being so specific about exactly what this business is doing?

OK. All right. Well, let me ask about the timeline. Can someone apply for a permit before they have obtained a lease? Who applies for the permit? Does the tenant apply, or does the landlord apply for a permit?

So you're saying I could come down tomorrow and apply for an MPP for this same location?

OK. And you probably wouldn't give that to me. All right. Be smart. OK. And it almost sounds like for the permit, there were, in some time frame there, there were two people applying for a permit for the same location. Does staff flag that or notice that?

Okay. All right. Good. And the property owner, who I guess we will not hear from today, but the owner, presumably they have the discretion, right, to say I want to rent to person A but not person B or whatever, correct? As long as there isn't some discriminatory aspect to it. Maybe they want to diversify the types of businesses there or whatever.

Correct, yes. Not knowing what they were thinking, but okay. And... The only other thing is there was a quote that the standard development requirements are items which are codified or adopted by resolution and have been included for ease of reference. They may not be appealed or changed. Of course, by definition, standard development requirements can be changed, but can they be, can changes be made for this specific project? Like modifications to those or could you add a condition of approval or something like that?

Okay. And Vice Chair Davis? Commissioner Pine?

Thank you. I wanted to go back to the scoping question because of something I noticed in the municipal code that I want clarification on. So 19.98.220 which is the exclusionary zoning provision we've been discussing says And it's the section that says where the determination by the director of community development is made. And at the last sentence of that is, any decision by the director of community development regarding requested determination shall be in writing and shall be final. Now if we go back up to 1998-070A1, we get appeal of director decision to planning commission. Any person agr

OK, seeing no other hands, let's go to the public hearing on this specific item. There is one appellant and one applicant. We should be getting pretty good at this now. The appellant will have 10 minutes to address the planning commission first, followed by 10 minutes for the applicant. Members of the public will then have an opportunity to speak. Afterward the applicant will have five minutes to provide closing comments first followed by five minutes for the appellant so anyone any member of the public who wants to speak in the room should give a Submit a speaker card to the recording officer

Okay, I'll ask for questions from my colleagues now. Commissioner Iglesias.

Thank you, Chair. Just a quick clarifying question for the staff. Can you elaborate on the email on 630 that said that the business licensed the position by mistake?

So at this point, we're hearing questions and comments from commissioners. And you'll have an opportunity to come back and make comments. Thank you. Commissioner Shukla.

Oh, I have a question for you too. Because as far as I remember that I've taken business licenses and people have home business and it's very easy process. Like when I go and do business with other city, I have to take license and they don't check on, I'm not sure that they do have to check or something. You fill up the form and they just pay for the, like whatever the money you have to pay and Because you're doing some business with the city, and you have to pay for the license. Why does it, if somebody comes and applies for business license, why it is by mistake?

So a question for staff. I mean, knowing what we know now, is there something that differentiates The appellant's request for a permit from the applicant's request for a permit, is there some reason why one would be approved and one and the other would not?

So that's kind of what I'm asking. What is that information that made the difference?

But a hair salon would be consistent with the other uses at that site, right, if it had been just a hair salon?

So are you saying that a hair salon at the, what was it, number one site, the new site, would not have been approved?

Okay, I think it said there didn't say there was only one chair in that Correct yeah, two chairs and two chairs. Yeah. All right, I Guess intensive is kind of relative All right Commissioner begoni

I just had a question. So if this has happened in the past before where the process got out of sequence, how does the city resolve that? What's the process to do that?

Has something like this occurred before in the past, something similar?

Thank you. Are there other businesses in the vicinity of that business that is also under the MPP?

No. If there is, let's say, a door from help place, the next door over, or two or three doors, other businesses that are under of the MPP?

So in a sense, when you apply for an MPP, it's obviously a different license than a standard license, like a health salon that will have six, seven chairs that are working on high volume and people coming in and out versus somebody that comes for consultation or... appointment with the business owner, correct?

So the following under these guidelines Thanks All right seeing no other hands now we will hear from the applicant for ten minutes

So that's, well, you'll have an opportunity to come back. Oh, oh, okay, that's what, okay, I'm sorry.

All right. Thank you. Now we'll hear from any questions from my colleagues. Vice Chair Davis. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. Have you been able to operate since the... Okay. Is it not permitted until the appeal is adjudicated?

Okay. Thank you. That's the only question I have.

Seeing no other Commissioner hands, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. Members of the public now have an opportunity to provide comments on this item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. or online, raise your digital hand or dial star 9 on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. Speakers will have three minutes to speak. First card I have is Kathy Gamsch.

And next, I can't read the person's name, but Marcelo Jr.

And the last card I have in the room is Sharon Horton.

And I have another card from Marlise Jimenez.

Well, this is not a forum to ask questions of the staff.

All right. I have no other speaker cards in the room. Are there any remote participants?

All right. Let's see, the applicant will speak for five minutes. We'll have the opportunity to speak for five minutes, followed by the appellant speaking for five minutes.

All right, so I will now close the public hearing and ask for discussion or motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Shukla.

Oh, I just want to say something which is not exactly related. I mean, it is related to that, but I've gone to different cities, even Sunnyvale, to get permit when I was doing like 10, 15 years ago. And when my applications are not correct, I don't fill up properly, or I don't ask proper questions, And sometimes I come out with no concrete answers. And then sometimes more professional, I mean, not professional, but like more experienced architect goes to city and ask the questions and they get the permit right away. And it's like, this has happened. And also it has happened sometimes the new s

Thank you. So I totally can relate to what Commissioner Shukla said here. Again, me and my trade as well, I go a lot of times for permits and sometimes we do something wrong and we don't get the permits. I do believe that first of all the applicant sent the paperwork and obviously had the signature of the landlord and meeting the guidelines of the city. which is the most important thing. I can totally relate to the appealant that, okay, I did not get it the way somebody else gets it, but that's not the applicant's fault. And I do believe that competition is a good thing. Now, as far as if some

Thank you, Chair. This is, I think, a pretty painful case for everyone involved, and that's been clear. I think it's also unfortunate that it would seem that, to me, I don't think that there's, like, anyone who's done anything malicious on either side. And I think that what is unfortunate is that you have someone who's persistent and And they made it and I'm not saying you're not persistent to be clear but that you you received an answer and you and you accepted it and Not in the right way or wrong way. I think that quite frankly in an ideal world in what we would we aspire to be here is that

Yeah, this is by far the most painful thing I've had come before me while on the Planning Commission. This is, I'm just consistently going through my head like, what are we doing here? What is the city doing here? We've got two women-owned businesses in this situation, and we've got so much zoning for this little downtown district, and we're not san francisco we shouldn't be this way my own personal history i opened a small business in san francisco in 2002 in a little neighborhood that was three blocks before i went and applied for any permits i read all 10 pages of zoning they had for these

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to everyone who came out tonight. This was a difficult case to come before us. And in this kind of situation, I just try to focus very closely on what we're being asked to do and what authority do we have to do it, what are the required findings and determinations to be made by the Planning Commission. While I'm sympathetic to appellants' claims of being previously denied in a similarly situated case, the fact of the matter is that is not before the Planning Commission tonight. What's in front of us tonight is the miscellaneous plan permit. by app by the applicant a

Let me just ask a question of staff, which I tried to ask earlier. But I think what I heard was that an application for a hairdresser at that location would never have been approved. Is that correct? Because it's too intensive.

Well, but there was the other condition that as long as it was the same or less intensive than other uses, that it could be approved.

Because it is a less intensive use, which is why I was asking earlier, why are we being so specific about that?

So, I mean, I think what I'm hearing is that even if the applicant leaves and goes someplace else and that's empty, that the city would still not approve an MPP for a hairdresser in that location.

So you're saying a hair salon could use that?

But they wouldn't have the requirements for the limited use, you know, by appointment and...

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Well, not seeing any other hands, I'll just also comment that To me, the sort of the competition aspect of this is, as has been repeatedly said, There are many hairdressers all over the city, and in my experience, and yes, I have had my hair cut, that I've never been to a place where there was just one person cutting hair. You know, it's always a lot of different people there, and they operate just fine. uh but the uh you know so the to me the more plausible point is the um applicant uh moving and presents prevented the appellant from expanding in that locatio

And what is the fate of this? The decision is final with the Planning Commission. All right. Thank you, everyone, for coming in and for your presentations. Yeah. So let's take a 10-minute break and return at 10.11.

Okay, we, moving on to our next item, 26-0639. This proposed project is a related application on a, 4.44-acre site, special development permit to demolish the existing 96,410-square-foot one-story industrial building and construct 137 townhome-style condominiums within 13 three-story buildings. And there's a vesting tentative parcel map to create 137 condominium units and subdivide into four lots. Is there a staff presentation?

Thank you for the presentation, and I'll now ask for questions from my colleagues. Commissioner Pine.

thank you chair thank you staff for the presentation question under section 19.38.095 clauses a and b of the municipal code would it be possible for the planning commission tonight to okay and just for everyone that doesn't have the municipal code memorized uh clause a says that required undergrounding may be accomplished on a time schedule approved by the planning commissioner director of community development Clause B says that as conditions of approval for any use permit or special development permit, Planning Commission or City Council may impose undergrounding requirements other than thos

OKAY. SO I'M NOT, AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO ADD THAT REQUIREMENT BACK. THE REASON I WANT TO WAVE IT UNDER 1938-095 IS THAT I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT CREATES A PHYSICAL That's a physical issue. I have that code up somewhere. But I think it's a very creative argument, and I think we would, and I would want to, physically precluding, that's the word. I think the argument used is creative, and I would prefer to just not get into it, and I'd strongly prefer to use 19.38.095.

Can we set the time schedule to be one billion years?

So PG&E is an investor-owned utility, correct? Yes. Would it be possible, theoretically, if somebody was really, really rich to buy PG&E and prioritize their project? I'm not saying likely. I'm saying physically possible.

Respectfully, I believe that not allowing physically to grow to essentially turn into surpluses is in the interest of the commission. And I'm concerned that we are basically reading the word physically out of the government code 65915E1.

I'm just saying I feel there's an avenue to do this under the municipal code. Okay, next question. Given the noted PG&E shortages, is staff planning to come back to Planning Commission and eventually City Council with an ordinance suspending the requirements for undergrounding transformers?

Is the director of community development planning on taking this scenario into consideration for future application of 1938-095F and G1?

Because I will say that I do not think it is in the public interest to be, it is not in the public interest to be making or to have municipal code requirements that are infeasible to me. It's not, I, and at the same time, it's not in my view in the public interest to be making I I think it is I think we I think we are I think we are bending over back. I think there are appropriate ways to address this and I feel like we're not using any of them right now, which I have a problem with. So my next question on a completely different, well, it's related but it's not this. Waiver number 12, undergro

I look forward to the applicant explaining how that is a material loss, an actual loss of units. But I have a major problem, but The language in the sheet we got, L6, says what I said. It says transformers will be screened using shrub planting. I would like to know why the materials we got were incorrect.

This is the bottom right corner of the page. It would not be in order. This is for staff questions. You can speak to it in your 10 minutes.

I'm referring to the submitted plans, sheet L6, the bottom right corner.

Thank you. Thank you. No further questions for now.

OK. Good thing I wrote the questions down. So looking at all the diagrams and the maps of the areas, the shared path's great, but I just don't know where it goes. What does it connect to?

OK, eventually, OK. Yeah. And I was noticing on the project data table that there seems to be an acre that's lost between the existing site and the proposal. Is that being portioned off for future development, or where's that acre going?

Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it. Those are all my questions.

Thank you. So I wanted also to talk about the transformer. I did a little bit of research and low NPG&E requirement for underground transformers. In California, PG&E owns engineering standards, especially engineering standard document 072149, set the rule at allowing subsurface transformer installation. These are not California state law, but they are governing the rules of PG&E, used to approve or deny such installation. So this, at the end of the day, a decision of PG&E, it's unnecessarily that it definitely costs more to the applicant, that's no doubt. However, it reduces humming noises. It

My last question is because we're giving a lot of concessions and waivers, do we still keep what the master plan is for law and stations as far as the look and

Last thing, I know that mainly most of the trains already changed to electrical trains, which is... a little bit less noisy and whatnot, but there was any study or any steps to, you know, they took any steps as far as consideration to mitigate noise, noise, even lighter train, you know, vibrations, et cetera, et cetera, because the proximity of that building is going to be relatively close, so... I was wondering if there's anything, anybody took any accountability or looked into it

Okay, I've got a couple questions. At the study session I was concerned about the BMR units that were, they were reduced in size and not necessarily distributed and I asked questions Can you get a density bonus based on the BMR units and then get a concession and then use the concession to reduce the number of BMR units, which seemed like kind of an end run around the intent of the law. But what they have done here to address that is they increased the number of BMR units although they are smaller and interestingly enough the square footage of the increased number but smaller size of the BMR u

okay well I won't I won't argue with that reasoning in fact the smaller units are presumably more affordable by design in addition to being subsidized so I think that's a good thing hopefully HCD won't complain And maybe this was asked, but the bike lane along, well, both two sides, what do these connect to? They're the tracks there, and what do they connect to?

So there'll be kind of a pathway along this?

Okay, well, that should be, all right, that should be good. And I appreciated... Commissioner Segura's comments about the noise or vibration from the terrain. I worked for a number of years in a building that was off of Kiefer along the tracks. And when people, we were used to it, but when people would visit, they would frequently think we were having an earthquake when the terrain came by. So it is significant. So I appreciate that comment. Commissioner Vigoni.

I just have two questions. I was looking at the page 44 on the conceptual site plan. Maybe I missed it, but the trash receptacles are all the way in the back far left corner. Does that mean that people have to take, they have to walk their trash all the way down to that corner? on my misunderstanding that. Okay, let me just look at that. My second question was, on the front of the property on Kiefer, there's at-grade stormwater planters in the front. Is that strategically placed there off Kiefer for flooding, or why would those be there? And I noticed that I don't see those anywhere else on th

Thank you, Chair. I just had a quick comment because the conversation about the PG&E undergrounding seems to be a charged issue tonight, and so I was looking into it as well, and I am not an engineer, and I do plug things in occasionally, but I did plug this into Gemini, and I do have Gemini Pro, and I just asked it point blank. Is there a density impact if you have a limited lot by going underground with transformers versus above ground and they gave a whole bunch of reasons why it does actually impact the ability to build based off of requirements in California for space around the undergrou

Thank you, Chair. I would just say that I would be very open to hearing an argument from the applicant why the undergrounding versus overgrounding would have a specific impact on unit count that is different than the argument that was presented in the appeal letter. The argument presented in the attachment Seven was simply that without being able to overground the transformers, it would be impossible to build any units whatsoever. That was the argument presented. As I've said before, I view it to be somewhat creative. If applicant wants to present an alternative argument, and again, I'm not sa

OK, seeing no more commissioner hands, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. If there is an applicant presentation, the applicant gets 10 minutes provided at the beginning of the public hearing to address the planning commission, along with five minutes at the end of the public hearing. Is there an applicant presentation? Yes. OK. Go ahead after that we will members of the public can Raise their digital hand or dial star 9 to indicate if they wish to speak Good evening commissioners.

Do we have any questions? Commissioner Pine.

Thank you. OK. I had a few questions regarding waivers. And I'm going to start with actually number 12. This is undergrounding exception requirements. As I just brought up, the issue I'm, well, I have a couple of questions. But the first one, frankly, is, Regarding the L6 sheet issue that I just brought up, what's going on with the transformer screening? Because I'm not sure I actually understand right now.

Yeah, the flow here is basically commissioner asks a question and applicant responds. I'm bringing up all these documents up here.

I'd like to ask you a follow-up question on that. Sure.

Before we get there, I need to ask you a follow-up question. Okay, go for it. Okay, so density bonus law 65915 states, and I quote, In no case may a city county or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting certain criteria at the densities or what the consensus has permitted by the section, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What effect, you've made a strong argument that applying this development standard would have the effect of precluding the construction. What effect do you believe is appropriat

Can you give me an example of a project that would be of a development where the construction would be precluded in a way that is not physically? It is a principle of statutory construction that one should assume that all words in a statutory sentence have an effect. I'm asking what would be, I'm concerned that you're asking me to treat the word physically as surplusage. Can you give me an example of something that would preclude but not physically and therefore not be able to be waived under E1?

I'm asking the word physically exists in the statute. The statute does not say the effect of precluding. It is the effect of physically precluding. I'm concerned that you're asking us to read the word physically out of the statute.

I'm sorry, what's your question? I am concerned. I want to understand what the existence of the word physically implies that the statute would have a different effect if the word physically was not in the statute. My concern is that I get why it would be believe me, I get why it would be impractical. There's a reason I was trying to find alternatives to, I was looking for alternatives that didn't involve having to go down this road. But my concern is that I get that would be economically infeasible. I get that would be impractical. I am concerned that we are being asked to treat PG&E as a phys

That strikes me as fundamentally economic and not physical.

Right. Which is why I'm going down this road. Because if it's typically a concession, then it should be a concession.

This is all fine, but what's the deal with the L6 language?

Okay, that makes sense, although I think it would have been clearer if... There had been a diagram somewhere that's actually saying here are the transformers.

Question. Would the footprint of the undergrounded transformers be larger than the footprint of the non-undergrounded transformers? It is.

So to be clear, for the record, you are saying that if the transformers were undergrounded, the footprint would be larger, and it would like, and it would, can't be likely. It would result in a unit reduction if it was undergrounded.

But what I am saying is that in the alternative to the design today, if it was undergrounded due to the larger footprint, you would lose units.

OK. One other way. OK. So for just one other thing, waiver 14, internal pathway landscaping. I had an issue with this question on this one. So there are under 755 on the objective design standards. And for anyone following along, that's page 50. There are three bullet points. How big are you contemplating that waiver? Because I understand how the second bullet point impacts the unit count. I really cannot understand how bullets one and three would.

I flagged to staff that this might be worth, the next time there's a general cleanup pass, this might be worth looking at because I don't want people trying to waive the ground surface material requirement. But no, that is what I was hoping you were going to say. I just wanted to clarify that because... Obviously, the second bullet point is something that very reasonably a waiver applies to, just the other two don't. That's actually all I had, I know, though I think you had some other answers, but there are other commissioners with their hands up, but I know you also had some other answers.

So I'm going to be a little bit unfair. So our last hearing, we always ask the applicants, how can we get you to build more? Are there things in the Sunnyvale code that are different from other places that are pushing you towards slightly lower density? And what came up last time was that our fire requirements require wider clearances than other cities. So I'm going to ask you if we, let's say, tighten that so that we're similar to other cities and so on. Would some of these concessions have gone away or could we have gotten more units? I know I'm asking you a detailed question off the top of

Thank you, Chair. I have a question about the waivers you have asked. I mean, about the distance between main buildings, like 20, you require is 26 feet and you are reducing 12 feet. Then also you have the frontier setback, which reduced to three feet six inch and landscape frontage, which is reduced. So I was, I mean, it's going to be so dense. Have you done this kind of... because you said that city ventures you have done many where have you done like similar density of where the buildings are this close and because i i'm just wondering that i can't visual i mean it's kind of when you go int

I agree. I mean, it's like, I mean, I'm just, why am I saying is that, like, I know that in India we have so many, like, the densest cities, like Varanasi, where, like, people... have a store of like two feet by four feet like i mean seriously yeah so i have kind of been and it's like how you feel but this is happening everywhere but this is like 12 feet this is i'm just visualizing because people are fighting here about the sky views and this will be like 12 feet so you're really going to say hi to each other because you can almost see through it so i it's just um i just brought it out becaus

Members of the public now have an opportunity to provide comments on this item. Please submit a speaker card for people in the room. Submit a speaker card to the recording officer. For people, remote speakers, raise your digital hand or dial star 9 on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. Recording officer, do we have any speaker cards in the room?

Well, remote speakers are warned to limit their comments to the agenda item being considered. Speakers who are ruled out of order will not be given another chance to speak on this item.

All right. So I will close the public hearing. Now the applicant has the opportunity, has five more minutes. if you want to use it for any questions or

Thank you. All right. With that, I will close the public hearing and now ask for a motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Pyne.

Thank you, Chair. I don't see anybody else's hand up so I'm just going to go with motion for alternative one, determine the plan is consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR and LSEP updates subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15162 and 15182 and approve the special development term investing tentative parcel map based on recommended findings in attachment three and recommended conditions of approval in attachment four.

Vice Chair Davis? I'll second the motion. All right. Commissioner Pine to your motion.

Thank you. Okay. So first of all, I'll just note for the record that I'm making this motion consistent with the discussion in which we noted that undergrounding of transformers would have provided a specific unit reduction if proposed. In my view, this meets the requirements of E1 regarding physical preclusion. I will also say on that point that if we that the I don't want to see a lot of these waivers coming before us. If we do, the very first question I am going to be asking staff is, why did the Director of Community Development not waive the underground requirements under Municipal Code 19

Thank you, Chair. Yes, this is a really great townhome development. With the Greenway, all the amenities, I mean, you guys really know how to do townhomes really, really well. The only thing is when we zoned this, we were imagining something quite a bit bigger. And I would have loved to have seen your concession be height. And we set up to 100 feet. I would have been happy to go much, much higher. here, right? But I'm not a developer. I'm not the one taking the risks, right? So I know you have your formula down for getting the financing done for townhomes. You know how to build them. You know

Thank you. So it is a great project and will be a great improvement. I wish that the BMRs were a little bit bigger, not just in numbers of bedrooms, but in size. We're looking forward to see this project coming quickly and up, and thank you for doing it.

And I will also be supporting the motion. This project is significantly improved from the last time we saw it at the study session. And as everybody's pointed out, it's a great improvement over what is there now. you know, a well-designed project. I look forward to seeing it built like everybody else. I wish, you know, we could get more density, but we Basically, the incentives in place encourage these townhome projects, which we see over and over. So this will certainly be a great project, and I'm happy to support it. Seeing no other hands, recording officer, please conduct the vote.

All right. Thank you. And Thanks to the developer and the individual who spoke. Now we can move to non-agenda items and comments. The next portion of the agenda is for oral reports and announcements by commissioners and staff to share information. Commissioner Fagoni.

Sorry. I know it's late, everybody. I wanted to put a request in for the Planning Commission to consider requesting a staff study or study session to determine whether the residential parking spillover is occurring into commercial properties, with the city to check into that with the existing ordinances that we have, the enforcement framework, whether or not that's adequate, and what reasonable steps the city could take to support any businesses being affected by this. So this is coming from some of the feedback that we've all seen. I've heard it. that in some situations with the high density

I guess I'll get an email out. I just haven't done it yet. Thanks. Yeah, thank you.

And planning officer, do you have any non-agenda items or comments?

Okay. So this meeting is adjourned at 1135 p.m. I want to thank everyone for your participation in tonight's meeting.