Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, let's call to order the planning commission meeting of, uh, August 24th, uh, 2026 at 7 00 PM. 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 co

now is the this is the public 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 after the public hearings 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 Com

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 9 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.

Commissioner Iglesias. Second. Is there discussion or advocacy on the motion? All right, recording officer, please conduct a vote.

OK, 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, a 1,253-square-foot second story addition, and a 714-square-foot accessory dwelling.

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?

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

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?

um vice chair davis uh thank you chair thank you for the presentation um so yes so our new objective design standards come into effect on thursday right um and there's no in these new objective standards um the the two claims that are made in the appeal um 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?

Okay, thank you. That's my only question. Thank you.

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?

OK, thank you for that second. So I have a question about masking 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 only when there was a setback that was non-conforming but in this case the second story setback meets and exceeds the minimum required so in a case like this it would be typical that staff would approve it my last question was can you please uh 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?

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

We are talking about the objective 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 ADU or something?

Okay, and I just had a question about the gas meter remains. Are there gas appliances inside the house?

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 10 minutes to address the planning Commission first. followed by 10 minutes for the applicant team members of the public will then have an opportunity to speak. Afterward, the applicant team will have five minutes to provide closing comments first, followed by five minutes for the appellants. So I will go ahead and open the public hearing for this specific item. So Jim and Anna French, you have 10

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 comments and your presentation. This is quite likely. the best articulated appeal I've seen when I've been on planning commission. Just bringing up the hypothetical from before, right? 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 But you're not considered if you 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. Thank you.

I have a couple of 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, the gas meter remains. And I thought it said somewhere that this is a considerative, this doesn't apply to you, nevermind, sorry. Sorry, thank you. Oh, Commissioner Shupa.

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

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.

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. um in addition the first thing i was asking about massing the size etc etc and it looks like the applicant did everything they could a to raise the window seals higher and to go with obscure windows so both parties have some privacy um i just want to recommend something to you um behind my house i have a yard of pg e which is not a beautiful site to look at. And what I did, this is jus

They didn't make a proposal, but I do understand that. But you need to also understand that. the planning division of the city tried to accommodate you guys as much as possible by asking them to put up skilled windows and to raise the windowsills. If you look at the front and the back, everything is way lower, which not affecting not you nor the other neighbors. I just want to put it out there. So maybe it will make you feel a little bit better. That's all. Yeah, perfect. Thank you very much.

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

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

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?

Okay, yeah. I didn't expect you to have that off the top of your head, but you couldn't hurt to ask. I had some questions about, How SF6 interacts here, just because it's talking, there's language in there about transitional massing, and I'm not really sure how there'd 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.

Commissioner Iglesias. Thank you, Chair. I have a question. Just to confirm, you said that the neighborhood to the north would be impacted by shade. Did you do a shade study? OK. What was that?

Yeah, I have a question. So you, it does, 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 that I feel that you will have to spend more money because this existing, the structure and everything is like the,

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 nine 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.

Point of order. I was watching the clock closely and I believe that appellant was only given three minutes.

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

All right. Thank you. Um, I will now close the public hearing and, uh, we'll ask for a discussion or a motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Pine.

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

Yeah. Thank you for that. I would actually have a rant about the vagueness of the standards, 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.

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, Um, maybe returning us to the rule of law, um, because those standards were frankly an invitation for, for amateur architecture from the dais. And, um, uh, so under the standards, I can find a way to justify just about anything I want to say. Um, and that's. that just bothers me, right? 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

First of all, I have, this is, even though I know that we, in our objective standard, we don't consider the importance of sky view, correct? Like we don't have any standard which decides that I mean, because it's objective in a way, 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 The way we have a solar study and which talks about the shadow of the bui

Because in Los altos hills like because the they are every neighbor I mean they're very powerful like I won't 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 that guidelines that they have a hillside and they have views of sky. So you can't like 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 seeing just like a little lighthouse. So I just think, I don't know what will be the way to go and may

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 and I do know that the city of Sunnyvale always watching to follow the guidelines and regulations that they're putting for us and want to make sure that everybody understands that also we have to obey by those guidelines and we when we gonna make our vote we gonna go based on the guidelines and the regul

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?

I thought it was part of the El Camino Real specific plan that where you have commercial buildings up against potentially single family homes, that there was an angle of 40 degrees or something. 45. Correct. Yeah.

Right. It doesn't apply in this case. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Davis.

I'm ready to make a 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.

Commissioner Iglesias? I second the motion.

and uh okay and then share to your motion yes and to my motion um I I want to thank the applicant for all the information that you shared it showed that it's uh harder to build in this area than one would suspect um I I look at the lot sizes and I see a 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. And that explanation was really helpful. I've been talking since before I got on the comm

Thank you chair, yes, I can make the findings I concur with the city's. Comments of findings we met across all 7 basic sign principles and 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 a language that's clear it's 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 HE PUT TOGETHER A VERY VERY COMPELLING CASE I THINK THAT YOU ARE VERY ARTICULATE IN THE

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 sight lines from our house. It happens a lot for various reasons. And so I fully appreciate the issue and maybe our city standards should be different, but given the standards as they apply here, it seems like the applicant has followed the rules a

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 26.0725. 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. 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?

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?

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

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

so I understand so I'm just I'm wanting to know how to I guess I still don't know how to interpret that if it's saying so the uses of the property not impaired the development of or existing uses being made could you give me an example maybe it 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, 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?

any negative impacts okay so i think i know the answer for that but uh just to uh 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 uh parking right okay thank you commissioner pine

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?

Um, but I, would it be possible for any, but would it be possible for are the, like, are these suites even habitable? Like, would it be possible to even get an occupancy permit for any of these?

Yeah, I I appreciate staff is not willing to is not going to speculate on this, but I it was my instinct when I saw it 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. the property, given its likely condition. So I just 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 r

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 to make the building useful land use. It's like we encourage it. But does it have any time limit or like we don't? I mean, meaning that you give permit for like five years and then they have to come back or like is there because if... 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. MPP, correct? Land use, that land use and permit.

If it doesn't have any control over whether it's a 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 services, that's what you tend to think of hair, nails, estheticians, but not massage because massage is called out separately. Is my understanding

Okay. So to grant the MPP, the director essentially found that this business is different enough that it's not included in personal services, which would require a residential context. So someone would have to be living there.

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. Correct. It has no bearing on this.

Okay. That's interesting. When did this requirement come in? 1993. 1993. Okay. And so I guess, uh, suite five has been a salon since before 1993.

Okay. Excellent. Excellent. Um, Okay, and circling back, this is 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. 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?

the planning or the sorry the community development director has made the determination that it is close enough to that particular use such that the mpp would apply right and is that why so i had another question about why uh 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 there 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 tha

Okay. 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?

Okay. And you probably wouldn't give that to me. So, all right. be smart. Okay, and it almost sounds like for the permit, there were 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'm... 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. Like maybe they want to diversify the types of businesses there or whatever.

Well, I'm saying they have the discretion to do that.

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 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 want 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 This is and it's the it's the section that says that make 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 070 a1 we get appeal of director decision to Planning

Okay, 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 submit a speaker card to the recording officer.

Okay, yeah, 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 license was issued 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.

Oh, I have a question for you too, because as far as I remember that I've taken business licenses and, uh, 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, um, they just, you pay for the, like, whatever the money 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?

Uh, question for staff. Uh, I mean, knowing what we know now would, uh, is there something that differentiates the, um, uh, appellants request for a permit from the applicants request for a permit? Is there some reason why one, uh, would be approved in one and the other would not.

So that's kind of what I'm asking what 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, it didn't say there was only one share in that Yeah, two chairs. Two chairs. Yeah. I guess intensive is kind of relative. All right. Commissioner Pagoni.

He said a question, so if this has happened in the past before where process got out of sequence. How does the city resolve that what's the process to do that.

And something like this occurred before in the past something similar or.

Thank you. Commissioner Segura. Thank you.

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

No, like 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 the license of the MPP.

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

So they're falling under these guidelines. Mm-hmm. Okay, fair enough. Thanks.

All right. Seeing no other hands, now we will hear from the

all right thank you now we'll hear from uh any questions from my colleagues uh vice chair davis uh thank you chair uh thank you for your presentation um have you been able to operate since yeah okay is it not permitted until the appeal is adjudicated so it's been 93 days that i have not been able to operate okay thank you um 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 nine 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 Gamble.

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

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

And I have another card from Marlise Jimenez.

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

All right. Uh, so now, um, uh, now the, uh, let's see the, uh, applicant, uh, can we'll speak for five minutes. We'll have the opportunity to speak for five minutes, followed by the appellant speaking for five minutes.

Okay, thank you. Now the appellant. You have five minutes for any additional comments.

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 city for like 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

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. where somebody else gets it um but that's not the applicant's fault um and i do believe that competition is a good thing now as far as if s

Commissioner Iglesias. 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 received an answer 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 aspire to be here is tha

i got lost do we actually have a motion no no okay um yeah this is uh by far the most painful thing i've had come before me while on the planning commission this is uh 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

thank you chair uh thank you to everyone who came out tonight this is this is this was a difficult uh case to come before us i 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 what authority do we have to do what are the required findings and determinations to be made by the planning commission and well i'm sympathetic to appellants are claims of previous 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 m

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.

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 you're what i'm hearing is that even if this if the applicant you know leaves and goes someplace else and that's that's empty that the city would still not approve an mpp for a hairdresser in that location again if someone else wanted to do a hair salon let's just say if the applicant vacated and um

You're saying a hair salon could use that?

so long as there hasn't been a one-year lapse of use so that the use can continue but they wouldn't have have have the requirements for the limited use you know they by by appointment and uh

OK. All right. Thank you. OK. Well, I'm not seeing any other hands. I'll just also comment that, to me, the competition aspect of this is, as has been repeatedly said, there are many uh hairdressers all over the city and uh in my experience and yes i have had my hair cut that uh 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 and uh and and they operate just fine so um 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 t

30 to 50 statements in two sections. I mean, by the section, what's the exception? So, zero. No, it's just zero success.

okay we moving on to our next item 26-0639 the this proposed project is a related applications 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 mutants 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, 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 tha

Okay. So I'm not, again, I'm not trying to add that requirement back. The reason I want to waive it under 1938.095 is that I think the argument that it creates a physical That's a physical thing 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 that's, I think the argument used is creative and I would prefer to just not get into it. And I'd rather, and I'd strongly prefer to use 19.38.095.

So- Can we set the time schedule to be 1 billion years?

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. i prefer not to go down the avenue of these hypotheticals like let's cut let's focus on what's before the commission i i respectfully i believe that not allowing physical legal not allowing physically to grow to essentially be turned into surpluses is in the interest of the commission And I'm concerned that we are basically reading the word physically out of government code 65915E1.

I'm just saying I feel there's an avenue to do this under the municipal code and I would okay next question uh given the noted pg e shortages uh is staff planning to come back to the plan coming back to planning commission and eventually city council with an ordinance suspending the requirements for for undergrounding for uh undergrounding transformers we don't have a study of community to be consideration for future application of 1938-09 and g1 thank you I I think we'll have to take that all into consideration as far as further amend terminations go I because I will said I do not think it is

I look forward to the applicant explaining how that will loss actually how that is a material loss of 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. Okay.

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

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 with 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 not necessarily that it definitely costs more to the applicant. That's no doubt. However, it reduces humming nois

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

um last thing i know that uh trains always know he was considered even uh like you know that vibrations etc etc because the proximity of that uh below so I was wondering if there's anything anybody took any accountability or looked into it.

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

Okay, well, I won't. I won't argue with that. Larry Paxton, reasoning, in fact, the smaller units are presumably more affordable. Larry Paxton, By design, in addition to being subsidized so. Larry Paxton, I think that's. Larry Paxton, A good thing, hopefully hdd won't complain and. And maybe this was asked, but the bike lane along. Well, both two sides. What are these connect to the tracks there and. What are they connect to.

Commissioner Segura's comments about the noise or vibration from the train. 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 train 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 walk their trash all the way down to that corner? I'm misunderstanding 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 don't see those anywhere else on the property, or if maybe the green um area in the middle is meant to do the same thing i was just kind of trying to understand that logistically why is that place there for a certain reason but yeah basically just around the trash receptacles just wondering does that mean people have to take their walk everything way down there is that just for the garba

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 it 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 underground

Commissioner Payne. 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 purpose. uh would have a specific impact on units that on unit count that is different than the argument that was presented in the appeal letter like the argument presented in the appeal letter uh the argument presented in the attack in attachment uh seven was simply that without being able to overground the Justin Cappos- Transformers the it'll be impossible to build any units whatsoever that was the argume

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. Okay.

Go ahead. Thank you. After that, we will, members of the public can submit a speaker card or raise their digital hand or dial

Thank you. Questions regarding wafers and . Let's do 12. This is under requirements. As I just, well, I have a couple of questions, but the first one, frankly, is regarding the L6 sheet issue that I just brought up. Why is, 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. Let me bring these arguments up here.

65915, in no case 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 insurance has permitted by the section, et cetera. What affect a strong argument that applying this development to the effect of precluding the construction What effect do you believe is appropriate to place on the word physically in this construction?

Can you give me an example 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?

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.

What's your question? I am concerned. I want to understand 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 physical law of the

That strikes me as fundamentally economic and not physical.

mean i guess then i get back to my other question which would be a non-physical preclusion financial infeasibility would be the non-physical so typically undergrounding is dealt with as a concession so right right that i which is why i'm going down this road because yes 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 just actually saying, here are the transformers. Here's how we're screening it. 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 be likely that it would result in a unit reduction if it was underground.

But what I am what I am saying is that in the alternative, if in the alternative to the design today, if it was undergrounded, due to the larger footprint, you would lose units. Thank you so much for saying that. Okay. One other way. Okay. So just one other thing. Waiver 14, internal pathway landscaping. I had an issue with this. There are impacts that we cannot understand how bullets one and three would.

i flagged the 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 the but no that's that is the 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 s

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, right? 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 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? And I know I'm asking you a detailed question

Thank you, Chair. Um, I have a question, um, about, uh, the waivers you have asked, I mean, about the distance between main buildings, like twenties, uh, you required is 26 feet and you are reducing 12 feet. Then you also, you have the front yard setback, which reduced to three, 56. And then escape frontage, which is reduced. So I will say, I mean, it's going to be so dense. Have you done, uh, this kind of, um, 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'm just wondering that I can't visu

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 Banaras, Varanasi, where like people have a store of like, two feet by four feet. I mean, seriously. So I have kind of been and I mean, 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 some, I just brought i

Okay. Seeing no other commissioner hands, 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 nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. Recording officer, do we have any Speaker cards in the room.

Okay. And do we have any remote speakers?

Okay. Okay. Hang hard, please. um chair did you have language to read before i call on the speaker 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 thank you hangar you have the floor to speak now okay

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

City Council Chambers, Thank you chair I don't see anybody else's hand up so i'm just going to go with a motion for alternative one determine the plan is consistent with Lawrence station area plan air and else have updates equal. City Council Chambers, seek subsequent er pursuant to sequel guidelines sections 15162 and 15182 and approve the special development tournament. City Council Chambers, Investing tentative personal map based on recommended findings and attachment three and recommended conditions of approval and attachment for.

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 that i'm making this motion consistent with the discussion in which we noted that undergrounding of transformers would have provided a sub a note a specific uh unit reduction unit reduction uh in my 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 wafers coming back coming before us uh if we do the very first question i am going to be asking staff is why did the director of communi

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. But I'm not a developer. I'm not the one taking the risks. So I know you have your formula down for getting the financing done for town homes. You know how to build them. You know how to market them. You know how to sell them. So the business person in me comple

uh commissioner segura 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 app and thank you for doing it

and uh i will also be supporting the uh motion this uh uh project is significantly improved from the uh last time we saw it at the study session and uh as everybody's pointed out it's a a great improvement over what's there what is there now and uh 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. uh seeing no other hands uh recording offic

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, 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 housing, in some situations, Properties might be seeing res

John Potter, and planning officer, do you have any agenda items or comments.

Okay. Commissioner Pai. I just need the extra additional sheets. That's all I need as well.

That's it for me. Okay. So this meeting is adjourned at 11.35 p.m. I want to thank everyone for your participation in tonight's meeting.