Remarks by Nathan Iglesias
52 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 3
- Play at 1:42:48
“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…”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:53:27
“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?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:54:27
“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?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:54:47
“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.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:55:28
“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”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 1:56:13
“Thanks. That was a really helpful example.”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 2:28:22
“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?”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 3:11:49
“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…”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 4:12:00
“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…”
Planning Commission · Aug 24, 2026
- Play at 10:57
“Thank you, Commissioner Pine, Chair, if I may. I just point of clarity and procedural question. If we were to open this up for public forum now, and then members of the public were allowed to speak to give their opinion, the three minutes on this, wouldn't they then have another opportunity to give them another three minutes? And the exact same thing?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 11:23
“Totally understood. That's why, as just a point of clarification, I guess my concern is, and I want to, this is my own clarification and also for all of us, that if we had gone forward and then we're not just speaking on the continuance, but we're actually presenting or allowing people to speak on the noticing, would that prevent their ability to then speak in the future?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 29:22
“Thanks, Chair. Quick question. So regarding the code 19.94.030, under section C, number 8, the other justification can be any other information the director of community development finds pertinent to the application. Can you give some examples of what that might be?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 30:27
“Okay, that one, I appreciate that. I'm a little bit nervous just about that because to me, it's a bit of a catch-all where as I interpret it, it would allow the city to find something that justifies, but not necessarily the resident. And if we were to have some form of precedent of specific examples that have been used, that would help me better understand a consistent interpretation of that. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 45:46
“you chair um i had a couple clarifying questions for uh staff and the um arborist um first was for section c uh the tree is basically sound condition but or 60 owner's ability to enjoy the reasonable use my question there is at what point is i mean we can see the pictures and when i look online i see that uh the tree roots grow on average around 12 inches deep and they they steal resources and water and And they, the needles are acidic and which prevents other things from growing. At what point would that be crossing the threshold of like reasonable use?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 47:52
“I think I really appreciate that answer. When I look at this particular situation, the way that I observe it is that the trees I mean, living in Sunnyvale, let me just say it differently. Living in Sunnyvale in my backyard, I can probably grow almost anything. In fact, I have to stop things from growing constantly. Like tomatoes take over, strawberries take over, peach tree that I thought was dead came back. Like our soil here is just incredible with what we can grow. So to see a space that has like... that's effectively barren around it that just seems very inconsistent with what I'm used to…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 49:28
“so my only challenge with understanding it that way is the other ones are all about a reason to remove and if it's a second story house that screening would be beneficial and that would be a reason to keep versus versus a reason to remove and so for instance topography of the land um on action on water retention approximate age of the tree relative to its lifespan the potential effect of removal and soil erosion so there's all reasons justifications to remove so this is that's why when I see the current future visual screening is it that this doesn't have the potential to screen. That's why…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 53:12
“THANK YOU CHAIR THIS ISN'T A MOTION THIS IS PART OF MY DISCUSSION BUT ACTUALLY ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION I HAVE THAT COMMISSIONER PINE ACTUALLY STIRRED WAS SO THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE FOR A DECISION IF WE WERE TO VOTE ON TODAY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT WHAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS FOR IT IT GOES FORWARD THEY CAN DO IT AND IF WE DENY IT WHAT'S NEXT STEP”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 53:44
“I want to make sure that I understand procedurally. So if we say we're to deny it, what could the applicant do?”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 53:55
“Okay. But it was before the, did you go to Planning Commission back in 2011? Or was that only just at the department level that it was? Do you know? yeah uh for the 2011 permit um the decision on denial was not appealed so it stayed with the staff level so so i guess my question is are we by voting on this again are we circumventing our own process because if we were to deny it today in order to come back in 10 years would that be something to be legitimately brought back in front of us and they could come back in 10 years and apply for the same thing i thought that it was but it was if…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 55:54
“position without making a motion quite yet to maybe stir some discussion. I do think that as I read the requirements to allow for a tree removal permit, there are elements that are flexible in there to me. I think that there's space for it to be interpreted either way. And in general, I think that when there is that level of flexibility, my inclination is to support the homeowner, in this instance, I love trees, Sunnyvale loves trees. And I think that I would be in a different, I have a different perspective if this was a native tree. I think I'd also have a different perspective if I didn't…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:06:05
“Okay, I will move option excuse me alternative to grant appeal and approve the tree removal permit based on findings that the post removal meets one of the standards which i'll explain in a second and subject to recommended approval conditions of approval attachment three. So, for the particular. portion, I think it qualifies under section C, the tree is basically sound condition, but restricts the owner's ability to enjoy the reasonable use. And then subsection seven, the tree has outgrown its useful perfect landscape value due to its inappropriate species, size, and location relative to the…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:07:13
“Thank you, Commissioner Pyne. So for the purpose of discussion, what's been presented to us is a tree that may at one point have been useful to the property, especially when we hear about when it was originally planted there and what the property was originally used for, that being in the 70s. Now I think that what's been clear to us is that it's inappropriate in the sense that it prevents other use of the property. What's curious is the tree if there were actually other trees on the property now underneath it they would almost certainly be impacted the inability to grow a fruit tree and then…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:23:47
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:30:49
“It's alternative to. which is grant the appeal and approve the tree removal permit based on finding that the proposed removal meets one of the standards in SMC 19.94.060 and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in attachment three and the particulars I was citing in section 19. dot 94.060 with section c um subsection seven which the tree has outgrown its useful landscape value to say in its inappropriate species size and location relative to the existing structure of the property so this motion would up hold the appeal and allow the tree to be removed correct”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026
- Play at 1:34:51
“uh commissioner iglesias hey chair um i will not be supporting it um i i don't agree with the interpretation uh that we our hands are tied i do agree that uh that we are a quasi-judicial organization um but i do looking at the again at the code it is written in a way that is don't know if it's deliberately vague but i think it's probably the reason the reason the commission exists is for the exact purpose of the interpretation of something that's vague as this um and two the staff's point that when asking the question what qualifies as as reasonable like that that ultimately does come uh up…”
Planning Commission · Aug 10, 2026