Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah test.

Good evening.

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 consent calendar or public hearing items. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the commission's authority, generally referred to as within the commission's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not related to an agenda item, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreement with the content of their speech. Location and online meeting details are available on the Planning Commission meeting agenda. Use the Show Captions button to view captions on Zoom. Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time I call the item for oral communications. Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time I close the public hearing on the agenda item. speakers are requested to keep their comments the time period set for public comments for the agenda item which will be strictly enforced guidelines are posted on the city's website and on the planning commission meeting agenda please stand if you are able and join me in salute to the flag

recording officer may we please have the roll call commissioner shukla president chair cerrone president commissioner fagoni president commissioner pine president commissioner iglesias president commissioner segura president vice chair davis we have seven commissioners present

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 Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are outside the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. This allows the Commission to conduct its business in a reasonably efficient manner and protects the rights of other speakers. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of disagreement with the content of their speech. 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 will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. I have no cards in the room. Recording officer, is there anyone online?

No remote speakers wishing to speak at this time.

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?

No, there's not, Chair.

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.

The motion passes with six yeses and Commissioner Segura abstaining.

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.

at 1413 bedford avenue is there a staff report yes there is hi good evening my name is noren kaliva lepe and i will be presenting this item on behalf of christian mendoza who's out today The proposed project is for a first and second story addition, resulting in 3,567 square feet and 36% FAR for the primary dwelling unit. A 714 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit will also be added to the back. This project started as a staff level design review application with neighborhood notification. Staff approved this project earlier this year on May 27th. A neighbor subsequently filed an appeal on June 10th. The project site is located at the southwest corner of the city within a single family neighborhood that backs up to Stevens Creek. The existing house and first floor addition is centered on the lot. The brown color that you see on your screen is the second floor, which is new. And it's sided towards the left side of the property, which is the south property line. This next slide is the first floor floor plan the Gray, is the new two car garage there was a carport previously there that will be demolished. The hash that you see in the back is the first floor at you and on the right side and white is the addition to the primary dwelling unit, which is three bedrooms on the first floor. This is the floor plan of the second floor. There's a staircase that's centered on the screen that leads from the first floor to the second floor with three additional bedrooms on top. The next slides are a series of elevation drawings and renderings. This first one is the front elevation facing Bedford Avenue. The plate heights on both floors are limited to 8 feet. The total building height is just over 27 feet, where 30 feet is the maximum allowed. The ceiling area in the middle of the screen that you see is the staircase, which is pushed back about 40 feet from the front property line. This is a right side elevation. This is the rear elevation facing the creek. You'll see that there's a second story balcony. This is the left side elevation. This is a view from the appellant side. The things that are worth noting here is that the second floor windows are either high sill or frosted glass. This is a streetscape view the proposed project is at the Center of your screen and the homes on either side are one story. These are renderings from various angles. This gives you a sense of the mass, especially from the second floor and how pushed back it is. This is another rendering with the view from above. So as I noted, the neighbor on the south side, which is outlined in red, filed an appeal. There's two reasons why they submitted an appeal, and they are here tonight and will present in more detail. The first is their perceived loss of openness due to the placement of the second floor. As you previously saw, the second floor is pushed against the left-hand side closest to them. The second concern is the transition of the second floor. The appellant suggested that the second floor be pushed further towards the center of the lot in order for it to transition better. After reviewing public comments that we received during the noticing period, the applicant revised the second floor to try to address neighbor concerns. We received one letter from the neighbor, the appellant. The adjustments that were made were to the second floor windows, which I already explained their high sill or frosted glass. In addition, a five foot tall screening wall was added to the rear balcony. You see that on the left hand side of your screen. In addition, the plate heights were reduced to eight feet previously another iteration had a nine foot plate height on the second floor again the overall height of the home is almost three feet shorter than the maximum loud. staff finds that the proposed project as modified by the applicant does reduce privacy and visual concerns and adheres to development standards therefore staff recommends alternative one to deny the appeal and approve the design review thank you and i'm available for questions okay 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?

So you probably recall that our existing design guidelines are going to no longer be in effect starting August 27th, but this project fell under the existing guidelines now. So under the existing guidelines, the guidelines say if you're a predominantly single story neighborhood, the second story should be limited to no more than 35% of the first floor. And the proposal results in 41%. However, staff was able to support it because increased setbacks were proposed, which is consistent with what we've done in the past.

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

that is an existing first floor non-conforming setback that will remain all new setbacks will comply so the first four feet two feet of overhang and two feet inside um for the off slope is going to stay the same as as existing right that's correct so um any new square footage being added will comply with the 20 foot front setback requirement and 25 foot second setback requirement

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?

Yeah, no comments were provided. Before the creek, there is a fairly wide PG&E easement. And then, of course, our required rear yard setback. So there's a really long distance before you even get to the creek bed. But yeah, no comments were provided. Thank you so much.

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?

So we didn't evaluate the project for conformance with all of the design standards, however high level. The new design standards would allow a second to first floor ratio of 50%, whereas 35% is now. In terms of process, it would still fall under staff level planning permit. We would still do neighborhood notification because there's a new second story. It would be a similar process.

We would do this all over again.

Correct.

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

Commissioner Iglesias.

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?

staff would have likely required a condition of approval to require at least the windows along the side facing to be high seal or frosted that's a common practice that we have the privacy wall for the rear balcony that is also common practice for us to require a five foot tall solid privacy wall and then eight foot height for the second floor is also common

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?

You're right. That is what the design guidelines primarily speak of. The massing is typically taken from the street frontage. In our opinion, the setbacks on the second floor are so pushed back for most of the addition that it really does have a reduced mass from the street. Design guidelines that we currently have in place don't really address massing along the side elevations. It's primarily focused on privacy.

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

The minimum setback requirement on the second floor is six feet, and they're proposing seven feet along the south property line.

All right. Thank you. Any further questions?

Commissioner Pine.

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?

State ADU law allows an 800 square foot ADU by right. This is 714. So the city would not be able to deny the ADU.

Thank you.

And it's also, sorry. And the ADU is also not included in the FAR or lot coverage calculations as allowed by the state.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Shukla.

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?

Can you clarify your question?

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?

I see. So waivers and concessions are allowed through the state density bonus law and the state density bonus law comes into play when you are providing five units at least and 20 15 bmr so a project like this where it's a primary dwelling unit and an adu it would not be subject to the state density bonus law it would not be afforded waivers and concessions thank you that was a great helpful yeah

Okay, and I just had a question about the gas meter remains. Are there gas appliances 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 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 minutes combined to present. Looks like you have a presentation.

My name is Anne-Lene, and I'm French. And I appreciate the opportunity.

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

OK, my name is Anna, and that's my husband. And we really appreciate the opportunity to present our case. First, I want to start with our fundamental beliefs. We fully support and respect the needs of our neighbors, but in addition, we feel that the nation's support serves the community well and is an asset to the community. The key is it has to be done right and fair and shouldn't have a negative or very avoidable impact on neighbors. And when I mean avoidable, this is not the case where there is a growth in population and because of that, there's impact on neighbors. Okay, so. So why are we appealing? We believe that while technical requirements have been considered, critical city requirements have been overlooked. They do not account for JEP projects impact on adjacent properties. Here in the picture we see the neighbors and also our house. 1,289 square feet are concentrated only on one side. There's a long uninterrupted wall. It's not only concentrated in a small space, but it extends along the entire length of the shared property. There's discrimination, not only of proximity, but a long wall. it gives even a more significant negative effect. It really creates a bigger sense of enclosure. So what's a neighborhood explanation for building everything on our side? They say, we're continuing to live in it. We cannot demolish to build a foundation and second story in the north side. So because they are living on the north side, they're building everything on our side. So this is neighbors' convenience. It's not because there's a code or there's a lack of other options. The burden of the design choice should not be shifted in neighboring properties simply because it is easier, convenient, and less expensive for the applicant. And just to put things in perspective, construction inconvenience is short compared to the negative impact and permitted impact on neighbors. I want to make clear that we believe that there was an intention disregard for the neighbors. But intentions aside, the results still have a significant impact on us. So I'm going to start with the design guidelines. The picture on the right shows a one-story house, and on the other side, an existing one-story house, and on the other side, a two-story house. The picture in the middle, and again, these are from the city guidelines. The picture in the middle shows a new construction. To the right of the site of the hub, one-story house, it says it should maintain. a one story profile it is okay to build a second story profile in the next door neighbor is a second is a second story so in our case on the right picture on the right we have the little house on the right and the new addition and we can see that this is a two story to one story which is I can't see the guidelines that you should maintain a one story to a one story profile. So this proposed addition overwhelms the space. I put a picture on the bottom too, because I read somewhere that says the objective standards doesn't take into account the length. So I'm showing a picture here that it does. They have like every 20 feet, they have indentations. Of course, we don't care about this, but just to pinpoint that city requirements also consider length of walls. And again, this is in the city guidelines. So the next stage shows quotes about overwhelming impact. I don't want to read all of them, but I just want to read. I'll just read one. Avoid overwhelming the neighborhood with the structure that creates odds with the scale and bulk of existing homes. So again, this is in the city requirements. By the way, the red little thing, you can read the whole statement. So the important thing is that objective standards cannot account impacts like overwhelming and bulk on one side and disproportionate massing. Design guidelines are meant to get impact objective to the standard that objective Design guidelines are meant to catch impacts objective standards miss. So again, these are in the city guidelines. There's also an impact on livability. The proposed addition creates a significant sense of foreclosure, a loss of visual openness and natural views affecting our livability. I got a letter saying that the city doesn't require nothing, take care about openings or views. But it's not saying, oh, it has to be an opening or certain site. This is in the context of livability. So there are quotes also from the design guidelines. I can just read one. Protect property owner livability by discouraging inappropriate and out of scale adjacent homes. The next picture shows our home in the middle. It says, it's hard to tell, but there's a kitchen, the living room, our sitting area, and that's pretty much the heart of our house. And also that's the place in between the two houses. We do our woodworking. To the left, we see a table. That's where we, that's our open space. So we can see in the next picture what we have right now. And then that was the addition. So this was the city guidance. I'm sorry about my throat. So there's a couple of quotes too from the city guidelines. Surrounding neighbors who have invested in their homes over the years develop understandable attachments to the visual quality of their surroundings. The bottom line is that this is why city guidelines were adopted to ensure that projects are not just compliant, but livable and compatible. And of course, there's also um consideration for balance the current proposal shifts the balance significantly it concentrates fully the benefits of applicant with a lasting impact on neighborhood and i'm citing a couple of uh quotes from powers from the city from the city requirements overall This is exactly what the conditions. This is exactly the conditions that design guidelines are meant to address. City guidelines exist precisely to present situations where a project technically complies but creates a significant avoidable harm to adjacent properties. And again, all this is from the city guidelines. Probably the neighbor will explain that proposed mitigation. But overall, we want to say that after expressing our concerns, the neighbor were willing to meet with us to see for themselves.

27 seconds remaining. Oh, sorry.

You missed about 30 seconds.

So anyway, they have the proposal. We came up with a compromise proposal. I feel with my experience that whenever there is a problem, you also contribute with a solution. And you better have the solution to be able to win. So in the spirit of that, we offer a compromise, and I can continue later.

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?

I didn't bother. I didn't bother because this is the one that applies now.

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

Well, I have unfortunately ran out of time, but I came with a compromise with a compromise. See if it's a compromise proposal that I think would be nice for them. And I think they will like it better. So unfortunately, I ran out of time. okay all right thank you this is i don't know i think it's a nice compromise but um um but it's not your property i'm sorry it's not your property absolutely respect that i come from the point that whenever there is a problem just like to contribute to a solution I mean, it's not up to me to...

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?

Yes. Yeah, from the front where the garage is, the whole length would be covered.

And I want to point something to that. It's avoidable because they have other locations where they can build. So they are there because it's convenient for them because they don't want to demolish the place where they are living. So all the impact is on our side.

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

I understand that.

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?

Yeah, right now, no. We're both retired. You can probably tell. We're both retired and we've lived in the house for about almost 30 years now. They've been very happy with it. And so for us to, yeah, the only thing that I potentially will consider if it gets approved, that is right now, that I don't want to do it, but it will come to us, the onus will be on us to maybe cut our kitchen, potentially remove a wall so we want to get the views because it's right there where it's impacting, it's kind of in and out living area where we have our kitchen, our living area, so we go have lunch out there, we bring the food out there so we don't have to track through the house when we wanna enjoy the outdoors.

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.

We would love to, but I don't think it's for us practical.

Thank you.

Commissioner Segura.

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 just a suggestion to maybe better your life. I went and I bought some plants that can grow 22, 23 feet high very quickly in time. They can grow fast. And it created a whole green wall for me. And I don't see PG&E. something for you guys to think about the expense is not huge but maybe it will give you a little bit more privacy and seeing less of the house so it will not be an intrusion to your life right yeah so yeah thank you yeah thank you very much and uh i don't know if it's appropriate time but now please stop me

But kind of 1, respectfully clarification, the presentation is that by the city is that no changes were made after we wrote the appeal. It was that was done. I guess I guess they began the process in December. Some changes may be made, but after we wrote the different letters, no changes were made.

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.

I don't know if I understood the question, but for example, I read that they have already complied with the requirement of massiness. Massiness? Massiness, yeah. Yeah, massiness, stuff like that, because it have reduced at the end something, and the end something, and also the roof, the ceiling, the roof, the picture, no, the height reduce. To me, what difference does it make? Is there such proximity, such proximity, and also the length of the wall? So if the wall is like this, 60 feet probably, and they reduce massively by reducing this from one end to the other, what difference does it make?

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

John.

Thank you. 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.

Hi, excuse me. I am Eliza. That's Morgan back there. And I'm speaking for him and me. And then this is Bill, architect. I and Bill will talk. Morgan and I have lived in Sunnyvale for 15 years. And Bill's local, too. He dates back to 1976 in Sunnyvale. And I've made these slides to show you our project, which has already been pretty well described. we want to renovate and expand a partially finished garage conversion that dates back to the 1960s that's the green it's in poor condition it's not to code blue side we're going to keep living on the main side of our house we found a builder who is willing to work around us and we're not just going to keep living it during the build we are going to keep living in it all the way through we're not demolishing it we are keeping it as is. It is our living space in which we will continue to live. Per the question, there is gas in the house. The house is quite original from 1958. It's a gas furnace, a gas water heater, a gas stove. We're very excited if this project moves forward for us to be able to start putting on solar and phasing into electrical appliances. But as you will appreciate, that's not an option while we are in limbo on the project. There's the proposed addition. On the ground floor, we're building a garage and converting space into the ADU for my mom, Deborah. She's been renting in Sunnyville for the last 10 years, and we've designed an accessible new housing unit for her to age in place with us. The second story living space that we're adding is not just for Morgan and me. Our family also includes two daughters, ages seven and 10, and Morgan's mom, Marcy, who lives with us three months out of the year. I would just like to note that staff have been thoughtful and responsive in this process, and we really appreciate Christian and Noren's help throughout. We've known each other for going on a year now. property has several constraints that it's useful to show here easements prevent any building on the back of the house the red is the easements there's quite a few districts as discussed who have easements on the property the green is the area which is not buildable in every sense but it is not constrained by an easement so all of the living space under discussion is that green space in the front this is focusing in on that green space So on the north side, solar analysis shows substantial shade impact on our neighbors. And in conversation with city planning staff, that is a substantial concern. Not only do we want to leave the north side untouched because it is a perfectly good living space that we enjoy living in and don't want to demolish, we also could not build up without substantially impacting the sunlight and solar rights of our neighbors. This is an L-shaped house. The center area has bedroom window egress. It cannot be enclosed. We could not build an enclosed center over that house without shutting off all light and egress from those bedrooms. The proposed project takes it from an L to a U shape, maintaining that center courtyard both for safety and for having bedrooms with windows. neighborhood context 40% of the houses on our block face are in fact already two story, and if you look at this picture, you can see that a fair number of our neighbors are already two story, and that is how this development was built. City Council Chambers, Of those homes 80% of them 80% of the two story homes locate a two story wall along the property line abutting a single story home, as we have proposed to do. City Council Chambers, These are two houses that are a few doors down on our block I include those photos just for context of what the existing norm and status quo on bedford avenue is. Bill can describe how we've planned to accommodate the north and south side neighbors for this project. And I just want to give a shout out to my neighbors. What they were pointing out was that the things that we offered for the high sill windows and the obscured windows and the high height on the back That was stuff we'd put in the original plan. So they're saying that that wasn't a later edit, and they're correct. Bill is a pro, and he told us that there are best practices for being neighborly, and that was in our original submission to the city, not a later revision. So I agree with them.

I think that's what they were articulating about that.

project architect this project. And before we go on, I'd like to say I'd like to hire Eliza and Anna both to handle my planning commission hearings. Anyways, thank you for hearing this project. So, So I just want to run through some of the massing and design considerations that we had to deal with with this property. It has a lot of restrictions and challenges. So if you can see from the slide here, the two houses adjacent to the north and to the south, um are basically mirror images you know so and i believe they were originally rotated to face the side property line because of the restrictions on the properties from the utility easements so um we faced the same challenge from both sides but the northerly property would be impacted by shading if we were to move the second story toward the middle of the house i mean to the middle of the property So, you know, as I was saying that they'd like to live in the main portion of the house that's going to remain. I also think that we designed for the neighborhood context and in general, our practices to try and preserve what we can of the neighborhood in the existing structures. If there's existing value, the existing garage and carport. uh are uh built um in aging the existing garage was converted and there's actually uh open studs in part of it that um so anyways that was kind of the part of the house that seemed to be the best um candidate for uh renovation so um the goal was to create additional housing for as eliza said for their uh the two families so we have a multi-generation house um and uh and create a adu on the first floor that would be accessible for aging in place um The other reason, you know, we did consider the neighbors and for most of the addition, it's going to go the new garage and part of the second story will be adjacent to the back of their garage. So the truth is only half of it really is going to impact that living area that they mentioned. So. When Eliza met with the neighbors, we had come up with a proposed mitigation. We deal with this quite often, and a lot of times an evergreen screen tree will provide relief for any impacts from the neighbors' views and so forth. We proposed here in this rendering three evergreen serotypical laurels, which are fast-growing and drought-tolerant and evergreen. So we use that quite often.

Let's see. Sorry.

I'm trying to read. I can't read this. Sorry. Sorry. I'm just going to skip that one. So yeah.

So in these images here,

We diagram the viewing angles of the neighbor and a small quick rendering of what they may see from their kitchen window. What they described in their presentation, we're actually going to be tearing down a gable wall, which is actually approximately 14 feet tall in part of it, so we're changing that to an eave condition where the view lines basically follow it and the eave creates shading so the imposing mass that they're afraid of will be minimized by shadows and, of course, by the screening trees. we did we did we considered the neighbors on both sides and the neighborhood context as much as we could in the design of the project and as well as our clients needs and desires so I think that's it thank you all right uh 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?

I did not do that research, but I did look at the streetscape and just based on the way it looks, it appears as though it was likely built that way prior to 2003.

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?

Yes, we did. And with the current design, there's minimal impact. But if we were to shift the second story mass over, the impact would be increased the further we go over there. All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shukla.

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,

find a second story, you have to underpin the foundations and seismic reinforcing and it becomes a question of whether you just rebuild the whole house or not, you know, so it especially the new government into this recently, the new codes are actually more stringent. Now you can't have an epoxy and bolts anymore, you have to drill all the way through and underpin. So it becomes expensive.

Thank you.

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?

I did look at the comments that we received from the building division. So as part of our review of the plans, we route the plans to the building safety division and they noted that it is considered a major remodel, but did not note that gas was not allowed. After, if this project gets approved, then the next step would be to submit for building permits where building will review the project again. So if it is indeed triggered, that would be noted.

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?

No, we do not, Chair.

And are there any hands raised online?

No, there are not.

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.

We just want to thank you for your time. And if you have any questions, please feel free to send them our way.

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

Okay, thank you. Can I take back her 3.2.3 minutes? Joking. I just want to say thank you very much and kind of make it leave a kind of a positive note to some degree is, you know, there's a lot of things that we agree on for this one. You know, we've never argued that they couldn't build a second floor addition or an ADU. We think it's great. Society is changing and we really appreciate it and we never want to get in the way. But our main problem was all the impact was put on our house. And the one thing, and just you could tell we aren't experts of this, but we think there are reasonable alternatives that could have existed. And the thing I really would, it's very difficult for me to kind of tell a little story. A few years ago, we took a once-in-a-lifetime trip to the Taj Mahal. What does that have to do with anything? But basically, what it was, we looked a lot at it before, we studied it, and we were excited. But when we got there, it was like, wow. And the one thing I really wish, we invited the planning group to come out, take a look at the impact on us. But they said, no, no, that's part of our policy. So I really think if people saw and felt physically, it's our home, the impact on us, I think it would really make a big difference in your decision that is that it's not just only a house. This home is where we live, where we've lived for a long time. And I'm not trying to begrudge Morgan, Eliza at all for what they're doing. But what feels kind of unfair is what we're going to be losing. Our indoor outdoor living, our patios, in their design, they're getting all that. So we're losing and they're gaining because the way it was designed. Yeah, I don't say maybe people don't care if it's right or wrong, but it's just not fair. So please, thank you for your time to let us talk. And Ana, do you want to say anything?

Yeah, I want to say that this has taken a toll. It has taken a toll to navigate in this type of unknown world. When we feel that our being, when we feel that you're being negatively impacted and we're really exhausted. I feel sad that when this was applied, the requirements that the city guidelines were not applied. So that's unfair to us. So I would like to know why those guidelines were not applied when this was It would be impressive.

And maybe to kind of one of their comment is that, yeah, hopefully they got the impression that we all try to be reasonable and good neighbors. And I think both of us, both of the families, but it's just very unfortunate that there had to be, no matter what happens, there really won't be a winner in my opinion for now. So we'll feel bad either way. Thank you for your time.

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

Yeah, actually that's true.

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

Okay. Yeah, maybe the other thing I kind of wrote some notes down here is, you know, we just want to respectfully ask the commissioner whether more balanced design could be done. And instead of, and reduce the concentration of the impacts totally on our one-story home. We would like the second story mass redistributed so it's not concentrated only on our property while still allowing the applicants to achieve their dream home. And we're going to be having significant negative impacts on our house. I don't think I was ever the opinion or the purpose of any design where a dream home on one side and the other side will have, we have to kind of rework whatever we want to do. And that's just not, I don't think about needed by the city or wanted by the city of Sunnyvale. So.

And I think this is all happening because our requirements, the city guidelines will not follow. I think I presented a pretty compelling case of why the requirement or what type of requirements are not followed. So.

Okay. Yeah. So what can we say? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you all again. I very much. And, uh, you know, as sort of whatever happens and I kind of told them before the neighbors, nothing's personal. Yeah. We both have our needs, what we want, and we hope to hopefully wish we could find a win one for everybody, but we'll see. Thank you all very much.

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.

So that is the classic reason why we have modified our design standards to be more objective because those terms are subjective and it can mean something different for other people. SF6 addresses the example when there's a two-story home on one side and a one-story home on the other. There's an image that shows that as well. In this case, you have one story on both sides. So when you are talking about transition and balance, it is hard to imagine what that would mean for either of the owners. So I know it's a fuzzy answer, but that is why we're doing objective standards now. And we are required to adhere to objective standards.

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.

me too if there was a design guideline that said that the second story has to be centered on the lot or something like that then i think there would be more teeth for the city to hang our hat on but there is no guideline like that in our existing standards yep thank you uh vice chair davis uh i'm not quite ready for a motion just yet um

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 lot of revisions for those. I will add for my fellow commissioners from my kids were younger doing like birthday party drop-offs and things like that i do think the two-story most of the two-story homes in that neighborhood uh were constructed originally as two-story homes they don't look like additions from the inside nor from the outside so it would be hard to call this a predominantly single story neighborhood, though that phrasing is not in the 2003 standards. It is in the new ones, right? So I'm struck that it would be somewhat egregious that if you just happen to have, you know, I don't know the exact layout of this, but, you know, there's one stretch of three single-story homes, and you just happen to have one of them, and your property rights are constrained forever because of that. That would be unjust. I won't add any adjectives in front. It would be unjust. And then I also would like to remind the public that The Sunnyvale Code, our regulations, our ordinances, they regulate what you can do with your property. They're not designed to be things that the neighbors can use to restrict your property rights. There's been very thorough public processes to write all of these. Sunnyvale is incredibly transparent in these processes and so on. And they've been approved by your democratically elected city council members. So once the rules are there, they're the rules, right? And I get up on the soapbox all the time about how our property rights are fundamental to the system we have in this country. Too far in the founding of it. That's why we owned people, right? property rights are very important to us. And Sunnyvale has a good reputation for respecting the property rights of property owners. So let me see if there are any hands. If not, I'll go ahead and make, I see hands up. So I'll yield the floor now. Thank you.

Commissioner Shukla.

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 building, how much percentage it can go to the next door building. Do we have anything for the sky view?

There is nothing explicit in the existing or new design standards that protect views of the sky. In fact, the solar analysis or the solar shading limitation is not meant to protect the sky view. It is meant to protect the ability of somebody to place solar on the roof. So it's not for sky views. It's for solar.

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 maybe I can inquire more about it.

Well, Sunnyvale's flat and we don't have scenic vistas that apply to cities like that. There are some neighboring cities that have what we call daylight planes that are meant to protect views of the sky and mountains above. That's not something that the city has in place. And I don't know if there would be interest to do that. Again, our city is flat and there's not scenic views. Thank you.

Commissioner Segura.

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 regulations that are established here so um i i could not see uh the project done significantly differently especially when the applicant has certain needs. And if it would not affect you, it would affect somebody else and create even more shadowing. So I personally am kind of supportive of this project and just wanted to let you know that I don't see anything that really from the laws and the regulation is really not standing on the project. Thank you all.

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?

Well, we didn't evaluate the project under all of the design standards that will be new. Like I said, I looked at it more high level. Would the process be different? Would the mass of the second floor be different? The new guidelines allow more on the second floor than the current guidelines. It will be 50%, whereas the current guidelines limit it to 35%. so conceptually you could have more mass on the second floor with regards to process it would be the same process it would be a staff level design review we would send notices to neighbors because it's a new second story and it could be appealed if if it is approved or denied so same process as now okay and um i thought we did have uh you know daylight plane uh requirements

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.

That's the exception along El Camino, but not for single family neighborhoods that are zoned low density.

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 commission about how we need to accommodate three multi-generation homes, households, that the baby boomers are aging. Gen X people like myself are stuck in the middle between two giant generations. that we need to be ready for this. We need to give people... the means to adapt their property to what their current life demands, right? And so when I see a project like this that's doing just like that, doing exactly what I've been saying we need to do, we need to enable, and that I see that our city rules and so on are accommodating for that, I'm like, okay, we got it right. As to the neighbors, I'm very sympathetic. My kitchen window looks into my neighbor's bathroom. It's a single family home. I also live in an Eichler home, so I'm highly restricted on what I can actually do to my property. We added on to our home, wow, it was 11 years ago now. And I understand fully how Perfect is the enemy of even getting started. If you try to get everything that you want, you will never get started. Throwing, adding third parties into the topic and costs go up exponentially. I looked at doing a second floor on my home. And then I saw what the engineering standards were before. And I knew better than to even get a quote. You can see that it's going to cost tremendously. I actually lived in my home through almost the entire remodel. Good luck. Good luck with that. and yeah so that's that's my motion um i just can't i just can't make the findings to grant the to grant the appeal um the fact is is this is a developed city you have neighbors we don't have any sky view rights um and That's just the view from your kitchen and your dining room is just not enough basis to keep your neighbors from doing something very reasonable with their property. I understand you may need to make changes to your home. I lament that fact, but I just there's just not enough there for me to essentially deny the property rights of one neighbor over another in this case. So I hope my fellow commissioners are equally convinced and will support the motion. Thank you. And Commissioner Glacius.

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 WAY YOU BROUGHT THE CASE TO US I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION IS IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S INTENDED IN I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE'RE CONSISTENT. AND THEN I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO TAKE KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS THERE'S A LARGE AUDIENCE HERE A LARGER AUDIENCE NORMAL THAT WHEN FOLKS COME TO PRESENT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION that it's not about if you've been a resident here a day or a decade or two decades. It's not about if you're going to build a big house to live in by yourself or a big house to have a big family. We want to absolutely be consistent to make sure that every resident, the most recent resident, the oldest resident, gets the same consistent experience um because that's that's part of our values as a commission but to to both parties um at being neighbors um it's very clear you want to remain amicable and maybe let us be the bad guys in this instance so thank you and uh

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 and designed something within those rules and certainly taken uh, privacy into consideration. So, um, I think given the, uh, uh, the constraints and the, uh, uh, rules that we have to follow, uh, I will be, uh, supporting the motion as well. Uh, see no other comments, uh, recording officer, please take a vote.

The motion passes with seven yeses.

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

The decision is final. Thank you.

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?

Good evening. Yes, this is Cindy Hom, staff planner, and I'll be presenting this appeal item to the planning commission this evening. To orientate the Planning Commission, the subject site is located at the southeast corner of Iowa and Murphy Avenue. The subject site is bounded in the area in red. The site has a downtown specific plan zoning designation. It's within sub block 10. It's built with a 3,100 square foot, one story office building on a 6,500 square foot lot. This building was constructed in 1942 and did not include any residential uses in the past or presently. Currently the building is occupied by five tenants shown in the table before you. The applicant is located in suite one and the appellant is located in suite five. All the uses except the massage services are considered legal non-conforming. As mentioned, the building was constructed in 1942 under the general business or C2 zoning where office and personal service uses were permitted by right. The site was rezoned in 1993 with the adoption of the downtown specific plan. As such, the existing uses became legal non-conforming. Our current zoning regulations provide that personal services are allowed in conjunction with or incidental with a residential use subject to a special development permit. This exhibit shows the general tenant locations for the appellant and applicant. The appellant is shown in suite five, coded in orange. And the appellant suite is suite number one, coded in green. The administrative actions by the appellant and applicant are summarized in the next couple of slides. But very briefly, during April, the applicant and appellant spoke with staff about a hair salon use at the subject site. The applicant signed a lease on April 24th and security business license on May 6th. Towards the end of May, the applicant informed staff about a hair salon moving into the vacant space. As such, staff initiated a code enforcement case In response to the code enforcement action, the applicant and property manager provided additional information and requested staff's further consideration. Based on the permit history and researching the code, staff identified the exclusionary zoning provisions as a permit path. The use meets the criteria in that the use would not be more objectionable or intensive than the existing uses or the listed uses in the zoning code. Staff instructed the applicant to file a miscellaneous plan permit, which was approved at the end of June. On July 14th, staff received an appeal. The MPP permit was included with the staff report, and it provides for a 400 square foot hair salon facility that is operated by appointment only during the hours as listed on the slide. The MPP findings are listed before you. To deny the appeal, the Planning Commission must find that the miscellaneous plan permit approval meets the required findings that it detains the objectives and purposes of the general plan, specific plan, precise plan, or other specialized plan of the city. Secondly, the proposed use ensures that the general appearance of the proposed structures or uses do not impair and provide for an orderly development. In conclusion, staff recommends to deny the appeal and uphold the decision to approve the miscellaneous plan permit subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval. And that concludes staff's 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?

um yeah if you could just tell us what the ground rules are here yes um every appeal is a de novo hearing which means it's as if the prior determination wasn't made so the planning commission is not limited to the grounds that were raised on appeal and you must make the findings for approval so okay so it's like the it's like the approval doesn't exist and we're correct we're adjudicating it okay thank you that was my question thank you

Commissioner Iglesias.

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?

So, I believe the intent of the code is to address potential changes of uses on the site as well in situations such as this where there's a legal non-conforming use. So for that second finding, basically it's just to ensure that the development remains orderly and that it's not negatively impaired or impacted by the proposed use.

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?

So competition isn't a land use consideration?

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.

um.

That. I think you explained it well. Matt Benoit is the director of CDD. And that competition is not a land use finding, just as Google and Apple can exist next to each other too. It's not something we consider an impairment in use.

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

Thank you. A great example would be a noxious industrial use next to residential, for instance, or something that might require a lot more parking than exists on the site and could impair the other uses parking-wise, things of that nature. which is why we used that permit path because we determined that it was a less intensive use than those existing.

Thanks. That was a really helpful example.

Commissioner Segura.

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.

Let me just make sure that I understood you correctly. You're wanting clarification from staff. What is the applicable law that pertains to business competition? Okay. So I am not aware of any particular law. But in the zoning code, it doesn't have any requirements that speak to business competition. Again, in our zoning code, we have a land use table that identify what are permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and prohibited uses.

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?

Yes, we believe that it meets the purpose intent of the code under the exclusionary zoning. The criteria is that the use is not more objectionable or more intensive than the uses that are listed in the land use table for block 10. It does allow for office uses with a special development permit. It does allow for personal services as long as it's in conjunction with a residential use with a special development permit. When staff evaluated the code, we felt that the salon operated similarly to personal services. Currently, there's a massage facility there now. It's similar in the sense that they both provide personal care, both operate by appointments, and both have just standard business hours, 9 to 6. We also felt that the applicant had provided some additional information that this hair salon primarily focused on consultation. So we did feel that it did meet that criteria. We also looked at the existing uses on the site. Currently there are multiple offices. Again, we didn't feel that it would generate

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?

So residential is a permitted use, but

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?

Oh, go ahead.

I I can't speak directly to the the nature of the construction of the building, and and you know it's material quality. But I'm guessing that it would take a substantial retrofit to be able to be habitable from a living standpoint, and it's it's much more likely that if there were residential on the site, it would be a tear down.

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 relevant plans would be the residential use. But I don't think we're getting the residential use, and I don't... I'll just put this as a question. Is it against city policy to encourage vacant? Is city policy against leaving spaces vacant?

I don't believe it would be consistent with our general plan, which has policies and to encourage and promote business.

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

Commissioner Shukla.

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 the MPP approval is good for one year. If it's not exercised, meaning the use doesn't commence or they don't do any construction to facilitate the use, then basically that MPP gets expired. Hopefully that answered your question. And so if the use continues, they don't have to reapply for an MPP unless they're proposing changes to their MPP approval or a different use comes in.

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.

So in the event if it gets redeveloped, then yes, the MPP would go.

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 correct?

Correct. All those that you named would be considered personal service under our zoning definitions for personal service.

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.

Correct. And again, this is one of those unique circumstances. This is when we apply the exclusionary zoning. You know, just given the site history, what the zoning requirements are, the strict application of the code would probably prohibit this use.

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.

Yes, because it's an existing legal non-conforming use. It predated the requirement for a special development permit.

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.

Uh, so our, our, um, research, uh, seems to indicate that it existed. Uh, we have a sign permit, um, that was issued.

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.

Commissioner, may I answer that question? The code actually says in the exclusionary zoning section that the determination of whether or not a use is similar to another existing use and not any more intensive is a decision made by the director of community development and that that is a final decision. So that piece of it, whether or not it's similar enough to the massage used to be if to fall within the exclusionary zoning it was the final decision of the director and so now the planning commission would be making the findings um with respect to approval or denial of the miscellaneous planning permit okay so that fine so that finding is not under consideration yeah that's correct

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.

I would say that for the proposed use, do the MPP findings, can those findings be made?

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?

If you deny the appeal, you would also need to make findings for approval. okay so it is as if that never happened yes it's as if it never happened but the the determination that was made that is not here before you is whether or not um this use falls within um is close enough to a massage establishment such that the mpp is the appropriate permit path so

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 that also fall within this similar type of services category? Why are we being so specific about exactly what this business is doing?

Sure. So, again, just to provide some additional orientation for the Planning Commission, both the applicant and appellant were told what the zoning requirements are, that it would have to be incidental to a residential use and that it would be subject to a special development permit. So both received the correct information. The applicant did move forward and obtain a lease and did get a business license. And they did, in response to the code enforcement case, they did come to staff. with the information about their business and ask staff for further consideration and further research into the code. So we identified this permit path because we felt that it met the criteria. The reason why we're saying it's similar to a massage in the sense that it provides personal care and it's done by appointment is because, it's a permitted use. We knew that if we did take the route of it being permitted, we just wanted to have a clear record. Part of the problem is that there wasn't any documentation about the previous uses. We could just only conclude from what we can find from business license records. So we did advise the applicant that it would require an MPP just so we can memorialize the allowances for this use.

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?

It is the applicant.

Do they have to have a lease?

They do not, and the typical process is that an applicant will come into the city for due diligence. They will check with planning staff on whether the use is permitted or not and what the zoning requirements are. Then, depending on the action that's required, they would have to go through that process. So, unfortunately, the business license occurred out of order um they did obtain that before they had their mpp approved and they had a lease as well yes but again it's it's the lease is a is a private uh agreement between two parties and it's not a zoning consideration

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

Commissioner Cerrone, I'm sorry, Chair Cerrone. So the application does require the signature of the property owner. So there needs to be authorization. So sometimes the applicant doesn't already have a lease. I mean, sometimes the applicant is the architect, but they do need to have the approval of the property owner.

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?

Just for clarification, both the appellant and applicant were inquiring about the use during April time frame. None of them had an application with the city.

Yeah, thank you, Cindy. Yeah, there's both inquired, but one submitted for an actual permit with that property owner's signature.

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.

I really can't speak to the owner's thinking on that or even the timeline and who approached who when.

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

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 changes be made for this specific project, like modifications to those? Or could you add a condition of approval or something like that?

So staff, through the chair, basically you would be choosing alternative two where you would be recommending modifications to the conditions of approval.

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 Commission any person agree by a final decision of the director of Community Development may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission so wouldn't the decision by the director of Community Development under 1998-220 be appealable to us The appeal section is 1998-070-A1.

Okay, Commissioner Pine, I think reading that section together with other sections of that chapter, we've determined that we would reverse the information that we provided and that that too could be considered by the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

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. So I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this specific item. First, we have the... Appellant, Brenda Hambury-Green, you have 10 minutes to present.

Thank you to the panel and the Planning Commission of Sunnyvale. There are a couple of ways that I can do this. I think you have all the letters that I submitted, and I can't see that. I can't see that, but I do have it on here. I'll just look at it here. Okay, here we go. Okay, so you're going to look at the slide. Okay, so I am, before you go on, I've been a Sunnyvale resident for quite a long time, 20 years in my location there at Sunnyvale, in Sunnyvale. 422 Suite 5, and I've been doing hair for over 35 years. And I just don't do hair. I work with oncologists. So my main reason for doing the appeal is because I work with cancer patients and oncologists. And I make wigs for their patients and my clients. With that location, Suite 1, I had come to the city more than four times, but I was denied four times that I could not have a salon in that location. It was not permitted. And I hear you guys talking about the leases. I had first option to lease. I've been there 20 years, and I know the owners very well. And they gave me the option. to occupy that space. I did what was necessary to come to the city and ask for permission, a permit with the zoning committee. I was told no so many times that there was no reason I was told by the city staff to even go further with an application because it was not permitted. So I'm really confused about, I wanted to read this, but I think I'm just gonna speak from just based on what I've heard you all ask the question about. I wanna know how do you start building without permission, without a permit, and you built a whole salon and then you decide to apply. That I don't understand, and that is the question that I would like for someone to answer. How does that happen? I did what was necessary and come to the city, and I keep quoting four times because there are four people that I have names and information from that told me no. Because you have a lease does not give you the permission to build without the city's knowledge and permission. So if you want to go on, so I'm gonna just, what you have in front of you and what you're seeing on the screen, these are the things that I requested from you is the, approval also the occasions that i just spoke of that i was denied a similar business license was approved two steps from my door actually doing close to the same thing that i'm doing here there's nothing else that can be done in that spot and i wanted to expand my business over there But I was denied. So based on what you see, I'm just going to refer to this. And I've already stated the letters. I've already, I think, spoke about what my concerns are and why I filed the appeal. There are a few things that I'm concerned about with my neighbors close neighbors is you spoke about the. Competition. I've never seen any salon or any business as close in proximity as these two are. Doing the same apparently doing the same consultations. I'm Bijane Therapeutic Consultants for Haircare and Skincare Solutions all of 20 years. That's what I do. So for the other applicants that chose therapeutic consultants as a way to enter the business to say that they're not a contemporary or they're not really a salon, I don't see anything else to be done over there. My business is different. It has been different for all these years. And I want the exception to be permitted and put on record that it's not the same. Thank you, and I'll yield back to the panel for questions if that's possible.

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?

Sure. So I was the staff planner that spoke to both the applicant when they came in to inquire if a hair salon use would be allowed. I was also the person who fielded the appellant's complaint on May 27th and generated the code enforcement case. um so just she had asked to be kept informed of the code enforcement action so at the time that i helped her with the counter i didn't have the business license information um accessible on our front counter computer stations so i did have to go back and do some research and it was uh uh the business license had been granted. And again, as I mentioned, it comes out of the typical order of when a business license is issued. It's usually at the last stage once you have your planning entitlement. Unfortunately, It was missed, and so staff took the appropriate measures to address the issue. At any rate, the code enforcement case was opened. We basically, our code enforcement officer went out to site during the time of his visit. There wasn't anybody in Suite 1 that could access the tenant space, so he did put a notification on the front door. And so that's when the applicant and property management contacted staff and presented additional information and asked for staff's further consideration and further research into the code. Also, in speaking with the appellant and taking her complaint in, You know, both question how could these uses be allowed. So this is one of those situations where it's a very convoluted permit history and site history. We did try our best to, you know, address what we could through the code. So staff feels that the exclusionary zoning is a suitable permit path for the applicant. Unfortunately, the exclusionary zoning is not something that we offer with our general zoning inquiries or zoning information. Those are really for case-by-case basis. at least from staff's or my perspective. It's just that with the appellant's questioning, it came after the fact that we've received this application. And so that is why she's, you know, utilizing the basis of our appeal that she's been unfairly denied an opportunity. But again, the line of questioning came after the fact that we've done all this permit search where we identified this path. So.

All right. Thank you.

I have a question. I wasn't permitted. There was no option for me for the MPP. I wasn't allowed that option. And that's what my problem is. I didn't get the options that you gave the other applicant.

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, 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?

So again, Again, the business license was issued out of order. The business license, typical procedure for that is that we do verify the zoning at the time that we sign off on the business license. The other thing that I do want to, let the planning commissioner know is that a business license isn't a zoning permission. Um, you know, it's really for the ability to collect taxes. So it's, it's not as a zoning permission for the use. So, um,

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.

thank you chair ultimately it came down to different questions being asked at different times and different information being presented at different times and we were provided more information at that later to them by the applicant and that additional information led us to consider more options for the applicant ideally we You know, it would have been great to research them ahead of time, but with the first time for the appellant. But we weren't asked that same question and we were provided that same information at that time.

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

It was really to understand the use better and that it wasn't simply a hair salon. It was much more of a consulting business that was very small in scale, not intensive, was one-on-one service that you had to make appointments for. There's a lot of evidence presented to us that it operated much differently than your typical hair salon. And at that point, we looked into the use in more detail in the surrounding uses and considered it further.

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

If it was a hair salon, which it is considered, it's an unconforming use at the site. But yes, they exist there currently.

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

It's possible, but again, the finding that we had to make was that it was a less intensive, you know, intrusive use. And given the operations that were approved as part of the MPP permit, those business operations also, you know, constrain it to a very small, less intensive use.

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.

So typically if a use it doesn't have all the proper planning permits it's through code enforcement action.

So, and that was undertaken correct.

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

So we've used the exclusionary zoning provisions before, and we've, you know, applied the same planning practice where they've come in for a miscellaneous plan permit. They provide us with a detailed description of their business. They would provide justifications for how they meet the criteria. It's evaluated by staff. Staff makes a determination and then issues the MPP if it's found that it's consistent.

Thank you. Commissioner Segura. Thank you.

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

Are you asking what other uses require an MPP within that subblock 10? Is that your question?

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.

Yes, there's a high likelihood of other MPPs that have been approved for the downtown area. A lot of the times, some restaurants do require an MPP. Yes, so there is a high chance that there are other facilities and establishments within the downtown that have an MPP approval.

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 I would probably have to defer that to the applicant. They could describe their business more adequately. But generally, you know, with hair salons, it could be full service where they do hair, nail, makeup, other esthetician care. But I believe for the applicant, they're mainly focused on hair.

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

applicant uh for 10 minutes okay i have a question so that's uh well you'll have an opportunity to come back okay that's what they're okay i'm sorry i'm sorry i thought it was thank you thank you

Sorry to click the button for this. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Danielle Gamps, and I want to begin by thanking you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I'm a lifelong Sunnyvale resident, a single mother, a licensed cosmetologist, and a proud woman owned small business owner. I've spent my entire life in this community, and for the past almost six years, I have successfully built my business here in Sunnyvale at Salon Republic in downtown Sunnyvale, alongside 95 other small business beauty professionals. Tonight I want to briefly explain to you who I am, what my business actually is, the process I followed with the city, some important facts regarding the appeal. My business is called Glamour by D. I'm approaching 10 years as a small business owner and I specialize in therapeutic hair services. I'm not a traditional salon. I operate independently and by appointment only. I do not operate walk-in salon. My business focuses primarily on clients experiencing hair loss, thinning, or damaged hair, scalp concerns, and other changes in their appearance that can significantly impact confidence and self-image. I work with hair extensions and other hair enhancement options with 60% of my business being bridal consulting services. For many of my clients, hair is not simply about beauty. It can be about identity, confidence, and how they see themselves after experiencing a significant change in their appearance due to their hair-related issues. My goal is to provide a private, comfortable environment where I can work one-on-one with my clients and provide a highly individualized experience. That is why my business operates by appointment only. When I began looking for a new location, I wanted a small professional space where I could continue serving my existing clientele and grow my business. I found this space, I viewed it, and determined it was a good fit. On April 21st, I signed my lease and paid my deposit. On April 27th, I submitted my application for a Sunnyvale business license. On May 6th, that business license was approved with an official start date of May 18th. I then invested into the space and began to make cosmetic improvements that it would be clean, professional, comfortable, and appropriate for my clients. Before I began operating, however, I was informed that there were additional planning requirements that needed to be addressed. And this is something I want to emphasize tonight. At no point did I refuse to cooperate with the city, and at no point did I attempt to bypass the city's process. I followed the directions I was given. When I was instructed to submit miscellaneous planning permit, I did so. On June 8th, I submitted that application. On June 9th, I paid the required $539 fee. I continued communicating with city staff and providing the information requested of me. Ultimately, the permit was approved subject to the additional steps communicated to me by the city. Again, I followed those instructions. I believe the timeline shows a very clear pattern at each step when the city told me what was required, I did it. I'm here tonight not because the city alleged that I failed to follow the process, but because an appeal was filed challenging the city's approval. One of the claims made in connection with that appeal is that the neighboring business had previously applied for a permit to operate in the same space and was wrongfully denied. I want to be careful with my words because I understand the seriousness of statements made in a public hearing. Based on the information available to me and importantly based on the city's record, there's no record showing that the neighboring salon applied for a permit at this space and was denied. That distinction matters because it creates the impression that there was a prior application for this particular space that was denied, followed by my application being approved under circumstances that were somehow unfair or inconsistent. That's not what happened. I did not ask for special treatment. I independently found this space, entered into my lease, and went to the city through the established process. my only expectation has been that my business be evaluated based on my actual business model and that my application be evaluated under the requirements that apply to me when the city asked for additional information i provided it when the city directed me to obtain another permit i obtained it when there were additional steps i followed them and i believe the record demonstrates that I also want you to understand what this prolonged process has meant for my business. I have invested a significant amount of my own money in preparing this space While I have been unable to operate there, I have continued paying for the space while also renting a station at another salon paying a daily rent so that I can continue serving some of my clients to maintain some income. I have effectively but heavily carried the financial burden of two locations. I have also had to turn away a significant amount of business because I do not have access to all of my equipment, tools, inventory, and resources together in one location. This has meant lost appointments, lost income, and having to tell some of my clients I cannot accommodate them in the way that I normally would. My clients feel that impact as well. Many come to me specifically because they need specialized private and individualized services, and they have built trust in me over time. As a small business owner and a single mother, my business is also directly connected to my ability to support my family, as I and all my children have. this has been emotionally taxing i understand that that i understand that an appeal is part of the city's process and i respect the committee's responsibility to review it but i hope that you understand that there are real consequences for small businesses while that process continues i'm not standing before you because i refuse to follow the rules i'm standing before you because i followed the process received the city's approval and that approval has now been appealed I respect the neighboring businesses right to raise concerns and participate in this process. But I also believe this decision should be based on facts and documentation. There was no secret process. There was no special treatment. There was no attempt to bypass the city's regulations. There was simply a small business owner who found a space applied through the proper channels, responded to the city's request, paid the required fees and obtained the required approvals. This business represents years of work for me. It represents my livelihood and my ability to support my family, but it also represents a specialized service that I'm very proud to provide here in Sunnyvale. I choose to remain in Sunnyvale because this is my community and I want to continue building my business here while respecting the city's rules and working collaboratively with the city. So my request to the committee tonight is straightforward. Please evaluate this appeal based on the documented facts. Please consider the process I followed in the city's records regarding my application and approvals. Please distinguish the documented facts on my application from claims that are not supported by the city's records. I believe I have demonstrated that I acted in good faith, followed the process, communicated with city staff, and cooperated every step of the way. I'm grateful for the city staff who worked with me throughout this process, and I'm grateful to this committee for taking the time to hear me tonight. I simply ask that the record speak for itself. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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.

Thank you so much for having us here. My name is Kathy Gamsch and I've been a Sunnyvale resident for 35 years and I'm proud to speak tonight as Danielle's mother and a business professional for 35 years in the title escrow real estate industry. This case is more about is about more than just a permit appeal. It's about a hardworking small business owner, a single mother whose livelihood has been put on hold by an unsubstantiated appeal, despite doing everything the city planning department has asked her to do. Danielle has lived in Sunnyville her entire life. She built her business through hard work, integrity, dedication to her clients. She is kind and a caring soul. And that is reflected in the work and the clients that she has. She has earned national recognition and she generates and donates her time generously to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, American Cancer Society, and some of their patients. She is exactly the kind of entrepreneur our community should be encouraging. When Danielle found this location, she was so excited. She signed a lease, invested her savings in cosmetic upgrades to the space, obtained permit approval, prepared to open with full support of her landlord and the city. Instead, due to this appeal, she's been left paying rent on a business she cannot operate, losing income while trying to support her children. Every additional delay creates real financial and personal hardship. I've witnessed the emotional stress that she absorbs every day and it's not okay. I personally researched the claims behind this appeal. I came down to the city myself and I found no evidence in city hall supporting the allegations being made that there were Permits filed by the appealant for suite number one, and there's no permits for her suite number five. According to the appealant's own timeline, she states she was applying for permits while Danielle was already in a signed lease agreement with the landlord. She worked with the landlord directly. I know for a fact the city worked with Cindy Hom directly. The landlord, they went back and forth, as well as Danielle. From what I found, this appeal appears without merit and has caused unnecessary harm to a business owner who acted in good faith and compiled with the city's requirements. This appeal has wasted the time and resources of not only Danielle, but this planning commission and Sunnyvale tax residents. The planning commission already carefully reviewed and approved this project. I respectfully ask that you uphold that decision and allow Danielle to open her doors, support her family, and continue serving the Sunnyvale community she's called home her entire life. Thank you.

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

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Izaghani Marcelo, Jr., and I am speaking in support of Danielle Gamsch. I was the property and salon manager at Salon Republic for five years, and I have worked in the beauty industry for 18 years. Salon Republic is located just two-tenths of a mile from Danielle's proposed business. During that time there, I helped oversee a community of more than 100 independent beauty professionals operating and supporting one another in the same location. That experience showed me that beauty professionals can successfully work alongside one another while maintaining their own specialties, clientele, and independent businesses. Each professional builds success through the relationships they develop with their client and the quality of service they provide. i also had the opportunity to work directly with danielle and can speak to her professionalism and character she is responsible hard working and committed to her clients she has built an established clientele over many years operates by appointment and provides specialized services including vital consultations that distinguish her business from those around her Danielle is not entering this community to take business away from anyone. She is continuing to serve clients who already know and trust her. Knowing Danielle personally, I believe she would have welcomed opportunity to collaborate with the neighboring professionals and refer clients seeking services outside her specialty. and it is unfortunate that an opportunity for partnership has instead become a concern over competition. What concerns me most is that a qualified, experienced professional who entered into a valid lease, obtained a business license, followed the city permitting process, has been unable to move forward because of another business owner's objects to her presence. The fact that beauty professionals operate near one another should not prevent a qualified small business. owner from serving her clients, particularly when professionals in the same industry successfully work alongside one another throughout downtown Sunnyvale and across the beauty industry. Danielle is a longtime Sunnyvale resident, a single mother of two beautiful teens, and a dedicated small business owner simply asking for a fair opportunity to work, support her family, and serve her community. I respectfully ask the Commission to uphold the approved permit, deny the appeal, and allow Danielle to move forward with her business. Thank you.

Next, Shardi Hunter.

My name is Sade Hunter, founder and CEO of Bay Area Beauty Engineer. I am a hair restoration and extension specialist for people with hair loss here in Sunnyvale. For the last five years, I have operated just steps, literally two steps, from Miss Danielle Gampsch and one city block away from Bijanay Therapeutic. During this five-year period, I've worked in close proximity to both of these business owners, and while I offer many of the exact same services as these women, there's more than enough business to go around for all of us. See, 40% of women experience hair loss by age 50. In Sunnyvale alone, there are over 75,000 women, which means a minimum of 30,000 women with potential hair loss. That is not even including men who also endure hair loss as well. Well, I wish I could help them all. I can't. And I've often referred people to Ms. Gamsh and Ms. Hanbury-Green after meeting a few months ago. While I do believe this is an issue that Ms. Hanbury-Green has with the city, it is unfortunate that it has affected Ms. Gamsh. Now that I have the raw data out of the way, I want to speak of my experience meeting Ms. Hanbury-Green. While searching for a location of my own expansion, on April 8th, 2026, I was introduced to Brenda by mutual acquaintance. Upon hearing that I was interested in 422 South Murphy Avenue, Suite 1, Ms. Hanbury-Green inquired about what services I offer. After explaining that I specialize in both hair loss restoration and extensions, Ms. Hanbury-Green expressed delight and proceeded to give me a tour of her space. During this time, she mentioned that she had a key to Suite 1 in her possession. She had previously intended to open a consignment store in the space, but since finding out that the city would not allow retail there, she had abandoned the venture, thus it being available for me. After showing us around Bijonet Therapeutics, she offered to take both my colleague and I into Suite 1. After taking a brief look inside the space I took both photos and videos miss hambury green appears in these images. Immediately following my colleague and I went back into vision a therapeutics where she proceeded to hand me a business card. and subsequently told me to reach out, so we could talk about new hair replacement options and we left. Immediately I knew the space was not big enough for my own expansion, so I suggested the opportunity to miss catch. When I heard that there was a significant pushback from Ms. Hanbury-Green without them ever meeting, I was shocked because I had such a welcoming experience. In conclusion, I want to express that there is space for all of us, and existing nearby each other can only lead to us being stronger businesses. Thank you for your time.

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

Good evening to the Planning Commission. Thank you for hearing my comments. I am a longtime client of Brenda Hambury-Green. I've been with her for over 35 years now. We've also done some collaborations on projects that she does outside of her therapeutics consulting business. I find this entire situation to be rather unfortunate because in listening to the description of what Ms. Gamsch does and what Brenda has done for over 30, 35 years, it's very similar. I want to sort of echo what the last person said and that there is enough business. Brenda is that sort of open and caring individual who reaches out to take care of others. She has worked on breast cancer walks. She's organized breast cancer events for people who are suffering as well as fundraisers for Black History Month and other educational activities. But what I wanted to say is what Brenda has gone through with this has been more about her experience from the city. Not so much that there was a permit, but that she sought out advice and information from the city on four different occasions and under You know, not in any one of those situations was she given the option of an MPP or exclusionary. And the consignment shop was one of the things that she discussed as one of the many things. But the other part was extending her current business. So it is unfortunate that it has caused this, but the the what she was seeking to get was to have it on record, so that the next business owner young older small business owners are all. having a difficult time right now, but that the next business owner does not have to absolutely go through this turmoil or situation as it has been with her. It's taken a toll clearly on both of the parties involved. And thank you for hearing my comments.

And I have another card from Marlise Jimenez.

Good evening. Thank you for hearing me out. My name is Marlise Jimenez. I'm also located in Salon Republic. I've been a hairstylist, cosmetologist for almost a decade now. And I've been in Sunnyvale for the last five years. I have worked in two different locations down the hall from Ms. Gamsh. And she's one of the most amazing people I know. And any neighborhood would be lucky to have her. That aside, I did have a question for the staff. I know that it was said that the new protocols for planning and for personal services were put into place in 1993. And according to the appellant, she was she's been located here in Sunnyvale in business for 20 years, correct? Well, this is not a forum to ask questions of the staff, but just asking, I'm just asking a question only because of the fact that I believe that if Danielle is going to be held to certain standards and certain rules, then I think that that should be equal all the way across the board. And while I totally understand and love that you came up and spoke for your friend, I do think that this entire process has negatively affected 1 singular person and that's Daniel. So while I get that it may be emotionally strenuous and stressful for both parties, only one person has experienced financial hardship, stress, any kind of issues really across the board. So I would just ask that the board takes a look at that.

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

No, they are not, Chair.

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.

So I guess my only closing comments are it's pretty straightforward. I believe I've demonstrated and acted in good faith. I followed the process. I communicated with the staff and cooperated every step of the way. I do feel that I am the only one who has suffered consequences financially, just like my friend had spoke. I have been in constant communication with Cindy Hom, the landlord, in regards to the MPP, and I made sure that I followed that process exactly as I was told to do so. So yeah, I guess it's pretty straightforward.

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

Okay, thank you. I appreciate you guys all taking the time to hear us out. I want to speak about one of the stylists that came in. I forgot her name. She came in and I did show her the space and I had the key. So I had the first option for that space. And when she came in, I told her that I had wanted to do exactly what Danielle had done, put a salon there, but the city said no. so i i did say to her that i've been trying to get this space for to extend my business so i just want to set that record straight so i did have a key yes i did a signed lease i was waiting i kept asking cindy i was with cindy home too many many times And I kept checking to see if any permit was given, any OK zoning permit was given, anything. And the answer was no. So Danielle did not get a permit as far as my record shows. I have the dates down for you all. I have the times. I have the people I spoke with. There was no permit given. I tried hard to keep that space and to and I required a lot of my time and efforts to expand my business so i do feel like i have taken a great loss not just physically mentally and i want to say to the board this has been very hard and i believe the fight has not been with danielle i don't know her but i do i will say at the end there was a place where some of her family members was intimidating me in my salon, outside my salon, and I had two clients there that watched that happen. I don't know their names, but I do recognize one of the young men who was there peering in my window and trying to intimidate. Now, if this is the kind of neighbor I intend to have, it's not going to work that way. I will not be intimidated. I'm too old for that. I'm too educated for that. I'm a business owner. I am a small business owner. And I appreciate the things that the city has allotted me to have. And I follow all of your instructions and directions on how to run a legitimate business. So thank you for hearing me out.

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 new staff in the city when you go on the counter they give you information and sometimes you go second time and you get more information so this is I believe that it's like part of the process and you just have to go and fill up all the forms and be on top of it and city can only do is that help you staffs can only have to help you what information they have and it equally responsibilities on both sides. So that's what just my comments are. And I really feel sad that one person didn't get, maybe didn't, I had have that. So I know that, but it's not, it's also a little bit fault of the applicants more than the city staff or the city. That's what I believe. But anyway, these are just my comments.

Commissioner Segura.

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 somebody um behaving aggressively that's the wrong thing to do for anybody anywhere um which does not nobody here i believe support that but um I do think that if we follow the proper channels, the proper paperwork, it's easier to achieve things that we want. So I do think that for me, due to the fact that the applicant followed all the procedure and got all the paperwork and the signature of the landlord makes it pretty clear to me what my decision will be. Thank you.

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 that when you come and you ask experts for expert input, that you trust it. If you go to your doctor and they say this, you trust them. If you go to your mechanic and they say this, you trust them. If you go to the city and you ask and they say no, you trust them. And so I think that that is extremely frustrating. And that's probably something that you'll hear echoed across this desk. When I see your appeal in the four items that are identified, unfair denial, loss of economic opportunity, competition, intimidation, several of those as um as was made clear to me earlier are aren't things that we can address um economic um opportunity competition those aren't things that this desk can address um intimidation quite frankly is that would be you know like more of a police matter than something again that this desk can handle um and then with respect to unfair denial that's that's frustration and that's something that all of us i think are are seeing and observing and sympathize with tremendously But I don't see a path where this desk can properly give what you're wanting. What I think you would want would be that you would have the suite given to you for your business. And I understand why. And I understand how that would also seem like that's natural and fair. But I don't think that, as you've said, this is not personal against the applicant. You know, the applicant wasn't conniving and doing unscrupulous things to get the application through. To that extent, I think this is an unfortunate case, and I'm sorry for both the applicant and the appellant that it's been painful, but I don't see how I will be able to support the appeal.

Vice Chair Davis?

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 permits, I read all 10 pages of zoning they had for these three blocks. um because unfortunately um I know how bureaucracies in this in this country operate so um you shouldn't have to do that right and Sunnyvale is supposed to be different but I'm going to go ahead and make a motion i'll follow the staff recommendation alternative one to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director of community development to approve the miscellaneous plan permit based on the recommended findings for approval and attachment to the recommended conditions of approval and attachment three commissioner pine second okay as as to my motion um The fact that the appellant was told that you can't do this here, don't even bother to apply, we unfortunately can't unring that bell. If we grant the appeal, we will establish a precedent that... that the applicant didn't meet the conditions to be different enough from a salon. And anything that you came up close by would have to be denied as well, right? So we would just be in a situation where, well, the applicant would be stuck with a lease that she can't do business in. And eventually this spot would end up becoming, would sit vacant for some time. I don't think that's in anyone's best interest. It doesn't serve justice. It's just, we've gotten ourself in a tangle here. And I think this is the best path forward is to deny the appeal let both entrepreneurs who are vital members of the city's community business communities. get on with their businesses. and not have to spend hours in a planning Commission meeting. So I hope my fellow Commissioners will support the motion as well. Commissioner pine to your second.

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 miscellaneous plan permit by app by the applicant and i based on everything that's been discussed tonight based on the entirety of the record i'm able to make the required findings for approval including and including the required findings regarding the uh the exclusionary zoning section in the center municipal code and i'm able to make with the noted recommendations recommended conditions of approval on attachment three uh i I do not think that making alternative findings would be consistent with the municipal code or in the best interest of the city. As Vice Chair Davis said, if we were to deny the permit, it would primarily be on findings that the applicant's intended use was not an appropriate use for this site. I don't think that would serve appellants purposes. I don't think that would serve. I don't think that would serve the city's best uses. As I mentioned earlier, having sites that vacant is not in the city's interest. And frankly, having frankly, having land, having tenants unable to exercise the use of their of their property is not in the city's best interest. So I All things considered, I believe the correct action is to deny the appeal and grant the permit. Thank you.

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.

no no no under the current regulations it has to be incidental or in conjunction with a residential use but this building was developed as an office and never had any residential uses in the past or presently so it would if you apply the strict application of the code they would not be able to apply for the sdp well but there was the other condition that as long as it was the same or less intensive other uses that it could be yes so based on additional information from the applicant again a more detailed business operations we could make the it would fit under the category of exclusionary zoning because the use would not be more intensive or objectionable compared to the uses that are listed in the zoning code as well as the existing uses within the office.

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

Yeah, it's not more intensive than the offices because they basically are by appointment only. It's not more different than the personal service or the massage establishment or even the hair salon because they all provide personal care.

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

the appellant wanted to utilize the site. Because we have this MPP approval, it does provide a precedence where they could go in with another salon should the applicant leave. As long as there isn't a one-year lapse, that MPP will allow for the hair salon use.

You're saying a hair salon could use that?

Correct. So the MPP allows for the hair salon use. If the Planning Commission upholds the approval, staff's approval of this MPP, then essentially if Danielle or the applicant decides to leave for whatever reason, and let's just say another establishment wants to come, they can utilize the same MPP.

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

So they would have to follow the same parameters as MPP approval. So let's just say if a new salon came in with wanting to do full service, include more services or change the hours, that would be subject to an MPP amendment or they would have to apply for an MPP to change the operations.

And in order to improve that MPP, it would have to go through that same discretionary process through staff and the community development director's approval.

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 that location and i sympathize with the appellant because i'm i'm still not even sure if the uh if that could get approved or not uh uh by the city so uh i appreciate that but uh i will um uh under these you know very difficult circumstances i will support the motion so uh recording officer can you take a vote the motion passes with seven yeses 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.

Good.

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

I couldn't find it. I don't know.

Really? Can I call my professor at this point?

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

Yes, we do have a staff presentation. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Aastha Vashisht. I'm project planner for this application, which is at 1484 Kiefer Road. This is for redevelopment of an industrial site within Lawrence Station Area Plan. The project requires a special development permit investing tentative parcel map to demolish the existing industrial building and construct 137 condominium units. It's a mix of one to three bedroom units. Most of it are three bedroom units. The applicant also proposes to subdivide the lot into four lots. the site the net lot area is 4.44 acres and its zone flexible mix use within lawrence station area plan so looking at the context here um The site is located at the corner of Kiefer Road and Uranium Drive, which is right at the border of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara. So it's right next to that. It's surrounded by mostly industrial use and towards the south is also the railroad, abandoned railroad to the south of this property. Sorry, just. So looking at the site layout here. The applicants are proposing two vehicular access, one each from Kiefer Road and Uranium Drive. the um the 137 units they are spread across 13 buildings that are just spread across the site there are two open spaces towards the center and one open space towards the southwest corner of the property consistent with the lawrence station area plan the applicants are also proposing a class one shared use path which will be publicly accessible to the south of the property Each of the units, they have garages, attached garage, and the applicants are also proposing off-street improvements, including new sidewalks along both the frontages, as well as a new bike lane along Uranium Drive. Looking at the proposed architectural style, it can be categorized as contemporary. And they're using a mix of entry porches, projecting balconies, wall plane changes, and high quality material to articulate the facade. Next, we're looking at the view from Uranium Drive. Here we can see that each of the units facing the street, they have entry porch and they have a direct connection with the site. so looking at the elevation here again we can see that it's a it's a mix of material including siding stone veneer stucco and it's contemporary in style and here's another elevation showing the architectural style So the applicant, they are using state density bonus by proposing 28 below market rate units where the minimum requirement is 20.5. So they are proposing 20% BMR units where the requirement is 15%. And this qualifies them for up to two concessions and unlimited waivers. They are requesting two concessions and they are requesting 16 waivers from development standards and objective design standards. The requested concessions are from BMR unit size, below market rate unit size and location requirement per Sunnyvale Municipal Code. Our code requires below market rate units to be at least 75% of the average market rate units. So the requirement here would be close to 1,000 square feet, where they are proposing close to 800 square feet unit, which is 57% of average market rate unit. uh for the location our code requires these units to be evenly distributed throughout the project for this project most of the units are concentrated uh within two buildings and we have this location shown here so most of these units are concentrated in the two buildings located adjacent to kyfer road the applicants state that providing smaller size units and also clustering them together would help them reduce the cost as well as construction material Additionally, the project is requesting 16 waivers from various development standards, as well as design standards, including the distance between the buildings, front setback, landscape frontage requirement, which is at least 15 feet, and they're proposing three and a half feet. as well as parking lot landscaping, shading, tandem parking spaces, They're also requesting waiver from undergrounding of transformer. So per our code, we require undergrounding of transformers that are along public street. They're requesting a waiver from that. And the justification that the applicant states is because there is a nationwide shortage of underground transformers. Additionally, PG&E prohibits underground transformers and they have to go through an exception process for that. They are also requesting a waiver from the transformer location. So our code prohibits the location within the front yard and they're requesting the two transformers, both along Uranium and Kiefer Road to be within the front yards. uh they're also requesting waiver from minimum dimension of the class one shared use path the minimum dimension plus per the lawrence station area plan is 22 feet wide and they're proposing 16 feet wide we have added a condition of approval which will require allowing them the expansion of the shared use path with the future redevelopment of the site which is to the south They're also additionally requesting waivers from a few objective design standards, including the ground floor plate heights. There's also requirement for service restricted parking spaces that they're requesting waiver from. There's additional objective design standards that are related to uh screening of the transformers when they're overhead and they're requesting a waiver from that requirement citing uh conflict with the um walkways and vision triangle requirement And last few are tree canopy coverage. So our objective design standards require the tree canopy to shade at least 50% of all hardscaped area, and they're proposing around 6%. There's also a requirement for landscaping of internal pathway landscaping, which they are requesting a waiver from. uh and last few uh the objective design standards require uh one per 300 square feet of landscape area one tree per 300 square feet of landscape area and they're proposing one per thousand square feet uh there's also requirement for the garage doors to be landscaped with at least three feet wide landscape strips between consecutive garages they're complying with that uh with most of the units except for 14 units where they're short by six inches The project, it went through community outreach meeting December last year. There were no participants at the meeting. We also had a planning commission study session earlier this year, and most of the discussion at that time was around the requested concessions. requested concession from the BMR unit bedroom count and size. One of the key concerns at that meeting was because at that time they were proposing 24 below market rate units and most of those units were studios and one bedroom and since then they have worked with staff and Now they're proposing 28 units, which is four additional units, plus they're also meeting the average bedroom count requirement for the city. So they have worked on improving that compared to the study session. So that was one of the key discussion points during the meeting. There have been no further public comments as of date, except we just received a letter after this presentation was finalized from California Housing Defense Funds supporting the project. so overall uh we staff recommends approval of the project it furthers uh the goals and objective of both lawrence station area plan as well as general plan by providing additional home owner opportunities within the city and also providing 28 below market rate units the project would also help in improving the streetscape for the area So we are recommending alternative one, which is to make the required findings to approve the CEQA determination pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15162 and 15182 and approve the special development permits and tentative parcel map based on the findings in attachment three and recommended conditions of approval in attachment four. Thank you. This concludes staff's 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 than those contained in this section would it be possible under those clauses for this for the planning commission to waive the undergrounding requirements and therefore moot waiver 7 under the density bonus law

Thank you for your question. So I would let Sandy confirm if we can add a condition of approval, but generally staff is in agreement with the requested waivers for requested waiver from this requirement for two reasons. Firstly, PG&E no longer permits transformers to be placed underground. So there's a requirement for them to be placed above ground and they have to go through an exception process if they have to underground it. Secondly, there has been a nationwide shortage for above ground transformers and if we add that requirement, it may potentially delay the project. So for those reasons, we are supportive of the requested waiver.

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.

Commissioner pine you're referring to subsections A and B yeah now under those sections that doesn't give the planning Commission authority to waive undergrounding requirements, there is a subsection F. which gives the community development director the ability to waive undergrounding requirements. I think theoretically the director could have waived them under that subsection.

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

I wouldn't suggest putting in conditions like that. having like I'm sorry here's the argument for it being a physical because I do I do see your point um so if if it's true that PG&E is not allowing the undergrounding then it is it's a physical infeasibility I will 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. 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.

You can certainly have that opinion.

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 in the public interest to be first to be making work 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 I I think we are bending over backwards. I think there are appropriate ways to address this. feel like we're not using any of them right now which i have a problem with uh so my next question on a completely different well it's related but it's not this uh uh waiver number 12 uh undergrounding exception requirements i'm a little confused because in the staffers uh in the staff presentation uh you said there were it there were no plans to screen the transformers. On sheet L-6 that we got, it says, above-grade utility such as transformers and backflow preventers will be screened using evergreen perennial shrub planting maintained at a height of equal to or greater than the adjacent utility with the exception of maintenance clearance areas. So are they being screened or not?

the applicant is not proposing to screen the transformers and uh in the presentation i think they'll they'll touch upon that the reasons for that and um the generally the reason that they provide is because if they propose the screening it would be conflicting with the adjacent walkway along the uranium drive and along Kiefer Road. It would be conflicting with the vision triangle requirement that city has. It's very close to the our vision corner vision triangle.

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.

Sorry, is this, are you referencing?

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.

Sorry, so are you referring to?

I'm referring to the big packet.

The staff presentation? Sorry, staff report?

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

I'm just scrolling through that I don't have the hard copy. L six.

Wow.

yeah it does seem like a discrepancy and applicants can speak to it look forward to it thank you thank you no further questions for now uh vice chair davis oh uh

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?

So eventually the goal is as the sites redevelop, then we'll have this path connected to Lawrence Caltrain Station, but that's eventually the case.

Okay, eventually. Okay.

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?

So it is a combination of things. So for the net lot area, we also exclude any public right of way or these dedications. So it excludes the class one shared path to the south. It also excludes the dedication that they're doing along both the frontages for expansion of Kiefer Road as well as the new sidewalks. So that's why there is a discrepancy in their gross lot area and net lot area.

Okay, thank you. That clarifies it. Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Segura.

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 noises. it's cleaner it's safer and i'm totally supportive and there is another document in that document that really shows that you can install those with exceptions of landslides area etc etc etc um i would i would love to i'm in this industry and i know how huge those transformers can be especially for so many units um i would really love to see um you know the transformer actually underground and not above ground and that's something even in previous meetings i was kind of talking about and it's not that there is necessarily shorted it's a matter of pg and e wanting to approve on that and yes there is a cost to the applicant that is much greater than above ground so that's one thing the second thing that um I wanted to kind of ask how that whole development affecting the traffic both on Kiefer and on uranium, do we have anywhere to, you know, possibilities to do U-turn? There's any traffic lights that's going to happen there that's going to be installed over there? We're increasing the traffic by a lot because right now it's more like a business area where you have less people that are actually there versus in the future we're going to have much higher density pedestrians, bicyclists, et cetera, et cetera. Not let alone that there are waivers about how wide the walkway will be. which in other places you see that it's way, way wider area. And with all the concessions and, you know, and waivers that the applicant is asking, how is it all in all keep on the objective the design of laws and stations? Do we still keeping everything within the grant plan?

I'm sorry, can you please repeat that?

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?

Yeah. Yeah, so thank you for your questions. So about the undergrounding, thank you for your comment. We make a note of that for traffic. There was not a requirement for a separate traffic analysis and we also did. An initial study per sequence. So this was checked in compliance with the previously adopted supplemental environmental impact report for Lawrence Station Area Plan, which was updated in 2021. And compared to that, the project does not have any additional significant environmental impacts. We also have our consultants from Essent here if you have any questions for them. So there is no additional impact beyond what was already studied as part of the previous environmental impact report. For the waivers and concessions, yes. the project is in compliance with lawrence station area plan in general it is in compliance with the um requested uh with the density requirement uh they are also proposing several off-site improvements which are in compliance with our plan so generally overall the project is consistent with the lawrence station area plan awesome

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.

Yeah, so they did do a noise study, and they are in compliance generally, and they'll be also required to do a noise verification before the units are occupied to confirm that they are in compliance with our noise standards per the city's safety element of general plan. So they will be in compliance with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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 footage of the increased number but smaller size of the BMR units is the same square footage that would result as if they had done the required number of BMR units and the required size. Uh, so I feel like this sort of meets the intent of what is required. Uh, so I guess my question with the city attorney would be, is this, uh, uh, legal kind of trade-offs that we can make.

Um, I think it was our opinion that those with the attempt to comply with the bmr requirements, but the project falling a bit short that the project could use concessions under density bonus law by justifying them by this, this month, the smaller units. Based on cost savings. And I think we had told the planning Commission that we had submitted a letter to hcd asking for advice, but after the project was modified. The city felt that there was an attempt to comply, and so we withdrew that request before hcd responded.

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.

So the bike that so are we talking about the proposed new pathway to the south. well yes yeah so the plan is eventually when all these sites will be redeveloped then it will ultimately connect to Lawrence-Caltrain Station so there'll be a kind of a pathway yes along the south and gradually connecting to Lawrence-Caltrain okay well that should be uh all right that should be good and I appreciated uh

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.

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 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 garbage company

Um, thank you for your question. So the trash receptible in what they're trying to show is generally the trash like for the. Not like the trash enclosure, but generally the trash location for just like people walking around just trash receptible the applicants they're proposing single family service. So it's going to be the cart service where the garbage truck is going to come and pick up the trash. So this is different. Yeah, it's just. uh that and storm water uh can you please point me to the sheet number but generally i would say that there is a requirement um to uh treat the um the storm water even for the um the project frontage um public right of way so that may be the reason why they have the location but the applicant can certainly uh talk in detail about why exactly they're proposing it there okay thank you thank you uh commissioner iglesias

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 and also having complexity about being able to access it overhead as well. So to that purpose, I was looking to see if there is a nexus to a physical barrier or a physical implication. And relative to the other waivers, I don't think it's that dissimilar.

Thank you for your comment.

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 argument presented I as i've said before, I view it to be somewhat creative I if if applicant wants to present an altar has an alternative. argument and again i'm not saying that i would and again i you can have multiple arguments for the same thing but like if i wanted to present an alternative argument i would be that had a specific unit loss i would definitely be open to hearing that thank you okay seeing no more commissioner hands uh i'll uh 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. Okay.

Can I proceed?

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

star 9 to indicate if they wish to speak go ahead good evening commissioners thank you so much for having having me back here tonight i'm honored to be back my name is keon malik i'm with city ventures and thank you for your time For those that don't know City Ventures, we are primarily an infill developer. So our focus is developing underutilized parcels in existing urban areas with the goal of meeting the large demand for naturally attainable ownership housing. most of you are already familiar with the project site but i wanted to restate that this is a 4.4 acre site that today is mostly a vacant industrial building that's falling into disrepair as well as a vacant surface parking lot so as you'll see on the next slide uh Needless to say, this is a fantastic info site and a great opportunity for more housing and more ownership housing and more below market rate housing here in Sunnyvale. So we are proposing 137 townhouse style condominiums that will be marketed towards first time homebuyers, small families, families looking to downsize, as well as below market rate buyers. The goal of the design of the project was to create a strong street pedestrian experience by orienting all the front doors of the homes to face the public street, as well as the shared use path to really embrace the public realm. We're also very excited to be proposing a greenway through the project that connects to the shared use path along the south property line. This creates pedestrian connectivity through Kiefer to the new shared use path, which was envisioned with the Lawrence area station plan. And the goal for the shared use path as well as the Greenway was simple. It was to create a place for everybody to feel welcome to use. So if you're looking to go on a walk with your family or go on a jog or go on a bike ride or fix your bike at the fix it station before you go on that bike ride, So is not the site blend we are proposing tonight. We showcased at this at the study session to this commission. We're very grateful for the feedback mission as a network of that of the community that we build in. So we really appreciate the feedback. And as the project planner, the major concern was the smaller below market rate units that were one bedrooms and still since then. Um, we've worked very hard with staff and the city attorney's office and iterations, um, that got us, uh, that received a recommendation of approval, um, from those departments. Just to recap where we started with a 21 below market rate unit, the requirement still above there, but they were all one bedroom and studio were 63 B. Um. And now we are proposing a total of 20 market rate units. That's 20 market rate homes that are multi-bedroom homes, which is 17 more bedrooms above the city's baseline requirement and seven more below market rate homes than the city's baseline requirements. So we're very excited about this updated plan. And again, we thank you for the initial study session to get that feedback because this is a much better site plan. So we heard from Chair Cerrone and Commissioner Segura about the bedroom count at that study session. And we've completely increased the bedroom count for all the below market rate units. All the below market rate units have the same average bedroom count as the market rate units at 2.9 bedrooms. um Commissioner Shukla and Commissioner Iglesias during that study session you inquired about increasing the studio the size of those studio units we've now removed those studio units and now are proposing uh three-story below market rate units that are two three-bedroom units that have the same average bedroom count as the market rate units 2.9. Commissioner Pine You pointed out that at the northwest corner, there was a dead end of the internal sidewalk. We've addressed that by creating connectivity to connect to Kiefer, as you can see on the screen, And vice chair Davis you mentioned trail details and can we expand on that and we met with public works and traffic. and really. expanded the details of the trails of the shared use path trail in the South property line details like a four foot buffer to the north of the trail that now has 15 foot pole lighting and then. a two-foot buffer on the south portion of that trail overall this creates just a much better safer and more enjoyable pedestrian and cyclist experience on that trail we also included a new striping along that trail down the middle and bollards at the east end where the trail connects to uranium road just again for for safety purposes um Lastly, the commission just gave overall feedback on just connectivity and streetscape. And so we're really excited that we're proposing a 10-foot new sidewalk along Kiefer Road, an eight-foot new sidewalk along Uranium, as well as a six-foot new bike path along Uranium as well, where one does not exist today. And then, lastly, we designed the project around these large redwood trees along uranium road we kept we've kept most of them and we're also proposing brand new street trees on kyfer where mostly don't they mostly don't exist today. Commissioners, thank you so much for your time. I hope we've put together a proposal that the Commission and the community would love to see built. And I want to give a thank you to staff, specifically project planner who's been an absolute pleasure to work with over the last few years and has really helped make this project 10 times better than what we started with in January. So thank you, everybody, and thank you for your time. And I look forward to answering the initial questions that were raised a few minutes ago. Thank you.

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.

Will this be an okay time to respond to Commissioner questions? Please.

Yeah, the flow here is basically Commissioner asks a question and applicant responds. Let me bring these arguments up here.

Commissioner Pine, I have noted your questions and I've consolidated a few of the other comments from other commissioners to respond to it. So, number one, undergrounding transformers is a significant issue. construction implication for this project. Honestly, for all my projects that I have in Northern California, there is a shortage of underground transformers. If there was not, trust me, we would be proposing underground. Aesthetically, it looks much better. It is more expensive. but we would absolutely be doing that if we did not have this shortage is number one. Number two, in the soils report that was submitted to the city, we have done soil borings throughout the site. We have shallow groundwater here. There's a nine-foot shallow groundwater table That's also going to make undergrounding transformers quite difficult. The primary reason, however, for not undergrounding transformers is simply there's a shortage. And if we're not able to procure transformers, we can't energize our project. And that is a limitation of constructability. So it directly impacts our construction of this project. In fact, we would not be able to build this information sheet

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?

We physically can't build this project.

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?

I think what you're asking is how does this physically preclude the construction of this project?

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 don't know. Is that a question that you're concerned? I'm sorry.

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 universe. And I have a problem with that. I see staff reaching for the microphones.

So what I heard the applicant speaking to was the inability to procure those transformers that could go underground, which and is that the reason? I mean, as a PG&E was one of the reasons I think cited, but also there was this inability to procure these underground transformers.

That strikes me as fundamentally economic and not physical.

It's economic if you can't afford to purchase them, but if they're not available. I don't know factually what is the case with those transformers, but if they are unable to basically meet one of the requirements of the city, then I think it would be a physical preclusion.

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

Well, it's typically a concession because the argument is usually that it would cost less to not underground. So they're making a different argument. It's not, they're not focused on the cost. So it's really about whether or not.

I can add to this because there's another question you asked. There's another requirement for transformers, which is screening.

Yes.

Right. Transformers, whether they're pad mounted or subsurface have a clearance requirement.

Yes.

The clearance requirements of these transformers along the uranium path, we're using a waiver for those because if we were to shift them further into the site, we would have to shift our parking space, which would also have to shift into the site and we'd have to lose a unit. on that north transformer. On the south transformer, if you're looking at any of the site plan sheets, on the southeast corner, we're not able to screen that transformer because the dashed line around that is the PG&E required clearance area. If we had fencing or shrubs around that clearance area, it would restrict PG&E. And it would also restrict the public access along the right of way on the sidewalk, which I don't believe anybody wants to restrict that access.

This is all fine. But what's the deal with the L6 language?

L6 notes that there is an exception for maintenance requirements and clearance requirements. PG&E, like I mentioned, has a clearance requirements for maintenance purposes of their transformer. So to clarify what that note means is that we are screening all what utility related above ground utilities. And if there is a clearance area around a transformer, that rule does not apply to those transformers.

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.

I don't have the exact dimensions on me, but the transformer itself is larger, and the clearance area itself is also larger.

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.

Both, whether it's above ground or and we had to shift it for the fence requirements, we'd lose units. And if it was underground, the clearance there would also be larger and we'd also lose units.

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.

Correct.

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.

Yeah, I want to clarify. We are using the waiver for the second bullet point. The first and the third, we're happy to meet. In fact, the third we're already meeting. But the waiver is being requested because that says that all three need to be met. And so that's why we request a waiver. But we're, again, we're happy to...

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 some other answers.

Vice Chair Davis. Thank you, Chair.

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 off the top of your head.

No, I think there's an obvious one, the shared use path. We don't want to lose the shared use path, just saying that right now, because that's a great amenity for anybody. But that's 16 feet of our site. That if it didn't exist, we could increase the number of units on site. But in order to be consistent with the Lawrence area station plan, we have to provide that. And it is a major amenity to the site. I'm not saying I wish it was gone, but you asked the question and that is a way it could have increased density. Fire regulations, there's nothing here that's abnormal from other cities. These are all standard. So these are standard size roads. There really isn't anything jumping out at me that would have increased density here. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Schuchul.

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 visual I mean, it's kind of when you go into it, it's going to completely look like a mini city or like I'm just trying to feel it, you know, so if you have any

All of my projects are very similar townhouse style that have similar setback. To actually go back to Chair Davis's question, setbacks, every city has setbacks. And typically, setbacks are some of the first things that we analyze and if there is if we can't increase density by decreasing setbacks that's one of the first things we look at obviously if there's a health concern we won't go that path but um so i want across the board most uh city ventures projects most town house projects that probably this commission has even seen a very similar setback uh setbacks proposed i see a commissioner pine nodding um In fact, I've seen, we have a project in Fremont that has a zero setback along Fremont Boulevard. That's a different case, but it's case by case. But on these tight infill sites that have a high density requirement for townhouse style, you're going to see these more dense setbacks.

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 it out because I noticed in this project more than some other projects, because so many, so it's not only one waiver, but there are along with that, you have no trees, no like setbacks. It's going to be like the whole jungle of buildings. Anyway, it's a good, we are getting housing. But I like that you have some community, you have provided some community space, shared path, but I'm just kind of visualizing it. It would be nice to have like a rendering showing a little view of like walking around in a street. So because you are doing all these things, if you can do that sometimes next project, it'll be great. Sure. Thank you. Thank you.

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.

No, we do not chair.

Okay. And do we have any remote speakers?

Yes, we have one hand raised.

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

um okay so i am a resident within the lawrence area public transit catchment area and i didn't even know about this whole lawrence area plan and i'm glad that someone is finally deciding to redevelop this site because it was a huge blight in the area but i am worried about one thing and seeing how this is the first plan for the lawrence area whatever this plan is called, the first plan in the Sunnyvale section, since the ones in Santa Clara have mostly been developed or are in development, I did notice that there is no mixed use in this plan at all. And within walking distance, the only mixed use for this building is a Carl's Jr. and Costco. So residents of this development, which will most likely finish before any of the other developments in the Lawrence area plan, will have no opportunity to shop at anywhere unless they drive or walk for like around 20 minutes. So I'm a little concerned about accessibility for the families that are going to end up living in this development when it's finished before all the other developments are, when there is no shopping or retail in this area at all. And I know it's a little late for that, but that's just my opinion. And then also you mentioned a greenway that goes up the plan a site south to north, and I noticed that the paths across the roads within the development are simply painted lines. Typically, I feel like paths that are used more tend to be raised, so cars can notice that there are pedestrians on it, and a simple painted path isn't as effective. So that's another thing I was thinking about, but that's all I had to say.

Chair, we have no further hands raised.

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

Just some questions that the commissioners asked that I noted and figured I'd answer right now during this time. uh commissioner segura uh there was a vibration analysis done the results were that all windows and the details the architectural details were standard size the noise didn't require increased stc ratings for those windows so they're going to be standard windows they measured uh with multiple measuring tools on site for multiple days, the noise around the site, including any noise that could have come from the train. And that resulted in, again, normal STC rated windows. Commissioner Figone, you asked where the trash is being stored. Please reference sheet C9.0, which is the trash management plan. On trash day, the bins are going to be pulled out in front of the garages, which is a typical townhouse-style trash management plan. And then you asked the question. You're absolutely correct. We are proposing treatment basins. stormwater treatment basins at the entry of the project. That is treating the offsite stormwater, which is a new California requirement. The majority of the stormwater treatment is within the greenway using silva cell technology, which is subsurface. So we can actually have usable space on top of it, which is great. It helps us actually build more housing and have more open area versus just an unusable basin in the middle of the site, which no one would want. And the last comment I'll respond to is the public comment. I totally hear you, but about the mixed use, your desire for mixed use, I hear you. This site does require a high density requirement of 30.6 dwelling units an acre. We really need to maximize the number of units on this site to hit that. But I also wanna note that we are providing a new bike path circulation through the site and then also the fact that the ace gray line and the 57 bus line are directly adjacent to our site so there are options for folks to take public transit uh to get to destinations that do have uh retail so that's that's all for that's all i have thank you all right with that i will close the public hearing and now ask for a motion from my colleagues

Commissioner Pyne.

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 community development not waive the underground requirements under municipal code 1938 95 f and g so just so if any so if we get this again if it's not in the staff report that's the very first question i'm going to be asking so just heads up uh Now on the merits of the actual project, again, this is fully compliant with state law. It meets the requirements. I can make all the CEQA findings, make all the other findings. Is this the project I would have necessarily built myself? honestly probably not i'd have liked to have gotten more dense more density or this is basically the minimum permitted density here and i would have liked to have and i do appreciate that we have a whole bunch of bmr units but also it's moderate income so it's not so it's affordable but it's not like that affordable uh uh but i I do think there are a lot that this does provide a lot of nice amenities that we've got the mixed use pet. We've got the mixed use. Yeah, the mixed use path. We've got the bike Paris facilities. We've got all of the good things that the applicant talked about. I also I when I visited the site, it's a blight it's we frankly frankly almost anything we put there would be an improvement i it's i i i I to to the previous to the public commenter I would note that this is actually not the first Lawrence Station area plan project we've had but I think it's the first Lawrence Station area plan we've had in this in the kind of far part of Sunnyvale that's right up a budding that's kind of that little part that goes on the other side of Lawrence across all all the way to so far into this towards santa clara that you actually hit the sign that says entering santa clara before you hit the property boundary like we like the other lawrence station plans we've had have been on the near side of have been all on the near side of lawrence i think uh so yeah this is a this makes substantial improvements and i again if i were if i were designing it on for designing it there's probably some tweaks i'd make but but the fun but the nice thing about playing sim developers you don't have to worry about how much things cost and whether it would actually be practical so given that this is actually practical and will actually be billed i look forward to it building thank you uh vice chair davis to your second uh thank you chair uh yes this is a this is a really great townhome development um

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 completely understands City Council Chambers, The part of me that's always thinking about the housing crisis and will my kids be able to live here as well, like it's like yeah you could have gone 400 feet tall and. City Council Chambers, We would have had to accept that too. City Council Chambers, But yes, it's a great townhome project, I know you guys build great things I hope it gets built quickly, I hope my fellow Commissioner support the motion, thank you.

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 officer please conduct the vote the motion passes with seven yeses okay and the fate of this project unless it's by city council it will be final all right thank you uh and thanks to the uh developer and the individual who spoke now we can move to uh not agenda items and comments next portion of the agenda is for oral reports and announcements by commissioners and staff to share information um commissioner fogoni oh sorry i know it's late everybody um i wanted to put a

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 residential spillover where people are parking in there overnight and it's affecting in some instances, merchants. I'm not saying there are specific cases, but I'm hearing about it. And we're hearing feedback that we get from people when they speak about the spillover. So what I'd like to request is that the city takes a proactive approach on this. There's other cities that are already experiencing this. And I would hope that we could be ahead of that. So what I'd like to do is, and I'll send a formal email after this, but just giving my fellow commissioners a heads up what I'm considering doing. Hopefully I have your support. But I'll put more details into it. But it's something I've been thinking about for a while. But I think something we want to check into. Maybe it's not an issue. I don't know. But I think we should at least check into it and make sure that we have the right processes in place, ordinances, and that the merchants know what their rights are, what they have available. Thank you.

John Potter, Okay, and I think, thank you for mentioning that the Commissioner rickoni and. John Potter, yeah as as we hear from Council and the city manager more regarding that item will will definitely take that into consideration as a future item.

Thanks yeah Thank you.

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

Yeah, thank you chair 1, 1, quick item to mention the planning commission on September 14th. Our next 1, the 8 single family home project at 781 South wolf road. It was continued a few weeks ago due to the concession with removing the underground requirement. There are updated utility sheets for that project. And staff was curious if which commissioners needed the entire plan set or which ones just needed the extra utility sheets that have been changed.

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

Okay, great.

I'll get everyone just the additional sheets then, if that's okay. Okay, thank you.

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.

Psychic.