From: Christina O'Guinn
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 3:46 PM
To: OCM AP <[email protected]>; Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]> Subject:
Dear esteemed council members and City Manager Kirby,
I wanted to reach out following the last city council meeting where I and many neighbors commented in regards to the village center incentive for North Sunnyvale. Thank you again for approving that incentive and giving us a chance to be heard.
I heard most of you express that the replacement of our plazas with townhomes and little to no retail is not aligned with your vision for a modern, walkable, liveable, sustainable, accessible Sunnyvale. Having met with some of my neighbors and watched Livable Sunnyvale’s 4/9/24 helpful presentation , I wanted to
specifically request the following considerations for future zoning and development guidelines, as I know the City is still working on revising the Village Center plan. Specifically, I’d like to request that the City:
Rezone Lucky Supermarket plaza
(currently Village Center 4) as retail only and postpone any new development until after Village Centers 5 and 6 are completed or a new similar sized grocery is established in North Sunnyvale and there is new legislation/ requirements in place that will ensure we stagger development and retain at least 1 major grocery in North Sunnyvale.
Give priority and attention to
the long-empty retail buildings on Lawrence Expressway that are creating blight and prioritize working with the owners of these properties on leasing, selling or developing these properties with a large grocery in mind. (1206 Oakmead has been vacant for as long as 12 years!)
Find ways to support and retain
our unique, local family-owned businesses so that they are not just replaced with large chains Attachment 9
driving our neighbors further into poverty.
Many of us are looking for ways to work with you toward creative solutions to ensure that North Sunnyvale is truly walkable, accessible and sustainable. Please let us know how we can work with you toward this vision.
Christina O’Guinn
San Miguel Resident since 1997
Attachment 9
From: Christina O'Guinn
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2025 1:49 PM
To: CDD-Admin AP <[email protected]>; Trudi Ryan <[email protected]> Cc: Tim Kirby <[email protected]>; Richard Mehlinger <[email protected]>; Larry Klein <[email protected]>; Subject: Village Center Recommendations and a Question
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hi Trudi,
This morning a few of my North Sunnyvale neighbors and I attended Mayor Klein's community coffee and got an update on the plans for Village Centers 4, 5 and 6 both from the mayor and from City Manager Tim Kirby. He recommended we follow up with an email around a question and a recommendation.
Question: On the zoning map for Sunnyvale
, it appears that Fair Oaks Plaza is zoned as
commercial only, not mixed use. Was that zoning officially changed? If so, where might we find documentation of this change?
Recommendation: We understand that the City is trying to help preserve our only large grocery in North Sunnyvale (Lucky) at Village Center 4 by dividing the lot into retail and housing. Our concerns are that doing so doesn't necessarily preserve Lucky and the parking that would be needed for a large grocery store. We also understand from Livable Sunnyvale that due to construction costs, it is no longer economically feasible to build new large grocery stores. As such, in order to protect and retain Lucky, we'd like to request that Village Center 4 be moved to a different location and to rezone that location as commercial only. In conversations with Livable Sunnyvale, we've identified the following possible locations to move Village Center 4:
Hollenbeck and Homestead current commercial large lot
Java strip mall–currently vacant (Subway)
Cocos/ Round Table Oakmead corner with a number of long-vacant commercial buildings
We are also in conversation with Assemblymember Ahrens staff to work on state Attachment 9
legislation that can help us preserve groceries in future, so really appreciate all you can do in the short-term to also prevent the loss of the few grocery stores we do have in North Sunnyvale.
We also understand that the updated Master Plan will be coming before the Planning Commission in June and before City Council on July 1 and we look forward to having the opportunity to review and comment on this plan when it's ready for review.
Thanks so much for all you are doing to prevent a food desert in North Sunnyvale, Christina O'Guinn
North Sunnyvale Community Association
Attachment 9
From: Thomas Dobroth
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Subject: Plans for 911 Duane Ave
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hi,
I live at , Sunnyvale, CA 94085 with my partner, the owner of the property.
The plans for 911 Duane would remove an important neighborhood institution, the Taj Mahal Market, in favor of residential units. While there appears to be a minimum commercial space of <1400 sq feet, it's a gas station mini market size.
The concept is far from the Village Center concept promoted. It's just another conversion to residential.
We oppose.
Tom Dobroth and Gerald Dizon.
--
Tom Dobroth
Attachment 9
From: Wu, Elton H
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta
Cc: Wilson, Joanne; Read, Emily; Rando, Casey; Rodgers, Heather Subject: Village Center Master Plan Updates, Sunnyvale, CA- Public Notice Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 4:56:19 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
FW DEIR for City of Sunnyvales Draft Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) - SFPUC Comments.msg WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hello Jeffrey,
Thank you for contacting the SFPUC regarding the Village Center Master Plan Updates. As stated in your public notice, the village centers are identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE).
Several years ago, SFPUC staff submitted comments on the LUTE EIR ( please see attached email). In response to that email, Mr. Henderson of your department discussed LUTE with SFPUC staff, Jonathan Mendoza.
Mr. Henderson confirmed that the City of Sunnyvale is not currently planning anything on the SFPUC Right of Way (ROW).
He further stated that if any developer does propose a project on the SFPUC ROW, the City of Sunnyvale will point the developer to the SFPUC’s Project Review process.
Please confirm that the current proposal regarding the Village Center Master Plan Updates does not include any proposed land uses on the SFPUC ROW.
Thank you,
Elton Wu
Pronouns: He/ Him
Environmental Compliance and Land Planner
SFPUC Water Enterprise
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]
Description: HHRWS-HORZ-4C
Attachment 9
From: Wilson, Joanne
To: Wu, Elton H
Subject: FW: DEIR for City of Sunnyvale’s Draft Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) - SFPUC Comments Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 4:35:40 PM
From: Mendoza, Jonathan S
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:23 PM
To:
Subject: RE: DEIR for City of Sunnyvale’s Draft Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) - SFPUC Comments
FYI. The City of Sunnyvale’s Final EIR is available for the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE).
They confirmed they aren’t currently planning anything on the SFPUC ROW – however, if any developer does propose a project on the SFPUC ROW, they’ll point the developer to Project Review.
To see the final EIR, click here: P:\Sunnyvale Land Use and Transportation Element\Sunnyvale_LUTE_FEIR_Jan-2017_web.pdf
-Jonathan
The City of Sunnyvale’s response (PDF p. 54):
The first part of this comment summarizes information about the SFPUC’s process for reviewing proposed projects and activities that may affect SFPUC lands and infrastructure. It notes that SFPUC has real property owned in fee in Sunnyvale (an 80-foot-wide right-of-way [ROW]) associated with two large subsurface water transmission lines, which are part of the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System.
The Draft LUTE is a planning document, and Policy 71 (referenced by the commenter) does not state, nor is it intended to suggest, that specific private or public recreation projects are being proposed as part of the Draft LUTE in locations that would result in physical improvements on or adjacent to SFPUC right-of-way in Sunnyvale. Because no specific projects are proposed, no analysis is required in the Draft EIR.
However, the City recognizes that early coordination with the SFPUC would be necessary if the City were to consider any proposal for a private or public project that would encroach on SFPUC right-of-way in Sunnyvale. This coordination would occur at project initiation.
To clarify the intent of Policy 71 and incorporate the information provided in the comment, Draft LUTE Policy 71 has been revised as follows (new text is underlined ):
Policy 71:
Improve accessibility to parks and open space by removing barriers.
Action 1: Provide and maintain adequate bicycle lockers at parks.
Attachment 9
Action 2: Evaluate the feasibility of flood control channels and other utility easements for pedestrian and bicycle greenways. Coordinate with flood control and utility agencies early in the process to determine feasibility/desirability of the project.
Action 3: Develop and adopt a standard for a walkable distance from housing to parks.
Under Policy 71, as revised, if the City receives an application for a private project or if the City proposes a public project that has the potential to physically affect the SFPUC property described in the comment letter, the City will be responsible for ensuring appropriate coordination with the SFPUC at the time of project initiation so that the SFPUC is able to implement its project review process and provide feedback on the feasibility of the project.
Jonathan S. Mendoza
Land and Resources Planner
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
1657 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
O: 650.652.3215 (Tuesdays and Fridays)
F: 650.652.3219
E: [email protected]
W: http://www.sfwater.org/ProjectReview
*NOTE: I am out of the office on Mondays*
From: Mendoza, Jonathan S
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:55 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Wilson, Joanne
Subject: DEIR for City of Sunnyvale’s Draft Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) - SFPUC Comments
Dear Mr. Henderson:
Thank you for the notice of availability and for this opportunity to comment on the City of Sunnyvale’s Draft Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
On behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), I provide the following comments below.
Background
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) manages 63,000 acres of watershed land and 210 miles of pipeline right-of-way (ROW) in three Bay Area counties that are part of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System providing water to approximately 2.6 million people.
The SFPUC
monitors and protects its lands by reviewing proposed projects and activities (that may affect SFPUC lands and infrastructure) for consistency with SFPUC policies and plans.
The City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco), through the SFPUC, owns real property in fee Attachment 9
in Sunnyvale (San Francisco Property) which crosses the City of Sunnyvale as an 80-foot wide ROW.
The San Francisco Property could potentially be impacted by LUTE Policy 71 (“Improve accessibility to parks and open space by removing barriers.”), Action 2 (“Evaluate the feasibility of flood control channels and other utility easements for pedestrian and bicycle greenways.”).
The San Francisco
Property’s primary purpose is to serve as a utility corridor which is improved by two large subsurface water transmission lines and other appurtenances, linking the Hetch Hetchy and local reservoirs to the Bay Area via the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System.
DEIR Comments
The SFPUC has policies that limit third-party and recreational uses and improvements on San Francisco Property.
Please see the attached “Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy” and “Integrated Vegetation Management Policy” for more information about restrictions on the ROW. In addition, any proposed use or improvement on the SFPUC ROW must: 1.) comply with current SFPUC policies; 2.) be vetted through the SFPUC's Project Review process (see below for more information); and 3.) be formally authorized by the SFPUC.
The LUTE proposes to evaluate utility easements (presumably including the San Francisco Property owned in fee) for pedestrian and bicycle greenways.
If the City of Sunnyvale foreseeably intends to
propose recreational uses on the San Francisco Property, then these recreational uses and impacts should be discussed and analyzed within DEIR Section 3.1 (Land Use).
Specifically, Section 3.1.1
(Existing Setting) should include a description of the San Francisco property as being actively in use for ongoing water utility operations.
Under Section 3.1.2 (Regulatory Framework), the SFPUC's "Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy" and "Integrated Vegetation Management Policy" should be added to the list of the local regulatory framework.
Finally, Impact 3.1.2 should include a discussion
of proposals with relation to and conformance to the SFPUC's "Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy" and "Integrated Vegetation Management Policy” if LUTE Policy 71, Action 2 is proposed for the San Francisco Property.
SFPUC Project Review Process
Proposed projects and other activities on any San Francisco Property must undergo the Project Review Process if the project will include: construction; digging or earth moving; clearing; installation; the use of hazardous materials; other disturbance to watershed and ROW resources; or the issuance of new or revised leases, licenses and permits. This review is done by the SFPUC’s Project Review Committee (Committee).
The Project Review Committee is a multidisciplinary team with expertise in natural resources management, environmental regulatory compliance, engineering, water quality and real estate.
Projects and activities are reviewed by the Committee for:
1. Conformity with the Alameda and Peninsula Watershed Management Plans;
2. Consistency with our Environmental Stewardship Policy, Real Estate Guidelines, Interim ROW Use Policy and other policies and best management practices; and
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and environmental regulations including mitigation, monitoring and reporting plans.
Attachment 9
In reviewing a proposed project, the Project Review Committee may conclude that modifications or avoidance and minimization measures are necessary. Large and/or complex projects may require several project review sessions to review the project at significant planning and design stages.
Please notify all property owners and/or developers that, to the extent their proposals will involve the development or use of the San Francisco Property, such proposals are first subject to the SFPUC’s Project Review Process.
The proposal must first be vetted in Project Review, and then the project sponsor must receive authorization from the SFPUC pursuant to a final executed lease or revocable license before they can use or make any changes to the SFPUC ROW.
To initiate the
Project Review process, a project sponsor must download and fill out a Project Review application at http://www.sfwater.org/ProjectReview
and return the completed application to me at
[email protected].
If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jonathan S. Mendoza
Land and Resources Planner
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
1657 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA
94010
O: 650.652.3215 (Mondays and Fridays)
F: 650.652.3219
E:
W: http://www.sfwater.org/ProjectReview
*NOTE: I am out of the office on Wednesdays*
Attachment 9
From: Gregory Hall >
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 9:46 PM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Subject: A few Questions about Village 1 and Village 2
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hi Jeff,
I live in the neighborhood near the De Anza Shopping Center (Zanotto's etc.). (Village 1) I was under the impression that 1388-1390 Bremerton was already zoned as R-2.
My point in writing. I've read Village Center Master Plan (and adjustments to the General Plan).
I am generally in agreement, with questions of where will this lead us all. De Anza Properties (Vidovitch) owns all "4" corners of Fremont/Mary. So it is effectively in control of Village 1.
It may also own at least 2 corners of Fremont/Saratoga-Sunnyvale (Village 2).
Sunnyvale City Council is making major sweeping changes. Shouldn't the Council--as a precondition--ask about future proposed development plans for these Villages (and all the Villages)? Will we end up with super malls? What is the Council doing to limit over-development in terms of timing? Over time, yes, all of these properties need to be upgraded.
Are the global "urgent" fast track changes laying the groundwork for uncontrollable development? Is the Council putting the cart before the horse by green lighting these changes before having any ideas from owners of future development plans.
(It would be nice to have an idea of what De Anza properties envisions for the "4" corners. (2 shopping centers, medical offices and offices on Mary.)
Please bring these issues up at both the June 16 and July 1 meeting. (I have tended to agree with the Council's insights.
But it's important that all stakeholders understand potential impacts (Residents/property owners/commercial tenants, etc.).
Thank you,
Greg Hall
Attachment 9
From: Zafar Parvez
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 8:42 PM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Subject: Village Center Master plan
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hello Mr. Cuciniotta,
Received a letter about the zoning changes near Reed/Old SF Road and Wolfe areas.
Are these sites being re-zoned or will be re-zoned, to accommodate low to medium density mixed use buildings?
What is the max height/number or stories will be allow? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and some neighbors are concerned about traffic and privacy.
Please send as many details as you can.
Thank you.
--
Zafar Parvez
Attachment 9
Service Request details:
Service Request Number: SR-00110933
Submitted On: 5/29/2025 10:37 AM
Request Type: Contact Us Request
Description: Dear Sunnyvale,
I recently read in the San Jose Spotlight, that there are problems regarding affordable housing development in Northern Sunnyvale. Now, I am not a developer, but it seems like the residents' concerns is that the demolishon of grocery stores could make their neighborhoods food deserts, which is obviously bad. This can be solved by using mixed use development with low rise apartments and ground floor retail. This would allow continued access to food and fresh produce, while allowing housing on the exact same plot. It would also allow a more walkable neighborhood
Initial Response Complete:
No
Name: Thomas Patterson
Email:
Phone:
Attachment 9
From:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: VCMP Comments/Questions
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hello Jeffrey --
Thanks for our chat this afternoon. Here's a recap of some of the comments about the Draft Village Center Master
Plan (VCMP)-
A) Page 12 - Schedule 2-1 specifically lists Local Streets - Kitimat, Bonneville, Bremerton, San Angelo and Lakedale.
However, there does not appear any language to
protect/prevent direct access to those streets from the VC properties directly in the rest of the document. Have we missed something? Privacy is of critical concern to our neighborhood and access to these local streets should not be extending to direct access from VC properties.
B) Page 16 - Item f (1) "Link VC to the existing
adjacent
Attachment 9
neighborhoods through a continuous
pedestrian circulation system." This statement would
imply access through those walls on the designated "Local Streets".
We want to discourage direct access to the Local
Streets for pedestrian traffic to prevent over-flow parking and traffic on the Local Streets to prevent them from
potentially becoming Residential Collector streets.
C) Page 33 - Figure 4-10 Zoning Development Standards.
The "Adjacent Non-VCMP Property" shows only "Rear Yard
Lot Line" for the Build-to-Line standard.
This should also
include "Local Street Barrier Wall" in instances where the VCMP Property has an adjacent Local Street, instead of a Rear Yard.
D) Page 19 - Figure 4-2 Village Center 1 Zoning District Map - Section VC-1D has a section zone VCMU-56 with
numerous homes impacted by the high density.
We
suggest VC-1C or VC-2A would be better location for the VCMU-56 zoning, and drop the VC-1D down to VCMU-36 or
VCMU-30.
E) Page 49 - Figure 6-1 - Village Center 1 Concept Design Rendering. This drawing seems out of sync with the density noted on Page 19 of VCMU-56.
The VC-1D VCMU section
would have to be much higher, and likely have little if no Attachment 9
open-air courtyard space at that high density.
F) General comment -- the Village Center properties with VCO and VCMU zonings are not likely to provide adjacent neighborhoods a need to have directly access to those
properties, so having pedestrian access is not need from the neighborhood perspective.
Providing vehicle or
pedestrian access to the adjacent neighborhoods in those cases will more likely create traffic and parking issues in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Thanks for your time and attention with our concerns.
Best regards,
Donna
Attachment 9
From: Chuck Fraleigh
To: PlanningCommission AP
Subject: Village Center Master Plan
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2025 5:50:19 PM
Attachments: LivableSunnyvaleVCMPLetter.pdf
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have attached a letter from Livable Sunnyvale regarding the Village Center Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chuck Fraleigh
Livable Sunnyvale
Attachment 9
June 15, 2025
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Sunnyvale has faced challeng
es ge=ng both housing and retail developed at the Village Centers. We need housing at these sites to combat the extremely high cost of housing. However, we also need some retail at these sites to serve the needs of the surrounding communiGes.
The Village Center Master Plan (VCMP) is an innovaGve approach to get both housing and retail at these sites. We have a number of quesGons and comments about this plan which are summarized here:
• We appreciate rezoning Village Center 4B and 4C as commercial only in order to preserve retail at these locaGons.
• We also appreciate spli=ng Village Center 4A into commercial and mixed-use (residenGal) secGons. We would support going even further and simply zone Village Center 4A as all commercial if the proposed mixed-use secGon is unlikely to be developed into housing due to its small size.
• Spli=ng the other Village Centers into commercial and residenGal (mixed-use) secGons also seems posiGve, but we need to be careful that we don’t segment the Village Centers in a way that would make redeveloping the sites unlikely. Some of the rezoned secGons seem fairly small, for example the VCC zones in Village Center 1A and 2A. Carving out small secGons like these seems to constrain what could be built at the sites without providing much benefit. • There are risks that the new zoning boundaries would not conform with what a developer would like to build, or what we would ideally like to see at these sites. The zoning seems to preclude building tall mixed-using buildings with first floor retail along the enGre road frontages and step back to smaller residenGal units along the borders with the neighbors. We think it would be beneficial to develop an expedited process a developer could use to adjust the zoning of these sites if the developer was building the required number of housing units and required total retail square footage.
• We are concerned about the minimal parking requirements. For example, if Village Center 7 were built out with an average of 2-bedroom units, there would be around 700 bedrooms in the development, but only about 400 parking spaces. It seems likely the units would be occupied by individual roommates, each of which would have a car, or families with two working adults, each of which would have their own car. The number of cars owned by the residents would be roughly equal to the number of bedrooms. The result would be 300 vehicles parking on neighboring streets.
The remainder of the le\er goes into the details behind these comments.
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Village Center 1 Rezoning
Village Center 1 is the most complicated, and we have a number of quesGons and comments. Figure 1 shows the proposed rezoning.
The southeast corner (1C) has been split
into commercial (VCC) and mixed-use
(VCMU) secGons. The larger VCC secGon
covers the popular Zano\o’s
supermarket, and we appreciate the City
trying to protect this locaGon.
The northwest corner (1A) has also been
split into commercial and mixed-use
areas. However, the commercial secGon
is fairly small and covers mostly a parking
lot area. This small commercial area does
not seem to provide much value. It
would only require 12,063 sq. `. of
retail, and it would also not protect any
of the exisGng retail. We would like to
understand if there is some advantage to
requiring a small retail secGon like this
set back from the corner of Mary and
Fremont.
On potenGal improvement would be to move this VCC zone to the 1C corner and zone all of the 1A corner as mixed use (VCMU-36). This would protect more of the retail in the 1C secGon and may make it easier to redevelop 1A with new housing.
The southwest corner (1D) has been split into mixed-use and office (VCO) secGons. We do not understand the moGvaGon of the VCO zoning. There seems to be an excess of office space in the bay area and we have not heard many residents asking to preserve office buildings. The business on the southwest corner that would likely generate the strongest response to preserve is the restaurant Saravana Bhavan, but this falls in the VCMU-56 zone. We think it would be reasonable to eliminate the VCO zones on this corner and replace them with mixed-use. This would allow for substanGally more housing in this Village Center, or potenGally less dense zoning on this corner. To balance out the extra housing we could also rezone the enGre corner 1C as VCC.
Overall, we think this simpler approach – rezone all of secGons 1A and 1D as VCMU and rezone all of secGon 1C as VCC would result in the preservaGon of more retail as well as offer a higher likelihood of developing new housing.
The northeast corner (1B) currently has an approved redevelopment plan and the proposed zoning conforms to this plan. We don’t think any changes need to be made to secGon 1B.
Figure 1 - Vilage Center 1
Attachment 9
Village Center 2 Rezoning
The southern part of Village Center 2 (2B) contains the Fremont Corners projects which are either complete or under construcGon. The rezoning of this secGon seems fine.
The northern part (2A) is split into commercial and mixed-use areas, but like Village Center 1A, the commercial secGon is fairly small. It would only require 12,456 sq. `. of retail. We don’t think this small amount of retail is parGcularly valuable to the community, and may wind up as small, empty storefronts similar to what we see in the Fremont Corners project. We think it would be fine to just rezone this area as all mixed-use.
Village Center 3 Rezoning
Rezoning all of the eastern part (3B) as VCC makes sense. This is a small 0.9 acre lot which currently contains retail.
The western part (3A) is split into mixed-use and commercial secGons, but this seems to have been done differently than other Village Centers. Figure 2 shows the proposed split.
Most of the exisGng retail in this
Village Center is rezoned as mixed-
use, while the parking lot is rezoned
as commercial. This is opposite from
other Village Centers, where much
of the exisGng retail is rezoned as
commercial and the mixed-use zone
is placed over the parking lot. The
zoning proposed for Village Center
3A does not seem like it would
preserve much of the exisGng retail,
and it would place all of the tall
residenGal buildings closer to the
neighborhoods. We are curious why
the proposed zoning for this Village
Center was done this way.
Village Center 4 Rezoning
The rezoning of Village Center 4 seems quite good. The porGon of the village center which contains the Lucky’s at the corner of Mathilda and Maude has been rezoned as VCC. We thing this is a very good approach to preserve the Lucky’s or maintain some other grocery store at this Village Center. We also appreciate rezoning the secGons Village Center 4b and 4c as commercial-only to preserve the retail in these locaGons.
Figure 2 - Village Center 3A
Attachment 9
We do have a quesGon about the porGon of Village Center 4 which has been rezoned as VCMU. It is about 1.8 acres and would only allow just under 100 housing units. Is it likely such a small area would a\ract a developer willing to build new housing there? Are there any examples of similar-sized developments in the City? The Flats West downtown seems comparable, but that was built as part of the larger CityLine project. Have any similar sized developments been proposed our built as stand- alone projects?
If it is unlikely that housing would actually be developed at the proposed density on this lot, we think it would be reasonable for the City to just zone the enGre 4A Village Center as VCC and redistribute the housing to other sites which may be more likely to redevelop.
Village Centers 5 & 6 Rezoning
The rezoning of Village Center 5 (Fair Oaks Plaza on Duane Ave) and Village Center 6 (Lakewood shopping center on Lawrence) seems to be very reasonable. Developers have submi\ed plans to redevelop both sites and the rezoning generally follows those plans.
Village Center 7 Rezoning
This enGre Village Center has been zoned as VCMU-36. We are in favor of increasing the amount of housing that can be built here.
Future Changes to Zoning
Over Gme, there may be situaGons where the zoning proposed in the VCMP turns out to be different than what would be ideal for a parGcular site. For example, if a developer wanted to build at VC3A what was originally envisioned for the Village Centers – tall mixed use buildings with first floor retail on the corner of Old San Francisco and Wolfe and step down to smaller residenGal buildings in the back, this would not be allowed under the proposed zoning since the secGon along Wolfe is zoned commercial only. The developer would need to request a General Plan amendment to rezone this property in order to build such a project.
The process to change the zoning is expensive and takes a long Gme. One recent example is the project to redevelop the Wendy’s site near the corner of Wolfe and Fremont which required rezoning to allow for housing. This project started in 2018. It just completed the General Plan amendment to rezone the site a few months ago. This project can now, 7 years a`er it was iniGated, start to submit plans to the City for approval.
This process takes too long. We would like to have a system where, if a developer is proposing a project which meets the total housing and retail square footage requirements in the proposed VCMP zoning, that the sites could be rezoned very quickly.
Attachment 9
Parking
The proposed parking requirements, shown below, do not seem to illustrate a realisGc assessment of off-street parking raGos per building type. For example, in Sunnyvale’s 2023-2031 Housing Element in the secGon Gtled, Overcrowding (3-20), “Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold.” It further notes, “Overcrowding occurs when housing costs are so high relaGve to income that families double up or take in roommates (boarders)/or extended family members to share their living costs…” The high cost of housing in Sunnyvale cannot be disputed and neither can overcrowding.
Based on this informaGon, what is the basis for the data in the chart below as it pertains to units in a mixed-use development? Taking overcrowding into consideraGon, it is likely more than one person will be living in either a studio or one-bedroom. Also, it is likely that each adult living in a unit will own a vehicle. Consequently, the chart below appears to underesGmate the minimum and maximum parking raGo for the units noted below and will exacerbate current on street parking.
Attachment 9
Housing Element
In Housing Element Program H3, Sunnyvale commi\ed to find at least 750 sites in high resource areas of the city. Rezoning porGons of Village Centers 1 and 2 as commercial reduces the available land which could be upzoned to accommodate this housing.
For example, Village Center 1 is currently zoned for 18 du/ac. This would allow for about 500 housing units. The proposed new zoning allows for about 530 housing units, a 30 unit increase, which is good.
However, there is not much capacity to add addiGonal units at this site. ModificaGons to change the VCO zones in Village Center 1D and the VCC zone in Village Center 2A to mixed-use would allow for lower densiGes at these sites in the VCMP . This would allow the densiGes to be increased as part of program H3.
Other QuesEons
• Do the building height, setback, and daylight plane requirements allow for developing the maximum density with sufficient parking in the VCMU-56 areas? • What is the maximum density that is pracGcal to build in the various VCMU zoned areas given the height and other requirements. How much could density be increased beyond what is proposed in the VCMP?
• Why are single family homes a permi\ed use in the VCMU areas? • What is the minimum housing density required in the various VCMU zones?
We would like to thank all the City staff who have worked on developing the VCMP , and thank you to all the commissioners for the Gme you have spent reviewing this.
Very Sincerely,
The Livable Sunnyvale Board
Angela Rausch, Chair
Agnes Veith, Vice-Chair
Angus Liu
Chuck Fraleigh
Paulina Zapata
Attachment 9
From: Sharlene Liu
To: PlanningCommission AP
Cc: Ari Feinsmith; Stephen Meier; ; Daniel Karpelevitch; Alon Golan Subject: VCMP input: enabling walking and biking
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:21:52 AM
Attachments: sssLogo 240916 trace wName.png
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Dear Planning Commission:
Sunnyvale Safe Streets would like to offer our input for the Village Center Master Plan. We support village centers because they are Sunnyvale's version of a 15-minute city, where many amenities and services are within a 15-minute walk or bike ride away. Importantly, village centers serve not just the residents of village centers but the surrounding neighborhoods as well.
With that in mind, we support the vision of a village center that is "pedestrian and cyclist- oriented and integrated into the transportation and circulation network of the surrounding neighborhood" [Ref: VCMP draft, Section 3.2, Vision Statement, p. 15].
We support the mobility and circulation goals listed in Section 3.3 (f) on p. 16. However, some of those goals mention only pedestrian access, leaving out bicycle access.
Please
expand them to include bicycle access, like so:
(1) Link Village Centers to existing adjacent neighborhoods through a continuous pedestrian and bicycle circulation system.
(2) Align new internal streets and driveways to extend to existing streets and create walkable and bikeable neighborhood blocks.
Toward making VCs accessible by bike, we'd like the VCMP to state that the bikeways connecting the VCs to the rest of Sunnyvale be made safe, including removing on-street parking if necessary.
The safety of bikeways takes priority over street parking, as stated in LUTE policies LT-[3.8, 3.9, 3.10]. Re-stating this prioritization in the VCMP is especially important because of the anticipated increase in street parking demand due to the increase in housing density, accompanied by a decrease in the minimum off-street parking requirement.
A good place to add this prioritization is in Section 3.3 (f) on Mobility and Circulation Improvements, like so:
(7) Bikeways connecting to village centers should be made safe. If on-street parking Attachment 9
hampers the safety of bikeways, then such on-street parking should be removed.
For VC 1, we are interested in having VC 1C be integrated with the surrounding Wrightmont Corners neighborhood. Currently, there is a solid wall separating VC 1C from the Wrightmont Corners neighborhood. A barrier for pedestrians and cyclists, this wall goes against the vision of village centers to be "pedestrian and cyclist-oriented and integrated into the transportation and circulation network of the surrounding neighborhood".
A good
way to integrate the surrounding neighborhood is to provide bike+pedestrian openings in this wall, similar to what is done in many other neighborhoods around Sunnyvale.
There
are some good examples of bike + pedestrian openings in walls in the vicinity of VC 1 that allow residents to access the businesses on the other side:
the wall along New Brunswick
and the wall at the NW corner of Mary/Fremont. These openings allow residents to walk or bike a short distance to the businesses instead of drive ½ mile around. Table 3-1, 3[a, b] (p. 14) already says there is community support for pedestrian and bicycle-oriented design for VC 1.
Please specify that openings in the wall of VC 1C be part of that design, like so:
3.a: Pedestrian-oriented design, including establishing openings through walls between VCs and surrounding neighborhoods.
3.b: Bicycle-oriented design, including establishing openings through walls between VCs and surrounding neighborhoods.
For VC 6, we would like to have the John W. Christian Greenbelt (JWC) extend through VC 6 along the SFPUC right-of-way.
Without this extension, JWC users will have to go around VC 6, which is unintuitive and circuitous, and a downgrade from what is allowed today. We would like the VCMP to state that the City's intention is to work with SFPUC to complete this link in the JWC.
Table 3-1, 3.f (p. 14) specifies, "Direct connections to the JWC Greenbelt and Lakewood Park", but that is insufficient. Instead, say:
Complete missing link in the JWC Greenbelt by extending it through VC6 along the SFPUC ROW.
We think the minimum required bike parking ratios specified in Table 4-10 (p. 38) are too low in some respects. We suggest increasing the minimum requirement to at least the goal specified in the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (Section 10.6, Table 10-3). Specifically to the goals shown in the yellow columns below:
land use class 1
parking
(VCMP)
class 1 parking
(VTA)
class 2
parking
(VCMP)
class 2
parking
(VTA)
Attachment 9
residential 1 space/unit 1
space/bedroom
retail +
service
1 space/10,000
sf
1 space/10
employees
1 space/4,000
sf
1 space/2,000
sf
eating +
drinking
1 space/3,000
sf
1 space/10
employees
office 1 space/4,000
sf
1 space/2,000 sf 1 space/10,000
sf
10 spaces/
building
entrance
Thank you for taking our input into consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharlene Liu
Daniel Karpelevitch
Kevin Jackson
Steve Meier
Alon Golan
Ari Feinsmith
Attachment 9
From: Jeffrey Cucinotta
To: PlanningCommission AP
Subject: FW: Recommendations: Revised Village Center Master Plan Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:16:06 AM
From: Christina O'Guinn < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:18 AM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mehlinger <[email protected]>; Shawn W < > Subject: Recommendations: Revised Village Center Master Plan WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Dear Sr. Planner Cucinotta,
We have lived in Sunnyvale for over 30 years and are writing to share feedback on the Village Center Master Plan (VCMP), especially as it relates to Village Centers 4 and 5.
Although the revised plan may not prevent the near-total loss of retail at Village Centers 5 and 6, we remain committed to protecting what remains and ensuring future development serves our historically neglected community. The delayed response to SB330—passed over five years ago—raises concerns that earlier action might have prevented some of the current retail loss. We ask the City to act with urgency and vision now.
We appreciate steps like the rezoning of the Lucky site as commercial-only, and we offer the following specific recommendations to protect and support viable retail in our community:
Village Center 4
Maintain the commercial-only zoning
to protect North Sunnyvale’s only large-format grocery store from housing-only development proposals.
Attachment 9
Ensure adequate surface-level customer
parking: Ascertain that the
commercial-only area allows for the minimum 80+ spaces needed for Lucky in addition to other retail. Zoning should support feasible, cost-effective options— preferably surface parking—rather than relying on expensive underground structures.
Village Center 5
Expand
commercial-only zoning to at least 50% of the site
to better support the mix of essential retail services envisioned in the Village Center model.While it appears the Taj Mahal grocery
store and one restaurant are currently protected, rezoning more of the site helps retain a broader array of services that nearby residents and office workers rely on.
Protect a “viable market”:
According to Economic Development Manager Christine Velasquez’s definition of a viable market, the site is already thriving—Taj Mahal draws an average of 800 daily customers, and restaurants serve 150–200 daily patrons, many from local offices mid-day, during
the week.
Attachment 9
Support restaurant clusters:
Restaurants do best when located near one another, creating shared visibility and drawing in repeat customers. Isolating a single restaurant may lead to business failure and fewer dining options for the neighborhood.Acknowledge the limits of mixed-use:
While we understand the City’s preference for ground-floor retail in mixed-use projects, state-sanctioned waivers can eliminate retail entirely. The most reliable path to preserving essential retail is to increase commercial-only zoning and revisit rezoning
when strong, retail-integrated proposals come forward.
General Future VCMP Recommendations
If the City considers adding future Village Centers:
Reconsider Village Center locations:
The vision for walkable retail hubs is compelling—but not economically feasible at the current scale in the locations selected.
Attachment 9
Avoid erasing essential services:
North Sunnyvale already lacks walkable retail. Adding dense housing while shrinking retail access directly undermines the Village Center model’s purpose.
Locate future Village Centers in
areas with existing commercial density
(e.g., El Camino/Central Sunnyvale), where essential services are abundant, the loss of a single grocery store would be less damaging and new residents would benefit from an already robust network of retail options.
Thank you for your work to preserve essential retail in our community. We appreciate your attention to this issue and your continued support for balanced development that truly serves North Sunnyvale.
Sincerely,
Christina O’Guinn and Shawn Wolfe
Residents, District 5 – Sunnyvale
Attachment 9
From: Jeffrey Cucinotta
To: PlanningCommission AP
Subject: FW: Urgent Concerns About Proposed Redevelopment of Fair Oaks and Lakewood Plazas Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:16:48 AM
From: Alka Sethi < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:44 AM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent Concerns About Proposed Redevelopment of Fair Oaks and Lakewood Plazas WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Dear Mr. Cucinotta,
I’m writing on behalf of North Sunnyvale residents who are deeply concerned about the proposed redevelopment of Fair Oaks and Lakewood Plazas into housing-only zones. While we understand the need for additional housing, the current plans risk eliminating critical neighborhood grocery stores and displacing small, minority-owned businesses that serve thousands of families in our area.
This redevelopment would disproportionately impact historically underserved neighborhoods by:
Reducing walkable access to essential groceries and services, forcing car dependency
Increasing food insecurity, especially for households with limited mobility or income
Threatening culturally specific stores like Taj Mahal Fresh Market, which is vital for families who rely on halal meats and other specialty foods A recent graphic from Livable Sunnyvale in the petition below shows a stark imbalance in grocery access between North and South Sunnyvale. With the loss of three stores in North Sunnyvale, the gap will only widen.
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
From: Jeffrey Cucinotta
To: PlanningCommission AP
Subject: FW: Resident Comment & Recommendation: Village Center 5 Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:53:24 PM
From: Gigi Wongelsrud < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:19 PM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>; Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]>
Subject: Resident Comment & Recommendation: Village Center 5 WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Attn: Sunnyvale Planning Commission & City Council
My husband and I moved to Sunnyvale in 2023. We live just down the street from Chavez Supermarket and a short walk from Fair Oaks Plaza. Since settling in, we’ve come to truly appreciate the great restaurants in the Plaza; for my birthday this year I had friends walk with me to California Momo Kitchen for lunch. I felt so lucky to have a safe walking route to great food; no major roadways to cross on the way there.
Many times I’ve found myself wishing for a renewal of the Plaza. However, the elimination of retail would be unthinkable to me. The potential for a true neighborhood community space would be dashed, and the next closest retail center of comparable size would be across Lawrence Expressway or across 101 (not only much farther, but much less safe of a walk or bike ride in both cases).
Today I’m proud to join more than 1300 (at the time of writing) Sunnyvale residents in a show of support for the continued access to retail space - including essential groceries - within accessible distance of our homes.
I implore you to listen to the residents of North Sunnyvale. This outcry should not be mistaken for NIMBYism; the continuing loss of access to retail space in North Sunnyvale exacerbates the already existing inequity in our underserved community.
The City has shown that it does care for North Sunnyvale with the recent Peery Park Rides program (which I often use to commute to and from work). Listen to your residents and help our community continue to improve and thrive. Fair Oaks Plaza deserves attention, but its retail spaces currently serve a vital purpose that should be preserved or even expanded, not eliminated.
Attachment 9
Thank you for your time and attention.
Gigi Wongelsrud
Sunnyvale Resident, 94085
Attachment 9
From: Jeffrey Cucinotta
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta
Subject: FW: Village Center Master Plan (VCMP) - County Comments Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 7:23:02 PM
Attachments: Response Letter 2025.docx
Importance: High
From: Aghegnehu, Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:37 AM
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Village Center Master Plan (VCMP) - County Comments Importance: High
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hi Jeffrey, please use this one. The earlier letterhead was outdated Thank you,
Ben Aghegnehu
Principal Planner
County of Santa Clara | Roads & Airports
101 Skyport Rd | San Jose, CA, 95110
408-573-2462 (o)
From: Aghegnehu, Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:25 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Village Center Master Plan (VCMP) - County Comments Hi Jeffrey, attached are our comments
Thank you,
Ben Aghegnehu
Principal Planner
County of Santa Clara | Roads & Airports
101 Skyport Rd | San Jose, CA, 95110
408-573-2462 (o)
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
• Recommend installing separate curb ramps for each crosswalk at each corner of the intersection.
• Recommend to extend the proposed bike facility on Lawrence Expressway through the intersection.
• A Class I Shared-Use Path is recommended, but its implementation is subject to a feasibility study.
Thank you agai
n for your continued outreach and coordination with the Department. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Thank you,
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Bryan Wenter
June 16, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Nathan Iglesias, Chair
Sunnyvale Planning Commission
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Email: [email protected]
Re: Draft Urgency Ordinance (File No. 05-0520) and Already Filed Housing Development Projects Pursuant to Senate Bill 330
Dear Chair Iglesias and Honorable Commissioners:
On behalf of our client, Dividend Homes, Inc., we write to address the draft urgency ordi nance that will be presented to you on the Planning Commission’s June 16, 2025 agenda. While we take no position on the merits of the urgency ordinance itself nor on the recommendation that you adopt it , given that the ordinance is predicated on alleged public health and safety impacts that would occur if Village Center projects do not include the City’s desired amount of retail space it is important to make several important points clear.
First, even if the urgency ordinance is valid and ultimately adopted it will not affect any project for which a valid preliminary application pursuant to Senate Bill 330 was filed before the ordinance takes effect. As you know, a valid preliminary application —meaning one that includes a preliminary application form conforming to SB 330, addresses the 17 items prescribed in SB 330, and that pays the “permit processing fee”—confers vested rights the moment it is filed. (Gov. Code § 65941.1). The only exceptions to such vested rights are established in the Housing Accountability Act, and they are as follows:
▪ Fees, charges, or other monetary exactions to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independen tly published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction; ▪ A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond t hose in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in the HAA (addressed further below), and there is no feasible alternative method to satis factorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact; ▪ Subjecting the project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act; Attachment 9
June 16, 2025 – Page 2
Re: Draft Urgency Ordinance
▪ The project has not commenced construction within two and one -half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval; and
▪ The project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(2)).
Second, and with respect to the second point cited above—the only potentially relevant exception to the draft urgency ordinance —there is no possibility a specific, adverse impact finding can be made here, regardless of whether the urgency ordinance is adopted. In addition to the fact that any such exception would require a preponderance of evidence in the record —not merely substantial evidence —the HAA narrowly defines a “specific, adverse impact” to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Thus, for a city to ever lawfully find such an impact, it would be required to have a written public health and safety standard in effect by the time the application is deemed complete and it would have t o find, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the project would have a (1) significant, (2) quantifiable, (3) direct, AND (4) unavoidable impact that can only be avoided by disapproving the project or requiring that it be built at a lower density.
These findings are nearly impossible to make, as the League of California Cities has acknowledged to the Legislature. Moreover, the Legislature has stated its intent that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety “arise infrequently. ” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3)).
Housing projects that do not provide a jurisdiction’s desired amount of commercial or retail space do not cause a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety within the meaning of the HA A, and such projects are commonplace throughout California.
We are confident the City understands the difference between the findings needs to adopt an urgency ordinance and the findings that would be required to disapprove a housing project, as well as the vested rights conferred through preliminary applications, but we nevertheless want to ensure there is no confusion on these important issues. We continue to look forward to working in cooperation with the City to provide much needed housing, including affordable housing, to the community pursuant to critical state laws that are designed to facilitate housing production.
Sincerely,
BRYAN WENTER
CC: TRUDY RYAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REBECCA MOON, CITY ATTORNEY
SHAUNN MENDRIN, PLANNING OFFICER
JOSHUA VROTSOS, VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Attachment 9
To: City Council and City Staff May 7, 2025
From: Wrightmont Corners Neighbors
Subject: Neighborhood feedback to Village Center One @Fremont Ave & Mary Ave Dear Council members and City Staff-
As you prepare your final reviews regarding the Village Center Plans, we, the residents of the Wrightmont Corners (WC) neighborhood, would like to reiterate our thoughts and views for the Village Center One plan - Southwest Corner. Note, we do understand that additional housing is needed in Sunnyvale. We want to ensure new development takes into consideration the surrounding residents.
Below is a recap of our views for Village Center One - Southwest Corner:
1) Kitim.at/.Cas�e.wa.ll*: Retain the wall along Kitimat Place and Cascade Drive with no break/entrance into the WC neighborhood for either vehicle or pedestrian traffic and keep the trees along the wall. We wantto reduce the likelihood of parking and traffic from the Village Center One residents & workers into our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is quiet, friendly and safe. We'd like to keep that atmosphere. 2) On:§ite Parking: Ensure there is sufficient parking for the businesses/residences to reduce the likelihood of parking in our neighborhood from residents/workers, 3) Traf:ti.!;_roitigation - Review of traffic flow and options for minimizing impact on local traffic flow/safety.
4) Hejgbt.ot..b.u.ild� - For privacy, keep building heights closest to the Kitimat/Cascade wall low to ensure privacy for the residents in the neighborhood.
Additional recommendations once development is completed:
5) �_ste�arkiog SigM: provide signs and perhaps permits if #1 and #2 above are not sufficient.
6) �Ro.dent (Uitiga_tion: With increased volume of trash from residential and business establishments on the Fremont/Mary corner, there should be extra pest and rodent mitigation for the commercial dumpsters to ensure infestations do not spread to the surrounding neighborhood.
7) Extra..9le.a.aing/�_r-washing requjreme.n!!i: If dumpsters remain situated as they are today, close to the Kitimat/Cascade wall, there should be extra cleaning at certain frequency e.g. quarterly, to prevent fetid smells from the build-up of grime/spillage/compost tea.
8) Sfil..Y.tity.c.am_era.s;_ In the new neighborhood there should be security cameras pointed inwards towards Mary so that any crime can be tracked Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
To: City Council and City Staff May7,2025
From: Wrightmont Corners Neighbors
Subject: Neighborhood feedback to Village Center One @Fremont Ave & Mary Ave Dear Council members and City Staff-
As you prepare your final reviews regarding the Village Center Plans, we, the residents of the Wrightmont Corners (WC) neighborhood, would like to reiterate our thoughts and views for the Village Center One plan - Southwest Corner. Note, we do understand that additional housing is needed in Sunnyvale. We want to ensure new development takes into consideration the surrounding residents.
Below is a recap of our views for Village Center One - Southwest Corner:
1) Kitimat/Ca�ade Wall*: Retain the wall along Kitimat Place and Cascade Drive with no break/entrance into the WC neighborhood for either vehicle or pedestrian traffic and keep the trees along the wall. We want to reduce the likelihood of parking and traffic from the Village Center One residents & workers into our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is quiet, friendly and safe. We'd like to keep that atmosphere. 2) On-Site Parking: Ensure there is sufficient parking for the businesses/residences to reduce the likelihood of parking in our neighborhood from residents/workers, 3) Traffic mitigation - Review of traffic flow and options for minimizing impact on local traffic flow/safety
4) Height of btdldings - For privacy, keep building heights closest to the Kitimat/Cascade wall low to ensure privacy for the residents in the neighborhood.
Additional recommendations once development is completed:
5) Reside.ot.s Only Parking Signs: provide signs and perhaps permits if #1 and #2 above are not sufficient.
6) Pest/Rodent mitigation: With increased volume of trash from residential and business establishments on the Fremont/Mary corner, there should be extra pest and rodent mitigation for the commercial dumpsters to ensure infestations do not spread to the surrounding neighborhood.
7) Extra.cleaning/power-washing requirements: If dumpsters remain situated as they are today, close to the Kitimat/Cascade wall, there should be extra cleaning at certain frequency e.g. quarterly, to prevent fetid smells from the build-up of grime/spillage/compost tea.
8) Security cameras: In the new neighborhood there should be security cameras pointed inwards towards Mary so that any crime can be tracked Signed: Name Rose A L { nn Sig��(,\�;__ Street Bon,,n.t�t� w7 Signed: Name ________ Signature ______ Street. ______ 9_CfcJ,f'"7. 3C)3 7 Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
From: Jeffrey Cucinotta
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta
Subject: FW: POLICY - FW: Request to reject VCMP and application for VC5 Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 7:29:47 PM
From: Himanshu Sethi < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 8:23 PM
To: PlanningCommission AP <[email protected]> Subject: Request to reject VCMP and application for VC5 WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Good evening Commissioners,
My name is Himanshu Sethi and I live in the San Miguel neighborhood in North Sunnyvale and I am writing to represent myself and my community. I am writing this email to ask you to reject the Village Center Master Plan and the current housing-only developer application as it applies to Village center 5 (VC5), the Fair Oaks Plaza site, and to protect the vital retail that this community depends on.
Fair Oaks Plaza is a high traffic, community serving center that provides daily access to groceries, healthcare, restaurants, barbershops, and cultural markets. Businesses here receive between 100 and 800 customers per day, with around 2,000 total daily visits.
This is a thriving plaza, not underused land. It plays a critical role in everyday life.
In San Miguel, about 70 percent of households earn under 110,000 dollars, well below the citywide median of 164,000 dollars. A quarter of local residents are seniors. Many rely on walking or transit to access basic needs. For them, this plaza is not optional — it is essential.
That is why over 1,300 residents have signed a petition calling on the city to preserve this space. More than 1,500 new housing units have already been added within a half mile of the plaza over the last decade. And this is more than the 900 units outlined in the VCMP.
The population has grown, but the services have not. What we need now is support for existing residents — not the removal of the places they depend on.
We are open to mixed use development, but only if it protects vital retail — especially a grocery store and other essential services. If this site is developed without those, it will create a food desert. That would increase car dependency, pollution, and inequity, and would directly undermine the city’s goals for walkability and sustainability.
Attachment 9
This site is zoned for commercial use. The city is not obligated to approve a housing only project. If more housing is needed, the city should first evaluate underused industrial parcels, but only after proper environmental review and health and safety review of nearby sites as well (not just the VCMP) and a clear understanding of community needs.
Even SB 330 calls for preserving neighborhood serving retail and preventing displacement. Fair Oaks Plaza deserves that protection.
Please reject the VC5 plan as written. Protect vital retail in Fair Oaks Plaza. Preserve what this community truly needs.
Thank you,
Himanshu
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
From:
To: Council AnswerPoint; Jeffrey Cucinotta
Subject: [Wrightmont Corners] Village Center Development Feedback Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 3:45:24 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Hi
We are strong opponents of the development project at Wrightmont Corners as shown in above caption.
This is a residential neighborhood with NO mass transit within close proximity.
The development designation of this magnitude should only be applied to areas adjacent to regional transit stations, identified Urban Villages or in other areas of the city that have existing residential development built at this density. The subject site does NOT meet any of those qualifications.
Wrightmont neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support the project’s goal of being a transit-focused residential area — this development will only increase traffic and congestion of this neighborhood, resulting in negative environmental impact and decreased quality of lifestyle.
Until thorough reviews are conducted to address the regional transit concerns, the focus should revert back to areas where infrastructure already in place and further expansion for Urban Villages.
Wrightmont Corners does not fit the profile.
Bianca Wang
Attachment 9
From:
To: Jeffrey Cucinotta
Subject: Urgent Action Needed: Protecting North Sunnyvale from Becoming a Food Desert Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 12:35:36 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.
Dear Sr. Planner Cucinotta,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the future of North Sunnyvale, specifically regarding the potential for our community to become a food desert due to the loss of essential retail spaces in Village Centers. This issue is critically important for the well-being of our residents and the environment.
As highlighted in the petition (https://www.change.org/p/prioritize-community-needs-protect- north-sunnyvale-from-becoming-a-food-desert?) and the Livable Sunnyvale discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzoDLOB5KU - specifically from 36 min to 44 min), the current trend of replacing retail with housing, particularly in Village Centers 5 (Fair Oaks Plaza) and 6 (Lakewood Plaza), is alarming. The updated Village Center Master Plan, while attempting to address this, may not be sufficient to prevent further loss of vital services.
Further the rezoning of these Village Centers may result in loss of retail spaces.
The consequences of losing these retail spaces are significant:
Food Desert: The loss of grocery stores and other food retailers will make it difficult for residents, especially those with low incomes, seniors, and those without cars, to access fresh and healthy food.
Environmental Impact: Increased reliance on personal vehicles to travel to more distant grocery stores will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions and increased traffic congestion.
Community Impact: The loss of local businesses weakens the fabric of our community, reduces walkability, and diminishes the quality of life for all residents.
Call to Action:
I urge the Planning Commission and City Planning staff to take immediate action to:
1. Preserve and Increase Commercial Zoning: Significantly increase the amount of commercial-only zoned space in Village Centers, aiming for at least 50%, as recommended by community members.
2. Replace Lost Retail: Implement requirements for commercial zoning in any new rezoning requests (such as Tidewater) to replace and grow the retail we are losing.
3. Prioritize North Sunnyvale: Recognize North Sunnyvale as a top priority for rezoning and conduct a comprehensive study of the area's needs, including in-person surveys of residents and businesses.
4. Reconsider Village Center Locations:
Explore alternative locations for future
Village Centers, perhaps in areas with existing commercial density (e.g., El Camino/Central Sunnyvale), to minimize the impact of retail loss.
Attachment 9
Why This Matters to Me :
As a family with a small 1 year old baby and senior citizens at home, having a grocery store at walking distance is immensely beneficial. Also given the single lane roads on each side and both parents working, I am worried about the increased traffic during peak hours and increase in commute time. Also losing a grocery store nearby would mean that folks will need to travel to far off places via car for groceries, further adding to environment impact Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter. I look forward to hearing about the steps you will take to protect North Sunnyvale from becoming a food desert and to preserve the quality of life for all its residents.
Regards,
Chetan
North Sunnyvale Resident
Attachment 9
June 25th, 2025
City of Sunnyvale
456 W. Olive Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Attn: Jeffrey Cucinotta
Dear Jeffrey,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the May 2025 public draft of the Village Center Master Plan (VCMP) for the City of Sunnyvale.
VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
VCMP Vision, Goals and Policies
VTA commends the City of Sunnyvale for proactively preparing the VCMP to preserve and enhance the village centers within the City. VTA supports the Vision Statement, Goals and Policies presented in Chapter 3 of the Master Plan, and notes that including community- serving commercial and retail businesses along with housing increases opportunities for walking, biking and taking transit, and helps reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Residential Density
VTA supports the referenced City of Sunnyvale Housing Element Policy H-1.3 -- Additional Affordable Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas. Considering this policy, VTA recommends increasing the Base Maximum Density in Village Center 7, which is within close proximity to the VTA Fair Oaks light rail station. The Master Plan currently classifies Village Center 7 as Zoning District VCMU-36, with a Base Maximum Density of 36 dwelling units per acre. This proposed residential density falls below the recommended level for transit-oriented development of 75 dwelling units per acre in VTA’s Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Manual (available at https://www.vta.org/community-design-and- transportation-cdt). The proposed density is also below the standard for a Tier 3 transit station in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. VTA recommends that the City classify Village Center 7 site as VCMU-56 in recognition of its key location near rail transit service.
Additionally, VTA’s Frequent Network Rapid 523 bus route runs through Village Centers 2 (Sunnyvale-Saratoga & Fremont north and south bound) and 4 (Mathilda & Maude northbound stop). VTA recommends a higher zoning density classification for these Village Centers in recognition of their close proximity to frequent transit service.
Attachment 9
Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual
The plan features various street design conceptual schematics and planned improvements, informed by City’s zoning and development standards (as noted in Chapter 4). Where applicable and appropriate, VTA encourages future development applicants in the Master Plan area to utilize the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual to inform their project's design. The CDT guidelines provide strategies for shaping the built environment and parking layouts to promote pedestrian activity, support transit, and enhance community character.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations
VTA commends the City for including various bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the VCMP, such as reduced corner radii, buffered or separated bikeways, and bus stop improvements. VTA suggests the City consider referencing the CDT Manual and the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines as these improvements approach further design.
Table 4-7: Pedestrian Real Zones and Amenities lists bicycle parking as prohibited within the Furniture Zone and Through Zone. VTA suggested allowing for bicycle parking within these zones to encourage biking as an alternative mode of travel to the Village Centers.
Transit and Bus Stop Improvements
Please coordinate with VTA as the design progresses for the Circulation and Streetscape Improvements of the Village Centers. The design should take into consideration VTA operations in the Village Centers and any transit improvements that can improve multi- modal access.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the VCMP. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected], or the VTA Land Use and Development Review team at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Triana Crighton
Senior Transportation Planner
SU2505
Attachment 9