26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20250324) — Sunnyvale City Council, March 24, 2026

1 Momoko Ishijima
From: PlanningCommission AP
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:11 PM
Cc: Momoko Ishijima; Shaunn Mendrin;
Subject: FW: Watched the proceeds, but need to stop now @ 7:30 Forwarding public comment staff received regarding Agenda Item 2 on the February 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting agenda. This item is being forwarded as Information Only and to ensure discussions relating to this topic occur during a Commission meeting, you should not respond to the individual.
(This email has been bcc’d to all Planning Commission members.) Best,

Guia Sharma
Administrative Aide
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 408-730-7432
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Sunnyvale.ca.gov

* The Sunnyvale Planning Division continues to provide virtual services, such as electronic permit submittals and virtual meetings. In-person services are also available at the One Stop Permit Center, located on the second floor of the new City Hall building at 456 W. Olive Avenue. Underground parking is available and can be accessed on W. Olive Avenue. Masks and appointments ( [email protected]) are strongly encouraged.

General zoning information is also available on the Planning Division webpage.

From: < >
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 7:38 PM
To: PlanningCommission AP <[email protected]> Subject: Watched the proceeds, but need to stop now @ 7:30

WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

The proposed projects all sound good. Presuming there is interest by enough buyers, which I presume is, or has been determined.

MY interest along with Multi-Use housing is to include an Assisted Living facility with a lower monthly rate than is charged by Private ones (i.e. Belmont Village costs $10-12,000 per month. even for people who’ve bought Long Term Care protection, that’s not easily covered.

So, for people of more
moderate income, generally retirees who need assisted living due to age, injury, illness (which may have required them to spend down their retirement savings).
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
2 AND with some oversight, to ensure that the 24 hour care is adequate – and of course – caring. Subsidized cost: Between $5000-6500 mo.
as you can see by my Signature below, it’s my field and I’ve written a book on it…help people to buy protection.

Unfortunately, due to pre-existing health conditions, I was not able myself to qualify…so my interest is caring for others, and also personal.
hope to have a response from appropriate person/personnel. best regards,
Bett
bett L. martinez, m.ed., broker/consultant
bett martinez insurance solutions, inc. CA Lic. #0G83940 ;
www.bettmartinez.com
Author: We’ll Face That When We Have To…P.S. It’s Later Than You Think! The Case for Long Term Care Protection
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UCGCXMK

This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you think you have received this email in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this email immediately.

26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
1 Momoko Ishijima
From: PlanningCommission AP
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:12 PM
Cc: Shaunn Mendrin; Momoko Ishijima;
Subject: FW: PLNG-2025-0230
Forwarding public comment staff received regarding Agenda Item 2 on the February 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting agenda. This item is being forwarded as Information Only and to ensure discussions relating to this topic occur during a Commission meeting, you should not respond to the individual.
(This email has been bcc’d to all Planning Commission members.) Best,

Guia Sharma
Administrative Aide
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 408-730-7432
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Sunnyvale.ca.gov

General zoning information is also available on the Planning Division webpage.

From: Erin Ratnarajah < >
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:40 PM
To: PlanningCommission AP <[email protected]> Subject: PLNG-2025-0230

WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

For Consideration,

First, thank you for the opportunity to address this council and to share my perspective as a homeowner in The Vale townhouse community, a community that will be adjacent to the proposed new development.

First, I am happy to see the addition of housing, including affordable housing to SUnnyvale. As 10 year residents, We have seen many benefits in the investment in Sunnyvale from the park 26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
2 improvements , improving community services, and the incredible summer programs and enrichment activitiess that my children benefit from -- They’ve just finished basketball practice and gymnastics at the community center this evening.

However, I wanted to share a few concerns that will inevitably result from the additional development, including, a general support of continuing to make sure SUnnyvale remain affordable - in housing, services, and cost of living as parts of the community go through a significant gentrification that will likely displace or making living in Sunnyvale for some community members, including teachers, community helpers like police, EMTs, and our fire men and women harder, more expensive or sometimes unattainable.

My main comments, however, relate to address a few concerns that I have, and, I ask that this council advocate for the livability of our community as it relates to  Parking
 -Managing Traffic
 Ensuring the safety of residents through walking, bike paths  - Ensuring the building height of the new buildings are reasonable, as the current height proposed is meaningfully higher than other multi-story homes in the area.

As it relates to Traffic congestion….
 I’d respectfully request that our city representatives ensure the traffic analysis reviews traffic data during peak times such as 750am to 815 on E Duane Avenue -- Not Just De GINE Drive. These are the times when schools such as Kings Academy and San Miguel have their drop off times for school. It often takes over 10 minutes to drive what takes 5 minutes to walk down E Duane because of the increased school traffic.  With additional homes, traffic, and students, Traffic will be impacted on E Duane, De Guine, Stewart, Wolfe, Lawrence, and Fair Oaks.
 The surrounding roads cannot handle the current traffic patterns and with a potential increase in families and possibly school age children, the walking patterns and driving associated with school drop-offs will increase what is already congested traffic that has become significantly more congested with the additional drivers due to increassed enrollment at Kings Academy.
 The roads currently cannot efficiently handle the exisiting traffic, let alone the additional traffic, cars, parking, walking and bike paths required to support an increase in the community.
 As Kings Academy has increased their students in just this past year, the traffic has become untenable during peak rush hour times.
 I’d respectfully request that a traffic study and impact analysis be done for the surrounding streets as well to udnerstand what traffic support and mitigation can be integrated to ensure the increased traffic and safety can be supported.

 Of note in a similar structure with similar 2 car garages and more open parking spots available, all availble planned spaces are used, including availble street parking not included in the planned commuity.
 However, even though the development plan is counting the garage parking, we have learned from human behavior in The Vale, that even significantly more open, non-garage parking than what is being planned is in this new development is woefully not enough. the need for guest parking, overnight and during the day is important to note. Additionally, even 26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
3 though the HOA will likely require homeowners to use their garage, a high percentage of homeowners will use the open parking in the planned development.  I’d invite the developer to study the parking in the Vale at 7-8pm on any weekday to understand actual versus ideal usage.
 I’d also respectfully request that additional planned parking be required in the development plans.
 WIthout additional parking available in the new planned developments, the open street parking will increase congestion. This will be untenable for residents in the commuity, created increased parking issues. For example, individuals are already double parking, parking too close to cross walks and fire hydrants such that it is impairing safey when exiting communitiess onto De GINE drive
 I respectfully ask to reconsider the addition of overflow parking within the community as well as associated with any new community parks.
 Similarly, for any new planned community spaces like parks, none of the parks currently have enough parking for the use of the parks. As a result, parking often is required on the street. Often over flow parking ends up happening within communities.  As a result, this increases the need for addditional on street and planned parking within the new development.

Regarding Pedestrian Safety, my 2nd grade son currently walks to school, down E Duane Avenue. The addition of the crossing light has increased safety tremendously for students walkign across the street to San Miguel. However, this comes at a significant trade-off on traffic, congestion on E Duane Avenue with cars often driving unsafely in parking or bike lines to avoid the delays in traffic during the busiest commuting times. While the light has helped crossing the street, there are continued safety and likely unintended outcomes as a result on traffic, congestion and safety.

Related to retail, groceries, with the loss of walkable groceries and restaurants,, it is a significant and noticeable loss to sunnyvale and the elements that make this city and our neighborhoods enjoyable, community driven, and accessible.

I respectfully request that the council consider how to infuse restaurants and retail opportunities to ensure the community is accessible, delightful and also maintains a similar quality of life as to what we have today. Part of what makes the community great is that we can walk to beautiful parks, leverage facilities like Fair Oaks Park for soccer, walk to restaurants that are anchored and owned by people within the community to reflect the diversity - demographically and economically.

--
Peace and Love,
Erin H. Ratnarajah

______________________________________________________
"If we are willing to stand fully in our own shoes and never give up on ourselves, then we will be able to put ourselves in the shoes of others and never give up on them. True compassion does not come from wanting to help out those less fortunate than ourselves but from realizing our kinship with all beings." 26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
1 Momoko Ishijima
From: nexova ai (HOA) Team < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 12:52 PM
To: Momoko Ishijima
Subject: Call for Review — Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive) WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Conﬁrm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening aƩachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am requesƟng a Call for Review for Project PLNG-2025-0230.

This project has 17 waivers and no plan to address the traﬃc boƩleneck on De Guigne Drive — a two-lane road that is already congested. The result will be a permanent parking shortage and gridlock for exisƟng residents.

We support new housing. We do not support development without adequate parking, infrastructure improvements, and retail services.

Please select AlternaƟve #3 and send this project back for revisions.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Luoshang Pan
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
1 Momoko Ishijima
From: Xiaoyi Cheng < >
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 7:10 AM
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council, I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Xiaoyi Cheng, who lives in , Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Ci Song
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 7:03:48 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive.

We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions.

Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Mengci Song
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: zlpublic
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP; [email protected]
Subject: URGENT Request for Council Review: Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive) Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:00:25 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Mayor Klein and Members of the Sunnyvale City Council,
I'm Larry, a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale, a massive community with ~400 townhome units. The following opinion is not just mine, but has received overwhelming support during the recent group discussions within our community.

I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident to formally voice my opposition to the current form of Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive), which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2026. The planned project site is adjacent to my community, right across De Guigne Drive. I attended the hearing, and was disheartened to see a unanimous approval for a plan that every single Commissioner raised serious concerns
and admitted would have significant negative impacts on our local infrastructure and quality of life.

As elected representatives, I am asking the Council to "Call for Review" of this project immediately. Many of the local residents, including myself, welcome new homes to this area.

But with a proposed plan like this, it is an irresponsible use of a 20-acre land that maximizes developer profit by over-prioritizing density over safety, livability and regulations.

1. The Traffic Bottleneck and Public Safety
The traffic analysis for this project is flawed and outdated. De Guigne Drive is a two-lane road —one lane in each direction—with no center left-turn lane on most parts, especially directly in front of the planned project site. Currently, residents in existing complexes already face significant delays just trying to turn in and out of De Guigne Drive, and oftentimes there's significant
collision and pedestrian safety risk, as vehicles often are forced to cut into/out of traffic rapidly. Several accidents have already happened here in recent years. Similarly, a very significant daily jam is presented on E Duane Ave. There are already other projects planned in this area that will for sure exacerbate the jam. Adding 370 more units will introduce hundreds of additional vehicles to this specific bottleneck, easily grow the expected wait time to turn in and out exponentially and completely paralyze the roads due to excessive queuing, especially during rush hours.

By granting a CEQA Section 15183 exemption, the City is ignoring the cumulative impact of
this density combined with other big nearby developments (this one is by far the largest). This is not just a commute issue (though it is a VERY BIG commute issue); it is also a public safety issue regarding collision and pedestrian safety risk and emergency vehicle response times in a gridlocked corridor. This is a direct contradiction to the goals of the Vision Zero Plan and Roadway Safety Plan
of Sunnyvale.
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)

2. Excessive Waivers and the Parking Nightmare
The developer is requesting one concession and 17 waivers to the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and Objective Design Standards. To residents in the neighborhood, the most concerning aspect is the disregard for parking and open space:

No Public Parking: This 20.55-acre project provides zero additional public parking.

That means it will definitely NOT help the already intense parking crisis in the neighborhood.

Significantly reduced onsite parking: To make things a lot worse, the developer admitted that the average number of parking spaces per unit within the planned project site is significantly lower than the usual practice. Plus, the project includes 41 ADUs, which often require no dedicated parking under the law. The inevitable result will be the dozens, and potentially hundreds of extra vehicles would need to overflow onto our already over-crowded public streets within many blocks, or even other residential communities. This can easily turn the current Parking Crisis in the neighborhood into a Parking Nightmare.

Waiver Abuse: The developer is using waivers to bypass standards for Vehicle Access to Garages, Loading Spaces, and Open Space Amenities. This allows them to "pack" the site with units while failing to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the needs of people living in them.

3. Creation of a "Residential Silo"
We are witnessing the systematic destruction of our local services. While vital grocery stores, restaurants and other small businesses are being demolished at walkable places like Fair Oaks Plaza and Lakewood Shopping Center, this project adds ZERO retail or commercial space.

This creates a "Residential Silo" where thousands of residents are forced to drive for every basic need, which poses great inconvenience and potential danger for the elderly and the disabled, as well as further clogging our two-lane roads. We need mixed-use development
(especially considering the massive size of the project), not tons of extra consumer demand and zero supply.

My Request
I urge the City Council to intervene. This project should not proceed under Alternative 1. At a minimum, the Council should require:

1. A Supplemental Traffic Study that accounts for the physical limitations of the two- lane De Guigne Drive, and a plan to widen the road to include a center lane, and potentially traffic-aware
traffic lights.

2. A Reduction in Waivers to ensure adequate on-site parking for all 370 units (including ADUs) and the addition of public parking.

3. Mandatory Ground-Floor Retail to provide essential services to the neighborhood and the planned community.
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
The Planning Commission expressed that their hands were tied by political pressure from the state level, but the City Council has a political and moral obligation to protect the residents who elected you. Please do not let "density at any cost" destroy our neighborhood, and choose Alternative #3 to send this plan back for updates to address these serious common-sense concerns.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Larry, Resident of The Vale
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Yi Rong
To: Council AnswerPoint
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:07:34 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council, I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services and additional parks and green area . Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Yi Rong
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Jessica Hua
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein; CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:06:10 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG- 2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two- lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jessica H
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Jie Zhang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein; CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:01:09 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
ZHANG Jie (Lyria)
Mobile:
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Daniel Gonzalez Plaza
To: Council AnswerPoint; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: URGENT: call for review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:58:00 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services.

Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Daniel Gonzalez Plaza
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Amy Zhang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:35:00 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a resident of The Vale community in Sunnyvale, and I am writing to formally request an urgent "Call for Review" for the proposed development at 510 & 920 De Guigne Drive (PLNG-2025-0230).

While our community supports the addition of new housing in Sunnyvale, this specific proposal is fundamentally flawed. Approving this project in its current state, particularly with 17 granted waivers, prioritizes density at the extreme expense of existing infrastructure and neighborhood livability.

My primary concerns include:
• Gridlock on De Guigne Drive: This is already a congested two-lane corridor. Adding hundreds of new residents without a robust traffic mitigation plan will paralyze local transit and emergency vehicle access.
• Severe Parking Shortfall: The lack of an adequate parking plan will inevitably force overflow onto neighboring streets, creating a permanent "parking nightmare" for current residents and visitors alike.
• Absence of Retail Services: A project of this scale requires integrated retail to remain a walkable, sustainable community. Without it, we are simply creating a "bedroom island" that increases car dependency.
• Infrastructure Bottlenecks: The plan fails to address critical bottlenecks that already plague our daily commutes.

We demand responsible development. I strongly urge the Council to select Alternative #3 and send this project back for the necessary revisions to include proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and essential retail.

Thank you for your time and for representing the interests of Sunnyvale residents.

Sincerely,
Wenxian
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Tong Chang
To: Momoko Ishijima; Larry Klein; CityClerk AP; Planning AP; Council AnswerPoint Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 12:01:40 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
Tong Chang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Tianyi Fang
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Dear Mayor and City Council, I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a "Call for Review" for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted ...

Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 11:58:40 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
Tianyi Fang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Zihan Tong
To: Council AnswerPoint
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 11:57:15 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
Zihan Tong
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Shu Wang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 11:07:58 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
Shu
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Yilin Gao
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:43:05 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG- 2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two- lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Yilin Gao
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Weichao Kong
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:22:11 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Weichao Kong
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Chelsie Z
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for review – Planning Commission Approval of PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive) Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:10:47 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear City Clerk and Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Pursuant to Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) § 19.98, this letter constitutes a call for review of the Planning Commission’s decision on February 23, 2026 approving Project PLNG-2025- 0230 (File # 26-0311) at 510 and 920 De Guigne Drive.

We are residents living in the immediate vicinity of the project site and are aggrieved by the approval. We respectfully request that the City Council accept this appeal and conduct a de novo public hearing.

Summary of Key Grounds for Appeal
1) Density Bonus Waivers: the record does not establish “physical preclusion” for the breadth of requested waivers
The project was approved with one State Density Bonus Law concession and seventeen (17) waivers of development standards. Under State Density Bonus Law, a waiver is permitted only where the applicant demonstrates that applying the standard would physically preclude construction of the housing development at the allowed density/bonus level.

Based on the staff report’s descriptions, many waivers are justified in generalized terms (e.g., “maximize the number of units,” “typical,” “space required,” or internal circulation preferences) rather than a clear, evidence-based physical preclusion showing tied to the specific development standard and the site plan constraints.

The waivers are not minor; they include core neighborhood-forming standards such as building height (35’ → ~44’), front/side/rear setbacks, lot size (8,000 sf → ~1,617–2,855 sf), lot width, and multiple Open Space and Object Design Standards (ODS) requirements. The cumulative effect is a project that relies on sweeping departures from adopted standards while the findings appear to conclude—without adequate substantiation— that impacts are “primarily internal” and “would not result in negative impacts.” We request the City Council require a more rigorous record demonstrating (a) which standards truly create physical preclusion and (b) why the project’s chosen design (unit mix, footprints, road widths, garage layout, open space programming) represents the least-deviating approach consistent with the law’s requirements.
2) Traffic and safety concerns on De Guigne Drive: the approval relies on VMT/CEQA framing that does not resolve localized operational and safety impacts 26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
The staff report concludes that because the area’s VMT per capita is below the County baseline, the project “will not trigger transportation-related impacts” and therefore no additional VMT analysis is required, while also acknowledging residents’ concerns about speeding, blind curb conditions, peak-hour operations, and intersection control at De Guigne Drive / Santa Real Avenue.

Our appeal is not simply “more studies.” It is that the approval fails to grapple with site- specific, real-world constraints and the foreseeable safety/operations issues that will occur when 329 primary units (370 with ADUs) are added, including:

Concentrated driveway movements onto De Guigne Drive (two new driveways) Existing neighborhood speeding / limited calming options discussed by staff Known community requests for intersection controls and traffic calming that were deferred until “after the development is built and occupied” Even if VMT is the CEQA metric, the City still has authority—and responsibility through conditions of approval and General Plan implementation—to address local circulation and safety where the record shows a credible concern. Deferring evaluation until after occupancy shifts risk onto existing residents.

We request the City Council modify the approval to include pre-occupancy safety/operations measures (or objective triggers requiring them) rather than postponing them. 3) CEQA reliance on Guidelines §15183: the checklist’s conclusions should be tested against changed conditions and project-level specifics
The staff report relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and consistency with the 2017 LUTE EIR to conclude no additional environmental review is required. However, §15183 still requires review of whether project-level or changed conditions would cause new or substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed at the program level, or whether new information of substantial importance exists.

Given the size and configuration of this project, the combination of Density Bonus waivers, driveway placement and circulation, and the acknowledged neighborhood traffic issues warrant careful scrutiny that the environmental checklist (Attachment 6) adequately evaluated localized impacts and feasible project-level mitigations/conditions—not only the program- level assumptions.

Requested Relief
We respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Grant this appeal and conduct a de novo hearing on PLNG-2025-0230.

2. Require a clear, evidence-based showing supporting each of the 17 Density Bonus waivers and the concession, including why each is necessary to avoid physical preclusion, and whether modifications could reduce the scope of waivers while remaining feasible.
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)

3. Modify conditions of approval to include pre-occupancy measures addressing De Guigne Drive safety/operations (e.g., intersection evaluation with defined warrants/thresholds, enforceable traffic calming implementation triggers, driveway safety controls, signage/striping changes, or other objective measures recommended by Transportation staff).

4. Reevaluate whether additional project-level CEQA documentation or targeted analysis is required to address any changed conditions or project-level effects not fully covered by the LUTE EIR.

Please send this plan back for necessary revisions.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Chunzi Zheng
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Yanying Jiang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:45:33 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

We demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Yanying Jiang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Aimin Zhang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: [email protected];
Subject: Formal Notice of Appeal - Planning Commission Approval of PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive) Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:34:07 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

To: Sunnyvale City Clerk and Sunnyvale City Council
Date: Feb 25, 2026
Dear City Clerk and Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Pursuant to Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) § 19.98, this letter constitutes a formal Notice of Appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 23, 2026 decision approving Project PLNG-2025-0230 (File # 26-0311) at 510 and 920 De Guigne Drive.

We are residents living in the immediate vicinity of the project site and are directly affected by this approval. We respectfully request that the City Council accept this appeal and conduct a de novo public hearing.

Summary of Key Grounds for Appeal
1) Density Bonus Waivers: the record does not adequately establish “physical preclusion” for the breadth of requested waivers
The project was approved with one State Density Bonus Law concession and seventeen (17) waivers of development standards. Under State Density Bonus Law, a waiver may be granted only where the applicant demonstrates that applying the specific development standard would physically preclude construction of the housing development at the permitted density and bonus level.

Based on the staff report, many waivers appear to be supported by generalized statements (e.g., “maximize the number of units,” “typical,” “space required,” or internal circulation preferences) rather than a clear, evidence-based showing of physical preclusion tied to the particular development standard and site constraints.

These waivers are not minor deviations. They include core neighborhood-defining standards such as building height (35 feet to approximately 44 feet), front/side/rear setbacks, minimum lot size (8,000 square feet to approximately 1,617–2,855 square feet), lot width, and multiple Open Space and Object Design Standards (ODS) requirements. The cumulative effect is a project that depends on substantial departures from adopted standards, while the findings conclude—without sufficient substantiation—that impacts are “primarily internal” and “would not result in negative impacts.”
We respectfully request that the City Council require a more rigorous and transparent record demonstrating:
(a) which specific standards would truly create physical preclusion if applied; and (b) why the proposed design (including unit mix, building footprints, internal road widths, 26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
garage configuration, and open space layout) represents the least-deviating approach consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
2) Traffic and safety concerns on De Guigne Drive: reliance on VMT/CEQA framing does not resolve localized operational and safety impacts
The staff report concludes that because the area’s VMT per capita is below the County baseline, the project will not trigger transportation-related impacts under CEQA and no additional VMT analysis is required. At the same time, the report acknowledges residents’ concerns regarding speeding, limited traffic-calming options, sight distance and curb conditions, peak-hour operations, and intersection control at De Guigne Drive and Santa Real Avenue.

Our concern is not merely a request for additional studies. Rather, the approval does not fully address site-specific, real-world constraints and foreseeable safety and operational issues associated with adding 329 primary units (370 including ADUs), including:

Concentrated driveway movements onto De Guigne Drive from two new driveways; Existing neighborhood speeding and limited traffic-calming measures; Longstanding community requests for intersection controls and traffic calming that are deferred until after the development is built and occupied.

Even if VMT is the CEQA transportation metric, the City retains both the authority and responsibility—through conditions of approval and General Plan implementation—to address local circulation and safety where the record demonstrates credible concerns. Deferring evaluation and potential mitigation until after occupancy effectively shifts risk to existing residents.

We respectfully request that the City Council modify the approval to include pre-occupancy safety and operational measures (or objective triggers requiring them), rather than postponing these actions.
3) CEQA reliance on Guidelines § 15183: project-level and changed conditions warrant closer review
The staff report relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and consistency with the 2017 LUTE EIR to conclude that no additional environmental review is required. However, § 15183 still requires analysis of whether project-level characteristics or changed conditions would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed at the program level, or whether new information of substantial importance has emerged.

Given the size and configuration of this project, the extensive Density Bonus waivers, driveway placement and circulation design, and acknowledged neighborhood traffic issues, we believe careful scrutiny is warranted to ensure that the environmental checklist (Attachment 6) adequately evaluates localized impacts and feasible project-level mitigation measures and conditions—not solely reliance on prior program-level assumptions.

Requested Relief
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Wanting Jiang
To: [email protected]; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP Subject: Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:02:39 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

Sincerely,
Wanting Jiang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Ziwei Hu
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 4:53:13 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale, and I am writing to respectfully request a Call for Review of Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The approval of 17 waivers for this project, combined with the absence of a concrete plan to address critical traffic bottlenecks, will result in long-term parking shortages and further strain the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive.

While we support the addition of new housing, it is essential that development be carried out responsibly — with sufficient infrastructure improvements, adequate parking provisions, and appropriate retail services.

I urge you to select Alternative #3 and return the proposal for the necessary revisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ziwei Hu
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Alice Chen
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP; CityClerk AP; Larry Klein Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 4:48:29 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Sincerely,
Alice
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Chen Rain Ma
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP; CityClerk AP; Larry Klein Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 3:56:13 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale living at San Marcos Ter, 94085. I am writing to respectfully but strongly request a Call for Review for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

The 17 waivers granted for this project, combined with the absence of a comprehensive plan to address existing traffic and infrastructure bottlenecks, will create long-term negative impacts on our neighborhood. De Guigne Drive is already a congested two-lane roadway, and without meaningful mitigation measures, this development will significantly worsen traffic flow, increase parking overflow into surrounding residential areas, and reduce overall safety and livability.

We support new housing and understand its importance to our community. However, growth must be paired with responsible planning. This includes adequate parking provisions, traffic circulation improvements, and neighborhood-serving retail and infrastructure to support the increased density.

I respectfully urge you to choose Alternative #3 and send this project back for necessary revisions to ensure it aligns with community needs and long-term sustainability.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Chen Ma
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: nz
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein; CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 3:47:14 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ray
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Pei Zhang
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: URGENT: Request for Call for Review – Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:48:34 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale community in Sunnyvale, and I am writing to respectfully but strongly request a Call for Review for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

While I understand and support the need for new housing, I am deeply concerned about the scope and impacts of this proposal. The approval of 17 waivers, combined with the absence of a clear and comprehensive plan to address existing infrastructure constraints, will likely create long-term negative consequences for the surrounding neighborhood.

In particular, De Guigne Drive is already a heavily impacted two-lane road. Without meaningful improvements to traffic flow, parking capacity, and supporting infrastructure, this project risks causing severe congestion, ongoing parking shortages, and diminished quality of life for current residents.

Growth should be responsible and balanced. We welcome new housing, but it must be accompanied by adequate infrastructure improvements, sufficient parking solutions, and appropriate neighborhood-serving amenities. At this time, those elements do not appear to be sufficiently addressed.

I respectfully urge you to select Alternative #3 and return this project for necessary revisions to ensure it aligns with the long-term interests of both current and future residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Pei Zhang
--
Best Regards!
Pei Zhang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Xuejing Dong
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP
Subject: URGENT Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:48:00 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive.

Sincerely,
xuejing dong
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Kairylei
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:41:46 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Nova in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive.

Sincerely,
Kairy
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: 窦诺
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP
Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:27:08 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a 'Call for Review' for Project PLNG- 2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive). The 17 waivers granted for this project, as well as lack of necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two- lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services. Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nuo Dou
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: May Xu
To: Momoko Ishijima; Council AnswerPoint; Planning AP; CityClerk AP; Larry Klein Subject: URGENT: Call for Review - Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:27:22 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a resident of The Vale in Sunnyvale. I am writing to strongly request a "Call for Review" for Project PLNG-2025-0230 (510 & 920 De Guigne Drive).

During the Monday evening meeting, I heard the city granted 17 waivers to the developer. I am formally requesting that the City Council provide a detailed list of these 17 waivers and the specific legal and technical reasons why each one was granted.

These 17 waivers, combined with the lack of a necessary plan to improve critical bottlenecks, will create a permanent parking nightmare and paralyze the already congested two-lane De Guigne Drive. We welcome new housing, but we demand responsible development that includes proper infrastructure, adequate parking, and retail services.

Please choose Alternative #3 and send this plan back for necessary revisions.

Thank you for your time and for representing the residents of Sunnyvale.

Sincerely,
May Xu
Sunnyvale

26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)
From: Sihang Chen
To: Council AnswerPoint; Larry Klein
Cc: CityClerk AP
Subject: Request for Call for Review – Project PLNG-2025-0230 Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 12:02:10 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a resident of The Vale community, I am urging you to initiate a Call for Review for the development project at 510 & 920 De Guigne Drive.

Many of us in the neighborhood agree that while new housing is necessary, it must be done responsibly. Approving a project of this scale with 17 waivers, particularly on a two-lane road like De Guigne that is already over-capacity, is not responsible planning.

This development, in its current form, will create significant and lasting problems. The parking shortage will become a crisis, and the traffic congestion will impact the safety and quality of life for everyone here. Our community needs growth to be supported by adequate infrastructure, not just waived-through exceptions.

We need a better plan. Please select Alternative #3 and require the developer to address these critical issues before moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration and service to Sunnyvale.

Respectfully,
Sihang
26-0378 Added Attachment 22 (posted 20260324)

Sunnyvale City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Sunnyvale City Council
March 24, 2026