City of Sunnyvale
Excerpt Meeting Minutes - Final
Planning Commission
6:00 PM Online and Council Chambers, City Hall,
456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Monday, February 23, 2026
Special Meeting: Study Session - 6:00 PM | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM 7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Iglesias called the meeting to order at 7:12 PM.
ROLL CALL
Chair Nathan Iglesias
Vice Chair Neela Shukla
Commissioner Galen Kim Davis
Commissioner Chris Figone
Commissioner Martin Pyne
Commissioner Michael Serrone
Present: 6 -
Commissioner Ilan SiguraAbsent: 1 -
Commissioner Sigura’s absence is excused.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS
2. 26-0311 Proposed Project: Related applications on a 20.55-acre site:
USE PERMIT: to demolish six industrial office buildings and construct 329 three-story townhomes and detached dwelling units which includes 41 Accessory Dwelling Units; and,
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: to subdivide the existing two lots into 151 single family lots, 23 lots with 178 condominium units, and 30 common parcels.
Location: 510 and 920 De Guigne Drive (APNs: 205-22-022 and 205-22-023)
File #: PLNG-2025-0230
Zoning: M-S (Industrial and Service)
Applicant / Owner: TC III SPP NORTH LLC (applicant) / TC III SPP NORTH LLC (owner)
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final Environmental Review: Environmental impacts of the project are addressed in the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) Environmental Impact Report (EIR); no additional review required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183-.
Project Planner: Momo Ishijima, (408) 730-7532,
[email protected]
Senior Planner Momo Ishijima presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Commissioner Serrone asked whether reduced side yard setbacks warrant mitigation measures for potential fire hazards. Senior Planner Ishijima responded that the City’s Fire Department does not have any concerns about the reduced side yard setbacks being a fire hazard.
Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that while the proposed project does not need to meet the City’s minimum requirements for parking, it is subject to the State Density Bonus Law parking standard.
Commissioner Serrone asked whether there are plans for traffic calming on the proposed project’s private streets. Senior Planner Ishijima responded that while none have been considered, the applicant’s engineer can address this question.
Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that the proposed project’s units will all be ownership units.
At Commissioner Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Ishijima explained that the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project require the establishment of a Homeowners Association (HOA). Senior Planner Ishijima added that the applicant can elaborate on this.
Commissioner Serrone noted that the proposed project is not required to include retail. He also noted that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan lists commercial developments in the area that may be gone soon. Principal Planner Noren Caliva-Lepe stated that the TDM considers existing conditions.
Vice Chair Shukla confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that the applicant has removed the concession request for Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS).
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that the approval for the proposed project at 845 Stewart Drive is final and has not been appealed.
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final Commissioner Pyne expressed his concerns about how the small lot sizes may lead to an increased likelihood of variance requests for later modifications to the proposed project's units. Senior Planner Ishijima explained that the Conditions of Approval stipulate that any modifications made to the proposed units will require Planning staff review.
Commissioner Pyne asked whether City standards may be revised to consider the waiver for maximum height and minimum ground floor plate height that is typical for three-story residential development. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe answered that this issue may be raised to the City Council for consideration as part of a larger study of City standards.
Commissioner Pyne indicated that information in the TDM pertaining to the number of commercial uses in the proposed project area may require a minor correction.
Commissioner Davis confirmed with Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin that the Planning Commission will consider Zoning Code revisions later this year.
Commissioner Davis noted that the proposed project meets the minimum required density for the site by proposing 18 dwelling units per acre.
At Commissioner Davis’ request, Senior Planner Ishijima specified that under Sunnyvale Municipal Code parking requirements, 1,200 parking spaces would be required without the reduced State Density Bonus Law parking standard.
Chair Iglesias confirmed with Senior Planner Ishijima that the garages for the proposed single-family homes are eligible for conversion to an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the future.
Chair Iglesias confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that state laws prohibit staff from requiring a reduction in size for proposed housing units.
Commissioner Pyne and Senior Planner Ishijima further discussed the TDM points for commercial uses within a quarter-mile from the proposed project site.
Kyle Winkler (Development Director at Tidewater Capital) presented additional information on the proposed project.
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final Commissioner Davis confirmed with Mr. Winkler that groundbreaking for the proposed project will occur in conjunction with demolition of the existing development.
At Commissioner Davis’ request, Mr. Winkler explained the reasons why a concession is being requested to allow non-recessed windows.
Commissioner Davis and Mr. Winker discussed the proposed density for the proposed project site.
Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Mr. Winkler that there will be one HOA for the proposed project’s condominium units.
Commissioner Serrone confirmed with Mr. Winkler that there are no concerns about the water table beneath the proposed project site.
Commissioner Serrone asked whether consideration was given to increasing the bedroom count within the proposed units rather than increasing the number of proposed dwelling units. Mr. Winkler answered that this idea has not yet been considered.
At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Mr. Winkler clarified that traffic calming measures were considered for the area surrounding the proposed project site rather than internal streets in response to concerns raised by the public.
Commissioner Pyne noted that according to the East Sunnyvale Area Sense of Place Plan, Coast Live Oak trees are suggested for De Guigne Drive, but the proposed tree species for the proposed project is Brisbane box. Scott Feuer (Landscape Architect at Environmental Foresight) responded that consideration will be given to selecting a native tree species for the proposed project. Planning Officer Mendrin added that the City Arborist has noted that the proposed project area has not been viable for Coast Live Oaks due to groundwater levels there.
Vice Chair Shukla and Mr. Winkler discussed the decision to remove the concession request for EIFS and the request for a concession to allow non-recessed windows.
At Vice Chair Shukla’s request, Robert Lee (Architect at William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc.) elaborated on the proposed project’s alley-loaded single-family homes. Vice Char Shukla and Mr. Lee also discussed the shadows that will be cast
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final by the proposed townhomes.
Chair Iglesias opened the Public Hearing.
Seokwon Lee voiced his concerns regarding the dust and noise that demolition and construction on the proposed project site will generate.
Witt Turner, speaking on behalf of Housing Action Coalition, spoke in support of the proposed project and commended its many benefits.
Erin Ratnarajah, Sunnyvale resident, expressed her support for the addition of new housing and affordable housing opportunities that the proposed project will offer.
She also shared her concerns regarding the negative impact that the proposed development may have on traffic, walkability, and livability.
Himanshu Sethi noted that while there has been a rise in residential developments in the proposed project area, retail services in the same area have and may continue to decline. He urged the City to consider how retail services can support both existing and new residents in the proposed project area.
LZ, Sunnyvale resident, encouraged the Planning Commission to approve Alternative 3: Do not make the required Findings and direct staff where changes should be made. He spoke of the negative impact that the proposed development will have on existing traffic and the proposed development’s lack of retail space.
Deanna Gonzales, Sunnyvale resident, echoed concerns raised regarding traffic in the surrounding area and the lack of retail spaces in northern Sunnyvale.
Ruby Aguilar suggested the proposed project’s inclusion of recreational areas and grocery stores to enhance the quality of life of new and existing residents.
Mia Griffie, Sunnyvale resident, raised concerns about how the proposed development may worsen issues related to street parking and traffic in the surrounding area.
Mr. Winkler provided closing comments.
Chair Iglesias closed the Public Hearing.
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final At Commissioner Davis’ request, Senior Planner Ishijima confirmed the City’s permitted hours of construction and standards for dust and noise mitigation.
Commissioner Pyne added that Condition of Approval BP-35 (j) dictates that visible onsite signage must include the contact information for the lead agency responsible for dust complaints as well as the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) phone number.
Commissioner Pyne asked why the zoning designation for the proposed project site was not revised to be in conformity with the General Plan. Senior Planner Ishijima responded that a larger effort may be made later to update the zoning designation of this site and others to be consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Transportation Engineer Lillian Tsang that the roadway reclassification for the proposed project site will likely occur in three years when the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) is updated.
MOTION: Commissioner Davis moved, and Commissioner Pyne seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1 – Make the required findings to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the LUTE EIR and no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and approve the Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map based on the Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment
4. Commissioner Davis confirmed his support for the motion and noted that the proposed project complies with applicable state and City regulations. He also stressed the need for more housing at this time.
Commissioner Pyne recognized the proposed project’s positive qualities including its expedited construction timeline, compliance with all-electric standards, and walkability. He also noted that the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the proposed project’s Site Management Plan. Overall, he considered the proposed project to be well-designed and an improvement to existing conditions.
Commissioner Serrone voiced his support for the motion and spoke in appreciation for the increase in housing units and the developer’s efforts to take community concerns into consideration. He also expressed disappointment over the proposed project’s lack of retail.
Attachment 18
February 23, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final Vice Chair Shukla complimented the proposed project’s design and inclusion of various dwelling types to accommodate the needs of different residents. She also confirmed her support for the motion.
Commissioner Figone encouraged the public to continue sharing their concerns with state senators to help improve existing systems.
Chair Iglesias commended the proposed project’s innovative inclusion of a variety of dwelling types, including ADUs, and exceeding minimum parking requirements. He added that an increase in housing supply may create a demand for retail developments in the area.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Iglesias
Vice Chair Shukla
Commissioner Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Serrone
6 -
No: 0
Absent: Commissioner Sigura1 -
This decision is final unless appealed or called up for review by the City Council by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, March 10, 2026.
Attachment 18