Cities Index.
Presentation to Council RTC No 26-0378 - 20260324

Sunnyvale City Council
March 24, 2026

Document
Presentation to Council RTC No 26-0378 - 20260324
Meeting
March 24, 2026
Body
Sunnyvale City Council
Original file
802 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on legistar.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

510 and 920 De Guigne Drive
PLNG-2025-0230
Trudi Ryan, Director of Community Development
City Council, March 24, 2026
2City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Existing Site and Neighborhood Context
Caltrain Station
Sonora Ct
N
• Site Area: 20.55 acres
• Site History: 381,000 sq. ft. total
 Built 1990 and 1998
• General Plan: Medium Density Residential
 East Sunnyvale Sense of Place Plan
• Zoning: M-S (Industrial and Service)
• Density: 24 du/ac (proposes 18 du/ac)
3City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 • Use Permit (UP) – demolish six industrial office buildings and construct 370 units (including ADUs)
 151 detached single-family homes
 41 accessory dwelling units
 178 three story townhomes
• Vesting Tentative Map (TM) – create
 151 single-family lots
 23 lots with 178 condominium units
 30 common parcels
Overview of Application
4City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Site Plan
N
LEGEND
Single Family detached
Single Family detached
Townhomes
Townhomes
 ADUs
Clubhouse
5City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Streetscape Elevations
Townhomes – facing De Guigne Drive and Stewart Drive
Single-family homes – facing De Guigne Drive

6City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 • Planning Commission
 February 23, 2026
 6-0 Vote to Approve (1 Commissioner absent)
• Appeal by neighbors
 February 24, 2026
• City Council call for review
 March 2, 2026
Permit History
7City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Neighbor appeal of Planning Commission decision with following reasons:
 Density Bonus Waivers: inadequate demonstration of physical preclusion  Traffic and safety concerns on De Guigne Drive
 CEQA Reliance on Guidelines Section 15183
 Parking and neighborhood impacts
Two members of City Council requested a Call for Review of Planning Commission decision
 Zoning code states: No reason shall be stated
Appeal and City Council Call for Review
8City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 City’s Inclusionary BMR Ownership Housing Program (15% of units) (SMC Chapter 19.67)
 49 moderate income units
 + 0.35 fractional in lieu fee
Per SDBL – Applicant entitled to:
 one Concession/Incentive, and
 any number of Waivers or reductions of developments standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density
1 Concession and 17 Waivers requested
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)
9City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Requested Concession (1) and Waivers (17)
• Concession – Window Recess (ODS)
Waiver: Sunnyvale Municipal Code
• Max. Building Height
• Mechanical Equipment Setbacks
• Min. Front Yard Setback
• Min. Avg. Front Yard Setback
• Min. Side Yard Setback
• Min. Total Side Yard Setback
• Min. Rear Yard Setback
• Min. Lot Size
• Min. Lot Width
Waiver: Objective Design Standards
• Open Space Amenities
• Min. Ground Floor Plate Height
• Trees in Common Open Space
• Building Frontage at Front Setback
• Max. Building Setback from Min. Front Yard
Setback
• Vehicle Access to Garage
• Loading Space
• Common Open Space External Accessibility
Red text: associated with single-family detached homes only 10City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Density Bonus Waivers: inadequate demonstration of physical preclusion  SDBL limits City from applying development standard that would physically preclude construction of development that qualifies for a density bonus  Courts interpret “physically precluding” broadly
 SDBL requires granting of concessions and waivers with limited and narrow exceptions, based on specific factual findings in the record  Only lawful reasons to deny a waiver are if it would:
i. Have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; or, ii. Have an adverse impact on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
iii. Be contrary to state or federal law.

Staff Comments on Appeal (page 1 of 5)
11City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Density Bonus Waivers: inadequate demonstration of physical preclusion (continued)
 Case law & guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
• SDBL does not require designs to minimize the need for waivers  17 Waivers Requested
 Objective Design Standards (ODS)
• SB330 residential development projects have requested waivers from ODS • Prior to June 2024 waivers from ODS not needed
 Staff and Planning Commission Found:
• None of the lawful reasons to deny waivers exist
Staff Comments on Appeal (page 2 of 5)
12City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Traffic and safety concerns on De Guigne Drive
 Trip Generation per ITE Trip Generation Manual
 Speed Management Tools (Condition EP-40)
• Clarify features to slow traffic
 Stop Sign warrant study will be completed after occupancy Staff Comments on Appeal (page 3 of 5)
Land Use Amount AM Peak
Hour Trips
PM Peak
Hour Trips
Industrial/Office 381,000 s.f. 511 490
Residential
192 Single-Family/ADUs
+
178 Multi-Family
213 281
13City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 CEQA Reliance on Guidelines Section 15183
 Public Resources Code State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183:
• Limits additional environmental review where an EIR was certified • Exception if need to examine significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site • Rationale is to streamline review and reduce need to prepare repetitive environmental studies  The environmental checklist provides substantial evidence that there are:
1) no peculiar impacts
2) no impacts not analyzed in the LUTE EIR
3) no significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts not discussed in the LUTE Update EIR 4) there is no substantial new information indicating that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the LUTE EIR.
 The findings of certified LUTE EIR remain valid: no further analysis is required  The proposed units are consistent with the residential density studied in the LUTE EIR.  A Site Management Plan was approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Staff Comments on Appeal (page 4 of 5)
14City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Parking and neighborhood impacts
 SDBL parking standard:
 The State Density Bonus Law’s reduced parking standards must be automatically granted
Staff Comments on Appeal (page 5 of 5)
2 & 3 BR 4 & 5 BR ADUs Unassigned TOTAL
SDBL 1.5 2.5 0 0 652
Project 2 BR: 1
3 BR: 2
4 BR: 2
5 BR: 3
0 116 767
15City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Monthly Penalties
 Minimum fines of $10,000 to $50,000 per month
Per-Unit Fines:
 $10,000 per housing unit
Multiplied Fines for Bad Faith
Attorney's Fees
Referral to Attorney General
Mandatory Project Approval
Housing Element Decertification
Penalties for Violation the HAA
16City of Sunnyvale 510 and 920 DeGugine Drive – March 2026 Staff Recommendation
 CEQA: Pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines project is consistent with the General Plan.
 Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and 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 subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 4 to the report.

Questions?

← All documents from this meeting