City of Sunnyvale
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Online and Council Chambers, City Hall,
456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Monday, August 10, 2026
No Study Session | Public Hearing - 7:00 PM
NO STUDY SESSION
7 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Serrone called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Chair Serrone led the salute to the flag.
ROLL CALL
Chair Michael Serrone
Vice Chair Galen Kim Davis
Commissioner Nathan Iglesias
Commissioner Martin Pyne
Commissioner Neela Shukla
Present: 5 -
Commissioner Chris Figone
Commissioner Ilan Sigura
Absent: 2 -
Commissioner Sigura’s absence is excused.
Commissioner Figone arrived at 7:07 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Commissioner Iglesias seconded the
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
6 -
No: 0
Absent: Commissioner Sigura1 -
1. 26-0705
Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2026 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2026, as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS
The Commissioners agreed to consider Agenda Item 3 before Agenda Item 2.
3. 26-0646 Proposed Project: Related applications on a 0.57-acre site:
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to demolish the existing
one-story single-family dwelling and construct eight two-story single-family dwellings with overall 65.8% Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: to subdivide the existing parcel into eight lots plus a common lot.
Location: 781 S Wolfe Rd (APN: 211-05-009)
File #: PLNG-2025-0592
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential/ Planned Development (R-2/PD)
Applicant / Owner: Dahlin Group/ California Communities, LLC (applicant/owner)
Environmental Review: Addendum to Negative Declaration adopted on July 1, 2025, and Filed July 2, 2025 (Conf. No. 204714906).
Project Planner: Aastha Vashist, (408) 730-7458,
[email protected]
Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin stated that staff requests the continuance of this agenda item to the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2026.
Commissioner Pyne asked whether the plan set for the proposed project is expected to change. Planning Officer Mendrin directed the Commissioners to keep the plan set they were given until the proposed project returns for their
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
consideration. He added that any revised pages will be provided to the Commissioners separately.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Forrest Mozart, developer, stated that he will provide a formal presentation on the proposed project once it returns to the Planning Commission for consideration on September 14, 2026.
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Serrone confirmed with Planning Officer Mendrin that this meeting counts as one of five meetings that may be held for the proposed project since the public hearing was opened.
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Vice Chair Davis seconded the motion to continue the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 to a date certain on Monday, September 14, 2026.
Commissioner Pyne and Vice Chair Davis spoke in support of the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
6 -
No: 0
Absent: Commissioner Sigura1 -
The discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 3 will take place on Monday, September 14, 2026.
2. 26-0681
Proposed Project:
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: Appeal of a decision by the Director
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
of Community Development denying a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
for one 32-inch diameter Deodar Cedar tree in the front yard.
Location: 1365 Fisher Hawk Drive (APN: 309-05-039), on a 15,892 square foot (0.36 acre) site
File #: PLNG-2026-0293
Zoning: R-0 (Low-density residential zoning district)
Applicant/Appellant/Owner: Michael Appio
(Applicant/Owner/Appellant)
Environmental Review: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Class 1) and 15304 (Class 4).
Project Planner: Gino Victoria, 408-730-7430,
[email protected]
Assistant Planner Gino Victoria presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Assistant Planner Gino Victoria that the circumference of the subject tree is 100.5 inches.
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Assistant Planner Gino Victoria that the applicant must plant one 24-inch box replacement tree or three 15-gallon replacement trees if the appeal is approved. Assistant Planner Gino Victoria clarified that the replacement trees may not be fruit or palm trees.
Commissioner Pyne asked which of the findings were met for the approval of a Deodar Cedar on the site in 2011. Assistant Planner Gino Victoria responded that staff could not find the inspection report supporting the removal of this tree.
Chair Serrone and Assistant Planner Gino Victoria discussed restrictions on trimming a tree on private property.
Commissioner Figone asked how close the subject tree is to the foundation of the house on site or water and power lines. Assistant Planner Gino Victoria answered that this measurement was not noted during the inspection and that the applicant may be able to provide a response.
At Commissioner Iglesias’ request, Senior Assistant City Attorney Melissa Tronquet interpreted Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Section 19.94.060 (c)(8).
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Michael Appio, applicant and appellant, provided an oral presentation to support his case.
Commissioner Pyne noted that removal of the subject tree was denied in 2011. He asked the applicant why the removal of the tree should be approved now. Mr. Appio responded that recent storms caused large tree branches to fall and that another storm may result in damage to his home. Mr. Appio added that the tree’s removal would allow him to improve the appearance of his front yard.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Mr. Appio that if the appeal is approved, he would be supportive of replacing the subject tree with a native tree species.
Vice Chair Davis stated that the applicant’s front yard contains a large section of wildflowers. He asked the applicant why vegetables cannot be grown there instead.
Mr. Appio responded that he has planted wildflowers in that area for aesthetic purposes.
Commissioner Shukla and Mr. Appio discussed the subject tree and the benefits it may offer.
Commissioner Iglesias and Principal Planner Julia Klein discussed staff consideration of SMC Section 19.94.060 (c) and (c)(5) in detail.
Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Principal Planner Klein that the removal of the subject tree would be approved if the removal was necessary for the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.
Mr. Appio provided closing comments.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Iglesias confirmed that if the appeal is denied, the applicant may request removal of the subject tree later if the tree has undergone changes.
Commissioner Iglesias explained why he believes that the subject tree limits the owner’s ability to enjoy reasonable use of the property.
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Davis elaborated on why he cannot approve the appeal.
Commissioner Figone explained why he is supportive of granting the appeal.
Commissioner Shukla shared her stance on granting the appeal.
MOTION: Commissioner Iglesias moved, and Commissioner Pyne seconded the motion to approve Alternative 2: Grant the appeal and approve the Tree Removal Permit based on a finding that the proposed removal meets SMC Section 19.94.060 (c) and (c)(7), and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
Commissioner Iglesias emphasized that that the proposed removal meets SMC Section 19.94.060 (c) and (c)(7).
Commissioner Pyne shared that he is not inclined to support the motion because he is unable to make any finding to grant the appeal and explained why.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Assistant City Attorney Tronquet that a tied vote is considered no action. To avoid a tied vote, Senior Assistant City Attorney Tronquet advised the Commission to vote in favor of continuing the discussion on Public Hearing Agenda Item 2 to a date when all seven Planning Commissioners are present.
Vice Chair Davis spoke in agreement with Commissioner Pyne in that he is unable to make any finding to grant the appeal.
Commissioner Pyne asked whether the Commission may make subsequent motions in the event the vote on the current motion is tied.
Commissioner Iglesias explained why he believes the subject tree restricts the owner’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use or economic potential of the property.
Chair Serrone shared that while he sympathizes with the property owner, the Commission must uphold City regulations and deny the appeal if the subject tree does not meet the criteria to be removed.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Tronquet clarified that the Commission may make subsequent motions in the event the vote on the current motion is tied.
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The motion failed by the following vote:
Yes: Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
2 -
No: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
4 -
Absent: Commissioner Sigura1 -
At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Commissioner Shukla explained that she is in favor of denying the appeal and provided reasons why.
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Vice Chair Davis seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to deny the Tree Removal Permit based on the Recommended Findings for Denial in Attachment 2.
Commissioner Pyne stated that he has no further comments to share.
Vice Chair Davis urged the Commissioners to vote in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Iglesias confirmed that he is not supportive of the motion and believes that the finding can be made that the subject tree restricts the owner’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use or economic potential of the property.
Commissioner Serrone expressed his support for the motion and added that his interpretation of the law indicates that there is no justification to support the subject tree’s removal.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
4 -
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
No: Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
2 -
Absent: Commissioner Sigura1 -
This decision is final.
4. 26-0684 Proposed Project: Related applications on a 1.45-acre site:
USE PERMIT: To demolish an existing commercial site and construct six 3-story residential buildings with a total of 28 townhome units.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: To subdivide the existing lot into 28 lots and one common parcel.
Location: 494 S. Bernardo Ave. (APN: 161-24-001)
File #: PLNG-2025-0384
Zoning: R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
Applicant / Owner: Forrest Mozart, California Communities, LLC (applicant) / 494 Bernardo L P (owner)
Environmental Review: Statutory exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130)
Project Planner: Wendy Lao, (408) 730-7408, [email protected] Senior Planner Wendy Lao presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Lao that 16 waivers are being requested for the proposed project.
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Senior Planner Lao that the proposed project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act.
At Chair Serrone’s request, Principal Planner Julia Klein explained that the typical height of a garage door is seven feet, so the proposed eight feet for the interior height of the garage would be sufficient.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Forrest Mozart (applicant) and Eric Muzzy (architect) presented additional information on the proposed project.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Mr. Muzzy that the addition of a sidewalk on the side of the site where a parallel parking strip is proposed would result in a reduction
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
in the proposed project’s unit sizes.
Commissioner Pyne asked about the native tree species to be included in the proposed project.
Vice Chair Davis asked the applicant about the proposed project’s density and ways the City can encourage developers to increase density for proposed developments.
Scott Schork (civil engineer) responded that the City requires 26-foot-wide drive aisles based on the height being measured to the top of the roof rather than the gutter. He added that trash enclosures must also be located 150 feet from units with an accessible path to the enclosure. From his experience, these requirements limit the amount of units in a development.
Stephen Meier spoke in support of the proposed project and the housing supply it will provide.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: Vice Chair Davis moved, and Commissioner Iglesias seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1: Find the project is exempt from CEQA per AB 130; and approve the Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map with the Recommended Findings in Attachment 2 and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
Vice Chair Davis recognized the ability of the proposed project to provide needed housing and encouraged the Commissioners to vote in support of the motion.
Commissioner Iglesias voiced his support for the proposed project and the adjustment made for its loading space.
Commissioner Pyne stated that he is supportive of the proposed project and noted that it will be an improvement to the existing neighborhood. He also advised staff that Attachment 1 to the report, “Noticing and Vicinity Map,” is missing.
Commissioner Shukla shared her support for the motion and provided reasons why.
Chair Serrone stated that he is in support of the motion.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Melissa Tronquet clarified that Attachments 2 and 3
Attachment 1
August 10, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to the report are identifiable by the right header text on each attachment rather than the order they are displayed in the Attachments section of the report.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
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, August 25, 2026.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS
-Commissioner Comments
None.
-Staff Comments
Planning Officer Shaunn Mendrin shared preliminary discussion regarding the City Council’s interest in changing the board and commission meeting start time to 6 p.m. which would be inclusive of study session and public hearing items. Commissioners provided input on this matter, and Planning Officer Mendrin stated that he will provide additional information to the Commission via email.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Serrone adjourned the meeting at 9:19 PM.
Attachment 1