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 24, 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 7:00 PM.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Chair Serrone led the salute to the flag.
ROLL CALL
Chair Michael Serrone
Vice Chair Galen Kim Davis
Commissioner Chris Figone
Commissioner Nathan Iglesias
Commissioner Martin Pyne
Commissioner Neela Shukla
Commissioner Ilan Sigura
Present: 7 -
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Commissioner Iglesias seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
6 -
No: 0
Abstained: Commissioner Sigura1 -
1. 26-0723
Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2026 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2026, as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS
2. 26-0713 Proposed Project:
APPEAL of a decision by the Director of Community
Development approving a
DESIGN REVIEW to construct a 693 square foot first story addition, a 1,253 square foot second story addition, and a 714 square foot accessory dwelling unit resulting in 3,567 square feet (3,083 square feet living area and 484 square feet garage) and 36% floor area ratio (FAR) for the primary dwelling unit.
Location: 1413 Bedford Avenue (APN: 320-06-029)
File #: PLNG-2025-0804
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Applicant / Owner: William McIntosh (applicant) / Eliza Ridgeway (owner)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3).
Project Planner: Christian Mendoza, (408) 730-7429,
[email protected]
Principal Planner Noren Caliva-Lepe presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Commissioner Sigura received clarification from Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe regarding how massing and bulk are defined in the City’s current Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that any new square footage added is subject to current first- and second-story setback requirements.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that Santa Clara Valley Water did not provide comments on the project that there is an additional PG&E easement between the house addition and creek bank.
Vice Chair Davis noted that the City’s new Objective Design Standards will become effective on August 27, 2026. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe responded that the proposed project was not evaluated under the upcoming Design Standards but at a high level, a first-to-second floor ratio of 50% would be permitted where 35% is the current maximum. She also explained that if the appeal is granted, the applicant could reapply for a new Design Review application. She explained that while the Design Review application would be considered at staff-level, the surrounding neighborhood would still receive notice of the proposed project if it included a new second story.
Commissioner Iglesias discussed the conditions of approval that proposed projects with a new second story are generally subject to which include high sill or frosted windows on the second floor, a five-foot tall privacy wall, and an eight-foot plate height for the second floor.
At Commissioner Iglesias’ request, Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe explained how the City’s current Design Guidelines are focused primarily on privacy along the side elevations for proposed second stories.
Commissioner Iglesias confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that in instances where a setback is non-conforming, massing from a neighbor’s perspective was considered when supporting or denying a proposed project.
However, Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe stated that the proposed project’s second story setback meets and exceeds the minimum requirement, so staff is supportive of it.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that there is no basis to deny the proposed project’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Commissioner Shukla asked whether concessions or waivers may be requested for the proposed project since it includes an ADU. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe responded that since the State Density Bonus Law does not apply to the proposed project, concessions or waivers may not be requested.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Serrone asked whether the appliances for the proposed project will be gas or electric. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe stated that the applicant’s architect will be able to provide a response.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Ana French, appellant, presented additional images and information to support her case.
Vice Chair Davis asked Ms. French whether she had considered the possibility that the appeal would be granted and that the new Objective Design Standards would apply to the proposed project if the applicant reapplied on or after August 27, 2026.
Ms. French answered that she did not.
Chair Serrone confirmed with Ms. French that the proposed second-story addition will extend the full length of her property line.
Commissioner Shukla and Jim French (appellant) discussed future plans he has for his home.
Commissioner Sigura recommended that the appellants plant fast-growing, tall plants to create a privacy screen and noted that the cost of doing this would be low.
Eliza Ridgeway (applicant) and Bill McIntosh (architect) presented additional images and information on the proposed project.
Commissioner Pyne asked whether other two-story homes on Bedford Avenue were approved before or after the current Single-Family Home Design Guidelines.
Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe answered that while she did not conduct this research, based on the streetscape alone, it appears that other two-story homes on Bedford Avenue were built as such prior to 2003.
Commissioner Pyne questioned how Design Technique SF-6 applies to the proposed project since the adjacent homes are single-story.
Commissioner Iglesias confirmed with Mr. McIntosh that a solar shading analysis revealed that the proposed project would have minimal impact on adjacent homes.
Commissioner Shukla noted that building the second-story addition elsewhere on
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the site would be more costly. Mr. McIntosh agreed and explained why.
Chair Serrone confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that at the building permit stage, it will be determined whether the proposed project’s appliances will be gas or electric.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
There were no public speakers for this agenda item.
Ms. Ridgeway provided closing comments.
Mr. and Ms. French provided closing comments.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pyne and Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe discussed how Design Technique SF-6 applies to the proposed project since the adjacent homes are single-story. She noted that the existing language is subjective and that the City is required to enforce objective standards. Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe also noted that this is a clear example of why adoption of the upcoming Objective Design Standards was so critical.
Vice Chair Davis stated that, from his recollection, the two-story homes in the subject neighborhood were originally constructed that way.
Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe that there is nothing in the City’s existing or new design standards that protects sky views.
Commissioner Sigura stated that there is no basis for the Planning Commission to deny the proposed project and grant the appeal.
At Chair Serrone’s request, Principal Planner Caliva-Lepe provided a high-level overview of the process and standards the proposed project would be subject to once the new design standards become effective.
MOTION: Vice Chair Davis moved, and Commissioner Iglesias seconded the motion to Approve Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Design Review based on the
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Recommended Findings of Approval in Attachment 3 and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.
Vice Chair Davis thanked the applicant for explaining the site’s development constraints, supported the proposed project’s ability to adapt to the applicants’ current life demands, and expressed sympathy for the appellants’ concerns. He added that the proposed project is reasonable, the impacts to the appellants’ property do not justify denying the property owners’ rights, and he is not supportive of granting the appeal.
Commissioner Iglesias agreed that the proposed project meets the seven basic design principles outlined in Attachment 3 to the report, spoke in support of the City’s interpretation of applicable guidelines, and emphasized consistent treatment for all residents.
Chair Serrone empathized with concerns shared by the appellants, noted that the proposed project is in conformance with applicable City standards and considers the privacy of neighbors, and confirmed his support for the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
Commissioner Sigura
7 -
No: 0
This decision is final.
3. 26-0725
Proposed Project: APPEAL of a decision by the Community Development Director approving a MISCELLANEOUS PLAN PERMIT for a personal service use within an existing multi-tenant office building.
Location: 422 S. Murphy Ave. (APN: 209-26-041)
File #: PLNG-2026-0399
Zoning: Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
Combining District: Sub-Block 10
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Applicant /Appellant/Owner: Danyelle Gamch (applicant) / Brenda Hamberry-Green (appellant)/ Guy B. Nelson Trustee & Et Al (owner) Environmental Review: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1).
Project Planner: Cindy Hom, (408) 730-7411, [email protected] Senior Planner Cindy Hom presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandra Lee that the Planning Commission must make the findings to approve the requested appeal.
At Commissioner Iglesias’ request, Senior Planner Hom and Assistant Director of Community Development Matt VanHua provided clarification on the second recommended finding for approval of the Miscellaneous Plan Permit (MPP). They also stated that competition is not considered an impairment in use of adjacent properties.
Commissioner Sigura and Senior Planner Hom discussed the permitted uses for the site according to the City’s zoning code. Senior Planner Hom confirmed that the requested use meets the purpose and intent of the code and explained why.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Assistant Director of Community Development VanHua that if the existing development on the site was to be used for residential purposes, it would likely need to be demolished and redeveloped.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Planner Hom that the City’s General Plan has policies in place to encourage and promote business.
Commissioner Shukla confirmed with Senior Planner Hom that an MPP approval expires after one year if it is not exercised.
Vice Chair Davis and Chair Serrone received clarification from Senior Assistant City Attorney Lee that if the Planning Commission cannot make the findings to grant the appeal, the Planning Commission must determine whether the findings may be made to approve the MPP.
Senior Planner Cindy Hom provided additional context on the historical use of the site and how the proposed use is permitted since it is like a massage establishment in that it provides personal care by appointment.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Hom that approval of a business license generally takes place after the approval of a Planning permit. Senior Assistant City Attorney Lee added that the Planning permit application requires the property owner’s signature.
Senior Planner Cindy Hom advised that the Planning Commission may approve Alternative 2 to modify conditions of approval.
Commissioner Pyne confirmed with Senior Assistant City Attorney Lee that under Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) 19.98.070 (a)(1), any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Director of Community Development may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.
Brenda Hamberry-Green, appellant, presented additional images and information to support her case.
At Commissioner Iglesias’ request, Senior Planner Hom explained how the business license was issued prior to MPP approval and why exclusionary zoning was considered as a suitable permit path in this instance. She later added that a business license is issued for the purpose of collecting taxes rather than zoning permission for the requested use.
Chair Serrone and Assistant Director of Community Development VanHua discussed how the applicant’s request for a permit and not the appellant’s was supported by staff.
Commissioner Figone confirmed with Senior Planner Hom how in other similar cases involving exclusionary zoning provisions, code enforcement action was taken if the proper Planning permits were not in place and the applicant had to justify how their proposed use meets applicable criteria. Just as with this case, an MPP permit is approved if the proposed use is found to be consistent with the permitted use.
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Senior Planner Hom that there is a high likelihood that other establishments in the downtown area are operating under an approved MPP.
Danyelle Gamch (applicant) presented additional images and information on the proposed project.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Ms. Gamch that she has not been able to operate her business since the MPP approval was appealed.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Kathy Gamch, Sunnyvale resident, asked the Planning Commission to uphold the MPP approval and provided reasons why.
Isagani Marcelo Jr. spoke positively about Ms. Gamch and services she offers to the community. He urged the Planning Commission to uphold the approved MPP and deny the requested appeal.
Shardi Hunter spoke about how there is enough business to be shared between operators of businesses like the applicant’s and the appellant’s.
Sharon Horton spoke positively about Ms. Hamberry-Green and sympathized with the experience she had with the City.
Marlise Jimenez asked the Planning Commission to consider the financial hardship and stress that Ms. Gamch has been subject to because of the appeal process. Ms.
Jimenez also stated that the same standards should apply to both the applicant and appellant.
Ms. Gamch provided closing comments.
Ms. Hamberry-Green provided closing comments.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Shukla shared her own personal experience applying for City permits in the past.
Commissioner Sigura offered his thoughts on this case and information shared by the applicant and appellant.
Commissioner Iglesias stated that while he is sympathetic to the concerns raised by the appellant, he is unable to support the appeal.
Vice Chair Davis offered his thoughts on the matter.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
MOTION: Vice Chair Davis moved, and Commissioner Pyne seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Miscellaneous Plan Permit based on the Recommended Findings for approval in Attachment 2 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
Vice Chair Davis voiced his support for denying the appeal and explained why.
Commissioner Pyne stated that while he is sympathetic to the appellant’s claims, he can make the necessary findings to support the approval of the MPP and so must deny the appeal.
At Chair Serrone’s request, Senior Planner Hom explained that the proposed use must be incidental or in conjunction with a residential use, and since this building was developed as an office and never had any residential uses in the past or presently, a Special Development Permit could not be approved for the site. Senior Planner Hom further explained that since the use proposed by the applicant is less intensive, exclusionary zoning applies.
Chair Serrone confirmed with Senior Planner Hom that if the MPP is approved, it is valid for one year even if the applicant vacates the space. Senior Planner Hom clarified that an MPP amendment will be required if the new tenant has a business with a more intensive use than what is currently permitted under this MPP. Assistant Direct of Community Development VanHua noted that approval of this amendment would be at the discretion of staff and the Director of Community Development.
Chair Serrone spoke in overall 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
Commissioner Sigura
7 -
No: 0
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
This decision is final.
4. 26-0639 Proposed Project: Related applications on a 4.44-acre site:
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to demolish the existing
96,410 square foot one-story industrial building and construct 137 townhome style condominiums within 13 three-story buildings.
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: to create 137
condominium units and subdivide into four lots.
Location: 1484 Kifer Rd (APN: 216-27-023)
File #: PLNG-2025-0451
Zoning: Flexible Mixed-Use II (MXD-II)
Applicant / Owner: City Ventures / Fortinet Inc.(applicant/owner) Environmental Review: The environmental impacts of the project are addressed in the 2016 Lawrence Station Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR - State Clearinghouse No. 2013082030) and 2021 Lawrence Station Area Plan Update/Intuitive Surgical Corporate Campus Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR - State Clearinghouse No. 2019012022). No additional review is required pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182.
Project Planner: Aastha Vashist, (408) 730-7458,
[email protected]
Principal Planner Aastha Vashist presented the staff report with a slide presentation.
Commissioner Pyne questioned whether it would be possible for the Planning Commission to waive undergrounding requirements for the proposed project under Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) 19.38.095 (a) and (b). He also asked whether the Director of Community Development would consider suspending the requirements for undergrounding transformers under SMC 19.38.095 (f) and (g)(1). Principal Planner Vashist responded that while there is no study issue that addresses this matter currently, consideration will be given to his comments.
Commissioner Pyne asked whether the proposed project’s transformers will be screened by evergreen perennial shrub planting as indicated on page L-6 of Attachment 5 to the report. Principal Planner Vashist answered that the applicant will provide a response to his question.
Vice Chair Davis confirmed with Principal Planner Vashist that as sites get redeveloped, they will share a path that will be connected to the Lawrence Caltrain
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
station.
At Vice Chair Davis’ request, Principal Planner Vashist explained why the lot size of the existing site is larger than that of the proposed site by one acre.
Commissioner Sigura spoke in favor of undergrounding the proposed project’s transformers.
Commissioner Sigura asked whether the proposed project will include any traffic mitigation measures. Principal Planner Vashist explained that a traffic analysis was not conducted for the proposed project and that the proposed project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts per the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report completed for the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) in 2021.
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Principal Planner Vashist that the proposed project is in overall compliance with the LSAP.
Commissioner Sigura confirmed with Principal Planner Vashist that while the proposed project is compliant with the City’s noise standards, it is subject to noise verification before its units are occupied.
At Chair Serrone’ request, Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandra Lee explained that the proposed project may use concessions under the State Density Bonus law to reduce the size of its Below Market Rate (BMR) units and achieve cost savings.
Principal Planner Vashist reiterated that as sites to the south get redeveloped, they will share a path that will be connected to the Lawrence Caltrain station.
Commissioner Figone and Principal Planner Vashist discussed the trash receptacles and stormwater management for the proposed project.
Commissioner Iglesias and Commissioner Pyne shared additional comments on undergrounding or overgrounding the proposed project’s transformers.
Chair Serrone opened the Public Hearing.
Kian Malek (VP of Development at City Ventures) presented additional information on the proposed project.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Mr. Malek responded to Commissioner comments and questions regarding the proposed project’s transformers. Commissioner Pyne asked how the shortage of underground transformers would physically preclude construction of the proposed project. Mr. Malek explained that since underground transformers occupy more space than above-ground transformers, using them would reduce the proposed project’s number of housing units.
At Commissioner Pyne’s request, Mr. Malek explained why a waiver is requested for the City’s Objective Design Standard 7.5.5 Internal Pathway Landscape.
Vice Chair Davis and Mr. Malek discussed ways to increase density for the proposed project. Mr. Malek stated that removal of the shared path could have created space for additional units, but this path is necessary and in compliance with the LSAP.
Commissioner Shukla and Mr. Malek compared the proposed project to other City Ventures projects of similar density.
Hang Har, Sunnyvale resident, noted that the proposed project does not include any retail space and that the proposed project’s pedestrian pathways should be raised rather than indicated simply by painted lines.
Mr. Malek provided closing comments.
Chair Serrone closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Pyne moved, and Vice Chair Davis seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1: Determine that the project is consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) EIR and LSAP Update Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182 and approve the Special Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map based on Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.
Commissioner Pyne emphasized that undergrouding the proposed project’s transformers would result in a unit reduction. He also stated that the proposed project meets all applicable requirements and that it is an improvement to what currently exists on the site. Lastly, while he preferred greater density for the site, he recognized that the proposed project would offer BMR units and mixed-use paths.
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Davis agreed that a concession to increase the height of the proposed development would have allowed for an increase in density. Overall, he acknowledged that the proposed project is great and shared his hope that the other Commissioners would vote in support of it.
Commissioner Sigura expressed that, ideally, the BMR units would have been larger in size, and he voiced his support for the motion.
Chair Serrone stated that he is supportive of motion and noted that the proposed project is well-designed although its density could have been greater.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: Chair Serrone
Vice Chair Davis
Commissioner Figone
Commissioner Iglesias
Commissioner Pyne
Commissioner Shukla
Commissioner Sigura
7 -
No: 0
This decision is final unless appealed or called up for review by the City Council by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 8, 2026.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS
-Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Figone shared details on a Council Priority Project for Planning Commission consideration.
-Staff Comments
Assistant Director of Community Development Matt VanHua confirmed that the Planning Commissioners would like to receive only the additional utility sheets and not the entire plan set for the proposed project at 781 South Wolfe Road that they will be considering on September 14, 2026.
ADJOURNMENT
Attachment 1
August 24, 2026Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Serrone adjourned the meeting at 11:35 PM.
Attachment 1