REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
APPEAL BY PROJECT APPLICANT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF JUNE 27, 2022
Proposed Project: Related applications on a 1.81-acre site:
Special Development Permit to redevelop a portion (westerly portion) of an existing shopping center (Fremont Corners) into a mixed-use Village Center with 3,384 square feet of commercial space and 35, four-story townhome-style condominiums with associated parking and site improvements including common public open space.
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the lot into five lots and 35 condominiums.
Location: 102 E. Fremont Ave. and 1310 S. Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. (APN: 309-01-002)
File #: 2021-7161
Zoning: C-1/PD (Neighborhood Business / Planned Development)
Applicant / Owner: TTLC Sunnyvale FC, LLC / Fremont Corners, Inc Et Al
Environmental Review: Consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15183 and 15183.3 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and Streamlining for In-fill Projects).
Project Planner: Shétal Divatia, (408) 730-7637, sdivatia@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this item on June 27, 2022. The Planning Commission voted to approve the alternative site plan in Attachment 10, which achieves the applicant’s requested residential density, relocates the commercial building to the Fremont Avenue frontage, and results in the removal of one driveway (Alternative 1). The Planning Commission’s decision also included a correction to the park in-lieu fee estimate in Condition of Approval (COA) BP-9, which has been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4. Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing are provided in Attachment 14.
A public comment letter is provided in Attachment 12 to the report.
APPEAL
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision on July 12, 2022. The letter of appeal and associated documents are located in Attachment 15. The applicant requests that the City Council approve the applicant’s proposed site plan with the commercial building at the back of the site and maintenance of three driveways, as shown in Attachment 9. The appeal letter makes references to State housing laws including Senate Bill 330, the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code section 65589.5); and the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code sections 65915-65918), as well as references to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code sections 66410-66499,40). The following summarizes the appeal points:
1. Commercial Building - Moving the commercial building to the Fremont Avenue frontage would be in conflict with an existing reciprocal access easement with the neighboring property containing 24-Hour Fitness, and the site plan modification is not based on objective development standards as required by State housing laws.
2. Driveway Removal - Removal of one driveway is not needed to address written public health and safety standards as defined under the Housing Accountability Act, and the applicant’s proposal to maintain three driveways would not result in a significant impact per CEQA.
3. Tentative Map - Planning Commission’s approved site plan in Attachment 10 requires modifications to the tentative map prepared by the applicant in Attachment 9, which would interfere with the City’s ability to ministerially approve the final map because the final map would not be in “substantial conformance” with the approved tentative map as required by the Subdivision Map Act.
4. Applicant’s Alternative Site Plan dated July 6, 2022 - After the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant provided an alternative site plan that would relocate the commercial building to the Fremont Avenue frontage, include a driveway on Fremont Avenue, and reduce the width of the northerly driveway on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road to be a right-in only.
Applicant’s Alternative Site Plan dated July 6, 2022
The applicant’s appeal letter also includes requested modifications to the Conditions of Approval (COA). With the exception of the following, most of the mark-ups are formatting changes and not substantive, which will be cleaned up by staff during the preparation of the Final COAs after the City Council hearing:
• The following COAs were modified for clarification and have been incorporated in Attachment 4 (Planning Commission approved site plan and staff recommended COAs):
• The following COA modifications reflect the applicant’s appeal request. If the appeal is granted and the applicant’s site plan is approved, the City Council could approve the Alternative COAs in Attachment 16 (Applicant proposed site plan and requested modifications to COAs):
• The following COAs reflect staff’s standard practice of referencing dated plan sheets and should not be accepted as modifications to either Attachment 4 or Attachment 16:
STAFF COMMENTS ON APPEAL
As noted above, the appeal letter includes references to State Housing Law and the Subdivision Map Act. Page 2 of 16 of the Report to Planning Commission (Attachment 13, Report No. 22-0462) provides staff’s overview of State Housing Law. Page 9 of 16 included a brief review of “waivers” in State housing law; incentives/concessions and reduced in residential parking are explain on pages 11-12). The following are staff responses to the applicant’s appeal:
1. Commercial Building - As noted in the Report to the Planning Commission in Attachment 13, the existing cross access easements established since 1958 were voided and replaced with a new access agreement in February 2022, several months after staff had recommended closure of at least one of the three driveways. This new agreement, in addition to re-establishing the existing access points (shown in red in the graphic below), also added new access to the public streets (shown in blue in the graphic below) with the proposed site layout prior to the layout being approved by the City. The February 2022 easement language notes that modifications can be made based on City approved plans. Therefore, staff finds that the easement can be modified to reflect Planning Commission’s approved site plan. Staff also maintains that the applicant’s proposed site plan is inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies, as the commercial building tucked at the back of the site would not be visible from the street frontages and the site plan as submitted by the application does not create a distinctive focal element. Staff finds that Planning Commission’s approved site plan to relocate the commercial building to the Fremont Avenue frontage achieves the goal to provided much-needed housing while also meeting the intent of the General Plan to create a distinctive focal element and vibrant and conveniently located retail at this Village Center.
Cross Access Easement and Street Access on Applicant’s site plan
2. Driveway Removal - General Plan Action LT-3.22a (which implements Policy LT-3.22) requires projects to minimize driveway curb cuts and require coordinated access. This is an objective standard, because a reasonable person can know in advance that the action “minimize driveway curb cuts” requires as few driveways as possible to serve a particular project site. Because this project can feasibly be served by two driveways, additional curb cuts would not “minimize driveway curb cuts” as required by the General Plan. Additionally, the Vision Zero Plan provides a toolbox for increased safety measures that should be incorporated into the project. The Traffic Engineer’s Memo in Attachment 7 describes the safety concerns at the Fremont Avenue/Sunnyvale Saratoga Road intersection and adjacent roadway segments that would occur if the driveway curb cuts are not minimized as required by the General Plan, and this memo further supports Planning Commission’s decision to remove one of the three driveways at the project site. While staff’s safety concerns do not rise to the level of a significant CEQA impact, the concerns inform staff’s analysis of the merits of the project. Moreover, even assuming that the applicant’s assertion that the City’s safety standards are not objective, approval of the project subject to staff’s recommended condition of approval would not deny the project or reduce its density, so the condition of approval is consistent with the Housing Accountability Act’s requirements.
The Traffic Engineer made a minor correction to page 2 of the memo (street name correction), which is included in Attachment 7.
3. Tentative Map - The Assistant City Engineer has indicated that a final map that deviates from a tentative map due to modifications according to conditions of approval can still be found to be in substantial conformance with the tentative map, because the final map would substantially conform to the tentative map’s contents as approved subject to conditions.
4. Applicant’s Alternative Site Plan dated July 6, 2022 - The alternative site plan meets the goal to make the commercial building more visible and viable and is consistent with one aspect of the Planning Commission’s approved conditions; however, by proposing a right-in driveway from Sunnyvale Saratoga Road, it does not accomplish the goal to close one full driveway used for site access and therefore does not fully comply with the Planning Commission’s conditions or the City’s objective standard to minimize driveway curb cuts.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Public Library, Senior Center, Community Center and in the Department of Public Safety Lobby. The site has been posted and the neighborhood (1,000 square foot radius) has been mailed a notice of the City Council hearing. In addition, the agenda and report are available at the Sunnyvale Public Library, Office of the City Clerk, and on the City's website.
Staff has received one public comment to date (Attachment 12).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and make the required Findings to approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination that the project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15183.3 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and Streamlining for Infill Projects) as noted in checklist (Attachment 6), approve the Special Development Permit and the Tentative Map subject to the Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.
2. Grant the appeal and make the required Findings to approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination that the project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15183.3 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and Streamlining for Infill Projects) as noted in checklist (Attachment 6), approve the Special Development Permit and the Tentative Map subject to the Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 16.
3. Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 with modifications.
a. Attachment 5 includes staff recommended Conditions of Approval to allow the commercial building in the applicant proposed location and close one driveway.
b. Other modifications as determined by the City Council.
4. Do not make the required findings and direct staff where changes should be made.
5. Deny the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and make the required Findings to approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination that the project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15183.3 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and Streamlining for Infill Projects) as noted in checklist (Attachment 6), approve the Special Development Permit and the Tentative Map subject to the Recommended Findings in Attachment 3 and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.
Staff finds that Planning Commission’s approved site plan to relocate the commercial building to the Fremont Avenue frontage achieves the goal to provide much-needed housing while also meeting the intent of the General Plan to create a distinctive focal element and a vibrant and conveniently located retail at this Village Center. The recommended site plan also removes a driveway on Fremont Avenue, which also addresses the concern about traffic safety related to too many driveways near this busy intersection.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4, which includes the applicant’s requested clarifications to BP-10, EP-22, TM-6, TM-10.d), PF-5 and AT-15.
Staff
Prepared by: Shétal Divatia, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Shaunn Mendrin, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Teri Silva, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Kent Steffens, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Noticing and Vicinity Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Findings (Updated)
4. Recommended/Planning Commission Approved Conditions of Approval (updated for City Council)
5. Alternative Conditions of Approval for Applicant Proposed Site Plan w/modifications (updated for City Council)
6. CEQA - Section 15183 - Infill Development Provision Checklist
7. DPW Memo dated 7/12/2022 (Driveway Closure) (update of 4/29/2022 memo)
8. Letter from Applicant - Justification for waivers and incentive/concessions
9. Project Plans and Views
10. Recommended Site Plan
11. LUTE EIR Links
12. Public Comment Letter
Additional Attachments for Report to Council
13. Report to Planning Commission [22-0462, June 27, 2022] (without attachments)
14. Excerpt of Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2022
15. Appeal Letter and info from Applicant
16. Conditions of Approval with Applicant requested modifications