REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Proposed Project: Appeal by Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local Union 270, represented by Michael R. Lozeau at Lozeau Drury LLP, of a decision by the Planning Commission to conditionally approve:
USE PERMIT for a new six-story hotel with 128 rooms.
Location: 1296 Lawrence Station Road (APN: 104-33-012)
File #: 2017-8060
Zoning: Industrial and Service (M-S)
Applicant / Owner: Baywood Hotels (applicant) / Sunnyvale Holdings LLC (owner)
Environmental Review: The project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City’s General Plan and no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.
Report
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION
This Use Permit was considered by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2020. (See Attachment 14 for Report to Planning Commission). Minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing can be found in Attachment 15. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 7-0 vote with the following amendments to the conditions of approval:
1. Install a security camera system to the bicycle parking area (added Condition PS-1b).
2. Revise page 3 of Attachment 5, CEQA Consistency with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) EIR, to read that there will be a total of 80 parking space, which is comprised of 20 surface parking spaces and 60 spaces in the parking structure (Updated checklist in Attachment 5).
3. Plant additional trees closer to the hotel that are vertical, genetically large, native species and that grow to a minimum of 75 feet at maturity (added Condition PS-1c).
4. Create a secure bicycle parking area for overnight guests, visitors and staff. (added Condition PS-1a)
Staff supports the amendments to the conditions of approval, which have been revised to reflect the Planning Commission action (Attachment 4). Staff also added a new condition BP-39 to reinforce a mitigation measure on indoor air quality (MM 3.5.6 from LUTE Mitigation Measure and Monitoring Program, Attachment 6) that the proposed project needs to comply, in addition to any other relevant LUTE mitigation measures (Condition MM-1).
APPEAL
On June 26, 2020, the project was appealed by Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local Union 270, represented by Michael R. Lozeau at Lozeau Drury LLP. The letter of appeal is included as Attachment 16. The appellant states the following reasons for the appeal:
1. The Planning Commission and the public were not provided the documents necessary to consider the City’s proposed use of an exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183;
2. Section 15183 does not exempt the Project from conducting environmental review under CEQA of the Project’s significant impacts from emissions of indoor air pollution, including the toxic air contaminant formaldehyde, and impacts from bird strikes on new building structures and windows;
3. The Project may have significant environmental impacts from its emission of formaldehyde to indoor air; and
4. The Project may have significant environmental impacts by causing fatal bird strikes on its structure and windows.
Pursuant to Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.98.070(f)(2) and (3), the City Council hearing is a de novo hearing and the City Council is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised in the appeal by the appellant. After the hearing, City Council can either affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision based on the evidence and findings.
STAFF COMMENTS ON APPEAL
The issues raised in the appeal letter submitted are the same issues raised in a comment letter submitted on June 2, 2020 to the Planning Commission. City staff disagrees with the assertions in the appeal letter as follows:
1. After receiving the comment letter from the appellant on June 2, 2020, staff added the LUTE environmental documents to the City’s General Plan webpage on June 3, 2020, and informed the appellant of the availability of the documents via email. The documents were available for review by the Planning Commission and members of the public prior to the Planning Commission hearing on June 16, 2020. The documents are still available at https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/government/codes/plan.htm, or by contacting the Planning Division to request a copy at planning@sunnyvale.ca.gov.
2. The purpose of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 is to streamline environmental review of projects that are consistent with an existing general plan for which an EIR was certified. Under Section 15183(c), an additional EIR does not need be prepared to address project-specific impacts as long as those impacts:
(a) are not “peculiar” to the project, or
(b) were addressed as significant effects in the prior EIR, or
(c) can be “substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards.”
Section 15183(f) further provides that an effect of the project is not “peculiar” to the project if it can be mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards that may be found within other planning documents or ordinances. Therefore, under Section 15183, this issue does not require additional environmental review.
3. Although the LUTE EIR did not discuss formaldehyde as an indoor air contaminant, it did identify the potential that future development could result in new sources of indoor toxic air contaminants (TACs) and imposes mitigation measures, such as indoor air filtration systems, to address any health or cancer risks that are identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (LUTE Mitigation Measure 3.5.6). As noted in the applicant’s response to the Lozeau letter (Attachment 12), the project will be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations, as incorporated through the City’s adoption of CalGreen Building Code, that will substantially mitigate the potential health effects associated with formaldehyde air contamination.
4. Section 3.9.4 of the LUTE specifically addressed the potential for bird collisions with buildings and found that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of the City’s Bird Safe Design Guidelines, which were adopted in 2014. The Bird Safe Design Guidelines require developers to minimize reflective surfaces and glass walls, reduce nighttime lighting, discourage the placement of large water features, and avoid landscape design that places tall landscaping next to reflective surfaces. Therefore, the impact of development on birds was directly addressed in the LUTE EIR and can also be substantially mitigated by application of the Bird Safe Design Guidelines.
The project site is located more 300 feet away from the closest body of water, which is the bay front and east channel, and is not adjacent to a landscaped area, open space or park larger than one acre in size. The project’s curtainwalls at both ends of the L-shaped building utilizes tinted blue glass and has aluminum frame that prevents a large expanse of glass. The tinted blue glass not only provides energy efficiency but also decreases transparency of the glass used on the curtainwalls. Also, no glass materials are proposed on the rooftop garden on top of the parking structure. Policies related to lighting will be addressed during the building permit stage when the lighting plan is submitted. All the policies will be applied to ensure the project’s compliance with the Bird Safety Building Design Guidelines.
PUBLIC CONTACT
As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has received no comments from members of the public, other than communication from the appellant.
Notice of Public Hearing
• Published in the Sun newspaper
• Posted on the site
• 1,069 notices were mailed to property owners and tenants within 2,000 feet of the project as shown in Attachment 1
Staff Report
• Posted on the City’s website
• Available at the Office of the City Clerk
Agenda
• Posted on the City’s official notice bulletin board outside City Hall, Sunnyvale Public Library and Department of Public Safety
• Posted on the City’s website
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City's General Plan and no additional environmental review is required as noted in the checklist in Attachment 5 to the report, and approval of the Use Permit subject to the revised recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 4 to the report.
2. Deny the appeal and modify the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City's General Plan and no additional environmental review is required as noted in the checklist in Attachment 5 to the report, and approval of the Use Permit subject to the revised recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 4 to the report.
3. Grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Commissions determination to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City's General Plan and no additional environmental review is required as noted in the checklist in Attachment 5 to the report, and approval of the Use Permit.
4. Continue the public hearing to a date certain if Council finds that more information is needed before making a decision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the City's General Plan and no additional environmental review is required as noted in the checklist in Attachment 5 to the report, and approval of the Use Permit subject to the revised recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 4 to the report.
Staff supports the Planning Commission action for the project and recommends denial of the appeal subject to the revised conditions of approval. The project meets most development standards, except for building height and parking. As noted in the Planning Commission staff report, the deviations being requested are reasonable and meet the general intent of the development standards and design guidelines.
Staff
Prepared by: Kelly Cha, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Andrew Miner, Assistant Director, Community Development
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Director, Community Development
Reviewed by: Teri Silva, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Kent Steffens, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments to Report to Planning Commission
1. Noticing and Vicinity Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Findings
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (Updated for City Council Hearing)
5. CEQA Consistency with the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) EIR (Updated for City Council Hearing)
6. LUTE Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
7. Project Site and Architectural plans
8. Draft Parking Management Plan
9. Materials Specification Matrix
10. Preliminary LEED Checklist
11. LIUNA Comment Letter, dated June 2, 2020
12. Applicant’s Response Letter, dated June 5, 2020
13. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2020
Additional Attachments for Report to Council
14. Planning Commission Report of June 16, 2020 (without attachments)
15. Planning Commission Minutes of June 16, 2020
16. Appeal Letter