On Sept. 8 the Sunnyvale Planning Commission voted 6-0, with Commissioner Fragoni absent, to approve a modification to the site development permit and a new vesting tentative map for a 3.56-acre project at 1104 and 1124 West El Camino Real that will allow the developer to create condominium units in a previously approved mixed-use building and to pursue a below-market-rate alternative compliance plan.

The action authorizes a change to Condition GC-8 of the original approval for file 2018-7798 and finds the project consistent with the El Camino Real Specific Plan environmental review; staff recommended approval and concluded no additional CEQA review is required under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Julia Klein, principal planner for the city, summarized that the map would give the developer the option to sell condominium units within the mixed-use building and that there is "no change in the units in either the exterior design, the site layout, or the total number of, units, as was approved back in August 2024."

Why it matters: the approval lets the owner convert a 111-unit mixed-use building (plus five detached single-family lots) from a rental configuration to condominium ownership in whole or in phased parts, while leaving in place the previously approved ground-floor commercial space. The alternative compliance path being authorized by the condition change allows the developer to propose in-lieu fees or other measures instead of building on-site BMR units; that alternative compliance plan will be considered separately by the Housing and Human Services Commission and the City Council.

Project details and background: the site is in the El Camino Real Specific Plan area between Grape Street and Blair Avenue and west of South Bernardo Avenue. The project’s original entitlement, approved Aug. 12, 2024, comprised a single mixed-use building with 111 residential units and one ground-floor commercial space, plus five detached single-family lots for a total of six lots. The current application includes (1) a special development permit to modify Condition GC-8 so the applicant may submit a below-market-rate alternative compliance plan tied to converting rental units to for-sale units, and (2) a vesting tentative map to create condominium units for the mixed-use building. Staff said the vesting tentative map itself does not change unit counts or building design.

Unit mix and phasing: staff and the applicant described a phased approach. The developer and staff cited an approximate split of roughly 85–86 units proposed for sale and about 25 units to remain rentals initially; transcript comments gave slightly different counts at different times. The transcript indicates the set of units proposed for sale and those proposed to remain rental have been identified in attachments to the alternative compliance materials submitted to the Housing and Human Services Commission and the City Council. The staff report and project attachments (provided to HHS and council) contain the specific unit identifications; the number reported in the planning commission discussion was described as approximately 85–86 for-sale units and 25 rental units (sources: staff and applicant statements).

Homeowners association and vertical subdivision: staff said an HOA will be required because the original entitlement included five single-family lots; the HOA would extend to the condominium units. Commissioners and staff explained the project uses a vertical subdivision (a condominium or "stacked" parcelization of airspace) to create individual condo parcels within a multi-story building. The planning officer noted the city will review CC&Rs when they are drafted and that any later request to convert remaining rental units to for-sale would require additional approvals and amendments to governing documents.

Applicant and staff comments: the applicant, identified only as John in the record, told the commission the project had been approved originally as apartments but the developer intended a condominium map: "this commission approved the project as an apartment. And that was a mistake," he said, explaining the vertical subdivision approach helps the project remain financially viable. Julia Klein, the city’s principal planner, told commissioners: "Yes. They would be able to go forward with the original entitlement. However, as noted in the staff report, financing is difficult right now." Staff emphasized that the change requested is limited to unit classification and the condition allowing the alternative compliance option and does not otherwise alter the approved building design or unit count.

Commission questions and concerns: commissioners asked about HOA governance, how representation would work between homeowners and the commercial unit owner, the sequence for phasing sales, and the risk to renters if units are later converted to for sale. Staff said CC&Rs and HOA representation will be reviewed if and when the developer submits the relevant documents; the alternative compliance plan and any later conversions would go through the city’s formal review process.

Votes and next steps: Vice Chair Shukla moved to approve staff’s recommendation; Commissioner Davis seconded. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Fragoni absent. The project decision is subject to a 15-day appeal period; the alternative compliance plan (the specific BMR proposal or fees) will be considered by the Housing and Human Services Commission and, later, by the City Council if referred. The timeline for council review was not specified in the planning commission record.