Loading...
PC Min - 03/26/2013CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2013, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Reynolds and tlhe following proceedings were had, to wit: MARCH 26, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Paul Resnikoff Brian Brennan John Razumich Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF= MINUTES Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Interim Community Development Director: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Pam Finch Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Roseberry Paul Kermoyan Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 12, 2013, were approved. (4-0-3; Commissioners Finch, Gibbons and Roseberry were absent) COMMUNICATIONS The desk; items regarding Agenda Item No. 1. Campbell Plannning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS *** Chair Reynolds; read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2012-'132 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kurt Anderson, Anderson, K. on behalf of the Duc Development, for a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2012-132) to create nine single-family residential parcels on property located at 1181 Abbott Avenue in an R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map to create anine-lot single-family residential subdivision on a 2.6-acre property located at 1181 Abbott Avenue. • Stated that the 1181 Abbott is located between Westmont and Hacienda Avenues and is currE:ntly developed with several sheds and asingle-family residence on former agricultural land. The site is surrounded by residential to the north, west and east and a creek to the south. It is zoned R-1-9 (Single Family Residential with minimum loi: size of 9,000 square feet). The General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Density Residential, which is intended for large lot single-family residences with 4.5 units per gross acre. This includes detached single-family residences on larger lots. This proposal is consistent with both the Zoning and General Plan designation;> for the property. • Advised thalr the property falls within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. • Explained that the configuration will have access from the north. Nine lots will range in sins from 9.000 to 13,000 square feet and include a 40-foot wide right-of- way with rolled curb to allow parking on both sides of the street. The existing cul- de-sac will be removed. A future road extension into the adjacent parcel will be created with that parcel is developed and there will be dedication of land for a future cul-dE:-sac: • Informed that the project includes a designation of a pedestrian pathway. • Stated that one of the table items received recommended that access be taken from the south rather than from the north. However, there is no existing direct access available and the area is too narrow for afull-size street. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 3 • Described the proposed pedestrian path as being 10-feet wide and located between Parcels 2 and 3. On each side of this pedestrian path there would be 10- foot wide landscaped areas to create an open appearance and to help assure public safefir. • Said that this pedestrian path was proposed at staff level per policy of the General plan. The design of this path has evolved. During the Pre-Application stage this path was more parallel to the property line without curvature. It has been previously proposed for the south side of the property parallel to the street. As redesigned, the current curved design pathway. • Explained that there are two path alternatives offered. At a community meeting held a couple of weeks ago, a simplified cul-de-sac was placed at the terminus. Having no path is an alternative. However, staff is recommending the inclusion of the path arching as presented. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Opined that the path depicted on the left of the exhibit appears tunnel like. • Added that ;staff wants to see a path created resulting in a defensible space path to avoid issue:> that have been raised in the petition received including vandalism and crime. • Stated that with the arched path, one can see through. Low post and rail fences would delinE;ate the boundaries of the path representing a rural or barn-like fencing appearance. • Added that i:here would be windows on the residences along this pedestrian path to help provide: the ingredients of a defensible pathway. • Assured that a lot of thought went into the design of the path. • Explained that the reasoning for this path is that the General Plan calls for alternative paths of travel and connecting neighborhoods by pedestrian means. There are a lot of ways of connecting neighborhoods including such paths. Planner Daniel Fama: • Explained that defensible space is assisted with the inclusion of 6-foot fencing along the outer landscaping easements. All residences along the path will have views on thE: pathway as a means to reduce the potential for nuisance activity along the path. • Explained tf iat the storm water treatment would be handled on site through the use of bio treatment areas that are within a 10-foot wide easement at the front of each property. Maintenance of these bio treatment areas will be undertaken by the City with funding to be secured either through an assessment or an impact fee. Public Works Landl Development Engineer Ed Arango will explain this issue further in a few momenl:s. • Reported that there will be a master landscaping plan for the bio treatment areas. • Reiterated that the project will meet the development standards of the San Tomas Area Neighk~orhood Plan under its R-1-9 standards. • Provided a table offering preliminary development data including heights, FARs and square footage. The Commission can consider if it may be applicable or desirable to change thie allowable FAR. Campbell Plannning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 4 • Advised that there is a placeholder within the conditions of approval where the Commission can impose any additional conditions on either an individual basis or development wide. • Explained that under CEQA an Initial Study was prepared evaluating any environmental issues. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed with mitigation measures. Those mitigation measures are incorporated into the project as conditions of approval. The public review period for the Initial Study ran from March 5th through 5 p.m. on March 26th, 2013. No correspondence was received. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt two resolutions. One to approve they Mitigated Negative Declaration and the other to approve the Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map to create nine residential parcels. • Introduced E.d Arango, Public Works Land Development Engineer. Ed Arango, Public Works Department, Land Development Engineer: • Offered a quick overview of the storm water component. • Explained that Storm Water regulations require on-site treatment of storm water. • Said that in 1987 the Federal Clean Water Act was enacted. The State of California has the Regional Water Quality Act with a complex permitting system that includes a Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. These acts govern the quality and quantity of water discharging off-site. • Added that in December 2011 more restrictive requirements were imposed intending to result in low impact on the environment. Rain water is to be used on site and infiltration systems into ground water. Such infiltration is nearly impossible in Campbell due to its clay soil. The use of bio-treatment through vegetated basins is proposed for this development. • Advised that the City has increased responsibility in monitoring and tracking storm water management. The Water Board could issue penalties. • Reported treat this project with its nine new single-family lots is subject to the requirements for Storm Water treatment using depressed landscape areas and an under-drain to capture water. Overflows during heavier rains can go directly into the storm water systems untreated. • Explained that the landscaping use of irrigation system with consistent litter removal and minimal pesticide use are important components as is quick response when damage occurs to these bio treatment facilities. The City will stock necessary materials for repairs as needed. Any modifications to these systems would require advance City approval. • Stated that staff is recommending along-term solution whereby the City assumes the maintenance responsibility. The City has a response team in place and the only question is the funding source. • Reported that the City considered options including the establishment of an HOA for maintenance of these bio treatment areas. The benefit to the homeowners is they would be self-regulated. The concern of the City is that the City is ultimately responsible to ensure that storm water is property managed. If the homeowners are not responsible then the City can be penalized. He said that it is difficult to find the nexus whereby a HOA is managing a City responsibility. • Recommended that a funding mechanism be implemented, be it an assessment through property tax collection for those properties in this development. Another Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 5 option is fc-r the applicant to petition the City as well as fund the processing necessary to establish a District. Another alternative funding mechanism is a one time impact fee. If the one-time impact fee is imposed there would be no need for the property tax assessment. • Reiterated that staff is recommending that the maintenance of storm water be overseen by the City. Commissioner Razumich: • Said one issue he has about use of an HOA versus other funding options is what if the funds generated grows larger than necessary. Would there be an opportunity for the homeowners to get a refund of the surplus? • Asked if easement rights to the bio swales will be required and if notice to homeowners would be necessary prior to City staff performing routine litter removal and/or monitoring of the bio treatment areas. Mr. Ed Arango, PW Land Development Engineer: • Said that in the collection of an assessment a ceiling could be established. • Cautioned that once established the assessment amount cannot be raised. • Added that after the first year, once estimated cost of maintenance is established, the needed amount could be better understood and based on that year. • Assured that the City is not in the business of making money off of these assessments. They are only intended to cover the actual cost of maintenance. • Added that 1:he assessment amount can be reduced in the future but not increased. • Stated that if after one year it is determined that the assessment had been underestimated, the City cannot go back to increase it without a vote of the property ownners. • Advised that the subdivision map includes easements on these properties for the Storm Drains Easement and the Surface Drain Easement to allow maintenance by the City. • Added that 'this easement will be disclosed to property owners indicating the City's access rights for periodic checks and maintenance. Commissioner I~esnikoff: • Asked about the option of a one-time impact fee. • Questioned when that would be paid and who would manage the funds. Mr. Ed Arango advised that the applicant pays the fee prior to approval of the final map. Commissioner I~esnikoff verified that it is paid upfront. Mr. Ed Arango replied yes. Commissioner Resnikoff asked who manages the fund and what is the $600,000 amount based on. What is the projected return on investment? Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Ed Arango advised that the conservative estimated rate of return is based on historic average and is about 4 percent (4%). Commissioner Resnikoff asked if the funds are managed by the City. Mr. Ed Arango replied correct. Chair Reynolds; reiterated that assessment cannot be increased. Mr. Ed Arango agreed and said the ceiling amount is set. However, an escalating cost of living increase could be built in. Chair Reynold:> asked if Mr. Ng's concern about drainage onto his property has been addressed. Mr. Ed Arango advised that per the standards of a subdivision, a new lot must drain onto itself or onto a street frontage. Chair Reynolds asked what about Mr. Ng's erosion concerns due to grade differences. Planner Daniel Fama explained that per condition of approval #9 it states that if there is a grade diflference between properties, the base of the wooden fence will be constructed as a CMU wall to prevent erosion between the properties. Commissioner Resnikoff provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on February 12, 2013, and had several comments. • Stated that the first concern was regarding the alignment of the pedestrian path. SARC preferred the path be parallel to the creek but staff advised that more visibility is provided as proposed. • Advised that SARC questioned the need for an assessment. The property owners are required to maintain their properties while at the same time pro-active maintenance of the storm water system is required by the City. • Added that .at a Study Session with Council, the inclusion of a pedestrian path was supported by the Council. • Said that a:s for the fencing required along the easement (path), a condition of approval prohibits fencing directly along the landscape easement. • Stated that SARC found Lot 2 to be located too close to the pedestrian pathway. Suggested limiting the size of homes or increasing the setback from the pathway. • Stated that the comments on the need for the assessment were mixed as he personally though the City should maintain the bio swales. Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kurt Anders>on, Project Applicant: • Pointed out that there are a lot of people present tonight who are against the inclusion of the pedestrian path. He asked those in the audience who were against Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 7 the path to raise their hands. Most in the audience did raise their hand against the path. • Suggested that the neighbors be allowed to address their concerns and he would then return 'to make his points. Mr. William Soley, Resident on Archer: • Said that his home is located to the former walkway that used to be on Archer. • Pointed out that the now-closed pathway created problems with liquor bottles, drug paraphernallia, noise, and profanity issues. The police would come to investigate activities going on there. There was a lot of graffiti. • Assured than a walkway is not something anyone would want in their neighborhood and results in an expense to the City to maintain and police it. Mr. Frank Zmal<, Resident on Abbott: • Said that he: lives adjacent to this development site to the southeast of the creek. • Added that Ihis is the first residence to be impacted by this proposed walkway. • Reminded that in the past the area experienced a lot of problems with vandalism occurring on the old pathway from Avery. There were drug problems. • Cautioned thhat it is not just kids that are cutting through there. There will be graffiti and other types of foot traffic. • Concluded that he doesn't see the need for this walkway and appeals on the Commission to eliminate that aspect of this project. Ms. Donna IsbE:ll, Resident on Abbott: • Said she is the niece of Donald Meadows. He lived in the area when the previous path was there and also saw the vandalism and trash drawn by it. • Stated that most people in the area don't want another path in the neighborhood. • Added that even if windows of the new homes will overlook this pedestrian path, most people work during the day and will not be home to supervise activity occurring on this path. Mr. Randy Millb~ank, Resident on Abbott: • Said that it i:s everyone's responsibility to make sure the public is safe. • Advised thair he is opposed to inclusion of a pedestrian path with this project. Ms. Jo-Ann Fairbanks, Resident on W. Hacienda: • Said she has prepared correspondence that she will leave with the Commissioners before she leave the podium. • Stated that :>he wants to provide a list of what she is in favor of and what aspects of the proposal) that she opposes. • Said that she is in favor of the Tentative Subdivision Map and the size and placement of the lots. • Agreed that as proposed the circulation of this development will be adequate to support these homes. • Said that having pedestrian/bike paths helps to create apedestrian-friendly City and offers s<~fer bike/walking throughways. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 8 • Said that these proposed R-1-9 parcels will be located adjacent to smaller R-1-6 zoned properties with one-story homes on them. If there are two-story homes built on these new lots, the will look over onto the R-1-6 properties. • Suggested limited the homes to single-story for the lots adjacent to R-1-6 properties. • Said that while she is in favor of making this addition to an existing neighborhood the project should be required to utilize high window sills for second-story windows that would have sight lines into adjacent homes while still providing fire safety and retaining privacy of neighbors. • Stated that screening landscaping is not a true mitigation as a few minutes with a chainsaw and that landscaping could be gone all of a sudden. • Suggested 'the inclusion of seven-foot high solid fence with one-foot lattice at the top. • Suggested reducing the footprint of the proposed homes to no more than 30 percent coverage thus reducing the imposition on the neighbors and helping to retain open space and light in the area. Ms. Kara Hardrnan, Resident on Abbott: • Said she is Ihere this evening with her husband, John Hardman. • Advised that their home is adjacent to the proposed Lot 9. • Discussed the fact that although she has two elementary school-aged children that would benelfit from the availability of the proposed pedestrian path, her family does not want th2rt path installed. • Stated that she has lived in the house since 1979 and used to use the Archer pathway. • Assured that there are safe alternatives available for students to get to school. • Said that while the proposed setbacks for Lot 9 fall within the City's standards, her own home is but five feet away from the fence line. • Added that the master bedroom window on Lot 9 will look into her two children's' rooms windows. • Said that she is also concerned about a blind curve in the road and the potential for danger for children playing, the safety of cars and/or the potential for children getting hit by a car. • Expressed a concern about the pad level for Lot 8 also located near their bedrooms. • Asked that the fencing height be increased with lattice. • Added that ;>he is not happy about losing their cul-de-sac. • Pointed out that kids jump the fence onto this property every day and she is home during the dray. • Stated she i:s completely against this proposed pedestrian pathway. Mr. Gary Ng, Resident on Abbott: • Said he will talk about things other than the path. • Said he had submitted some written comments. In one, he discusses his concerns about site drainage since there is a grade difference of one-foot. With dirt there, he is concerned that water from that parcel will drain onto his side. • Pointed out that his drainage is not good already. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 9 • Suggested that consideration be given to having the grade level on this adjacent lot dropped. • Stated his hope was that the access would come from the south side although he understands that there may be problems with that. • Recounted that in 2000 the City developed a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The streets on the top of the list. were Harriet, north of Westmont, and Westmont, east of Abbott. This site is exactly where those two streets cross. • Said that there will be cases where people won't see posted street signs and result in unexpected traffic into this part of Abbott. • Suggested that the City work with the applicant in developing ways to prevent incidental traffic from unnecessarily coming onto this street that does not go all the way through. • Said that hE: is concerned about the visibility for traffic near Lot 9 and suggested that they may need a stop sign there where it turns the corner. That could prevent accidents. • Reiterated the comments made by Jo-Ann Fairbanks about the setbacks. • Said that the current residents would appreciate retaining their privacy. Mr. Jack Banfie:ld, Resident and owner of properties on Hacienda and Abbott: • Informed the Commission that his Abbott property is located at the end of the proposed pedestrian path. It is the first house on the other side of the creek and will be impacted by that path. • Said he hay; lived in the neighborhood since 1975 and experienced the impacts of the Archer c;ut through. He raised his two children and now his grandchildren are growing up inhere. • Stated that the problem of the pathway is not just the potential of kids hanging out there but al:>o the activities of unmanageable adults. • Reported treat he had spoken to others who have cut-through paths near their homes who experienced similar problems. • Declared hi:> opposition to the proposed pedestrian path as a nuisance to the area. • Recounted ~~that people have recently been cutting through this property since the passing of Mr. Tobaco. • Reiterated that he would experience the brunt of the adverse impacts from the pedestrian path. • Stated that he is not against the development. The property is there and housing is needed. This development will represent an upgrade to the neighborhood and City. • Added that he is happy that access will be from the Westmont side. • Suggested that the City take a look at other paths and survey other cities for their experiences with them. • Stated that the theory and/or concept of pedestrian paths is a good one but the question is, "do the benefits justify it?" Mr. Kurt Anderson, Applicant: • Expressed Ihis appreciation to staff and thanked the neighbors for coming this evening. • Added that this is what makes Campbell great. • Said that he is supportive of the 7 foot high fence. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 10 • Reported treat the size of the home allowed is 35 percent lot coverage while they are proposing only 30 percent lot coverage. • Pointed out that these are 9,000 to 13,000 square foot lots that will leave a lot of green spacE; available per lot. • Reminded that they are here this evening not for specific houses but rather just for the creation of the nine residential lots. • Assured that they would be coming back with the proposed homes and will consider each one on an individual basis. • Stated that installation of landscaping benefits properties on both sides as far as privacy and screening. • Stated that their engineer has assured that the drainage will be better than it is now. • Recommended perhaps renaming this street as Abbott Court to make it obvious that it is not a through street. • Said that it is a valid point to restrict vehicular traffic. • Stated that they are supportive of the assessment district and pointed out that this is the first development with that requirement. - • Said that thE: bio swales will be located within public utility easements. • Stated that as this is a new neighborhood to be located within an existing neighborhood. Therefore, the existing neighborhood should have more voice than the new. Their comments will be taken into account. • Offered to resurface the southern portion of Abbott to Hacienda if the requirement for the pedestrian path is removed from the project requirement. Again, that resurfacing would be in lieu of the path. • Added that if this project must be extended, he hopes it is deferred to a date certain. • Added that he is available for any questions. A woman in the audience had a question but was unable to come to the podium. Planner Daniel Fama spoke with her. Planner Daniel Fama: • Explained that the lady in the audience raises the issue of potential contamination with pesticides. She is asking if soils testing has or will be done. • Reported treat a soils test was done and the report found residual levels of pesticides brut they were below State allowed levels. Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Razumich: • Said that it was great to see everyone come to this evening's public hearing. It is encouragingi to have everyone participating in the process. • Reported th<~t he is looking for asingle-family home himself right now. • Pointed out that the Commission has received more comments about the proposed pedestrian pathway than the subdivision itself. • Said that this appears to be a thoughtfully laid out development. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 11 • Said that it appears that the concerns over drainage issues as a result of the 1 percent grade height difference can be alleviated with the wall and the drainage at the front of each parcel. • Said he understands the concerns over view impacts by existing single-story residences ;and believes that a 7-foot fence with a foot of lattice could help preserve the privacy irhey are accustomed to. • Reiterated that this is a new small project located in an existing mature neighborhood. • Said he supports site coverage of 35 percent. • Suggested i:hat a "Not a Thru Street" sign may help prevent unnecessary vehicular traffic. • Questioned the issue of the bend in the road and said that this will likely be a good neighborhood. The people who drive in their neighborhood will likely drive responsibly as they too will have kids. • Reported that he came to this meeting with ideas about the proposed pedestrian pathway and the support for them in the General Plan where walking and biking is encouraged. • Admitted th<~t the pedestrian path in this case doesn't quite fit for him. He is on the fence as to not having it. It depends on the will of the community as this path will affect existing and new owners in the area. He is open to the idea of not having that pedestrian path. Commissioner IResniikoff: • Agreed that the proposed path is the main issue. While he is not against the idea of the path, the current design creates issues. • Said that the 30-foot wide path (or 10-foot path with 10-foot landscape easements on either sidle) prevents fencing in the backyards of two to three lots. • Suggested that the path might better be placed between Lots 3 and 4 for more visibility. • Added that irhe neighbor concerns over the path are valid. If it can be made safe, it could be supported. If it can't be made safe, it should not be included. • Reported that there were 40 people who attended the public meeting and a vast majority of those here tonight are against inclusion of the path. • Said he has problems with the one-time impact fee. • Pointed out that the City is counting on a reasonable return on investment. There are concerns as to whether this is efficient or not and how the funds would be handled. • Reiterated that he would not like to see aone-time impact fee. • Stated that privacy concerns are always an issue and there could be loss of privacy with the location of two-story homes near existing single-story homes. • Assured that the Commission considers the placement of windows when design review is considered on new homes. With the right design and landscaping, privacy can be ensured. • Said that he is sure that drainage will not be impacting adjacent properties. • Pointed out that the traffic study indicates this project will not create a problem. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 12 Agreed that perhaps signage reading "Not a Thru Street" could solve the concern of unintentional traffic thus eliminating the need to consider changing the curve of the street itself. Commissioner Brennan: • Said there is a general sense of consensus with what is being said. • Agreed that there are ways to deal with unintentional traffic concerns. • Added that great suggestions have been offered. • Said that the pedestrian path needs to be eliminated. In doing a benefit analysis on including or eliminated the path, it appears the benefits are not there to support it. Commissioner Resnikoff: Said that hey understands the concerns about the pathway but before it is eliminated from the project he wants to be sure that the public safety concerns of vandalism, graffiti, etc., couldn't somehow be addressed. Stated that the requirement for low fences on Lots 2 and 3 adjacent to this proposed path creates concern as people can simply step over that style of fencing. Said that perhaps some lighting on the path could help eliminate some issues. Commissioner (Brennan: • Said he agrees that with the right angle design of the proposed path, there is the opportunity 'For things to happen on that path. • Stated that a curved path is the best alternative but still not a good idea. Chair Reynolds: • Thanked the audience for participating and said this is the way the system is supposed to work. It is important to the Planning Commission to have public participation. • Thanked thE; applicants for their outreach efforts to the neighborhood. • Thanked staff for a wonderful job on this project. • Agreed that a serious discussion on the path has gone back and forth. • Offered his positions on the issues raised this evening. • Stated that he supports increased fence height to 7-foot. • Said that he: completely opposes the pedestrian path fearing it would be a magnet for crime and trash. It would be a problem. The project is not losing anything if the path is not included. • Said he supports the draining plan. • Said he likes the suggestion to change the street name so it is obvious that it is not a through street. • Asked staff if this item must be continued to a future meeting if the path is to be removed from the design. Director Paul K~ermoyan: • Said that staff is discussing the potential for creating conditions to avoid the need to continue this item. Instead perhaps it is possible to impose a condition to eliminate the path frorn the map prior to recordation of the final map. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 13 • Suggested .a short recess to allow staff to review and strike through the conditions that no longer apply with the elimination of the pedestrian path. • Added that part of the motion made this evening could be the language that any conditions speaking to the pathway be stricken. • Asked the City Attorney if he was comfortable with that proposed route. City Attorney William Seligmann replied no. Chair Reynolds asked staff if the changes the CFD (Community Facilities District) would be necessary if the path is removed from the project. Mr. Ed Arango, PW Land Development Engineer, said that the maintenance of the path is in the conditions of approval for the maintenance of the CFD. However, the pathway component is a very minor component of the maintenance. Chair Reynolds asked staff for direction. Should the Commission call for a short recess or continue this item. City Attorney V1/illiam Seligmann said that decision is up to the Commission. He said that staff could likely review the conditions within a 15-minute period. Chair Reynolds called fora 15-minute recess at 9:08 p.m. Chair Reynolds reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Chair Reynolds asked staff for an update following the review of the draft conditions of approval. Director Paul Kermoyan offered an overview. He said that one thing the Commission appears to suF~port is approval of an exception to allow 8-foot high fences. Is that correct? All four Commissioners said they agreed #o allow 8-foot high fences. Chair Reynolds asked staff if this would somehow set some sort of precedence. Director Paul K~ermoyan: • Replied no. He added that the higher fence height is being allowed in order to mitigate privacy concerns. This is a unique situation and will not result in an across the board precedent. • Listed other conditions to modify including Condition 1, 9 and 34 He said that Conditions 1I 0, 11, 20 would be removed. • Reminded that the applicant this evening had offered to pave the other side of Abbott up to Hacienda and that offer should be added to the conditions as well. This can be accomplished by modifying Condition 31 by adding an additional subsection titled, "Abbott Avenue (Existing, south of site)." Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 14 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 4097 granting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and • Adopted Resolution No. 4098 approving a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2012-132) to create nine single-family residential parcels on property located at 1181 Abbott Avenue, with modifications as noted by the Director to edit Conditions 1, 9, 34; to strike Conditions 10, 11 and 20; and to add a new subsection to Condition 31, "Abbott Avenue (Existing, south of site" requiring the repaving of the road up to Hacienda Avenue; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Razumich, Resnikoff and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Finch, Gibbons and Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Reynolds advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2012-1163 Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated Text Text Amendment (PLN2012-163) to modify the Inclusionary Housing Amendment Ordinance (CMC Ch. 21.24) and the Density Bonus Ordinance (CMC 21.20) to comply with recent case law. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: April 16, 2013. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised thair this item was continued from a meeting one month ago. • Reminded that this is a proposed Text Amendment to modify the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to comply with case law (Palmer v. City of Los Angeles). • Said that the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provisions as they relate to rental units was found to be in violation of the Rental Act of 1995. • Said that these proposed modifications will eliminate this requirement in relation to rental units. • Added that modifications to the Density Bonus Ordinance will also be amended for consistency with these changes. • Advised that a Density Bonus project will not need additional units or affordability levels. It is nno longer directly linked to the Inclusionary Ordinance. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 15 • Explained that three findings are required that include consistency with the General Plan; the changes are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the community; and that the changes are consistent with the Zoning Code. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Razumich sought clarification that there is automatically a density bonus availablee for affordable projects. Planner Daniel Fama said that this is more pertinent to market rate development. Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner (Brennan: • Reported that he understands that there is a possible legislative fix in the works to deal with this court decision. • Pointed out that there is a cost to the City regarding is ability to provide affordable housing unii:s. Therefore, these changes result in some cost to the status quo. • Suggested irhat perhaps stretching out the timing prior to adopting any changes to the Ordinance may be the better option • Admitted that he is not sure of the context in which Council has required this Ordinance update. • Pointed out that there was a goal that the City had when it originally put this Ordinance in place. • Stated that he would love to maintain the current Ordinance as long as possible. Chair Reynolds: • Reminded that the Ordinance is being updated based on the outcome of a court case. • Added that Council is asking the Commission to modify the existing Ordinance by adopting language to comply with that court ruling. • Said that whether the City loses or gains rental housing seems to be market driven. There are K>eaks and valleys including the trend for owner versus rental market housing stock. It goes up and down. • Reiterated that the City's desire is to comply with case law. Commissioner IResnikoff: • Said he understands the need to comply with current case law. • Added that if the law were to change, the City could adopt these provisions once again. • Stated that he understands the concerns raised by Commissioner Brennan. • Said he would support this Text Amendment. • Reminded that if there are changes again those can be addressed down the road. Commissioner (Razumich asked if there are in lieu fees in Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 16 Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that technically they apply in low-density residential development and not for apartments. • Advised that some cities have an impact fee that is directly related to impacts on available low-income housing stock. For instance in Mountain View, there is a fee ranging between $35,000 and $60,000 per unit that goes into a pot to help facilitate future rental projects. Commissioner Razumich: • Pointed out that for-sale affordable units help one family. For-rent affordable units turn around more often and therefore end up helping more families. • Said that the in-lieu fee is collected from developers. • Added that affordable rental projects versus "for sale" projects with 15% affordable units allocated. • Asked staff if the idea of an in-lieu fee could be done instead of these amendments. City Attorney William Seligmann: • Said that they are not mutually exclusive. • Said that the Commission can decide to make these text changes as a form of housecleaning and also make a recommendation for the establishment of an in-lieu fee for affordable housing. • Advised that would require budgeting for the study necessary to validate the fee. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that since these text amendments are necessary to comply with case law he supports moving forward on this motion. • Added that recommending the establishment of an in-lieu fee would be a different issue. • Said he is happy to make a motion. Chair Reynolds said he loves the idea of suggesting that Council look into an in-lieu fee. That fee could make a positive impact on housing. City Attorney William Seligmann suggested that the Commission make a recommendation for an in-lieu fee as part of this resolution for the text amendment. Commissioner Brennan: • Said it is worth noting that the provisions for inclusionary housing are not market driven. • Added that he understands the general idea this case involves. • Supported the proposal to add the recommendation to consider a future in-lieu fee to the resolution. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Brennan, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4099 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the Campbell Municipal Code (Sec. 21.24 - Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 26, 2013 Page 17 Inclusionary Housing and Sec. 2120 -Density Bonus), to comply with recent case law, and to also recommend that the City Council consider the future adoption of an affordable housing impact fee, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Razumich, Resnikoff and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Finch Gibbons Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Reynolds advised that this item would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of April 16, 2013, for final action. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan had no additions to his written report. Chair Reynolds said he wanted to commend Commissioner Finch who was recently honored as Citizen of the Year. He said she had truly earned that honor as she has served the City well and hopefully will continue to do so for many years to come. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 2013 (the regular meeting of April 9, 2013, has been cancelled). SUBMITTED BY: Corinne inn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: `J ~~ ' ilip C. Reynol r., air ATTEST: ~~ i ~---~-- Paul Kermo~ran, Secretary