Loading...
PC Min - 01/27/2015CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 2015, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Finch and the following proceedings were had, to wit: JANUARY 27, 2015 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Pamela Finch Cynthia L. Dodd Yvonne Kendall Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Michael L. Rich Donald C. Young Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES None Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Paul Kermoyan Aki Honda Snelling Daniel Fama Stephen Rose William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Dodd, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of January 13, 2015, were approved as submitted. (5-0-0- 1; Chair Finch abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Miscellaneous correspondence received from the public in support of the Appeal (Item 1). Some of the items attached were previously forwarded to the Commission by email. The appellant prepared a table of information that was distributed as well. 2. New correspondence regarding Agenda Item 2 (Site and Architectural Review Permit for 2000 S. Bascom Avenue). 3. Miscellaneous correspondence received from the public regarding the proposed Negative Declaration for Agenda Item 3 (Housing Element Update) as well as an Errata Sheet prepared by staff. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL REQUESTS None *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Finch read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2014-351 Public Hearing to consider the Appeal (PLN2014-351) of Pisano, J. Judith Pisano of an Administrative Planned Development Permit that approved a (large) Pilates studio within an existing mixed-use development (Merrill Gardens) on property located at 2105 S. Winchester Boulevard, Ste. 100. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Finch asked if there were any questions by the Commission for staff. Commissioner Rich asked staff to confirm that the applicant has withdrawn. Planner Daniel Fama clarified that the operator (Burn) has terminated their lease but the landowner still has the right to continue with the request for this Conditional Use Permit. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 3 Chair Finch asked the status of the permit parking program for that neighborhood. Planner Daniel Fama said that he believes the parking program for the Four-C's neighborhood is now active. Chair Finch asked staff how "verified" complaints are determined. Commissioner Rich verified that the operational hours for Bottle & Botega and Scrambl'z don't overlap. Planner Daniel Fama replied correct. Commissioner Kendall: • Pointed out that people can park wherever they like. • Questioned why it should be a business owner's fault if a customer happens to park on a public street. • Recounted that she personally uses street parking more often especially when she travels with her mother-in-law when she parks on the street because it is easier for her mother-in-law to exit a vehicle directly onto a curb. Planner Daniel Fama said that it would come down to repeated pattern versus occasional street parking. Commissioner Kendall asked if the parking plan being worked on by Merrill Gardens would address some of the existing issues. Planner Daniel Fama said yes. He advised that a draft Parking Management Plan (PMP) was effectively sketched out at a Monday meeting between Merrill Gardens and staff. The PMP will incorporate features such as valet and stacked parking in order to maximize the underground parking uses. Additionally, employees will be offered free transit passes to use public transportation. Tandem parking may be used for shift workers. While Merrill Gardens had proposed lining up some off-site parking, staff will probably try to nix that idea and keep all the parking on site. There is also the potential to control visitor parking using parking passes. Commissioner Dodd asked if visitor hours at Merrill Gardens are specified. She pointed out that there will be additional businesses at this location in the future. Planner Daniel Fama said that at the present time Merrill Gardens resident parking is spilling out to the parking intended to serve the retail spaces. One option is to have designated spaces for Merrill Gardens' visitors. Commissioner Dodd said that there could be additional directional signage on site referring people to appropriate parking options. Planner Daniel Fama: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 4 • Reported that Merrill Gardens wants to provide on-site parking. The goal is to have everything parked on bite. • Added that Merrill Gardens has indicated that for the residential use, the peak visitor load is about 14 at any one time. • Said that a parking table has been provided by the appellant. • Clarified the terms "Studio" versus "Health and Fitness" to reflect the differences between drop-in versus organized scheduled class sessions. Chair Finch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Judith Pisano, Appellant and resident on Fourth Street: • Thanked staff for helping her through the appeal process and providing her with the documents needed to prepare. • Said that she filed the appeal because there is not enough parking provided and she fears overflow parking coming onto surrounding streets including Fourth, Alice and Rincon. • Stated that commercial parking doesn't belong on the nearby residential streets. • Pointed out that the businesses coming into these new tenant spaces are not traditional retail, except for Tread. • Reminded that the current Pilates operator has withdrawn from this location. • Said that there are 6 business spaces with capacity of 156 persons and 40 staff. That doesn't include Bottle & Bottega and Scrambl'z. • Opined that the provided 89 spaces do not work. • Added that in her opinion this proposed use is more accurately a Health & Fitness facility and not a Studio. • Advised that Merrill Gardens required 42 spaces for 126 residents and 11 for staff and visitors. The underground parking should have 59 spaces but there are currently only 43. • Pointed out that there are a large number of cars using the retail parking and no customers. • Stressed the need to be careful as to what types of retail go in here. • Said that there has been a pattern of approving tenants when there are already a large number of vehicles that Merrill Gardens needs to park every day. • Asked that this use be denied and that intense uses not be allowed within the existing vacant retail spaces. • Opined that Merrill Gardens should provide off-site parking for its overflow and/or a shuttle bus system to give existing businesses on site a chance to succeed. Russell Pfirrman, Resident on California Street: • Said that he is a resident of Campbell. • Opined that Merrill Gardens does not have enough on-site parking and that overflow will end up on the street. • Stated that he wants the Community Development Department staff to admit the parking ratio is not adequate. • Suggested converting some of the remaining retail space into residential uses. • Added that the Commission should not remove Condition 4-f. • Said that the Planning Commission acts as the "Parking Marshal's" for the City. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 5 • Urged the Commission to uphold this appeal and to overturn the Director's action. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling: • Reminded that what is under consideration this evening is an appeal of the Burn Pilates Use and not the entire site. • Said that other tenant spaces have already been approved including the associated parking. • Added that staff is currently working with Merrill Gardens. • Clarified that some uses, such as martial art and Pilates, are categorized as studio uses and not health and fitness facilities. Commissioner Kendall reminded that staff makes its decision not on their own but per Code requirements. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling: • Agreed. • Clarified that parking for a studio use is either calculating: • one space per every 200 square feet of space; or • one space per four students and one space per employee • With a maximum of 16 students per class, this use proposes four customer spaces and two employee spaces. Using the parking standard for a studio, seven are required. Commissioner Kendall clarified that this results in a variation by one space. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling agreed. Ryan Leong, Representative for Merrill Gardens: • Said that this matter was well stated by staff. • Advised that he has been involved with this location since the beginning. • Added that they have put a lot of time and attention into the mix of tenants for their retail spaces. This is not an easy location to find tenants for. There has been no interest from more traditional retail shop uses. • Stated that thus far, a balance of uses has been selected that is sensitive to hours of operation and parking demand. • Assured that they want their tenants to be successful. • Said that they are dealing with two issues. The parking for the Merrill Gardens Senior Housing and the parking to support the retail spaces. • Admitted that it is clear that there is a problem of over use of parking by the Merrill Gardens Senior Housing facility. They are utilizing the intended retail parking spaces while many of the retail tenant spaces are still not yet occupied. They will be focused on the balance of the available spaces. They are about 85 percent leased. • Said that they are disappointed in the loss of this business (Burn) and are still desirous of securing another Pilates use to assume tenancy of this space using this approval. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 6 • Stated that he was not sure that Condition 4-f is fair when the problem of overflow parking is potentially not theirs. That is his issue of most concern since the business owner/tenant doesn't have control over that activity. • Reiterated that he understands the problem is with Merrill Gardens' parking. Commissioner Dodd asked for clarification from Mr. Leong that in spite of the fact that they have lost Burn as a tenant, Merrill Gardens would still like to have a Pilates studio in this tenant space: Ryan Leong said that a Pilates Studio is a good use. It is a lesser intensity use that would be a good part of the tenant mix. He added that he doesn't know for sure whether they will find another Pilates Studio operator for this location. Commissioner Dodd asked for verification that only a Pilates studio can go into this tenant space under this Administrative Planned Development Permit. Director Paul Kermoyan replied that the Administrative Planned Development Permit approved specifically a Pilates studio. If a different use wants to go into this specific tenant space, they would need a new Administrative Planned Development Permit specific to that proposed use. Commissioner Dodd pointed out that as the permit stands now, it might be difficult to get someone to assume the use of this space conditioned for Burn's Pilates use. She added that if the Commission were to uphold the appeal, the condition of approval goes away. Director Paul Kermoyan said that the Commission could either Uphold or Deny the Appeal as it sees fit. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the condition could be modified if necessary but if this use is denied for this location, the only basis can be that it is not a proper fit for this location. Director Paul Kermoyan reiterated that per the City's Parking Standard, the parking for this proposed Pilates studio is exactly the same as would be imposed for a traditional retail use. He added that the City underwent ayear-long Parking Standard Update at which time the topic of Fitness versus Large Studio uses was widely discussed. Both the Planning Commission and the Council agreed with the standards set and that is what serves as staff's standard when reviewing uses. Commissioner Rich said he can understand why the operator would think that the condition allowing reduction in operations upon three verifiable complaints is too restrictive. He asked whether Burn might be convinced to come back if that condition were to be removed. Ryan Leong said it is possible but not certain. He added that they would approach Burn again once a decision is made this evening but they are under no obligation. He Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 7 said that they want to move forward with the decision on this use given that it has taken a long time to get this far. Commissioner Rich asked if it might not be easier to get a different Pilates operator if that condition (4-f) were to be removed. Ryan Leong said that it would be easier. Commissioner Rich asked Ryan Leong if he is confident that they would be able to contain Merrill Gardens' residential parking in the future when their Parking Management Plan is in place. Ryan Leong said he was confident. He added that they have similar parking ratios at their other Merrill Gardens locations. The Parking Management Plan is an important piece to implement necessary parking standards. Right now, the Campbell Merrill Garden location is using more parking than is typical. Commissioner Rich asked what percentage of occupancy the senior facility is at Ryan Leong said approximately 90 percent. Commissioner Rich asked what the maximum number of residents is. Ryan Leong said about 150. Commissioner Rich: • Requested that the appellant return to the podium for a quick question. • Admitted that he is trying to understand her vision for the retail spaces. • Asked her what she sees is an ideal tenant given that the parking ratio is the same for traditional retail as it is for this Pilates studio use. Judy Pisano said that traditional retail tenants require less parking. Commissioner Rich reiterated that per the Parking Standards, the parking requirement is the same. Judy Pisano disagreed. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling clarified that the parking standard is either one space per every 200 square feet of tenant space or alternately one space per four students plus one space per employee, whichever is most restrictive. Director Paul Kermoyan offered the following calculations. The tenant space is 1,334 square feet. The parking ratio to serve the Pilates use is one space per 200 square feet. That totals 6.67 spaces. Per Code, the ratio is also one space per 200 square feet of tenant space. He added that the parking standard for Downtown is stricter. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 8 Planner Daniel Fama said that the Downtown standard is one space per 345 square feet of tenant space. Judy Pisano: • Said that she does not agree that a studio use requires less parking than a health and fitness use. • Added that it is her opinion that it is a more intensive use that will impact the whole complex and the ability of others to do business in this center. • Advised that she fears the inevitable spillover of parking into the surrounding neighborhood. • Asked that this center look for tenants that fit the space. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that she and Planner Daniel Fama have previously spoken with Merrill Gardens about leasing to traditional retail versus non- traditional uses. Chair Finch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Rich: • Said that he struggles somewhat with the condition that reduces operation upon three verifiable off-site parking complaints. • Added that he tried to look at it from both sides, Merrill Gardens versus the neighborhood. • Questioned how that condition might be removed as it is too restrictive. • Stated that staff has done a great job using the most restrictive parking ratio available. • Said that there will be the same issue with other possible uses. • Added that he would love to see the Parking Management Plan when it is presented. Commissioner Reynolds: • Stated his agreement with the Community Development Director here and suggested retaining Condition 4-f as a protective measure and to offer a potential remedy. • Said that he was not happy with the letter received from the Burn operator and sensed a tone of animosity in it. • Said that he has confidence in Merrill Garden and City staff. There will be a better solution once the Parking Management Plan is in place. Commissioner Kendall asked what it means if the Appeal is upheld. Commissioner Reynolds said that an Upholding the Appeal means that the Director's action to approve the Administrative Planned Development Permit to allow Burn to occupy this space would be overturned. Commissioner Kendall: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 9 • Expressed her agreement with Commissioner Rich that the three-complaint standard is restrictive. • Added that everyone is looking at worse case scenarios. • Pointed out that businesses that surround residential neighborhoods can use street parking as well. That was the intent of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan. • Reminded that recently neighborhood permit parking was put into place. Planner Daniel Fama advised that Ms. Pisano, the Appellant, lives across Winchester Boulevard, an area without permit parking in place. Commissioner Kendall: • Stated that it is unlikely that people would cross Winchester to access this Merrill Gardens location. • Added that the Commission wants the City's businesses to be successful. • Advised that if the Commission does not stand behind the City's own Zoning standards, it puts Merrill Gardens in a pickle. • Said that she doesn't want to see Merrill Gardens going under because they can't rent out their retail spaces. • Reminded that this site was approved as an entire complex. • Stated that she will uphold the Director's decision as well as the condition (4-f) that allows reduction of use in the event of three verifiable off-site parking complaints. Commissioner Young: • Stated that the applicant (Merrill Gardens) is working on its parking issues. • Said that he is not inclined to remove Condition 4-f. • Added that he is worried about what not approving this means. What would that say about studio uses versus others? • Said that he doesn't see a problem with this use and will support the Community Development Director's action to originally approve this application. Commissioner Dodd: • Said that this is perhaps a "perceived" issue. • Admitted that she is okay with the requirement for action upon receipt of three verifiable complaints. That will keep everyone on their toes. • Said that this business is in a predicament. • Suggested that upholding the Appeal and overturning the Director's action actually frees up Merrill Gardens and that retail space for a different use and the opportunity to work with the City and its residents. • Concluded that retail space is more attractive to future uses. City Attorney William Seligmann said that a Pilates studio is approved but any other type of use would have to come back for approval. Commissioner Dodd suggested that action of upholding the appeal might actually offer more flexibility and allow Merrill Gardens to find a new and different tenant. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 10 Commissioner Reynolds: • Agreed with Commissioner Dodd. • Added that granting the appeal and overturning the decision opens up more options. • Pointed out that the Downtown is currently losing three more retail businesses. • Admitted that the questions may be, "how to attract retail? "Who's obligation is it to attract retail?; "What are the challenges in finding retail businesses?". • Stated that there are challenges one of which is Internet purchasing that offers convenience that brick and mortar stores are hard pressed to compete with. That is one reason why there are more new service oriented uses coming in rather than traditional retail. • Concluded that there will be a better parking plan in place for the next potential tenant once the Parking Management Plan is finalized for this site. Commissioner Rich said he supports the Director's decision. He added that the imposed Condition 4-f is appropriate especially given that it has been applied to two other uses at this center. He concluded that the parking for this proposed use meets all Code standards. Commissioner Young: • Said that Merrill Gardens chose to have a Pilates Studio as a tenant. Staff considered it for fit. The parking is aligned with Code to support it. Other types of uses will have a similar level of parking demand. • Stated that this business should be considered for approval. • Said that the fairest thing is to approve this use as submitted. It meets Code and due diligence was given to review prior to approval. Chair Finch: • Said that she understands the neighbor concerns. • Advised that the City's Parking Standards represent the guideline for the Commission and staff to uphold. Neither staff nor the Commission can write new standards at this time or ignore the existing standards. • Stated her wholehearted agreement with the comments of Commissioner Young. • Added that the Parking Management Plan will help solve some of the existing parking problems on site. Vacant tenant spaces can't be held for ransom. • Admitted to being a bit concerned about the retail component of this Pilates use in terms of potentially delaying departures that are necessary to accommodate turnover between classes. • Said that verifiable complaints are the standard practice used to protect neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Rich, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4186 DENYING an Appeal of an Administrative Planned Development Permit that approved a (large) Pilates studio within an existing mixed-use development (Merrill Gardens) on property located at 2105 S. Winchester Boulevard, suite 100, by the following roll call vote: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 11 AYES: Finch, Kendall, Rich and Young NOES: Dodd and Reynolds ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Finch advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. **~ Chair Finch read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2014-157 Public Hearing to consider the application of Metrovation for Metrovation a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2014-157) to allow the construction of a new 5,172 square foot, 113-seat, two-tenant restaurant building on property located at 2000 S. Bascom Avenue. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner Mr. Stephen Rose, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Dodd provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of January 13, 2015 and was supportive. • Listed requested modifications as follows: o Use a warmer off-white paint color (Condition 6 reflects this) o Lightly stain the wood to a teak appearance (Condition 6 reflects this) o Test colors in field prior to finalizing (Condition 6 reflects this) Chair Finch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Finch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Reynolds: • Stated that he likes the new design. It is beautiful. • Added that he is very pleased that the Conditional Use Permit for alcohol was pulled from consideration until specific operators are in place. • Said he was willing to make the motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4187 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2014-157) to allow the construction of a new 5,172 square foot, 113-seat, two-tenant restaurant building on property located at 2000 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 12 AYES: Dodd, Finch, Kendall, Reynolds, Rich and Young NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Finch advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Finch read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2014-176 Public Hearing to consider adoption of the 2015-2023 City Housing Element of the Campbell General Plan (PLN2014- 176). A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 17, 2015. Project Planner: Aki Honda Snelling, Planning Manager Ms. Aki Honda Snelling, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. David Hogan, Consultant with M-Group, presented. Mr. Rob Swiert, Senior Transportation Planner with the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA), presented. Commissioner Kendall asked for elaboration on what Mr. Swiert means by monitoring and reporting being key. VTA's Rob Swiert said that when larger reductions are proposed, it is important to make sure that it is actually happening. Commissioner Reynolds asked VTA's Rob Swiert if he could provide the timeline for the Vasona extension. VTA's Rob Swiert said that it is at a certain point of design and shovel ready but not yet funded. Commissioner Reynolds asked VTA's Rob Swiert why it is not funded. VTA's Rob Swiert said that at this point all he can report is that it is cleared, justified and environmental documents completed but not funded. Commissioner Reynolds asked if consideration had been given to the Vasona extension continuing along the Pacific Rail to Cupertino. He also asked if something like an overhead people-mover to Apple from Cupertino had been considered. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 13 VTA's Rob Swiert said that an overhead people-mover is too futuristic for current planning. There are transportation plans for some major employers but they are not quite so futuristic. Commissioner Reynolds asked about having an express train that by-passes Downtown San Jose. VTA's Rob Swiert said that Express Light Rail lines are in process. He added that BART will open in Milpitas in about 2.5 years. He said there is "skip-stop" service and potential to increase train/rail speeds from 45 to 55 mph. Commissioner Reynolds asked about the potential to have Light Rail service directly to larger employers such as FaceBook, Google and Apple. VTA's Rob Swiert said in the immediate term, the answer is no. He advised that they are working with Mountain View to have consolidated shuttle service between Light Rail and larger employers. This would be a bus solution. There is discussion under way for the potential of Google funding a Light Rail Spur to their campus. Commissioner Reynolds asked if there will ever be Light Rail loops. VTA's Rob Swiert said that was the thought in the early planning stages but is not currently in the Plan. Using Bus Rapid Transit comes without the expense of Light Rail (tracks, signals, etc). Commissioner Reynolds asked VTA's Rob Swiert how VTA pursues funding. VTA's Rob Swiert said that was a large question. He said that they are in the process of preparing a new ballot measure seeking a sales tax increase to pay for transportation priorities. Commissioner Reynolds asked VTA's Rob Swiert where he sees transit in 25 years. VTA's Rob Swiert replied where the VTA Plan says it will be and listed several priorities. Commissioner Reynolds asked when the BART loop would be complete. VTA's Rob Swiert said that is a broader question more appropriate for the Regional Agency and BART. Commissioner Dodd questioned staff about the emergency shelters and the fact that the maximum number of beds is based on the identified number of homeless people. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling explained that every other year the City of Campbell participates in a homeless census survey. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 14 Commissioner Dodd said that she thought emergency shelters were in case of emergency rather than to house the homeless. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that emergency shelters are to comply with homeless emergency shelters. She added that transitional housing is separate from homeless shelters to help get the homeless the services that lead to permanent housing. That is different again from supportive housing. Director Paul Kermoyan said that transitional housing serves battered women, people who are down in their luck, etc., and other special needs groups. He reported that the State wants cities to monitor their local homeless population, to count the number of Campbell homeless and determine how to best help them. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling explained that the survey to count Campbell's homeless is currently under way. The last number (from 2 years ago) was 91. It tends to range between 90 and 110. Staff can share the number with the Commission once the current survey under way is completed. Chair Finch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ellen Dorsa, Resident on Walnut Drive: • Stated that per her research, although Campbell is the smallest city geographically it has the highest density except for San Francisco, Berkeley and San Quinton. • Pointed out that there are plans for four more housing developments along Winchester. • Said that she took a bike ride the other day and had to wait for a light at Hacienda and Winchester. There was horrible traffic and fumes. • Said that development is turning Campbell into another San Francisco. • Stated, "Let us be Campbell! Keep us small!" Alex Gargarita, Resident on Linda Drive: • Said that he is a 20 year resident of Campbell. • Said that he is glad the City is doing long-term planning with the Housing Element Plan. • Asked that the City also focus on people with developmental disabilities. • Advised that he is here this evening with his 16-year-old developmentally disabled son who attends school in Campbell. • Added that Campbell provides well for people like his son over the last 16 years. • Stated that there are an increasing number of people with developmental disabilities in the community. A good job is being done on the part of the educational system in serving developmentally disabled students. • Pointed out that people with disabilities are adults in a community much longer than they are children in the schools. That requires long-term planning for housing them. They live here already and want to stay near their families but often have to look outside of Campbell to find it since Campbell doesn't have housing for developmentally disabled adults. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 15 • Asked that the City's Housing Element share his vision of having his adult child able to live nearby. • Suggested including a break out program for people with disabilities and zoning to help create housing for these people. • Reiterated that there is a large and increasing population of people with developmental disabilities. Jo-Ann Fairbanks, Resident on Hacienda Avenue: • Suggested that the Commission not recommend the adoption of a Housing Element that has gaps in values. • Said that that development is taking away environmental amenities. • Stressed the need to consider issues such as daylight, sunlight, and privacy impacts of too much development. These types of impacts pit neighbor against neighbor. • Said that neighborhood compatibility needs to be respected. When there is conflict between what the City approves, that results in appeals of actions of items decided by the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission and those appeals cost the City. • Reiterating that Campbell is transforming and that it is important to close these gaps. Lisa Harmer, Resident on Briarwood Way: • Said that she has three concerns tonight. • Said that her greatest concern was the timing of the vote on this Housing Element. It is being based on a General Plan that was adopted in 2001. The EIR from the General Plan Update is also circa 2001. A Housing Element is a long-term document. • Stated that a second concern is housing accessibility and affordability. • Reported that in 2014, the City Council decided not to reduce the size of a lot that can accommodate a secondary living unit. In her own case, while her lot is large enough to have a secondary living unit, the City restrict the size of a secondary living unit to 640 square feet or less and asingle-bedroom. She wants a larger secondary living unit on her property so if her mom should ever need alive-in aide in the future, this second unit can accommodate both mom and her aide. Her lot is large enough to accommodate a bigger second unit than the allowed maximum of 640 square feet. • Stressed the need to meet the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities as they are an aging population that lives longer today. • Pointed out that the cost of living has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Many people are working in an area in which they cannot afford to live. • Reported that San Jose has enacted a Housing Impact Fee. Developers have been leaving San Jose for Campbell since Campbell does not have such a Housing Impact Fee. • Urged the Commission to reconsider this Housing Element and incorporate initiatives and/or policies to provide low-income and senior housing to better meet the needs of Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 16 Mike Krisman, Resident on Sweetbriar Drive: • Questioned how the Regional Housing Number Allocation (RHNA) numbers are reached. What is it based on? • Asked when some of the projects currently under way get counted against the City's RHNA requirement. • Questioned the 50/50 ratio of owner/renter residential units in Campbell. • Said that community comments briefly mentioned the huge concern about development and the associated increase in population. • Thanked the VTA rep for his presentation but cautioned that VTA is looking at bigger picture issues and not specifically local traffic impacts. He stated, "Our streets are jammed up!" • Recommended that consideration of the Housing Element be tabled to allow for more community outreach. This document impacts the next 8 years for our community. Russell Pfirrman, Resident on California Street: • Said that although staff indicates that the EIR is just a formality and that the Housing Element itself is not tied to an actual project, it is a big deal. • Pointed out that despite the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan that was adopted many years' ago, that area is still the way that it was before the SOCA Plan was adopted. The goal was to build up to 75 percent of the potential. A Density Bonus can increase it to 135 percent. • Stated that VTA's 25-year plan equates to no relief for Campbell. It's not a transit hub but rather just a spur. • Declared that an EIR of the potential is essential. We need to understand what the traffic ramifications are. • Said that he read the staff report and he has a hard time waiting for environmental review until a specific project gets reviewed for approval. Cristin Reichmuth, Resident on First Street, pointed out that the opportunity sites outlined in this Housing Element equate to 1,161 residential units. The letter with the Negative Declaration indicated 1,218 units. Planning Manager Akin Honda Snelling said that the 1,161 figure is correct and the comment letter was simply a calculation. Cristin Reichmuth: • Said that raises questions in her mind as to whether there are other "inaccuracies" in the material. • Added that it is great to hear from VTA but notices that Campbell is not mentioned once in the plans. There is nothing in it for Campbell. • Pointed out that Campbell now has homeless people living in tents along the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The number of homeless often depends on what's going on outside of Campbell as well. When the encampment in San Jose (the Jungle) was closed down, Campbell ended up with more homeless individuals. • Advised that a letter submitted and distributed this evening was signed by 30 people from the community who came together to put those comments together. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 17 Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling: • Offered some clarifications to public comments made thus far. • Said that the State's designated RHNA number for Campbell is 933. The City is not required to build those units but just show that they can be accommodated in the City. • Added that staff is not proposing any General Plan land use or Zoning Map designation changes with this Housing Element Update. The Housing Element is required that shows the City can meet it's assigned RHNA allocation. The Housing Element includes requirements and demographic data. It does not approve any specific development nor give any entitlements to a particular development. • Advised that the 50/50 ratio (between owner/renter properties) was brought up with Council. If they wanted to put that in as an official standard, they would have done so. • Explained that the environmental review for this is via a Negative Declaration and not an EIR. • Said that Mr. Gargarita advocated for the need to provide housing for special needs adults on behalf of his own child's future needs as well as for others. There is a clear need for specific types of programs and housing. Chair Finch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Dodd: • Said that she is glad that the RHNA number has been corrected. • Reiterated that the RHNA number includes housing to serve all income levels. • Added that the Housing Element itself does not address issues such as land density, transportation, etc. • Suggested that those types of concerns be brought to the attention of Council. Director Paul Kermoyan said that the Council is fully aware of public concerns. The City will pursue a General Plan update to deal with those important issues. However, that is a long process. The Housing Element is updated more regularly than the General Plan as is required. Commissioner Dodd asked if the boomerang funds listed as being available for a future project to be determined can actually be committed tonight to helping create housing for developmentally disabled students. Can the Commission forward that as a recommendation? Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling replied no, not at this point. Director Paul Kermoyan said that those funds were discussed by Council. They did not want to tie their hands at this point. This Housing Element is intended to just state policy and not to commit to one specific project. What project to support is part of a larger policy that the Council reserves the right to decide upon. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 18 Commissioner Dodd said that she really sees the need for something like this and she would appreciate it if that issue/recommendation could be brought up with the Council. She said she'd really appreciate that communication. She asked about the EIR for this Housing Element. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling: • Said that the environmental review was already done and no significant impacts were identified. Again, the Housing Element is just outlining programs. There is no specific development being approved with the Housing Element. A lot of policies remain from the current Housing Element except for where funding has been lost with the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency and its associated funding. • Added that the Housing Element is updated every 5 to 7 years. There is a penalty if the renewal. deadline is not met. One potential penalty is that instead of this being an 8-year document if approved on time, it would be a 5-year document and have to be updated sooner. Commissioner Dodd asked staff when the housing units currently under construction get counted with the RHNA numbers. Dave Hogan, Consultant with M-Group: • Reiterated that the Housing Element time frame ranges between 5 and 8 years per the State of California. The State first calculates the overall number of units needed throughout the State of California to meet the anticipated housing demand. That overall needed housing number is then broken out by regions and/or counties. For the Bay Area, ABAG distributes the housing allocation within the jurisdiction. Factors in how the allocations are distributed include how aggressive a jurisdiction has been in providing housing units. If a jurisdiction has done a good job, like Campbell has done, there is a bit less of a demand imposed than for those communities that have not done so. • Reminded that Campbell's current allocation for this updated Housing Element is 933 units. It is not based on people and/or the number of units completed. Director Paul Kermoyan reiterated that 933 is Campbell's allocation, Units under construction but not yet finaled would count against the assigned 933 units. Dave Hogan, Consultant with M-Group, said that Bay West was counted against the current Housing Element's RHNA number but others currently under construction will be counted towards the 2015-2023 Housing Element obligation. Commissioner Rich: Restated that while 933 units have been assigned per the RHNA numbers for this next Housing Element, the City does not have to actually build all of them within the time frame of the Housing Element. Added that with this new Housing Element, Campbell would have more opportunity sites (unit potential) than the assigned 933. However, potentially none of them could end up being built. Said that he has been a Campbell resident for 20 years. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 19 • Added that the Commission is not here this evening to address wide ranging Transportation issues. The whole valley has evolved. Not just Campbell. Growth is definitely happening. • Said that having housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled is a concern to him and he would like to see that get addressed. He needs to get more educated on that issue. • Asked about the Housing Impact Fee. What is it? Is it true that Campbell does not have one? Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling: • Explained that a Housing Impact Fee is imposed when a jurisdiction is not providing enough housing. In that case, they are collecting an impact fee to help provide affordable housing at a later date. • Clarified that the 50/50 rental/owner occupied ratio seems to be occurring naturally and is not specifically engineered to happen. There has been no specific guidance to make that happen going forward. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reported that there had been talk earlier on to encourage particular types of housing product. • Added that Council decided not to adopt a policy regarding ratio of ownership versus rental units but rather likes to see the market work itself out. • Stated that there has been a history in Campbell of having this balance naturally. • Reiterated that Council did not want a stated goal in that matter. Commissioner Rich said that he understands the Commission is here to discuss the Housing Element itself. He asked if the issues of the allocation of units and housing for the developmental disabled will be addressed somehow. Commissioner Kendall said that Council considered reducing the minimum size lot necessary to accommodate a secondary living unit to 8,000 square feet and decided against that at this time. That could be one way of creating more low income, senior and disabled living units. Director Paul Kermoyan said that there are two issues there. Council did look at reducing the lot size eligible for a secondary living unit but felt that reduction was not needed. He added that Ms. Harmer's position is that second units should be allowed to be larger than the current maximum size of 640 square feet. That issue has not been discussed by Council. Commissioner Kendall pointed out that population (and density) are increasing everywhere not just in Campbell. She added that Campbell is landlocked. There is no place to spread out. She said that with the current 17,000 households being pretty much 50/50 between rented and owner occupied, it is difficult to get out of that trend and/or to skew those numbers. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that supportive housing includes persons with disabilities and is allowed in all residential zoning districts. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 20 Commissioner Young: • Stated his appreciation for the community participation in this hearing. • Added that he can see why the use of "no impact" in the environmental assessment concerns some people. • Asked staff how monitoring of low-income displacement is done as required per page 12. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that an annual report is something that a lot of cities are doing. The State's HCD (Housing and Community Development Department) is suggesting that Campbell add that requirement for such an annual report to its Housing Element. Commissioner Young: • Said that he is satisfied with this proposed Housing Element Update and with the City's plan for a future full General Plan Update. • Concluded that there is no harm in having the Commission put forth a recommendation to Council for use of funds to provide housing for the developmentally disabled. Commissioner Reynolds asked how long the need for updated Housing Elements with potential opportunity sites defined will have to be adopted moving forward. He asked when the City might reach a point that it may have enough of adding new housing units and is no longer able to add any more new housing units. If it continues to require more units, it is possible for Campbell to become another San Francisco. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that this is a hot topic at every APA (American Planning Association) conference. • Continued that the State has made it clear that it doesn't believe in build out. • Admitted that staff cannot respond to the possibility of Campbell becoming another San Francisco. • Reiterated that Campbell does not have to make changes to its Land Use Element to support this Housing Element Update. • Questioned how to slow growth? Does it required down-sizing of property densities to reduce unit potential? • Said that there is a disconnect with what a Housing Element is. It represents a bunch of programs. • Continued that as to when the State says enough is enough may be when people elect legislators that say enough is enough. This comes from ABAG and from the State Capitol. Commissioner Reynolds: • Explained to the audience that the members of this Planning Commission are not planners. It is not always easy for Planning Commissioners to wrap their arms around a Housing Element either. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 21 • Added that it is driven by the relationship between the need for housing and for transportation. • Asked staff what would happen if Campbell decided to cut its RHNA number? Are there penalties? City Attorney William Seligmann said that there are a number of possibilities. One possible result is loss of eligibility for grant funds without a compliant Housing Element in place. Other impacts could be suits by citizen groups or developers. Commissioner Reynolds said that the City's hands are tied until State Officials are elected that will listen. He asked staff if the mandates are reasonable. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that it represents smart growth in development. It suggests concentrated development near transportation. • Agreed that Campbell is changing. Eighty years ago, Campbell was orchards. • Stated that the question is how best to plan smart and grow in a sustainable manner. Council understands that. Commissioner Reynolds said that Campbell is doing its part but the transportation side is not keeping up with our housing growth. This requirement represents another unfunded mandate by the State. He concluded that he would be voting against it. Commissioner Dodd referenced page H39 and asked who would create housing in Campbell to serve persons with disabilities. Director Paul Kermoyan replied that any non-profit or developer willing to invest in serving the maturing developmentally disabled population here in Campbell. Commissioner Rich suggested specifically naming agencies, such as San Andreas Regional Center, that serve these populations. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that it was deliberately left more open ended. City Attorney William Seligmann said that a requirement of the Housing Element is to identify agencies we can work with. Chair Finch: • Thanked all for their participation, including Mr. Dave Hogan from M-Group and Mr. Rob Swiert from VTA. • Stated her agreement with Commissioner Rich that the Housing Element is a by- product of the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element is a bigger issue. • Reminded that identifying how 933 units might be possible is the requirement but the actual construction of those units is not required. • Added that zoning is not being changed with this Housing Element. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 22 • Agreed that the entire Valley has evolved. There are more people living and working here so there is also more traffic. • Said that the 50/50 ratio of owner versus rented housing seems to have a way of working itself out. When it becomes a problem, the City has the wherewithal to figure out what to do to keep it more even. • Agreed with Commissioner Kendall's comment that the fact that Campbell is land- locked is skewing the density of Campbell. • Said that the City's hands are tied. The whole system of determining housing allocations needs an overhaul. At this time, Campbell has to play the game with the cards it is dealt. The State controls access to the money. • Stated that there has been a lot of input and this Housing Element has been well thought out. • Supported amending language somehow to show stronger support for the provision of housing for the developmentally disabled. • Said that she would be supportive of the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Chair Finch asked if someone was ready to make a motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kendall, seconded by Commissioner Dodd, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 4188 recommending that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for the 2015-2023 housing Element; and 2. Adopted Resolution 4189 recommending that the City Council approve the 2015-2023 Housing Element with an edit to page 23 of the Negative Declaration to remove the final "not" from the text and to incorporate language on H39 to include broad language to include non-profits on special needs housing production, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dodd, Finch, Kendall, Rich and Young NOES: Reynolds ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Finch advised that this item would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 17, 2015, for final action. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan added the following to the written report: • Stated that he has nothing new to add to his written report. • Reported that Council would be interviewing soon for the vacant seat on the Planning Commission. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2015 Page 23 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 2015. SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY: ATTEST: l or' hinn, Recording Secretary