Loading...
PC Min 10/24/2000CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 24, 2000 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 2000, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairperson Gibbons, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons George Doorley Joseph D. Hernandez Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Tom Francois Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner II: Planner I: Traffic Engineer: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Katrina Rice Schmidt Darcy Smith Matthew Jue William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 2000, were approved. (5-0- 0-2, Commissioners Francois and Lindstrom were absent) Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 2 As Commissioners Jones and Hernandez have to abstain from the vote on the October 10, 2000, minutes (they were not present at that meeting), there is not a quorum present to vote on these minutes. The Commission postponed the vote on these minutes to the Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 2000. COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Letters re Agenda Item No. 1. 2. Memo from staff with technical corrections received by the City Attorney. 3. Table depicting Land Use/Density 4. Table depicting Park Land 5. List of Public Notices for the General Plan Update AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no modifications or postponements. O ,AI R QVESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. PLN2000-150 Staff Public Hearing to consider the General Plan Update and the associated Negative Declaration. The General Plan Update includes six of the seven Elements required by State Law: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Safety and Noise. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and a Negative Declaration is being recommended pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It has been determined that the proposed General Plan Update will not result in any significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the City's General Plan is to guide decisions regarding physical growth and development, provision of public services and facilities, and conservation and enhancement of natural resources. The General Plan is comprehensive and long-range in scope and contains goals, policies and strategies that will guide the City to the year 2020. It will be used on an on-going basis, because many City regulations, requirements, and actions are required by State law to be consistent with the General Plan. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2000. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the General Plan spans 20 years through the year 2020. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 3 · Stated that in preparation for the General Plan Update, Council authorized the formation of a General Plan Task Force in May 1998. The GP Task Force included two members from Council, a representative from each Board and Commission and five members at large. · Advised that the GP Task Force utilized several existing City documents as resources including the Community Design Study (1991), Community Satisfaction Surveys (1997 and 1999) and Strategic Plan (1993 and updated annually). · Stated that Council seeks to maintain a "quality small town." · Advised that the General Plan is a visionary document yet realistic and includes action- oriented strategies. The General Plan is a blueprint for development and includes goals (broad and general), policies (more precise) and strategies (an action program to achieve the goal). · Reminded the Commission of the joint Council/Planning Commission Study Session which was held on September 5, 2000, to review the Draft General Plan. At this Study Session, Council provided direction to the Task Force for the following additions to the Draft: o Address airport over flight noise more thoroughly; c) Create a mechanism to protect older Downtown Neighborhoods (Conservation District); c) Establish lighting design guidelines that address glare impacts on neighboring properties; and o Create special design guidelines for Winchester Boulevard to slow traffic and improve appearance. · At the September 5, 2000, Study Session, Council authorized staff to hold heatings. · Advised that the Civic Improvement Commission, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board and Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Draft General Plan. Three of the sessions were televised live and repeated once each, providing six opportunities to view these meetings on cable access television. · Pointed out the list distributed this evening which depicts the public heatings and press notifications regarding the General Plan Update. · Advised that a property owner meeting was held on October 9, 2000. All property owners impacted by Land Use changes were invited to attend. · Discussed issues regarding: c) Community Design · Prepare design guidelines for residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use projects · Create neighborhood identification and sense of entry · Adopt regulations to ensure land use compatibility · Prepare an area plan and design guidelines for Winchester Boulevard o Transportation Policies · Transit-Oriented Development - Higher intensity uses near light rail stations · Amenities and bicycle facilities at employment centers, activity centers and residential projects · Roadway classifications based on function rather that volume Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 4 o Parks & Open Space Policies · Enhance recreation opportunities at Los Gatos County Park and the ground-water recharge facilities · Acquire surplus school sites for park facilities · Plan for multi-use trails that accommodate bikes and bike trailers · Implement the City's Streetscape Policy and Tree Protection Ordinance o Health & Safety and Conservation & Natural Resources · Emergency response: Coordinate emergency response with other agencies. · Reduce construction risks: Enforce the most recent versions of the Building and Fire Codes · Adopt and strictly enforce a Noise Ordinance · Encourage water conservation · Inform citizens of ways to become involved with historic preservation efforts o Selected Land Use Map Amendments · Commercial designation changed from "Commercial" to General, Central and Neighborhood Commercial · Changed some Commercial to Mixed-Use designation · Lower intensity of some land uses to reduce nuisance · Lowered intensity of some industrial neighborhoods · Lowered intensity of Harrison/Central Neighborhood (as a result of a proposed two unit project denied by Council at Central & Tubby) Discussed Land Use Designations for various shopping centers including Kirkwood Plaza, San Tomas Aquino Road Shopping Center and the small shopping center at the comer of Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road. These sites are currently designated Commercial and will be re-designated Neighborhood Commercial to correspond with the Zoning Designation. The Rolling Hills Shopping Center is also Neighborhood Commercial. Should that site be developed in the future with single-family residences, they would be required to comply with the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and include 9,000 square foot lots. Advised that a Mixed Use Designation is proposed for properties near the upcoming Light Rail Station at Hamilton Avenue and on Winchester, such uses would combine commercial and residential uses. Advised that proposed changes to the Land Use in the SOCA area (South of Campbell Avenue) would eliminate industrial uses and continue to permit commercial and residential uses. Any existing legal industrial uses would be considered non-conforming. Advised that the Downtown Campbell Area through Winchester Boulevard will be designated as Central Commercial. One of the letters received by the Planning Commission objected to a 10-foot setback. The setback issue brought up by the letter is not part of the General Plan but is a recommendation by staff based on urban design principles. Specific development standards will be brought forward after adoption of the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 5 · Some Land Use Changes include elimination of industrial uses from those allowed in the South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA). · It is recommended that the Dell Avenue Area be changed from Industrial to Research and Development. The businesses located on the west side of Dell are already zoned CM (Controlled Manufacturing), which is a zoning district that is consistent with Research and Development. Therefore, there would not be a substantial change for businesses in this area. With the change from Industrial to Research and Development, the zoning of the Dell Avenue Area on the north side of Sunnyside would need to be changed from Light Industrial to Research and Development as a result of the adoption of the General Plan. · The Central/Harrison Area will be lowered to Single Family Residential. · It is recommended that the property owned by the Water District on Campbell Avenue near San Tomas Expressway be designated as Medium-Density Residential, consistent with adjacent properties. · The south side of McGlincey Lane is recommended to change from Industrial to Research & Development. One reason for this change is the close proximity to residential uses. c> Curtner is recommended for Commercial uses. · Advised that the environmental impacts are evaluated by comparing the existing General Plan designations at maximum build out with the proposed designations at maximum build out. With this method, it has been determined that there will be a slight reduction in intensity. · Informed that Council will consider the General Plan Update on November 6, 2000. After adoption, staff will amend the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map and other pertinent documents so that they are consistent with the Updated General Plan. · Reiterated that non-conforming uses may continue indefinitely. City Attomey William Seligrnann clarified that non-conforming uses for parcels on which there is a structure may continue indefinitely while parcels without a structure must stop the non- conforming use after five years. Commissioner Hemandez asked if a change of ownership allows the continuation of the non- conforming use. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that new ownership does not have an impact on non- conforming uses and that they could continue under new ownership. Ms. Sharon Fierro continued: · Advised that a Noise Contour Diagram has been prepared by staff and distributed this evening at the request of the City Attomey. · Added that this Noise Contour Diagram will be integrated into the Draft General Plan. · Advised that she is available for any questions. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Lowe asked about the requirement for a 1 O-foot setback for three-story buildings on Winchester. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that while the 10-foot, third story setback is not part of the General Plan, it will be recommended in subsequent zoning and design guideline proposals. The intent is to make the buildings appear to be two-story rather than three-story. Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the meeting held on October 9th was intended for affected property owners. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that there were two sessions, one for Commercial/Industrial property owners and the second for Residential property owners. Commissioner Hemandez asked about the turnout for the meetings. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that approximately 20 Industrial property owners attended and about 12 Residential property owners. Commissioner Hernandez asked what key issues those in attendance raised. Ms. Sharon Fierro answered that the key issue was the proposed Land Use change on McGlincey. Chairperson Gibbons provided an overview as follows: · Stated that this General Plan Update includes six of seven required elements and that Land Use changes seem to be the main issue for members of the audience this evening. · Advised that in looking at the Speaker Cards, there are people interested in addressing issues on Dillon/Gilman, Poplar and E. Campbell Avenue. · Informed that the General Plan is used as a basis for making decisions and consists of goals, policies and strategies. · Advised that the General Plan is not the same as the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is how the General Plan is implemented. The General Plan is a "big picture" document. · Informed the audience that the timed lighting system will be used this evening, limiting speakers to three minutes, to allow each person who wants an opportunity to speak the time to do so. Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. · Mr. Steve Hamleigh, 671 Regas Drive, Campbell: · Said that he already suffers noise impacts from his home Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 7 · Questioned issues such as placement of parking, trash pickup and traffic with the proposed Land Use change in the McGlincey area. · Advised that he owns residential units on Union Avenue. · Expressed concern about the traffic impacts on the area when Campbell Technology Park is completed. · Said that Central Park onto Union is already impacted. · Said that he is in favor of the highest and best use of property. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised Mr. Hanleigh that staff would propose Industrial design guidelines, which will deal with issues such as the placement of trash enclosures. Added that R&D uses include fewer nuisance characteristics than Industrial uses. Industrial uses include heavy construction uses. The current Industrial uses will be allowed to remain with this Land Use change but could not expand. Mr. Bernard Greenfield, 40 S. Market Street, 2nd Floor, San Jose: · Stated that the traffic study conducted for the Initial Study is flawed. · Said that the area is currently congested to the point of gridlock every morning and evening. · Advised that the Campbell Technology Park has already added to the traffic congestion. · Stated that R&D uses will create more traffic than Industrial uses. · Said that the traffic study should use peak hours and not average daily volumes. · Asked questions such as whether Curtner & Union was evaluated and whether the Winchester Drive-In Site was taken into account on the tables. · Stated that Table 6 is not credible. · Advised that there is no basis for the Negative Declaration and that the Commission should not approve the Negative Declaration. · Requested a 120-day delay to allow a more credible traffic study to be conducted by a professional. · Advised that his wife's family has operated Burman Cabinet Corporation on McGlincey for more than 40 years. Said that this is not a positive opportunity for them. This site is their livelihood. Mr. Colin Jaques, 184-A Morris Lane, Campbell: · Questioned the wisdom of installing "right turn only" signs from McGlincey onto Curtner, stating that this negatively impacts small businesses in the area when the intent is to prevent trucks. Added that it would be better to install "no trucks" signs such as are used to keep trucks off of Highway 85. · Requested that the City conduct a study to remove the islands and install the "no trucks" signs instead. Chairperson Gibbons suggested that Mr. Jacques follow up with staff. Mr. Tom Gregory, 677 Regas Drive, Campbell: Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 8 · Advised that he has resided on Regas for the last five years. · Complained of noisy businesses on McGlincey, some of which emit fumes, operate at all hours and shake the ground. · Stated that staff is working to mitigate the impacts on residential uses through this Land Use change. Said that the idea is perfect and will serve as a transition between residences and industrial uses. Mr. Gary Giraud, 615 Louise Court, Campbell: · Informed that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Association will not support any agendized issue contrary to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Steve Hamleigh, 671 Regas Drive, Campbell: · Stated that if the entire McGlincey area were built out with R&D uses, the traffic and parking nightmare would be greater. · Requested a sophisticated traffic study of the area. · Reminded that there are not a lot of ways to access this area. Ms. Cindy Mulcahy, 679 Regas Drive, Campbell: · Advised that it is already "crazy" to get out onto Union Avenue. · Suggested that two lanes are needed in both directions. · Said that noise and vibrations on a daily basis affect their lives. Chairperson Gibbons asked staff for clarification about traffic issues and the EIR. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the diverter mentioned by Mr. Jaques are an existing condition in the City and can be addressed with staff. Added that Mr. Matthew Jue, the City's Traffic Engineer, can address specific traffic conditions. Commissioner Lowe asked about the 1998 Traffic Study. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the Traffic Study was done with generic use categories rather than specific. The comparison is between the maximum at the existing Land Use designations versus the maximum at the proposed Land Use General Plan designations. Commissioner Lowe asked about the average lot size on McGlincey. Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, advised that the lots vary from 5,000 square feet to 4.5 acres (multiple parcels owned by a single owner). Chairperson Gibbons advised that the existing neighborhood traffic issues on McGlincey should be worked out with staff. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 9 Mr. Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer, advised that the City is in the process of developing a Traffic Management Program. Chairperson Gibbons asked staff to address the challenge of the General Plan EIR. Added that this is not a specific traffic study for a specific project. Ms. Sharon Fierro agreed, stating that this is a base line model with an average at existing build out compared to the proposed General Plan. There is no significant change. Peak travel times were not evaluated because this is not a specific development project. If a specific project is proposed then an EIR and/or Negative Declaration would be required and any adverse environmental impacts mitigated. Conditions of approval for specific projects will require traffic mitigation for any R&D in this area. Mr. Richard Pasek, 911 McGlincey Lane, Campbell: · Stated that he just learned of this heating today and has never received any written or verbal notification of this hearing. · Expressed his objection to the Land Use change for the McGlincey area from Industrial to R&D. · Said that such a change would have a negative impact on the property owners and employees of the area. · Said that despite the fact he has been working recently on applications with City staff, no one mentioned this proposal to him during any of his discussions with staff. · Urged the Commission to postpone this matter. Commissioner Lowe advised Mr. Pasek that the Planning Staffhas not intentionally attempted to leave anyone out and that both mailings and newspaper ads have been used to advise the community of this hearing. Asked staff how long this General Plan Update has been underway. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that Council authorized the creation of the Task Force more than a year ago. In September, Council gave staff authorization to proceed with scheduled public hearings. City Attorney Seligmann advised that when there are more than 1,000 properties impacted, the City is not required to do individual mailings and can use newspaper notices instead. The City used both direct mail and newspaper notices to reach as many impacted owners as possible. Mr. Bemard Greenfield, 40 S. Market Street, 2nd Floor, San Jose: · Stated that the City's Traffic Engineer seems to agree that more traffic analysis should be done. · Declared that the Negative Declaration will not withstand a court challenge. · Said that with this Land Use change, property values in the area will go down. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 10 City Attorney Seligmann informed the Commission that it needs to determine whether the Negative Declaration adequately addresses whether any significant negative environmental impacts would result from the Update of the General Plan. If the Commission finds no negative impact, a Negative Declaration can be adopted. If the Commission finds that there is evidence of significant negative impacts, they should recommend that an EIR be done. Commissioner Doorley asked whether City Attorney Seligmann agreed with Mr. Greenfield that the Negative Declaration would not hold up under legal challenge. City Attorney Seligmann replied that he disagreed in general terms. Ms. Michelle Burman Greenfield, 864 S. McGlincey Lane, Campbell: · Informed the Commission that her parents purchased this property 40 years ago and that she and her brother assumed the operation 25 years ago. · Said that this Land Use change would put her family out of business and substantially reduce the value of their property. · Asked that the City consider the parcels on a case-by-case basis. · Suggested that further studies are needed. · Asked that the Commission not take an action that would let some developer take their land at a reduced value, not to take away a family business. Mr. Stephen Benner, West Valley Construction, 580 McGlincey Lane, Campbell: · Advised that West Valley Construction has been in Campbell for 37 years and they wish to remain in Campbell. They have been a model company during that time. · Stated that their business now has seven offices in California and two in Nevada. They bill out $50 million per year. · Said that this appears to be an arbitrary move to change to Research and Development. · Said that non-conforming status will not allow them to expand their business. · Advised that they are opposed to the General Plan as presented. Commissioner Hemandez asked Mr. Benner if any expansion has occurred in the last 37 years. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that West Valley expanded their operation about five or six years ago. Commissioner Hemandez asked Mr. Benner what future expansion is anticipated. Mr. Stephen Benner replied that they are now at capacity. Commissioner Hemandez asked whether than means that in order to grow West Valley Construction would have to move. Mr. Stephen Benner replied yes but that they did not want to move. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Colin Jaques, 184-A Morris Lane, Campbell: · Advised that the notice and map that he received was in black and white and did not clearly depict the impacts of the Land Use changes. · Stated that instead of increasing options for the use of their property, this Land Use change is limiting their options. · Added that many of the lots are too small for any possible R&D development and/or uses. Stated that the Land Use change will make his use legal non-conforming. · Said that he residents purchasing on Regas knew they were purchasing property adjacent to Light Industrial when they moved in the area. · Said that this proposal devalues his property and limits his ability to sell his building. Informed that R&D uses will increase traffic on McGlincey. · Suggested limiting hours of operation for businesses on McGlincey as a means of dealing with noise issues for surrounding residences. Chairperson Gibbons clarified that Mr. Jaques existing electrical contracting business would become a legal non-conforming use but that he could sell the property. The only time the new Land Use designation comes into effect is when the owner wants to expand the non-conforming use or if the structure is destroyed. Mr. Colin Jaques said that this Land Use designation limits how he can rent out his space. For example, he would be unable to rent space, currently being occupied by an artist, to a machine shop once the R&D Land Use is imposed. City Attorney Seligmann stated that Mr. Jaques was correct. Chairperson Gibbons asked about the difference between selling and renting space. City Attorney Seligmann clarified that a machine shop is not currently on site. If a machine shop use were not currently on site, once the Land Use changes to R&D, a machine shop would not be permitted. Commissioner Lowe asked what could go there. City Attomey Seligmann replied any existing non-conforming use could be continued. New uses would have to be brought into conformance with the R&D Land Use designation. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that an office use would be allowed. Mr. Lance Levy, 390 McGlincey Lane, Campbell: · Asked what would occur ifR&D falls flat much like Dot. Com companies are right now. · Stated that McGlincey is a multi-use area. · Asked that the City "leave us the way we are." Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 12 Expressed concern about traffic jams on Curtner, saying that traffic is so bad that one cannot come out of McGlincey onto Curtner. Chairperson Gibbons called a break at 9:40 p.m. Chairperson Gibbons reconvened at 9:47 p.m. Ms. Camille Humphrey, 2245 Central Park Drive, Campbell: · Informed the Commission that they have experienced noise, light and caustic smells from surrounding businesses. · Said that these are not addressed and/or enforced. · Said that 20 years ago, someone did not "look out for me." · Mentioned a local business that has installed barbed wire fencing. · Questioned the potential for very high buildings to be constructed to overlook her property. · Said that while the Burman cabinet shop closes by 5:30 pm., potential R&D uses are 24-hour operations. · Added that she is not certain that her interests are being looked at. Ms. Sharon Fierro: · Advised that there are noise regulations for all businesses. · Added that the Draft General Plan has policies to prepare a Noise Ordinance and Light and Glare Standards. At this time, no such standards exist. · Added that when issues arise, citizens need to call the police to ensure that a Police Incident Report is made. · Said that height limitations would have to be addressed in the future through the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Katrina Rice Schmidt, Planner II, added that there are no height limitations in the General Plan. Currently, under the M-1 zoning, a six-story or 75-foot high building is allowed by right. In the R&D Zoning, height would be limited to 30 feet by right, or higher with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Gibbons stated that these issues would be addressed with updates to the Zoning Ordinance. Follow up meetings regarding Zoning regulations will occur as a next step. Ms. Cindy Mulcahy, 679 Regas Drive, Campbell: · Stated that she has resided on Regas for 10 years and that West Valley Construction is far from a Light Industrial use. · Added that West Valley Construction is not a good neighbor. They have big lights shining onto her property. · Said that heavy industrial uses should be removed from the area. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 13 Mr. Larry Edson, 662 Hawthorne, Campbell: · Stated his concern for wildlife on the property at Poplar, adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek. · Added that developing this property will drive away wild life. · Said that any use but the current use is inappropriate. The space should be used for open space. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that currently this property's Land Use designation is Office and staff is recommending Low-Density Residential to allow single-family residences. Added that there are no endangered species in Campbell. Commissioner Hemandez asked for clarification on current zoning for this property. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied Office. Added that a permit from the Water District will be required for any development of this property due to its proximity to the Los Gatos Creek. Mr. Keith Claxton, 933 Hacienda Avenue, Campbell: · Expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak tonight. · Stated that he is not in agreement with the proposed Land Use designation for the property at 700 E. Campbell (Andy's Barbecue site), which his client has purchased. Said that the change downzones the property. They are proposing to construct a four-story office building. Staff has already told them that this proposal is too intense. Mr. John Davis, 710 Margaret Street, San Jose: · Advised that he has lived in the Silicon Valley for 25 years and recently purchased the property at 700 E. Campbell Avenue. · Stated that a Professional Office Land Use designation makes sense for this property. · Added that he is interested in saving several trees on the property. Ms. Sharon Fierro: · Advised that staff has met with the developer regarding this property. There are constraints to the use of the property. PG&E has a right-of-way. Said that staff has guided them into a smaller format building. Informed that this site is at the gateway of Downtown Campbell and an appropriate office building would fit in. Added that this is one of the few sites in town that would qualify for a Variance due to the constraints of the site. Commissioner Lowe asked if any of the trees on site are heritage. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that there are actually few heritage trees. While these trees are not heritage they are protected. An arborists report and/or evaluation will be required to avoid any adverse impact to the trees on site. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 14 Ms. Katrina Rice Schmidt added that the current Zoning for this property is PD (Planned Development). Mr. Steve Belanger, 60 Dillon Avenue, Campbell: · Said that he operates a nameplate business on an 8,000 square foot lot that has a 4,000 square foot building on it. · Stated that low-tech businesses define Campbell's uniqueness. · Said that he received a letter in July about potential changes to the SOCA area in which his business is located. · Added that this Land Use amendment has the potential of moving into a transition that will throw away those roots. · Said that this process is moving ahead too rapidly. · Asked that the final decision be postponed another 120 days. · Suggested letting the market determine how the area develops and leaving the Land Use as it is currently. Chairperson Gibbons asked for clarification about SOCA. Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that under SOCA (South of Campbell Avenue), three uses are currently allowed. They are Industrial, Commercial and Residential. Staff is recommending the elimination of Light Industrial uses in SOCA. Mr. Paul Sarkisian, 186 Gilman Avenue, Campbell: · Said that Haig Precision has been in the area since 1960 and they would like to stay where they are. · Added that business cannot stay the same. They must grow or they go out of business. · Said that it is unfair that they were not advised of this potential change when they recently expanded their business in these locations. · Asked for a 120-day postponement so that change could be made differently and at a more deliberate pace. Suggested that the process "slow down a minute." Commissioner Doorley advised that this process has been public and open. Every step has been public and published. Mr. Haro Bayandorian, 70 Dillon Avenue, Campbell: · Said that he had a business in Campbell for 10 years before he purchase his site on Dillon. · Asked that the Commission really think about these proposed changes as they greatly affect peoples' lives. Commissioner Lowe asked Mr. Bayandorian what sort of business he operates on Dillon. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Haro Bayandorian replied that his company installs phone systems. He currently has an auto shop tenant with a lease using that site. That lease will not be renewed when it expires so that he can move his business onto the site. Ms. Sharon Fierro asked Mr. Bayandorian what his company would specifically do on site. Ms. Haro Bayandorian replied that they sell phone systems and have office use. They do have service vehicles. Ms. Sherry Falkner-Rose, 57 Page Street, Campbell: · Informed the Commission that she just purchased her property a couple of months ago, property that includes two non-compliant cottages. · Advised that she is happy with the proposed Land Use change and prefers residential use to commercial use of her property. · Added that she is anxious for that change to go through. Mr. Bill Perry, 150 Sondra Way, Campbell: · Advised that he owns several properties impacted by these proposed Land Use changes and was not given enough information or time to evaluate the proposal. Mr. Todd Hill, 2295 Winchester Boulevard, Campbell: · Said that common sense would be to set the McGlincey Lane change aside and move forward with everything else. Mr. Paul Del Grande, 566 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell: · Advised that he as more than an acre in the SOCA area. Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 10:50 p.m. Chairperson Gibbons: · Reminded that the General Plan Update includes six elements. · Added that supporting documents will have to be addressed at a later date to comply with the proposed amendments. · Stated that the key topic seems to be the Land Use change in two areas from Light Industrial to R&D. · Said that the Commission has the option to recommend approval as presented or to remove or amend portions of the proposal. Commissioner Jones asked for the difference between Light Industrial and R&D. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 16 Ms. Katrina Rice Schmidt, Planner II: · Advised that currently Controlled Manufacturing is the most closely related to R&D. Allowable uses include: A. Administrative, executive and financial offices; B. Crop and tree farming; C. Manufacture, assembly, packaging or distribution of products from previously-prepared materials such as cloth, plastic, paper, leather, metal, precious or semi-precious metals or stones; D. Manufacture of electric and electronic instruments and devices such as television, radio, phonographic equipment, computers and computer components; E. Manufacture of pharmaceuticals and food products; F. Research and development laboratories and offices; G. Warehousing and distribution facilities including mini-storage; and H. Other uses similar to the above, pursuant to Section 21.59.070. · Added that no outside storage is allowed in Controlled Manufacturing Zones. · In comparison, M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning allows outside storage and uses that include auto painting, auto body work and fabrication and distribution plants. · Added that there are currently no standards for lighting and/or glare. Commissioner Jones asked if new lighting and glare standards could be applied to existing uses. City Attorney Seligmann replied that it is a building standard and such standards can be applied to existing situations. Commissioner Hernandez stated that R&D is not just dot.com businesses. Asked why the need for change? Is it high tech uses? Chairperson Gibbons stated that the Task Force did not see the impact to the level expressed this evening. Existing business, while some may become legal non-conforming, can stay indefinitely. It is felt that this change will increase land values. The General Plan looks at the big picture and benefits to the community. Some areas will be downscaled in density and up scaled in density in other areas. These proposed changes are thought to create new jobs and tax bases, which will help support the community over the next 20 years. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that smaller uses in the R&D Land Use area include what is known as "incubator" businesses that combine some office space with storage space for developing businesses. This Land Use will permit a variety of small businesses to operate. Existing uses are grand fathered. This reflects a changing vision. Commissioner Hernandez asked how long it traditionally takes to see such a Land Use change impact an area once adopted. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 17 Commissioner Doorley shared his personal experience managing a legal non-conforming business in San Jose for 10 years, saying that it can be done. Added that parking and traffic are intense and valid concerns. Ms. Sharon Fierro again stated that existing uses could operate indefinitely as legal, non- conforming businesses. They could not build any new buildings or add on to existing buildings in order to expand the non-conforming use. Commissioner Hernandez asked just what impact there is with the Land Use change if the grand fathered uses simply remain. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that it takes time. Some cities limit the length of time a grand fathered use can continue. Campbell does not set a limit. Added that the City will not cause the change, individual property owners will initiate the change in uses. Commissioner Hemandez asked why just the south side of McGlincey is being changed. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied because that side abuts to residential uses. Chairperson Gibbons said that the issue has been discussed that the residential uses came after the industrial uses. Added that West Valley Construction actually sold off part of its property, which was subsequently developed with single-family residences (Regas Drive). Ms. Sharon Fierro pointed out two recent examples on Salmar Avenue where former warehousing space is being converted to office space. The elimination of truck areas creates space for necessary parking. The removal of docks and roll down doors allows the placement of windows for the office uses. Chairperson Gibbons again stated that the Commission has several options. They can move the General Plan forward as presented, with recommended changes, with a recommendation that it be deferred and/or making issues known to Council. Commissioner Lowe: · Stated that he has served as a Commissioner for seven years. · Added that it is a job that is not easy and is unpaid. · Said that the woman who chided him about respect is correct. He should not have lost his temper with the man who accused staff of deliberately not notifying owners of this proposed change to the General Plan. · Suggested that McGlincey be left as it is, not simply to appease people present tonight but because it makes sense to do so. Commissioner Jones expressed his agreement with Commissioner Lowe. Added that it is clear the property owners do not want to develop offices, they want to continue as they are now. He Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 18 suggested moving forward with the rest of the General Plan Update and leaving the Land Use designation for McGlincey as Industrial rather changing it to R&D. Commissioner Doorley expressed his disagreement. Added that the Land Use change does not remove any existing uses. Commissioner Jones stated that the area is land locked as it is. Commissioner Lowe stated that there are great irregularities in lot sizes. Chairperson Gibbons asked about whether the Commissioners felt Dillon/Gilman or SOCA area. the same about the Commissioner Lowe said that he did not. SOCA is a different area with different circumstances. It is located right in the middle of the Downtown. To compare SOCA with the McGlincey area is to compare apples to oranges. Commissioner Doorley stated that he did not think these two areas are as different as apples to oranges but more like the differences between oranges and tangerines. Commissioner Hernandez stated that the change to SOCA will still leave options of office and/or residential and simply eliminates industrial uses. The fact that SOCA is located adjacent to Downtown and near the future Light Rail Station makes this amendment in Land Use more reasonable. Chairperson Gibbons asked whether a definition of R&D could be developed that would keep current uses as legal and conforming might be an option as well as allowing such properties to be reconstructed should they burn down. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that it would not make any sense to do so since R&D type uses are already permitted in Industrial areas. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the Commission could create any Land Use designation it wishes to create. Commissioner Jones stated that there is already lots of control under the Light Industrial designation. The only difference is the outdoor storage, which has limited impact, as this is a somewhat isolated and industrial area. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3311 recommending the following: Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 19 1. That Council grant a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Update; and 2. That Council amend the General Plan with the following changes: a. The retention of an Industrial Land Use designation for the McGlincey Lane area; and b. With the technical amendments as proposed by the City Attorney's memo dated October 24, 2000, as well as adding the following language to LUT10, second sentence, to read, · "Historically, Campbell contained large expansive open space in the form of orchard land. Today, however, there is no land devoted to commercial agriculture, though non-commercial agriculture uses are allowed in areas designated for residential and open space land uses, c. Add to Strategy LUT-2.1c (page LUT41) Second Strategy "for all new development..." by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lowe NOES: Doorley, ABSENT: Francois, Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Gibbons advised that Council would consider this matter at its meeting of November 6, 2000. Commissioner Doorley clarified that his vote does not reflect a disagreement with the General Plan Update but rather with the decision to remove the Land Use Change from Industrial to R&D for the McGlincey Area. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 2000, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2000 Page 20 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: /E~l'~e~ G~i~b~ons, ~h~~ir~z/~Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Se~ary