Loading...
PC Min 04/14/1998CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. APRIL 14, 1998 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1998, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman Lowe, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Dennis Lowe Brad Jones Tom Francois Elizabeth Gibbons Susan A. Kearns Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Jane Meyer-Kennedy Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner II: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Sharon Fierro Tim J. Haley Gloria Sciara William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of March 24, 1998, were approved with a minor correction. (5-0-2; Commissioners Lindstrom and Meyer-Kennedy were absent.) COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Memorandum regarding use of microphones during meetings. 2. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 1. 3. Revised draft Ordinance pages for Agenda Item No. 1. 4. Revised draft Ordinance pages for Agenda Item No. 2. Plar~ning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. TA 98-02 City Initiated Continued Public Heating to consider the City-initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-02) to amend the Campbell Municipal Code to add a Telecommunications Facilities Chapter and related amendments. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Staff has revised the draft ordinance which was distributed with the packets. The draft being distributed this evening reflects the new changes with underlines. · The ordinance will allow stealth installations to be approved through an administrative procedure. · Advised that the Nextel representative, Karen Vernetti, is unable to attend this evening's meeting as she experienced a flat tire on her car on route. Ms. Vernetti's concerns included the height of antennas (page 19, number 8) which has been clarified; building height (page 19, number 4); the relationship to screening requirements for off-site improvements; and relocation requirements. · Said that Sprint forwarded a last minute letter addressing some concerns. A few of these concerns have been addressed through some of the most recent changes. Chairman Lowe asked if all of Sprint's concerns have been addressed. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that not all have been addressed. One concern they had was the provision that they provide a five year plan when submitting any applications. Clarified that the five year plan is not obligated to be site specific but simply general areas should be defined. Chairman Lowe advised that while he had abstained from participating in the discussion of this item at the last meeting, upon further discussion with the City Attorney, it has been determined that he does not have a conflict which prevents him from voting on this issue. Therefore, he will be participating in this evening's discussion and voting on the ultimate action. Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 3 Ms. Came Takeyasu, Legal Counsel, Sprint: · Asked for clarification about facade-mounted antennas and what type of approval process is proposed. · Asked when antennas need a Use Permit and when they need Site and Architectural Review Permit. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that not all facade-mounted antennas will automatically be handled through an administrative process. Only stealth installations, those with the least controversy. Ms. Came Takeyasu suggested that the last sentence Item 14 be deleted. Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that the definition helps clarify and said that staff does not recommend this modification. Commissioner Gibbons stated that a rapid process for approval can be offered to providers. If the applications do not meet the City's requirements, the applications can be brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu stated that different types of review can provide an incentive to providers. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that page 17 includes new language which clearly defines the types of permitting processes proposed. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu stated that Sprint's next concern is the requirement for the provision of a five-year plan when submitting antenna applications. She stated that this information is difficult to predict as they don't always know six months in advance what they plan to do. Chairman Lowe asked if revisions were possible. Ms. Sharon Fierro: · Advised that the provision of the five year plan does not constitute an approval of that plan. · The provider is not required to build all the sites they depict on their five year plan. It simply represents a concept. · Advised that other communities have this requirement for a five year plan. Chairman Lowe opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Came Takeyasu asked about the necessity of the security requirement. Said that lease requirements will result in the removal of antennas once they are no longer required. Commissioner Gibbons asked if flexibility in this requirement is possible. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 4 City Attorney William Seligrnann stated that the City is looking for something that it can enforce. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked about the term "discernible noise" found on page 16, Item 1. Asked for a term which is more concrete. Chairman Lowe asked staff to explain Item 2 of Section 21.60.100, Noise Impacts. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this item relates to residential installations. Commissioner Gibbons stated that for commercial installations, this noise issue is between the owners of the building and the lessee. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu requested use of a general noise standard. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this would be more restrictive to the providers than what is proposed. There are currently no noise standards except residential. Chairman Lowe advised that Ms. Takeyasu is representing the interests of Sprint only. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there are two options. Utilizing the residential standards throughout the City or allowing a lower noise standard for commercial/industrial areas. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that staff has sought to allow the providers as much flexibility as possible to meet whatever standard which is compatible. Clarified that discernible is noticeable. Commissioner Kearns stated that the meaning of discernible is clear. Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that providers will be required to provide noise information when submitting a proposal. Noise issues have been woven throughout the code. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked for clarifications for both Item 4 and Item 8 under Roof Mounted Antennas. Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that if a building has a height restriction, no antenna can be installed that exceeds that height. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this Ordinance can be considered a starting point. Better ways may be determined after it is applied and used for a while. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that some minor wording changes per the City Attorney's recommendation have been implemented on pages 16 and 17. She added that not a lot of ground-mounted antennas are installed in Campbell since there are no hills. Chairman Lowe asked why it is not possible to require painting of all equipment to screen it. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that per Sprint's agreement with Lucent Technologies they are prohibited from painted their equipment. If they are unable to paint, they will be required to screen using other means such as landscaping. She added that language for a revocation process has been added on page 24. Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked for exceptionary language for Item 8 such as is included for Item No. 4. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that Item No. 4 applies only to antennas and support structures. Providers can raise the height of the parapet and thus raise the height of their antennas. Chairman Lowe closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3156 recommending approval a Telecommunications Facilities Chapter (Chapter 21.60) and related amendments (as modified by the Planning Commission) and the adoption of a Negative Declaration, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe None Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy None Chairman Lowe advised that this matter will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 5, 1998. Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2 TA 98-03 City Initiated Public Heating to consider the City-initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to amend the Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree Protection Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 6 Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised the Commission that the Tree Protection Ordinance was drafted at the request of Council following the development at Littleton Place whereby a 62-inch in diameter Oak tree was removed to accommodate this construction. The tree was determined to be severely diseased by three arborists. · Council appointed a Tree Committee, comprised of representatives from the Parks & Recreation Board, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Board, Council, the Chamber of Commerce, an arborist and a citizen at large. · On February 17th, the draft Tree Protection Ordinance was reviewed by Council. Council instructed staff to increase the size of tree to be protected from 8-inches to 12~inches and to develop a simpler process for residential property owners. · The purpose of the Tree Protection Ordinance is to protect the City's tree population, to establish protected tree classifications and to establish replacement ratios. · Standards will be different for developed single-family properties as opposed to all other zoning classifications. · The Tree Protection Ordinance establishes policies, definitions, technical manual and descriptions. · The applicability is to all private property in the City of Campbell. Chairman Lowe asked whether the City would be compelled to comply with this Tree Protection Ordinance. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the City operated under Municipal Code provisions for street trees and public property. Commissioner Gibbons asked what impact this Tree Protection Ordinance would have on single- family residential properties. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that four types of trees would be protected within single-family residential properties that requires approval of a permit. Commissioner Gibbons clarified that these types of trees could not be removed. Mr. Steve Piasecki asked for the types of trees to be protected. Ms. Gloria Sciara: · Answered that a tree removal permit process would have to be undergone. No protected tree can be removed without a permit. Exceptions would be if an emergency exists where eminent danger is possible; public nuisance trees which are diseased and/or overgrown; trees interfering with public utilities and fruit trees which are not protected. · Protected trees include Oaks, Sequoias, Ash, Cedar and Heritage Trees. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 7 · For developed single-family residential properties, non-protected trees can be removed without a permit. · For residential properties a one-page application has been developed whereby the property owner provides a written description of what is being removed and why. · For all other types of property, applicants will be required to provide a tree survey plan/site plan. · Property owners would be allowed to remove trees if they are diseased and/or in danger of falling; if the tree causes potential damage to a structure or utilities, if the tree prevents or impedes a property owner's economic enjoyment or reasonable use of their property for things such as expansion or a granny unit or having caused damage of $1,000 or greater on single family developed properties. · Approval authority will involve an administrative procedure by the Community Development Director when the request is not associated with a development permit or for single family residential properties. · Review of potential removal of heritage trees will require Historic Preservation Board review. · Review of tree removal for potential development sites will be handled by the same body as approves development applications, generally the Planning Commission. Chairman Lowe asked who is notified of the potential removal of tree(s). Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that contiguous property owners and those across the street will be notified. This represents approximately 70-foot noticing. Commissioner Gibbons suggested a 200-foot notice for general tree removals and a 500-foot notice for heritage tree removals. Chairman Lowe asked how much a tree removal permit would cost to process. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the cost was not finalized but would be somewhere in the range of $50. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that Council is the body that determines the cost which is based upon the amount of time it takes to process the permit. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised: · Following noticing, a 10-day response period is provided. · Once approved, there is an appeals process available. · Development applications and heritage trees will require the same noticing but with a 300- foot radius mailing list. · Site/tree posting would also be required. · Appeals of these approvals must be made within 10 days and will be final in 30 days. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 8 · Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. · Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to Council. Commissioner Gibbons asked who defines heritage trees and who initiates the process to designate a tree as a heritage tree. Ms. Gloria Sciara explained that the technical manual has been developed which outlines procedures. It includes a condensed Tree Protection Ordinance, permits, posting signage and pruning and replacement tree standards. She advised that in just a moment the question about who initiates designation of heritage trees would be answered. Commissioner Gibbons suggested some discussion about the 12-inch in diameter tree size. Asked what would occur if a residential owner wanted to clear their land for a garden. Ms. Gloria Sciara: · Provided the replacement ratios as follows: 1. For each 12-inch diameter tree removed, two 24-inch box trees would be required. 2. For each 24-inch diameter tree removed, three 24-inch box trees would be required. 3. For each greater than 24-inch diameter tree removed, four 36-inch box trees would be required. 4. For each heritage tree removed, one 48-inch box tree would be required for every 12- inches in diameter of the removed heritage tree. · Added that a replanting plan is required at the time the tree removal permit is provided. · If space is not available on the subject property, there is a provision to replace the trees off site. · Replacement of trees has environmental benefits. Commissioner Gibbons questioned the reason and/or fairness in asking property owners to purchase replacement trees and delivering them to the Corporation Yard. Mr. Steve Piasecki reminded the Commission that they have the option of exempting residential property owners from meeting some of these requirements. There is no interest in developing a new fund which these owners can pay into in lieu of tree replacement on their property. There is a provision for payment to the Street Tree Fund. Chairman Lowe asked the cost for a 24-inch box tree. Ms. Gloria Sciara provided a range from $150 to $300. Commissioner Jones stated that he supports exempting single-family residential properties from all restrictions as he feels that this Ordinance would intrude on personal property rights. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 9 Ms. Gloria Sciara: · Explained how trees can be designated as a heritage tree. The request for such designation can come from the property owner, Council, Civic Improvement Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission or Historic Preservation Board. · Stated that violations and penalties for improperly removing trees includes four times the replacement ratio. If a heritage tree is illegal removed, the property owner can be assessed for the appraised cost of the tree. · Advised that both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Preservation Board have reviewed and provide comments on the draft Tree Protection Ordinance. · The Ordinance is tentative scheduled for review by Council on June 9th. · A Negative Declaration has been prepared. · This draft Tree Protection Ordinance will come back to the Commission on May 13th. Chairman Lowe asked "can we do this?" City Attomey Williaim Seligmann advised that the City could adopt such an Ordinance as long as it does not prohibit the economic use of property. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that Campbell is the only City currently without an Ordinance protecting its trees. Six of nine local communities protect all trees. Chairman Lowe stated that he found the pruning standards to be rigid and strict. Commissioner Keams: · Said that the Ordinance is not "user friendly." · · · · Feels that the penalties are too severe. Said that only heritage trees should be protected on single-family properties. Property rights are being taken. Said that she feels that developers rather than homeowners should comply with this Ordinance. · As for replacement trees, opined that 15-gallon trees would establish themselves faster that 24-inch box or larger. Plus the price of box trees is exorbitant. · Concerned about the requirement of off-site tree replacement if no space on subject property is available. This is penalizing the property owner. · Finds it unreasonable to expect property owners to deliver trees to the Service Yard within 30 days for use in off-site planting. · Said that with such an Ordinance Campbell is becoming an unfriendly place to live. · Had questions about requirements for photographs and arborists reports as well as a site plan. Asked how extensive or professional a site plan would be required. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that these requirements are only for developments. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 10 Commissioner Keams pointed out a discrepancy on the Tree Disclosure Statement Form as it pertains to tree size. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that this has been changed. Commissioner Jones:· Stated that he is totally against this Ordinance. · Asked how homeowners are supposed to know about this Ordinance. · Felt that this Ordinance is crossing the line on individual rights and freedom. City government needs to stay out of residential property rights. · Suggested implementing lessor densities in developments and encouraging more parks in the City. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that there has been a lot of development over the past few years with larger parcels being subdivided. Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Sharon Keating Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue: · Advised that she is a property owner in Campbell. · Acknowledged the work done to draft this Ordinance and expressed her support of this Ordinance. · Said that in the two years since she has moved to her Campbell home, at least 10 mature trees have been removed in her immediate area including five on her street alone. · Said that public policy allows cities to prevent the installation ofoil derricks in back yards. · Said that she selected her Campbell home because of the City's small town feel. · Said that this Ordinance is a great start. She would like to see it even strengthened. · Campbell is the only City which does not currently protect its trees. · Pointed out that the City's logo is "The Orchard City." Mr. Matt Beauregard, 64 Llewellyn Avenue: · Stated his support of the draft Tree Protection Ordinance. · Recounted a story about an adjacent property that has recently removed a couple of trees near their back fence without having had to notify adjoining neighbors. "Suddenly, it was gone," he said. · Expressed that trees have a value to more than just the people on whose property it is located. · Mentioned a 35 to 40 foot pine which was recently cut back to just a 18 to 20 foot stump. The trimmings were left in the street for more than two weeks. · Stated that a Tree Ordinance protects trees. · The cost of a permit is not unreasonable. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the impacts of this draft Tree Protection Ordinance on single family residential property owners seems to be the biggest issue. Suggested that the Commission propose what aspects it supports. Whether the Commission wants to remove residential property owners from the Ordinance. Commissioner Jones stated that he would like to see single-family residential properties removed from the Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner Kearns stated her concurrence. Commissioner Francois said that there appears to be some overkill in the Ordinance. Did agree that there is some credibility for some types of tree protection. Commissioner Gibbons: · Said that the Ordinance needs to be user friendly. · Expressed her appreciation for the comments of the two residents. · Asked for more research materials to review including Ordinances from other local communities. · Said that she found this Ordinance too intense and would like to see staff draft a simpler measure and apply it to non-residential zones particularly all developable parcels. Mr. Steve Piasecki explained that staff used development as the threshhold. Commissioner Jones asked about flag lots. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that parcels that can be divided into a flag lot are considered developable. Commissioner Gibbons encouraged strong penalties for any developer who removed trees within six months of developing a site. Chairman Lowe asked how the City was going to know if trees on developable lots were improperly removed. Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that this would be hard to track if the objective is to ensure trees are incorporated into a project. Reminded that the Ordinance came about because of concerns when development triggered the removed of an old oak tree on a developable residential single family parcel. Commissioner Gibbons said that the 12-inch diameter is too small. Commissioner Jones reminded that Campbell is the only City without a Tree Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested continuing this item for two weeks to allow staff to bring data from other cities and allow staff to redraft some of the technical stuff. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there is validity to some type of tree protection. Commissioner Jones stated that there will certainly be debate on where to draw the line. Stated that the City cannot continue to develop properties as densely as has been done recently. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that a General Plan Update is scheduled for this year. Study sessions will be organized. This is the time to see if Council want to enact reductions in building density. However, if densities drop too low, it will undermine the Housing Element. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission voted to continued discussion of the draft Tree Protection Ordinance to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1998, to allow staff the opportunity to modify the draft to reflect their recommendations, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy ABSTAIN: None Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. CIP 1998-2005 Staff Public Heating to consider the City of Campbell's 1998-2005 Capital Improvement Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that State Government Code requires the Planning Commission to review the City's Capital Improvement Plan for consistency with the General Plan and to recommend an environmental determination. · Significant projects include: · Deferred street improvements · An addition to City Hall · Parks · Community Center Improvements · Many of the projects are Categorically Exempt. · Advised that A1 Bito with the City Manager's Office is available for questions. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 13 Chairman Lowe clarified that the CIP is updated annually even though it represents a seven year plan. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that that was correct. The first year is actually included in the pending operational budget. Said that Council is recommending moving up Virginia Park to next year (1998/99). Commissioner Gibbons wondered what the impact is on the CIP if the General Plan is changed. Would it still be considered consistent? Commissioner Francois asked about the Campisi Way expansion. Was not the Pruneyard paying for this? Mr. Tim J. Haley: · Advised that fifty percent (50%) of the expansion would be from private funds. · The Campisi expansion includes two parts. One is the reconstruction of existing roadway and the second is the expansion of that roadway to the Pruneyard. · Council recently finalized a Street Improvement Agreement with the Pruneyard for which the Pruneyard agrees to contribute up to $700,000 for the expansion. · Advised that Council will review the CIP at its meeting of May 5t~. Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chairman Lowe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Kearns wondered if there was a need for the Downtown Parking Needs Study. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there is an application pending for a banquet facility. Chairman Lowe added that the parking study is badly needed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3157 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and finding the 1998-2005 CIP to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowc NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 14 REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1998, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North Firs[Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretar~ APPROVED BY: Dennis Steve Piasecki, Secretary ATTEST: