Loading...
PC Min - 09/11/2007 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 11 , 2007 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 2007, was called to order at 7:39 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Rocha and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Michael Rocha Bob Alderete George Doorley Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Bob Roseberry Jackie C. Young Lind Kimberly Brosseau Steve Prosser William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn Staff Present: Acting Director: Planner II: Planner I: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of August 28, 2007, were approved. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roseberry was absent) COMMUNICATIONS Three desk items were distributed related to Agenda Item No.1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. Density Bonus Ordinance Update Public Hearing to consider amending Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code, revised, by repealing Sections 21.20.010-21.20.090 and adding a new Chapter 21.20, Density Bonus. and other incentives for affordable residential units, senior housing and childcare facilities; and adopt a finding that the Environmental Impact Report dated July 26, 2001, provides full and adequate environmental review for the adoption of an updated Density Bonus Ordinance. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: October 2, 2007. Report Presented by: Sharon Teeter, Housing Coordinator Ms. Sharon Teeter, Housing Coordinator, presented the staff report as follows: . Reported that on June 26,2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss amendments to the City's Density Bonus Ordinance, specifically amendments to the City's Ordinance that were not in compliance with State Law. . Advised that the Commission requested a Study Session, which was held on July 24, 2007. At that Study Session, the Commission reviewed the definition of affordable incomes; affordable housing units per city; the State Density Bonus Law; and density bonus concessions by the State as compared to other cities in Santa Clara County. . Informed the Commission that they have also been provided with a memorandum from City Attorney William Seligmann on the issue of concessions and waivers. . Added that this evening minor revisions to the draft Ordinance and Resolution were also distributed as table items. . Described the meaning of concession or incentive as including: o A reduction in site development standards or a modification of Zoning Code requirements or architectural design requirements, including but not limited to a reduction in setback and/or square footage requirements as well as in the parking ratios. o Said that it can also be the approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 3 cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial or other land uses are compatible in the area where the proposed housing project will be located, or o Includes other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city and/or county that result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions. . Explained that the State Law does not mandate what concessions/incentives a local jurisdiction gives but does provide for an applicant to apply for a density bonus asking for specific incentives or concessions and the City shall grant the concession or incentive unless it makes a written finding that includes: o The concession/incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing; or o The concession/incentive would have a specific adverse impact, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and/or moderate-income households. . Reminded that at the Study Session held in July, the Commission reached consensus on including the following three concessions/incentives in the revised Ordinance: o Reduction in required on-site parking as described in CMC Section 2.20.120(4); o Expedited processing pursuant to a mutually agreed upon schedule; o Deferral of the collection of impact fees on market rate units until issuance of a certificate of occupancy. . Said that, in addition, the Planning Commission requested that staff relay to the City Council a list of concessions/incentives to which they are strongly opposed, which include increases in building height, decreases to setbacks and decreases to open space. _ . Reported that, according to City Attorney William Seligmann, the State Law requires that in addition to the incentives and concessions cities are also required to establish procedures for waiving or modifying development and zoning standards that would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific sites, including such items as minimum lot size, yard setbacks and placement of public works improvements. These required procedures are referred to in Sections 21.20.110 and 21.20.130 of the revised Ordinance. The developer has to provide the City with a proforma, a financial analysis with sufficient documentation in order for the City to determine if the concession is warranted. This may mean that the City will have to hire a consultant to review the proforma. The cost would be born by the applicant, not the City. . Suggested that the Commission might want to discuss additional concessions and said that she was available for additional changes. Commissioner Alderete asked staff if they had any guess on how things would build out over the next five years in terms of affordable housing units. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 4 Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind clarified that the housing allotment period is seven years with the current period ranging between 2007 and 2014. She added that Campbell's housing requirement is 892 units. Commissioner Alderete asked about the 617 units outlined in Attachment #1. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that that was the number of units provided during the previous reporting period. She added that Attachment #1 outlines the affordable units provided in the last period between 1999 and 2006. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter added that the next period has assigned 892 units. Commissioner Alderete asked if staff has any guess on the number of units this Density Ordinance might result in. Commissioner Gibbons: . Said that it is her understanding that the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) has assigned is for the total number of housing units that a City needs to ~dd to its housing stock. . Added that of the 617 units provided during the last reporting period, 23 were Very- Low Income Units; 14 were Low-Income Units; 98 were Moderate Income Units and 482 were Above-Moderate Income Units. The table represents the whole requirement for the City. . Reported that last year the City added 65 units and the year before last, 35 units. . Stated that it is amazing how slowly they add up. Commissioner Alderete: . Stated that the table is confusing. . Said that he is interested in understanding how developers will provide a financial analysis that demonstrates why they need a particular concession/incentive or waiver. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter: . Explained that in complicated developments, people would be hired to look at a specific proposal for the City at the developer's cost. . Added that issues that can also be considered is meeting a developer half way or considering the use of Redevelopment funds, if appropriate. Commissioner Alderete said that developers already tell this Commission all the time that if they don't get their way their project won't pencil out. Chair Rocha asked for further information on the relationship between the consultant and the City. The consultant works for the City but is paid by the applicant? Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 5 . Reported that the Redevelopment Agency does it all the time in regards to affordable housing developments. . Stated that it is a fact that the provision of affordable units is going to cut into a developer's profit margin. . Advised that these people (consultants) who analyze such projects do so all the time. They can easily evaluate the impacts of providing affordable units on the bottom line of a particular development. Commissioner Doorley: . Pointed out that the three incentives currently proposed can be considered unless they are determined not to be necessary. . Asked what represents profit for a project? Is it one dollar? . Questioned what this really means and whether there is any latitude here, Housing Coordinator Sharon Fierro said that she would defer this question to the City Attorney and added that all cities handle this differently. City Attorney William Seligmann: . Reminded that this is a very new statute and there is currently no case law in place to interpret what we're dealing with here. . Added that the language is clear and the evaluation must be made as to whether or not a concession is necessary to provide affordable units. . Stated that how this law is applied will take time to work through the courts. Commissioner Doorley asked if the standard is some measure of profitability. City Attorney William Seligmann agreed that some measure of profitability is correct. He said that if there is no profitability, the developer can argue that it would be better to put their money elsewhere than in development. Commissioner Doorley said that it is important that there are "teeth" in this Ordinance as far as implementation is concerned. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Commissioner Alderete: . Reminded that at the Study Session, the Commission decided to set forth three types of concessions/incentives. . Asked staff if the terms "concessions" and "incentives" could be used interchangeably. . Said that the Commission came up with three concessions/incentives it thought were in the best interest of Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 6 . Said that the Commission's rationale is that the Zoning Code is the primary tool for ensuring sustainable development in the City that helps maintain the identity, integrity and beauty of the community we live in. . Stated that since the State Law has some very particular requirements for the City, we've tried to meet those requirements at the minimum level. . Added that since the requirement is for at least three concessions/incentives, the Commission has developed three. . Said that as the Ordinance is currently written, there is language that allows for segments of State Law whereby developers can choose their own concessions/waivers. . Pointed out that there are portions of the Zoning Code that the City typically tries to protect including issues such as building heights and building setbacks. . Asked if there is any way to affect these things in the Ordinance so we're not guessing at the most liberal interpretation? . Said he was seeking more "light" from the City Attorney. City Attorney William Seligmann reminded that he has provided an advisory memorandum. He added that cities have taken different positions on concessions. Some cities are completely open and others offer a specific menu. Commissioner Alderete: . Said that there are a variety of ways to interpret this. . Suggested that Campbell align its Code with those cities that are more conservative on this issue. . Advised that he is having a hard time with this issue (Density Bonus). . Pointed out that this Commission debates development standards each time. . Stated that the fundamental base of what this Commission and City does in its development review is under attack. Commissioner Doorley: . Said that he agrees with Commissioner Alderete that the State is "tying our hands." . Suggested that putting menu choices into this Ordinance is helpful and shows potential developers what the City is interested in rather than a complete open window. . Added that if a developer is savvy enough to know they can ask for more, they will ask for more and the City will need to at least consider those requests that are brought before this Commission. . Stated that he supports taking a conservative mindset in setting up this Ordinance. . Said that this is a path of least resistance issue. . Pointed out that developers will go where it is easiest to go. Commissioner Ebner: . Expressed his agreement with Commissioner Doorley. . Said that letting developers know that Campbell has requirements, things that it wants for this community, is a good strategy for this City to take. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 7 . Asked if there are any court case studies as of yet. City Attorney William Seligmann replied no. Commissioner Ebner: . Pointed out that Campbell has been very good with its provision of Low and Very- Low Income housing units. . Added that our neighboring cities are not building more. . Suggested that Campbell is the easy-bending tree. . Expressed concern and said it is important to stick to the Commission's original agreement to take a conservative stance and offer only three incentives. Commissioner Gibbons said that she agrees with what has been said. She said that it offers the City more leverage and the City should take advantage of it. Chair Rocha: . Said that it appears there is consensus on the number of incentives to incorporate into the Density Bonus Ordinance. . Pointed out that affordable housing is not every developer's cup of tea. . Expressed agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners and supported having a precise menu of concessions called out in the Ordinance. Commissioner Alderete: . Stated that the issue is not affordable housing here. The issue is having the State undermine this City's ability to use its full Zoning Code. . Added that he hopes to get more feedback from the City Attorney. . Asked the City Attorney if there is anything in his confidential memo to the Commission that had an influence on the drafting of this Ordinance. City Attorney William Seligmann replied no and clarified that he did not draft the Ordinance. He added that his memo didn't exist at the time this Ordinance was drafted and that the Redevelopment Agency's counsel drafted it. Commissioner Alderete asked his fellow Commissioners if there are areas of this draft Ordinance that they suggest any modifications and/or changes to? Commissioner Gibbons asked how the three proposed incentives are handled. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that they are included in Section 21.21.010. Section 21.21.050 outlines the availability of one, two or three incentives based on the number and type of affordable units proposed with a development. Commissioner Gibbons: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 8 . Said that it is her understanding of the text of this State Law that it is possible that a developer/applicant could ask for other conditions that Campbell mayor may not be able to deny unless the City can make certain findings for denial. . Added that she is confused by the way this is written. City Attorney William Seligmann assured Commissioner Gibbons that her confusion is shared by many. He said that the issue here is the direction that this Commission wants to take this. Commissioner Gibbons: . Said that, as written, the City's draft Ordinance is intended to identify three concessions that the City is willing to accept. . Said that the effort must be made to define these concessions as having viable findings to support them based upon the impact on the numbers of the project, both units and potential profitability. . Reported that she had prepared a hypothetical study to share with the Commission tonight. Commissioner Alderete: . Said that the issue is whether the Ordinance, as crafted in its entirety, is fine with the members of this Commission or not. . Questioned if the City is doing as much as it can as far as preventing having so much State input in local development. . Said that there are currently three concessions this Commission is recommending as well as a list of concessions to which this Commission is strongly opposed. . Pointed out that the preferences of the Commission may not hold up if challenged. . Added that it could become expensive for the City if incentives are challenged and the City loses. City Attorney William Seligmann said that a risk analysis is undertaken. He agreed that it could be expensive if there is a challenge and the case was to be lost. Commissioner Alderete said that the way the Ordinance is written now is conservative. City Attorney William Seligmann said that is fair to say. Commissioner Ebner asked what other cities have taken a conservative position. He said that per the City Attorney there are no case studies and he is willing to see Campbell stick to its guns with this and take the chance. City Attorney William Seligmann pointed out that one does not start seeing litigation for approximately five years after legislation is adopted. Commissioner Alderete added that it might even be five years later before such cases get to court for a total of about 10 years. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 9 City Attorney William Seligmann agreed that it can take between seven and 10 years. Commissioner Gibbons: . Distributed a table she had prepared. . Explained that she was trying to understand the magnitude of the impact of allowing 20 percent density bonuses. . Said that the key is finding a way to get 20 percent more units without increasing the maximum height, etc. . Said that this table offered her a safety value or reality check. . Suggested that a unit mix must be allowed. . Said that one option might actually be for a developer to opt out of a density bonus request. . Advised that for the table she prepared she broke down the costs for a sample project into a square footage cost of construction. . Stated that a tough proforma analysis will have to be done and said it is going to be tough for a developer to get the right mix. . Suggested a fourth concession which would be to allow a mixture of unit types. . Agreed that there is a sense of being pushed around by the State and added if the City has to meet that density requirement the question is how to cushion it. . Stated that certain open space requirements can be required such as lowering the maximum height limitations and/or increasing the parking standard for multi-family residential to match the single-family residential standard of two covered and two uncovered parking spaces. Currently for a multi-family development a one bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces; a two-bedroom unit requires 2 parking spaces and a three-bedroom unit requires 2.5 parking spaces. . Added that these are extreme measures but represent an approach. . Reiterated her suggestions to allow a change in the mix of units; change other documents, utilize the Variance/waiver process like Sunnyvale does to allow an evaluation of the requested concessions on a case-by-case basis utilizing five required findings already existing under the Variance Ordinance. . Said that these suggestions give the Commission a framework, process and mechanism. . Stressed the importance of establishing an appropriate fee to cover staff costs for processing Density Bonus Applications. Commissioner Alderete complimented Commissioner Gibbons on the time and effort she spent on this issue and reiterated her suggestions as including the lowering of the City's maximum allowed building heights, allowing a change in the mix of allowed units; changing the parking requirements as well as open space requirements. Commissioner Doorley cautioned that this could result in creating "slum" conditions if a development ends up constructing numerous studio units. He suggested staying with the three concessions the Commission already has supported. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that her table was strictly a numerical exercise but suggested that the three proposed concessions are not enough. Commissioner Doorley reminded that developers can propose whatever they wish. He agreed with the approach to comply with the State Law in as minimum a standard as possible while also staying out of court. Commissioner Gibbons said that if sufficient options are not offered the risk factor goes up. Commissioner Doorley: · Said that there is language in the Law that says a local jurisdiction does not have to accept proposed concessions if they are detrimental. · Expressed concern that the use of the Zoning Code as a primary tool in reviewing proposed development might be hindered. · Said that the options proposed by Commissioner Gibbons are too clever. . Stated that the draft Ordinance is at a place where it should be held. Commissioner Ebner: · Expressed agreement with Commissioner Doorley. . Stated that Commissioner Gibbons made a noble effort in her review. · Agreed with previous comments regarding the local jurisdictions being intimidated by the State. · Stressed the need to take a tough stance and go from there. . Supported the idea of sticking with the original three supported concessions. Commissioner Alderete: . Said that he does not completely agree with Commissioners Doorley and Ebner but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong. . Stated his agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Gibbons. . Supported the concept of doing the minimum of what the State is requiring of us. . Added that he supports allowing a different mix of units as well as work on some of the City's metrics on building heights, etc. Chair Rocha: . Said that he agrees. . Said that the couple of extra tools suggested by Commissioner Gibbons will slow the project down a bit and offer more time and control to the City. It would provide an additional layer in using the Variance process. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind clarified that Commissioner Gibbons' example represents a differing mix of unit types within the same building envelope. She asked how that can be viewed as a concession/incentive as it does not represent giving the developer anything more. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Gibbons disagreed saying that it results in more units for the developer to sell. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that they can do that any way. She added that there is no specific requirement in place for a specific unit type mix. Commissioner Gibbons said that historically the mix of affordable units has to match the mix of overall units in a percentage basis or 20 percent per type of unit. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind replied that there is nothing precluding them from doing that on their own. They could have simply designed the project in that way. Commissioner Gibbons said that the incentive is 20 additional units for the scenario of 100 units with a 20 percent density bonus. City Attorney William Seligmann said there is difficulty in applying that for Redevelopment Areas where the same percentage of affordable units must match each type of market-rate unit. Commissioner Gibbons said that in her scenario, the mix of units would not have to be parallel. They would not have to be evenly distributed in all the types of units proposed. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that there is no requirement that developers build a certain mix of units. Commissioner Gibbons said that she agrees that the City does not assign a particular unit mix but does require an apportioned unit mix when affordable units are proposed with the 20 percent evenly proportioned among the different unit types. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said with a density bonus the percentage dictates the affordability rate. She said she agrees there is a need for smaller affordable units and that need could be discussed and promoted by staff with developers and consider some sort of corresponding reduction in parking requirement. Commissioner Gibbons said that she is open to letting go of this and moving on. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind: . Said that she completely agrees with Commissioner Gibbons' point that smaller affordable units are beneficial in many ways and said that it offers more housing types. . Added that she still does not see how that can equal a concession. . Restated the proposals offered by Commissioner Gibbons that include a reduction in development standards, allowing mixed use projects and regulatory concessions. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Alderete said that lowering the parking requirement and allowing a change in unit type mix is a valid suggestion. Chair Rocha said that having more units to sell equals more money. He said he can see both sides in this discussion. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind asked about proposed findings. Commissioner Gibbons said that the findings to deny concessions are included in the State Law. She suggested adding text to the draft Ordinance under Section 21.21.010 to read, "... that the process for review of a waiver or modification shall be that of applying for a Variance." City Attorney William Seligmann said that the standard Variance process cannot be used here. He said that establishing an application process is something that cannot be accomplished here tonight but the Commission could make a recommendation to Council on that issue. Commissioner Gibbons suggested adding a requirement for a detailed proforma that reads, "... a review of three similar projects in Campbell or, if not available, in nearby communities." Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind reiterated the proposed amendments to include changes to development standards, waivers necessary, additional processes, and the need for a detailed proforma. Additionally, the Commission wants to suggest that Council consider creating a defining the process, to consider the implications of the density bonus on the existing Ordinance and to understand the Commission's strong opposition positions expressed in past meetings. Commissioner Doorley asked if the motion could be broken down as he supports part of what is proposed and wants to vote in favor of that but wants to vote against the remainder of what is proposed in the motion. City Attorney William Seligmann said that three separate motions could be done to break this action down. Chair Rocha asked Commissioner Doorley what part of the motion he does not support. Commissioner Doorley replied the proposed recommendations of action to be taken by Council. Commissioner Gibbons said that she is willing to modify her motion to accommodate Commissioner Doorley's concerns. Commissioner Alderete said as the second to the original motion he is fine either way. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission took the following actions: . Adopted Resolution No. 3832 recommending that the City Council adopt the finding that the Environmental Impact Report dated July 26, 2001, provides full and adequate review for the adoption of the revised and updated density bonus ordinance in order to comply with state law; and . Adopted Resolution No. 3833 recommending that the City Council amend Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code, Sections 21.20.010-21.20.090, Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives, in order to comply with State Housing law as modified with two revisions to the Waiver or Modification section: add a process for considering a waiver or modification, and require a detailed pro-forma which includes three comparable projects, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Alderete said that he likes Commissioner Gibbons' recommendations but suggested that a Study Session be scheduled where there is more time to discuss the details. He suggested that the City Manager and Redevelopment Manager participate. Commissioner Ebner said he concurred. He said this is a serious subject and we don't know what will happen in the future. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind asked if the intent is to have a Planning Commission Study Session or a community meeting. Commissioner Alderete said a Planning Commission Study Session including Planning Staff, the City Manger, Kirk Heinrichs and Council members, if they are available. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind asked if the issue for the Study Session would be State laws in general or the Density Bonus specifically. Commissioner Alderete suggested that the Session start out broad. Chair Rocha asked staff if a vote is necessary here. City Attorney William Seligman said yes if the Commission plans to forward recommendations to Council. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 14 Motion: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission took minute action recommending that the City Council: define the process for considering a waiver or modification and communicate to Council the Commission's specific strong objection points related to incentives and concessions, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission took minute action recommending that Council direct the Planning Commission to study the implications of incentives and concessions on existing development standards delineated in the zoning code and area plans, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: Doorley, Ebner ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Rocha said that Item No.4 would be considered out of order in deference to that applicant's need to return home to her infant. Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No.4 into the record as follows: Public Hearing to consider the application of Dr. Anne Takata for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-119) for a change in use to allow the establishment of a chiropractic office on property owned by Stromiga located at 2155 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 110, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. 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: Steve Prosser, Planner I 4. PLN2007 -119 Takata, A. Mr. Steve Prosser, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a chiropractic office within an existing office building located on the west side of S. Bascom Avenue between Campbell and Apricot Avenues. . Described the surrounding uses as commercial to the north and east, multi-family residential to the west and residential and commercial to the south. The General Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 15 Plan land use designation is General Commercial and the Zoning is C-2-S (General Commercial), which allows medical uses with issuance of a Use Permit. . Explained that there are no exterior changes to the site. SARC did not review this project. . Said that the proposed operational hours are between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. . Added that the tenant space is 661 square feet, which requires 4 parking spaces. With 137 parking spaces available on site there are no parking impacts. . Recommended that the Planning Commission find this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and adopt a resolution approving this Use Permit. Chair Rocha pointed out that the operational hours are different in the letter and staff report. Planner Steve Prosser said that the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., 7 days a week, are well within the allowable hours of operation and that he would revise the conditions accordingly. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.4. Dr. Anne Takata, Applicant: . Thanked the Commission for considering her request. . Expressed her happiness at being able to open a practice in Campbell as she is a former resident of Campbell. . Explained that she is licensed to practice in both Hawaii and California and has been a chiropractor for seven years. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3834 approving a Use Permit (PLN2007 -119) for a change in use to allow the establishment of a chiropractic office on property located at 2155 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 110, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Rocha advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Rocha read Agenda Item NO.2 into the record as follows: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 16 2. PLN2007 -118 Osborne, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Jason Osborne, on behalf of NSA Wireless, for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-18) to allow the renewal of roof-mounted cellular antennas on property owned by Lesly J. Moresco located at 125 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. 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: Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner /I Ms. Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking a Use Permit to allow the continued use of an existing wireless facility that consists of three roof-mounted antennas that are six- feet wide and mounted on 13-foot poles atop a two-story building. . Added that the272 square-foot equipment cabinet is located at ground level and surrounded by a chain link fence with redwood slats. . Said that no changes are proposed for this installation. The applicant advises that based on current technology they are unable to reduce the height or extend screening of this facility. . Explained that the original approval was granted on October 8, 1996 and has expired. . Recommended that this project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA and that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving this Use Permit. Commissioner Gibbons asked about five-year approvals. Planner Kimberly Brosseau advised that approvals used to be for five years but State law changed so that approvals are good for 10 years. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Mr. Jason Osborne, Applicant: . Thanked staff. . Said that they are not asking for any modifications as changes would impact the existing network. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3835 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007- 118) to allow the renewal of roof-mounted cellular antennas on property located at 125 E. Su"nyoaks Avenue, by the following roll call vote: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 17 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons and Rocha None Roseberry None Chair Rocha advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Rocha read Agenda Item NO.3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2006-166 Osborne, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Jason Osborne, on behalf of Sprint PCS, for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2006-166) for the renewal of roof-mounted wireless antennas on property owned by Mr. Scott Cooley located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. 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: Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner" Ms. Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking a Use Permit to allow the continued use of an existing wireless facility that consists of six roof-mounted antennas that are mounted on three poles. They are nine feet above the parapet. · Added that the 288 square-foot equipment cabinet is located at ground level and surrounded by a six-foot high chain link fence with redwood slats. · Said that no changes are proposed for this installation. The applicant advises that based on current technology they are unable to reduce the height or extend screening of this facility. · Explained that the original approval was granted on November 26, 1996 and has expired. Renewal is required. · Said that the use is consistent with the General Plan. · Recommended that this project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA and that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving this Use Permit. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Mr. Jason Osborne, Applicant: . Thanked staff and the Planning Commission. . Stated that he is available for any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Ebner asked if reduction in height is something that technology advances will allow the next time a renewal is required for this location. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 18 Mr. Jason Osborne said he hopes so. He added that the goal is to minimize the installations but the issue is that it extends EMFs. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3836 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2006- 166) to allow the renewal of roof-mounted wireless antennas on property located at 700 W. Hamilton, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Rocha advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Jackie C. Young Lind, Acting Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Reported that Council took second reading for the Boyce project at 1677 S. Bascom Avenue; introduced the Ordinance regarding modifying Chapter 18.60 (Identification and Mitigation of Potentially Hazardous Buildings); gave the authorization to proceed to the Home Church (staying with the recommendation that the frontage remain commercial); authorized the purchase of 316 Union Avenue for a public park; and accepted Commissioner Tom Francois' resignation, which opens up the recruitment process for his replacement. . Advised that there are three projects on the next Planning Commission agenda: a four lot development on Virginia; a Day School at 1980 Hamilton Avenue and a revised medical building proposal for 1930 S. Bascom Avenue. Commissioner Gibbons stressed the importance of developing appropriate application fees for the processing of applications for Density Bonus requests. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. immediately to a Study Session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 25, 2007. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 11, 2007 Page 19 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: /1;Jd ~ Michael Rocha, Chair Secretary