Loading...
PC Min - 01/27/2009CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JANUARY 27, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 2009, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Ebner and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Alderete Theresa Alster Gary Gairaud Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES None Interim CDD Director: Ciddy Wordell Acting Principal Planner: Tim J. Haley Associate Planner: Steve Prosser Assistant Planner: Daniel Fama Public Works Director: Robert Kass City Engineer: Michelle Quinney Senior Civil Engineer: Lisa Petersen Traffic Engineer: Matthew Jue City Attorney: William Seligmann Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of January 13, 2009, were approved as submitted. (6-0-0- 1; Commissioner Roseberry abstained) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Revised attachment from staff and letter from Safeway for Agenda Item 3. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** Chair Ebner suggested hearing Agenda Item 2 first. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Ebner read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2008-181 Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Dung My Goodison, D. Goodison for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2008-181) to allow the establishment of a day spa with massage services in an existing office tenant space previously occupied by a chiropractic medical use on property owned by Carlos and Rose Marenco located at 281 E. Hamilton Avenue, Unit 8, 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, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is requesting approval to allow the establishment of a massage establishment at 281 E. Hamilton Avenue. • Stated that the tenant space equals approximately 11 percent of a professional office complex. The property is north of E. Hamilton Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and N. Central Avenue. Surrounding uses include single-family residences to the north and various office and commercial uses to the east, west and south. • Said that the General Plan land use designation is General Commercial and this proposed use is consistent. The Zoning designation is C-2-S (General Commercial). Massage uses in this district require a Conditional Use Permit. • Described the business hours as between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between noon and 6 p.m. on Sunday. The hours of operation on site, including set up and clean up, will be between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday. • Explained that the parking requirement for the site is 52 spaces under the Parking Ordinance. There are 60 spaces available on site. • Stated that staff is confident that adequate parking is available. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 3 • Reported that the Police Department reviewed this application and had no objections with the inclusion of their recommended conditions of approval. • Said that in addition to a Conditional Use Permit and business license, a massage establishment requires a permit issued by the Campbell Police Department for the business owner. Each massage therapist operating on site will also be required to obtain a massage therapist permit that is issued by the Campbell Police Department. • Stated that this item was not reviewed by SARC as there were no exterior building changes with this application. • Recommended that this project be found to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving this Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that staff has outlined the parking in a gross fashion based upon the whole building. He asked staff to clarify parking as it pertains to this specific use. Planner Steve Prosser explained that this use requires five parking spaces out of the 60 parking spaces available on site. That represents a lower percentage than the 11 percent of building area that this business will occupy. Commissioner Alderete restated his understanding that there are 60 spaces on site while 52 spaces are required, which is in excess of the standard by eight spaces. Therefore, there is no anticipated impact on parking. Planner Steve Prosser said that the five spaces necessary to support this proposed use are included in the 52 space parking requirement for the site. He assured that the site is adequately parked in staff's estimation. Commissioner Gibbons asked for verification that there is no other use currently on site that is exceeding its parking demand. There is no pre-existing problem there already. Planner Steve Prosser said no, there is no problem there. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reminded that previously there used to be a limit of four massage establishments in the City of Campbell at any given time. • Stated that for future reference, since the Commission has been approving quite a few salons and massage establishments in the last six months to a year, including one or two larger ones. • Said that even if an establishment approved for massage use is vacated, that space is still available to another massage use under that Conditional Use Permit. • Concluded that it would be helpful to indicate in staff reports how many massage establishments there actually are in the community. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 4 Planner Steve Prosser agreed. Chair Ebner opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Ebner closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3924 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2008- 181) to allow the establishment of a day spa with massage services in an existing office tenant space previously occupied by a chiropractic medical use on property owned by Carlos and Rose Marenco located at 281 E. Hamilton Avenue, Unit 8, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Alster, Ebner, Gairaud, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Ebner advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Ebner read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2008-165 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Gordy Ross Ross, G. for a Sign Program Approval (PLN2008-165) for the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center on property owned by Hamilton Plaza Investors, LLC, located at 1640-1790 S. Bascom 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: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Master Sign Program and Sign Exceptions for Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, a 12-acre, two-parcel site located on the southeast corner of Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. • Informed that the Center's existing Master Sign Program was approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1991. • Reminded that on February 22, 2009, the Planning Commission granted a Site and Architectural Review Permit for a new 8,000 square foot retail building on the site of Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 5 the existing Goodyear building. The new building, while on a separate parcel, has been incorporated into the shopping center. • Advised that a condition of approval was imposed with the Site and Architectural Review Permit requiring the submittal of a new Master Sign Program to include this new building. • Added that this new Sign Program must be approved before any new signs will be allowed for the new building. • Reported that Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center has two existing monument signs. One is located along Hamilton Avenue and the other is located along Bascom Avenue. Additionally, there is one freestanding sign in front of the Goodyear building. All three monument signs would be replaced with approval of this new Master Sign Program, which would allow for the construction of three new monument signs. • Explained that Monument Sign 1 would be located at the corner of Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. This 50 square foot, three-panel sign has a strongly horizontal shape spanning approximately 24 feet in length and nearly five-feet tall. In staff's opinion, this sign is inconsistent with the other proposed monument signs and with the retail pad building. A recommended condition of approval would require that a revised monument sign that is more in line with the other proposed monument signs be shown on the final plans. • Said that Monument Signs 2 and 3 will be located adjacent to the two Bascom Avenue entrances. These signs are more traditional in design and are consistent with the current style of a shopping center. The use of the open grid, painted aluminum framing in two-tone tan colors, matches the architectural style and features of the center. Both signs would be approximately 14-feet in height with a sign area of 50 square feet. • Said that Monument Sign 2 would be slightly wider than Monument Sign 3. Both would be limited to a maximum four panel signs. A condition of approval would also require a minimum of three panel signs of no more than 20 square feet each. • Stated that the Master Sign Plan proposes a 15 square foot building identification sign that would be located on the existing retail building on the corner of Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. The sign would read, "Hamilton Plaza," in internally illuminated channel letters. Illumination would be via LED lights, which would emit a soft white light at night. • Explained that this proposed Master Sign Program would not significantly alter the existing sign program. • Reported that minor tenants (less than 4,000 square feet) would continue to be allowed one sign with a maximum of 50 square feet in sign area, which represents one square foot of sign area for every one linear square foot of store frontage. The letter height would be limited to 36-inches in height. The total sign size may not exceed 70 percent of the fascia height or 60 percent of the linear store frontage. • Said that major tenants (more than 4,000 square feet) would be allowed one sign up to a maximum of 100 square feet of sign area, which represents one square foot of sign area per every one linear square foot of store frontage. Letter height would be limited to 46 inches. Total sign size may not exceed 70 percent of the fascia height or 70 percent of the linear store frontage. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 6 • Stated that major tenants would also be allowed secondary message signs with a total area not to exceed 25 percent of the maximum allowable sign area. Examples of secondary message signs include Office Max's "computers" and "office products" signs. • Added that both major and minor tenants could utilize logos, which may not exceed 25 percent of the maximum allowed sign area. • Said that all tenants in the pad buildings would be allowed wall signs on street frontages, two for the internal tenants and three for the end cap corner tenants, if they are not identified on the monument sign. • Reported that the tenant space currently occupied by Fast Signs is considered a tenant space with a special architectural feature that would be allowed two wall signs on its internal elevation. • Advised that the site has existing hanging blade signs identifying its tenants from the walkway. The proposed new Sign Program addresses these signs and limits their size to no more than six square feet. A condition of approval would require that the applicant provide a sign detail for the existing and/or future blade signs. If anew design is proposed, all existing blade signs would need to be removed prior to installation of new blade signs. • Reported that the Master Sign Plan contains several Exceptions to the Sign Ordinance, including an increase in number of wall and monument signs as well as increased sign area. • Stated that staff believes that the proposal satisfies the required findings of the application and that the scale of the shopping center, the visual impact of street trees along Bascom Avenue and the location of street front retail buildings supports the increase in allowable sign area and number of signs to sufficiently identify the tenants of the shopping center. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Master Sign Program and Sign Exception subject to the conditions of approval. • Informed that the applicant is in attendance and has prepared a brief PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Rocha asked for clarification on the horizontal sign proposed for the corner at Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. Is staff recommending that this become a monument sign? Planner Daniel Fama replied yes, something more like the other two proposed monument signs. Commissioner Rocha asked what the maximum vertical height limit is for monument signs under the Sign Ordinance. Planner Daniel Fama replied 14 feet. Commissioner Rocha asked how tall these monument signs would be. Planner Daniel Fama replied just under 14 feet. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 7 Commissioner Alderete: • Asked staff what is the strategy or thinking behind recommending approval of eight Sign Exceptions on one property. • Said he asks this because so often when small business owners in Campbell with very limited visibility come in and ask for signage that is not permitted, staff simply tells them that is not permitted. • Questioned what makes this case different. • Added that he thinks there is a different attitude toward it and he wants it to be clear what the thinking is overall. Planner Daniel Fama: • Referred to the discussion that occurred at SARC. • Said that this is a shopping center of a scale that presents certain difficulties to properly sign. • Added that the Sign Ordinance isn't really adept to address this just yet. • Pointed out that a lot of this signage has already been approved with the 1991 Sign Program for this center. They are really just giving their Sign Program a face lift. • Stated that the most significant differences are the new monument signs and the allowance for 100 square feet in sign area for major tenants. Otherwise, it's really not a lot compared to what they have right now. Commissioner Roseberry asked staff to outline how many of the requested Exceptions are already in place. Were some previously approved and are simply being carried over into this updated Sign Program? Planner Daniel Fama: Explained that he is not sure if a lot of what they have now was considered an Exception in 1991. The Code is different since then. Outlined the differences from now and proposed. The number of monument signs, the allowance for 100 square feet of sign area for major tenants and the secondary message signs. Office Max was actually granted that through a separate Sign Exception. Now that would be allowed by right. He added that previously anything over 50 square feet was also a separate Sign Exception. Otherwise, everything else essentially has been allowed in the past. Commissioner Roseberry asked how much of what is before the Commission as new signage would be an Exception to the current sign regulations. Planner Daniel Fama said that goes to the eight specific Sign Exceptions that they are looking at. Commissioner Roseberry asked again how many of those Exceptions are for new signage and how many of them are Exceptions for existing signage that is being simply being brought forward into their new Master Sign Plan. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 8 Planner Daniel Fama replied that allowing major tenants to have wall signs that are 100 square feet versus 50 square feet in size represents a new Exception. Allowing the secondary message signs is a new Exception. The retail pad wall signs and the end caps are existing Exceptions. Three new monument signs are a new Exception. The site identification sign is something new that has never been addressed previously on this site. Hanging blade signs were handled previously. Commissioner Roseberry replied okay, it sounds like a lot of them are new Exceptions. Planner Daniel Fama agreed that a number of them are new Exceptions. Commissioner Gibbons asked for one quick clarification about corner parcels where stores such as See's and Fast Signs have signs both on the internal frontage and the street. She asked how that fits in. Planner Daniel Fama said that pad tenant spaces are allowed one sign per frontage. See's has two frontages, one oriented toward the street and the other frontage facing the parking lot so they are allowed two signs. Una Mas has three frontages so they would be allowed three wall signs. They are considered a corner end cap tenant. Commissioner Gibbons asked if that amount of signage is what is allowed currently. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes, this signage is allowed under their current Master Sign Program. Commissioner Alderete: • Stated that typically, once a Code or Ordinance is updated, when a new developer comes along he is brought up to the new Code or Ordinance standard. He added that what he is hearing staff say in this case is that many of these Exceptions were already approved in 1991 so they should continue to be approved even though the Code has changed. That seems kind of backwards. • Added that it seems like we're working hard to approve this, which is fine with him as he thinks it has many merits. However, he wants to understand why. What's going on there? He concluded that he is not sure he understands it. Planner Daniel Fama explained that, much like a Use Permit, Sign Exceptions allow the Planning Commission to review the signage on a case-by-case basis in a way that if it were just permitted outright it couldn't be done. Yes, there are a lot of Exceptions but it provides for a great deal of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission to see what is appropriate for this site. Chair Ebner asked Commissioner Alderete if that response answers his question as it still seems confusing to him. Commissioner Alderete: • Replied he was not sure there can be an answer that captures it all. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 9 • Added that shopping centers seem to come back for Sign Exceptions and it just keeps going on and on, getting further and further away from the Sign Ordinance. • Stressed that there are Ordinances and Codes that we try to live by and make decisions by so he just likes to try to stick as close to it as possible knowing that folks are entitled to apply for Exceptions. Interim Director Ciddy Wordell: • Reminded that, as is stated in the staff report and has been said by staff tonight, because of the length and depth of this lot, there is a circumstance in effect that one might not find in other cases that might come before this Commission. • Said that one might be able to find a reason why this center might need the signs they're asking for such as the blade signs. When people are in the walkways they cannot see the wall signs. When one looks at this center one can see that these signs make sense. • Reiterated that the signage challenges on this site include corner tenants, walkways and the depth and length of the site that warrant additional signs. Commissioner Alderete: • Thanked Director Wordell and said that her comments offer a lot of what he was looking for. • Stated that this is a very important corner as far as commerce in the City. • Agreed that there are a lot of good reasons to work with the applicant on this one but he wants to make sure that this information is getting on the record. • Added that it is important for this Commission to pass along the most and best information it can to Council. Chair Ebner told Commissioner Alderete he has made some good points. Commissioner Alderete presented the Site and Architectural Review Commission report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project at its meeting on January 13, 2009. • Listed the recommendations made by SARC: o Supported staff's recommendation that the maximum allowed sign for major tenants is reduced. o Asked that the applicant consider changing the design of Monument Sign 1 (at the corner of Hamilton and Bascom Avenues) to decrease the horizontal emphasis. o Asked that the applicant consider reducing the allowable temporary window signs to 10 to 12 square feet as opposed to the 25 percent of the window area as proposed by the applicant and allowed in the Sign Ordinance. • Reported that the members of SARC felt that there were so many Exceptions to the Sign Ordinance being requested in this application that it should give pause to reflect on the Sign Ordinance itself. • Added that even though the Sign Ordinance was amended in 2005/06, it probably could stand some additional attention. At the time of that Sign Ordinance update, the majority of discussion was spent on the issue of electronic readerboard signs. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 10 • Opined that there's a lot more than that going on in Campbell, particularly with this center as well as the Exceptions that have been asked for by the Pruneyard over the course of time. • Added that there are a lot of other things that could be looked at in the Sign Ordinance. • Pointed out that he made that recommendation to staff (including City Manager Dan Rich who was in attendance) at this SARC meeting. He concluded that he hopes this issue of revisiting the Sign Ordinance is on staff's agenda for this calendar year. Chair Ebner opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Gordy Ross, Applicant: • Explained that his firm was brought in to redesign the existing Sign Program by the property management company because of the fact that there was the new pad building planned for where the Goodyear building is at. That really started the process. • Advised that one thing they quickly realized was that the two existing monument signs have some major problems in terms of visibility. The density of trees along both Bascom and Hamilton Avenues create visual problems for the monument signs. • Added that on Hamilton Avenue, the trees are very dense. The sign that exists there is very small and stuck back in the shadows. It really doesn't read very well at all, particularly given the four lanes of traffic and how busy that intersection is. • Reported that their evaluation at that point was that sign was ineffective. It's not working for the tenants or the center as a whole. • Reminded that there is a lot going on at the Hamilton entrance including trees, poles, etc. • Reported that the Bascom Avenue monument sign is hidden by a tree. These signs are at battle with street trees. • Added that they are trying to place signs in areas that will be more visible. • Said that in addition to the monument signs, they were asked to craft a new Sign Program for tenant building signage. What they set out to do, and have done, is write a new tenant sign criteria for the new pad building. • Reiterated that Hamilton is so dense with trees plus there is a short distance from the intersection to the entrance. That's what brought the placement of the proposed new monument sign to the corner at Hamilton and Bascom. • Stated that the Hamilton and Bascom intersection is fairly wide open. • Added that they felt that precedence was there for a corner sign as there is one across the street at the southwest corner of Bascom and Hamilton. • Explained that the monument sign they designed for this area is low and horizontal. There is already a tenant wall sign for The Jewel Box near that corner so a more vertical sign would complete with that sign. That's the primary reason that the sign was made horizontal. A large vertical sign there would compete with the existing signage. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 11 • Stated that it has been a pleasure working with staff. Great input was provided by both Tim Haley and Daniel Fama. • Concluded that they have tried to craft their proposal using staff's input. He said that they have come up with something that will work well for the tenants of the center as well as enhance the overall street frontage along Hamilton and Bascom Avenues. Commissioner Rocha: • Commented on the point made by Mr. Gordy Ross about the number of trees along Hamilton, saying that the owners having put a pad building on that corner also created a bit of an issue there. • Added that the distance to the Hamilton Avenue site entrance, when turning from Bascom onto Hamilton, is short. This is one of the busiest intersections that we have in the Bay Area. The site is really a victim of its own geography in many respects. • Stated that he does not see how a monument sign at that height solves their problem as cars waiting to turn right from Bascom Avenue onto Hamilton Avenue would block this sign. • Reminded that trees serve a purpose. • Advised that he is hard-pressed to embrace this proposed Master Sign Plan. Commissioner Alderete reminded Mr. Gordy Ross that SARC had asked him to change the monument sign proposed for the corner at Hamilton and Bascom, at least the height and shape of it. Were they not in favor of that recommendation? Mr. Gordy Ross: • Said that taking this monument sign higher impacts the existing tenant sign that is on this corner. • Added that it creates the problem of too much signage that is too close together. • Said that one thing that they did do was look into placing landscaping behind this monument sign to create a visual buffer between the sign and the building itself. • Stated that they could do a different shape, perhaps folding it around the corner a little bit or bending the sign to follow the shape of the corner. However, this would create a situation where from one side or direction the sign reads well while from the other side or direction it does not. This would affect how well this sign works. Commissioner Alderete: • Reminded that that staff has made additional recommendations since SARC including moving the monument sign back closer to the Hamilton Avenue entrance. Can the shopping center live with that? • Pointed out that having an identification sign, tenant sign and monument sign in that corner would be a lot. • Asked Mr. Gordy Ross if he supports staff's condition to require relocation of that monument sign. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 12 Mr. Gordy Scott said that his client feels there is no purpose in replacing the sign at the Hamilton Avenue entrance as visibility would be blocked by trees. He said that such a sign would be a very big investment. Commissioner Gibbons: • Pointed out that The Jewel Box has windows with advertising signs on them. • Advised that this building was built with deliberate urban planning intent to establish a pedestrian energy there. However, all of the businesses have chosen to close off the street entrances and go only with entrances from the parking lot so even though there are doors there, they are closed off. Many businesses have put additional signage up in those windows. • Stated that the energy of seeing into The Jewel Box is important from the corner. There is a window there and one can see partially through it and that was the intent for that space. That's why signage wasn't there to begin with. • Asked if they are intending to block those windows out. Mr. Gordy Ross advised that from what he understood from talking to the property manger yesterday those windows are blocked from the inside. You can't see inside. Commissioner Gairaud asked Mr. Gordy Ross how many panels there would be on the three proposed monument signs. Mr. Gordy Ross replied as shown, 10. Commissioner Gairaud said he counts five major tenants. He asked if it is the intent that each major tenant would have two panels. Mr. Gordy Ross advised that he has discussed with staff limiting any one tenant to a maximum of two panels between the three signs for any tenant. The monument sign where the new pad is going in is intended for use by tenants in that pad building. Commissioner Gibbons expressed her surprise to realize that the two monument signs along Bascom were of different sizes. Mr. Gordy Ross explained that that difference is primarily because the pad is going in with sidewalks, etc. There is very limited space to get a sign in there and make it work within setbacks and so forth. That sign, by necessity, became narrower because of the location. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Gordy Ross where the placement of the monument sign at the mid-block on Bascom would be put in relation to trees. Mr. Gordy Ross: • Said that again they have tried to pull this sign in. There are limited opportunities because of the trees there. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 13 • Added that they have tried to place it to have a relationship with the entrance, to have very good visibility on southbound Bascom and have better visibility than the existing sign from northbound Bascom. • Said that there is still going to be some blockage of visibility of the sign because they can't pull it up too close to the entryway. • Said that the primary issue is that there is a real small window to try and get a sign in there. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Gordy Ross if he is convinced that this sign works with the trees. She added that she does not want to replicate what they have now. Mr. Gordy Ross said that he spent time at the site and spoke at length with the client. It's a better situation, especially the one that has a tree right in front of it right now. He added that another thing that the existing sign is doing right now on the inside is intruding into the parking lot. They didn't want to do that either. Again, it's a very narrow window and they have tried to fit it in the best they can, knowing that the trees are not going to go away. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the three monument signs are two-sided. Mr. Gordy Ross replied yes. Commissioner Roseberry asked if any other signs, outside of the three monument signs, are going to be taken out. Mr. Gordy Ross responded that none of the existing tenant building signs are going to be taken away. Commissioner Roseberry asked for verification that one cannot turn left onto this shopping center when driving west on Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Gordy Ross replied no. He also clarified that the identification sign would consist of halo lit letters rather than face illuminated letters. Halo lighting means the light spills out from behind. Chair Ebner closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Roseberry: • Stated that this is a unique site. It's a big shopping center. There are not good sight lines. • Said that in reflecting on a point made by Commissioner Alderete speaking to what are our concerns with the Sign Ordinance, to think of a few, there's clutter, distraction, sight lines and safety, spillover effect into neighborhoods and things like that. • Stated that in first looking at this project, he was thinking if there is a place for signs, this is the place. That being said, he added that he thought there is a certain Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 14 amount of diligence that the Commission owes to the other applicants in other areas where it has drawn a hard line on Sign Exceptions. Added that there is always an ultimate sign package for a tenant that does not necessarily agree with the one for the landlord, which does not necessarily agree with that for the City. Stated that the Hamilton/Bascom sign is not really needed until you make the turn into the center entrance. Commissioner Gairaud: • Expressed appreciation for the landlord's attempt to clean up the site with a more uniform sign program. • Said what he is struggling with here is with getting it more uniform and cleaned up and not over-signing it. • Stated that for him what is proposed currently on that corner does not seem effective although he is coming to appreciate the open grid element at the bottom of a monument sign a little bit more. • Said that he is not quite sure if he can support that sign. • Added that he is not sure if more than one panel on a monument sign is required per major tenant. If so, that can be accomplished with just two monument signs. • Said that if they want to replace those monument signs and move them so they're better seen out of the trees, he has no problem with that. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that the management and owners of this site have done a wonderful job with managing and updating the site over the years. It is really very tastefully done and is really an asset. • Said that coming up with a standardized program is okay. • Reiterated that the corner building was put there deliberately. It is a relatively small building with a lot of signs (two or three wall signs per tenant space). • Added that much of the side fronting on Bascom from the pad building is pseudo- signage because of the way the buildings are utilized. • Said that it is a very intense signage corner there. • Explained that she drives by this site each day during her morning commute. • Said that the transition of the three monument signs being replaced is okay with her but she thinks they need to be the same color, size and panels. • Added that she has no problem with the placement of the sign at mid-block of Bascom. It's understandable. • Stated that she does not support a monument sign, either horizontal or vertical, at the corner of Hamilton and Bascom. The building is enough of a statement at that corner. The dynamic of this intersection doesn't require that signage there. • Said that she would be supportive of the third monument sign being at the corner of the building and the parking lot, near where there is the backflow preventer. It would give it quite a bit of visibility from the intersection. The trees and landscaping can be pruned. • Stated that regarding the additional identification sign reading, "Hamilton Plaza," on the gable, she can support it if the other Commissioners do. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 15 • Reiterated that for The Jewel Box, there's nothing but signage there already. Commissioner Alster: • Advised that she has a different opinion about the Hamilton sign. • Said that because of the shape of the building and where it is on the street, it actually serves as a sign to the entire plaza. The anchor stores being listed there is also a good idea. • Added that the proposed corner identification sign offers a natural sign gateway to the plaza. • Joked that she appears to disagree with most of her fellow Commissioners on her first day on the job. Commissioner Rocha: • Said that unless they relocate the Hamilton monument sign, he won't support this revised Master Sign Plan. • Stated that there is enough fascia signage already for the Whole Foods, Ross and Office Max and that the horizontal sign causes him concern. • Expressed his support for blade signs in a reduced variety. Commissioner Alderete: • Said that as he stated with the SARC report, overall he likes this plan. • Cautioned that Exceptions have to be carefully considered. • Reminded that eight Exceptions are being requested here. • Supported staff's recommendation to place Monument Sign 1 near the Hamilton Avenue entrance rather than at the corner. • Said that the uniqueness of this site can have a big impact on how the Commission decides Exceptions in other parts of the City. • Reiterated his support of the staff recommendations for this Master Sign Plan. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any of the other Commissioners feel that the three monument signs should be the same. Commissioner Alderete said he has no issue with that. Commissioner Rocha said he agrees with Commissioner Gibbons. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3925 granting a Master Sign Plan and Sign Exceptions (PLN2008-165) for the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center on property owned by Hamilton Plaza Investors, LLC, located at 1640-1790 S. Bascom Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Alster, Ebner, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: Gairaud ABSENT: None Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 16 ABSTAIN: None Chair Ebner advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Commissioner Alderete gave recognition and thanks to Planner Daniel Fama for the work done on this application. *** Chair Ebner read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. Staff Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated adoption of an Area Plan (Winchester Master Plan) for Winchester Boulevard from the northern City limits to Camden Avenue to include private development design and public improvement standards. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 17, 2009. Project Manager: Lisa Peterson, Senior Civil Engineer Mr. Robert Kass, Public Works Director, presented the staff report as follows: • Offered a little background on the process for this Area Plan. • Reported that in 2001 the General Plan was adopted that included a strategy to develop an Area Plan for Winchester Boulevard. In 2007-2008, the development of a plan for Winchester Boulevard was included as an item on the Community Development Director's Work Program • Said that the Planning Department was beginning to see redevelopment potential for sites along Winchester Boulevard. As the Planning process unfolded, the focus at the time was on private development, architectural concepts and design standards. Lots of proposals were coming in that dealt with such issues as undergrounding of utilities, sidewalk widths, traffic impacts, etc., issues of what were the public right-of-way improvements necessary to compliment the private development along Winchester. Staff looked into whether it might be best to incorporate public and private development components into the plan like was done on E. Campbell Avenue. • Continued that there was kind of a step back at that time to see if integrating the public and private development in the Winchester Master Plan should occur as was done for the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan. • Said that staff asked Council in November 2007 to authorize bringing in a consultant to help staff develop a more integrated Master Plan. • Stated that there were some goals, very general and broad, to develop the corridor including to come up with some private development standards; to come up with a concept for public improvements along the corridor; to deal with the pedestrian environment and connections to Downtown; to consider the long-standing desire to connect the City's Community Center to Downtown; and to deal with the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 17 Winchester/Campbell intersection. He said that some of those things were folded into the goals and objectives. • Reported that from November 2007 through most of 2008, there were a significant number of community meetings, study sessions with the Planning Commission, and study sessions with Council. Those are detailed in the staff report. • Said that those meetings led up to a draft of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan that came to the Planning Commission last October in the format of a public hearing with the objective of having the community review and provide comments and input and move that on to Council. It was a fairly voluminous document with a lot of issues that affect a lot of the aspects along Winchester as well as the abutting residential neighborhoods and the urban design context. At that October 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested more time to digest and think about what this Plan is trying to accomplished, how it addresses some of the issues that the Commission has had to deal with in respect to development projects the Commission has seen coming before it. There were a number of good points, some clarifications and a number of questions that needed to be answered in order to come up with a better plan to move forward. • Advised that the staff report breaks down those areas where there was the most concern and interest in making modifications moving forward as recommendations to Council. • Said that staff's goal would be to provide the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. • Reported that another dual notice was done for this meeting, as was done for the October hearing, in order to save on mailing costs with this 1,200 plus piece mailing. • Stated that he is here to answer questions and receive additional input from the Commission as well as from the public and business/property owners in the corridor. • Said that with respect to Public Works issues, there are three key points the Commission had questions and concerns about including parking and circulation, bulb outs and medians. • Explained that in the original draft, the Plan was structured into three areas. Area 2 was the center portion. Parking and circulation studies would be needed to evaluate impacts on nearby residences for projects in Area 2. Now, such evaluations would be done for the entire corridor. • Clarified that this is a Master Plan. There are no funds available for a full out design done parcel-by-parcel or intersection-by-intersection. • Assured that staff is committed to clarifying that bulb outs are conceptual. They may not always work but can be looked at. The goal of bulb outs is to achieve better pedestrian safety. In reality, use of bulb outs would have to be looked at in a case-by-case basis. • Reported that originally medians were proposed for the bookends (Areas 1 and 3) but not in the middle portion (Area 2) of the corridor. In the central area (Area 2) a median is not appropriate. • Explained that the vision for this area is to create an extension of the Downtown. There is no landscape median there. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 18 • Reiterated that staff is comfortable with the inclusion of medians to the north and south but not in the central portion of the Plan area. • Said he was available for questions or comments. Commissioner Alderete asked Director Bob Kass to restate the three concerns raised by the Commission in October 2008. PW Director Bob Kass listed parking and circulation, bulb outs and medians. Commissioner Gibbons said that she wanted to understand better what triggers specific circulation and parking review. Does one project trigger this? PW Director Bob Kass said that these studies are related to an individual project such as a new building or intensifying the use of a site. He added that he is open to suggestions for triggers. Commissioner Gibbons said these triggers are not included in the draft Master Plan as presented. PW Director Bob Kass asked Commissioner Gibbons if she is looking for project triggers or a description for the scope of a traffic study. Commissioner Gibbons replied both. PW Director Bob Kass advised that the standard methodology is to look a: 1) existing; 2) existing plus proposed; and 3) cumulative and projected. Commissioner Gibbons said that more data is needed. PW Director Bob Kass replied that is what staff has struggled to understand. What is "more" outside of existing plus proposed plus projected? Commissioner Gibbons replied some type of circulation report that indicates the reasonably anticipated circulation patterns in and out of the site such that impacts the surrounding residential streets, including cut through traffic. Information on the project offering a clear understanding on where the driveway should go to have the least impact on nearby residential neighborhoods and indicating what are the trade offs between driveway locations and development options. PW Director Bob Kass advised that the City's Traffic Engineer, Matthew Jue, tries to capture the valid concerns of the Planning Commission. He said staff might be able to bring back a specific description on what that traffic policy might be including triggers and the scope of traffic analysis. Commissioner Gibbons: • Cautioned that trip generation information is useless. They are just numbers that can be manipulated. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 19 • Added that what the Commission wants to know, if the driveway is here, it will do this. If the driveway is there, it will do that. Additionally, what will be done to mitigate traffic through the neighborhoods? The Commission wants options on how to manage the traffic to work with the project but not to the detriment of the surrounding area. PW Director Bob Kass replied that's helpful. Commissioner Alderete: Asked PW Director Bob Kass his views on the aging of a plan like this one based on time as well as budgetary constraints that may come with time or free up monies with time. Continued by saying that he is relating with the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan (ECAMP). There were some things that he was in favor of and was disappointed when he later found out that the City might not have the money for the public improvements or the State might not allow the link. Asked if there is not something that should be put in place to trigger a review after a certain number of years or something like that, especially if the development anticipated does not really go that way or even take place. PW Director Bob Kass said that this is something that he hadn't considered. He pointed out that the Streetscape Standards were done years ago. There has been no impetus to revisit it although some of the tree recommendations have changed. He added that he does not see a need for revisiting a plan of this level until you have a much more defined project that has specifically identified public improvements that you're hoping to build. Commissioner Alderete said it could also happen in other ways such as definitions of service levels in traffic studies. PW Director Bob Kass: • Pointed out that the City does not have a service level policy. It does look at these in the context of CEQA but unlike some communities, Campbell does not have a Level of Service (LOS) policy that specifically states levels. They are taken more in context of CEQA analysis and traffic studies. • Added that when the City has the luxury of updating its General Plan, staff has talked about trying to look at the neighborhood traffic component. • Said that he thinks that is the appropriate place for something like that to be addressed and then it would guide how all development in the City is assessed. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reported that there is a part of the information before the Commission that talks about the EIR, saying there is no substantive change since the EIR was prepared in 2001 for the General Plan. • Said that, for her, if one looks at the EIR prepared in 2001, there has been major change in political philosophies and scientific acceptance. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 20 • Added that she thinks about global warming and energy conservation. There's not a lot of that in that EIR. • Reminded that the City has also instituted a Housing Density Bonus Program. There is also the State's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. • Concluded that in this area (Winchester) the senior housing development (Merrill Gardens) was not envisioned at the time the EIR was prepared. PW Director Bob Kass: • Explained that the reason that staff is comfortable using the General Plan Update EIR to provide CEQA for this particular Master Plan is that it identifies densities and development less intensive than the General Plan would allow (up to six stories and 70 feet) so it's clearly below the thresholds that are already allowed under the GP and Zoning that exists. Secondly, this is a Master Plan. Any individual project that comes forward is still going to go through CEQA review. • Said that he thinks staff is quite comfortable with the findings it has made, and is asking the Commission to make, that the environmental review is adequately addressed by the General Plan's EIR. Commissioner Gibbons told PW Director Bob Kass that's skillfully stated. She continued to say that she does agree with the density but said that there are more issues in the EIR than density and zoning. PW Director Bob Kass joked, "That's why you're on the Commission and I'm on the staff." Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that he tends to see this Master Plan as something that's not inherently perfectible. Changes can occur over time. • Asked PW Director Bob Kass if he could speak to the flexibility that is built into this Plan. • Stated that one of the things that will allow a plan to have a longer life is to have flexibility built into it, to make sure it is not too specific of a requirement that will end up painting us into a box. PW Director Bob Kass: • Replied to Commissioner Roseberry, that's a challenging question because there's a balance between flexibility and a Master Plan that gives direction to the development community, some sense of understanding to the neighbors and guidance to staff on how to condition a development that comes forward. • Agreed that Campbell has always been somewhat flexible in the way it tries to implement Master Plans but additionally what staff is trying to achieve with this Plan is to give the Planning staff and the Public Works staff enough broad guidance so that when a project comes through, they can sit down with a project proponent and identify in general what the City wants to see in this area. • Turned the staff discussion over to Principal Planner Tim J. Haley. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 21 Principal Planner Tim J. Haley: • Reported that the Planning Commission considered this draft Master Plan at its meeting on October 28, 2008. • Advised that staff has identified those items from the minutes that were brought up as significant discussion items. • Added that staff has attempted to respond to those items within the written staff report. • Described one significant concern raised both by Safeway and the owner of the Campbell Plaza Shopping Center. That concern was that the plan did not identify triggers in terms of its implementation. • Informed the Commission that the Safeway representative has requested that the plan be augmented with what types of development would trigger the requirements for full implementation of the Master Plan. They also requested that requirements for non-conformance be included in the plan. • Pointed out that staff has prepared a Plan Implementation Section in the staff report. A revision was distributed this evening. • Added that a letter from Safeway was also distributed this evening asking for further revisions to the implementation measures. • Informed that the original standards were drawn from the current standards contained in the General Plan as a part of the Streetscape Plan for the image streets throughout the community. Those thresholds were basically identified. • Advised that an exception provision has been added in case it is found that implementation would be unreasonable or infeasible for a particular applicant to comply with the standards. Additionally, there is a provision for the reconstruction of structures damaged or destroyed, which is consistent with current Zoning Code provisions in regards to non-conforming structures. • Reported that another issue raised by the Planning Commission previously was the designation for three Areas along Winchester. The plan identified three separate areas. Area 2 was identified as Winchester Boulevard, between Campbell and Budd Avenues. The current General Plan designated that area as a connection/extension to the Downtown with a Central Commercial designation along that portion of Winchester. • Said that Areas 1 and 3, the portion north of Campbell Avenue and that portion south of Budd Avenue, are included with larger parcels and wide depth that typically do not interface with single-family residential as much as Area 2 does. • Identified another issue brought up as being the measure of store heights and mixed-use buildings. The plan identifies a 15-foot store height for mixed-use buildings. This is similar to recently approved mixed-use developments in the community as well as being included in the ECAMP. It is intended to provide a viable retail environment in a mixed-use concept. • Outlined another issue brought up at the last Planning Commission hearing, allowing residential uses on ground levels. The City has limited ground-level uses to optimize commercial activity. The vision for Area 2 is a viable neighborhood- commercial use achieved at the street level. The plan could recognize, on the larger parcels, mixed-use developments that could have some residential Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 22 development on the rear of parcels while still maintaining the commercial and pedestrian flow on the Winchester frontage. Said that the last item discussed was how the Density Bonus Ordinance affects the plan. The Density Bonus Ordinance that the City has in place would allow an increase in densities from the current maximum of 27 units per acre up to 33 units per acre. Commissioner Alderete asked Principal Planner Tim J. Haley to summarize the desk item letter from Safeway. Principal Planner Tim J. Haley: • Explained that staff's recommendation as far as implementation was if a project included at least a 25 percent addition to existing square footage. • Said that comments were also fashioned regarding remodeling of exteriors of buildings consistent with the current streetscape policy and the Safeway representatives have objected. • Reported that staff has amended the implementation so that setbacks and building placement requirements would not be applied where someone was remodeling 25 percent or less of a building's exterior or over 50 percent of the building's facade. • Said that the letter from Safeway received this evening basically is asking that those two secondary requirements be eliminated in terms of the implementation so that the implementation of the plan would only be effective based upon a minimum 25 percent addition to a building. • Reported that Safeway has also commented in terms of the non-conforming use language that they feel is not necessary as it is currently already included in the Zoning Ordinance. Interim Director Ciddy Wordell: • Said that she was sure that the Safeway representatives would speak to these points as well. • Added that it is only the remodeling trigger that is a substantive issue. They are recommending that the non-conforming language can be eliminated since it is already in the Code but they had originally wanted staff to address non-conforming, which is why it is in the plan. • Reported that they (Safeway) also had some wording about Planning Commission recommendations that might make the recommendations unworkable because it basically says the Commission has to find that the plan is substantially upheld. They question how the Commission can do that if it is making exceptions, although that comes from the current exception wording. • Stated that she believes their point is valid but at the same time, the Commission probably does try to uphold the purpose of the original plan or the Code that it is making the exception to. The Commission can still find that it is upholding it even though it is making this exception. • Concluded that she thinks this is okay to leave it, particularly since it is already something that the City has probably been doing through the years when making exceptions. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 23 • Summarized that the debate remaining is what the remodel levels that trigger streetscape improvements are. Commissioner Roseberry asked for clarification on the timing of the two desk items, the staff update to the implementation document versus the letter from Safeway. Principal Planner Tim J. Haley said that the Safeway letter was responding to the original staff report. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the staff's update to the implementation was done after receipt of Safeway's letter. Principal Planner Tim J. Haley reported that prior to staff receiving the letter from Safeway's attorney, they had discussions with their real estate folks and had modified the language to try to address the comments and concerns that they had in regards to the remodeling. Commissioner Roseberry said thanks, adding that he just wanted to understand that. Chair Ebner opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Natalie Maffei, Real Estate Manger for Safeway: • Extended her thanks to staff. • Advised that they have been on the phone with staff quite a lot over the last couple of days. • Offered a little more background. • Reported that they had reached out after the October 28th Planning Commission meeting knowing how important this issue was. They had sought in-person meetings but those never came to fruition. • Said that this is an important issue. There are big dollar signs attached to it. It's a bit of a scramble at this point. • Stated that she is here tonight with Anna Shimko, Safeway's land use attorney, as well as with Jolie Schuck, who represents the shopping center's property ownership. • Added that Jolie and she are here in unison and that she would be speaking on Jolie's behalf here tonight. • Said she could provide a firm example as to why this is such an important issue to Safeway. • Reported that they have been able to compromise on some issues and have made progress but there are still two big outstanding issues. • Said that what they have agreed is, in the case of a major redevelopment; demolition of the entire shopping center; rebuilding with mixed-use; etc., which would fall under Item 1 of Attachment 5, in those instances they would be open to following all of the rules of the plan including the street and public improvements. • Continued to say that the next two items that staff had mentioned, 25 percent and 50 percent exterior remodels, those are a major issue. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 24 • Recounted as a prime example the following: three years ago, Safeway performed a $3.1 million lifestyle remodel. They spent about $2.9 million on the inside of the store and about $200,000 on the outside (painting, ledge stone and brand new signage). If this plan had been in place, written exactly as it is right now, they would not have gone forward with that remodel. • Explained that Safeway's intention when it does an interior remodel, they want to also do something on the outside so their customers know that something has taken place. If they are going to spend $200,000 on the outside of the store, she said she did not believe that there is a nexus for triggering the public improvements, which are defined as bulb outs, possibly a street median, new street lighting and perhaps undergrounding of utilities. You are getting into some big numbers. • Reported that she is knee deep in a $28 million redevelopment in Santa Cruz right now, which is going in to Mission Street and includes all that work (public improvements). Their price tag is $500,000. • Cautioned that telling Safeway that if they want to do $200,000 worth of painting and patchwork on the outside of their store they will need to go onto Winchester and perform $500,000 worth of work, they will say no. They are not going to do it but rather will stay in their existing conditions. That is going to lead to blight of existing retail tenants. It's also going to lead to a question of what is their future viability. The property owners would then have to deal with vacancies as they come up. The question becomes, would they be able to backfill those spaces. • Stated that they (property owner) depend on them (Safeway) for survival and the reverse. • Said that she did not think that anyone wants to see a blighted situation. • Assured that she thinks that this Plan has great merit. It's a great vision but keeping it voluntary and under very specific major redevelopment circumstances is critical. • Reported that she originally spoke with staff approximately three months ago and was told that the Plan would only apply in major redevelopment, that it was long term or 20 years out and not to worry about it now. That was her understanding of what this vision was. • Added that they need the comfort of knowing that this was actually the case and that is why they have asked for the trigger language. The Plan has since evolved but "in a nutshell" what they are saying is yes, they support the Plan in terms of major redevelopment. They can conform to the Plan in that situation so they would like to see Item 1 remain in place. However, they would like to see Item 2 and Item 3 stricken completely. Commissioner Roseberry asked Ms. Natalie Mattei if she had looked at the staff revision provided by staff today. Ms. Natalie Maffei replied yes. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out to Ms. Natalie Mattei that some of her points have already been addressed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 25 Ms. Natalie Maffei: • Reported that Director Ciddy Wordell, Principal Planner Tim Haley and she were in discussions all day today. She advised that she was aware that the City was drafting new language. • Continued that while staff was drafting their language, having told her verbally what it would include, Safeway was also drafting its proposed language. • Added that they had sent the City their letter prior to receiving staff's official revised City language. However, it did reflect what she had verbally been told it would. Commissioner Roseberry verified with Ms. Natalie Mattei that the Safeway response was written with full knowledge of what the staff language would include. Ms. Natalie Mattei replied yes. She added that the intent of their (Safeway's) letter stands tonight. Chair Ebner asked Ms. Natalie Mattei to elaborate on what was done with their most recent remodel of their Winchester location. Ms. Natalie Mattei explained that they repainted, did enhancements of the entrance tower, did some stone work and installed all new signage and a new monument sign on Winchester. Chair Ebner asked if this work was all on the original footprint. Was it just facade improvements? Ms. Natalie Maffei replied correct. Ms. Anna Shimko, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson & Callahan, San Francisco: • Explained that she is here on behalf of Safeway. • Reported that Safeway and its landlord, and others most likely would agree, are concerned that these mandatory triggers would inhibit economic vitality and development in the area and discourage investment in the area. • Continued that as a result the City would end up with the opposite result it is seeking by having this forward looking Master Plan. • Said that in looking at the thresholds, ideally they would rather have no thresholds and instead have the plan be voluntary. However, they could live with a 25 percent addition to the square footage as being a threshold. If they wish to expand to that degree, they would comply with the entire Master Plan. That's a pretty big deal as they are talking about a Master Plan that says that the parking should be behind the building and a number of things that are antithetical to what is there now so it would be a 100 percent reinvestment and redevelopment of the site. • Stated that in terms of Items 2 and 3, they would like to see them both stricken. First of all, Item 2 is confusing. She added that she has heard this evening that it has to do with exterior changes. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 26 City Attorney Bill Seligmann clarified that what Ms. Shimko is referring to as Items 2 and 3 are now currently known as 2A and B. Ms. Anna Shimko: • Thanked City Attorney Bill Seligmann for that correction and said that she was looking at the proposal as it was in the staff report. • Said that the 25 percent remodeling trigger identifies projects remodeling 25 percent of the existing square footage, which is defined to mean any modification to any support member that alters the exterior appearance. That could be simply one member that you might be able so see from the outside. That's a very small change. That type of change, however, would trigger compliance with the Master Plan under the way the staff report was originally written. It would force installation of all of the improvements on the Master Plan. • Said that Item 2B discourages development. • Opined that there is no legal constitutional nexus between changes that would be made with a 50 percent change to a building facade. It could simply be painting the building facade. There's no connection to legally tie that to requiring owners to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in public improvements. That's simply not tenable and the City cannot impose that type of a requirement. • Asked that those (2-A and 2-B) simply be stricken. • Stated that they had a valid point regarding exceptions and suggested that the City should strike the language as it states that the City would have to find that it secures substantially the objectives of the regulations to which the exceptions are required. • Added that since City staff has said that is unworkable, it makes sense to eliminate it now. • Clarified that they have not requested that the non-conforming structure language be removed. Instead, what she did suggest is to import the actual relevant language from the Zoning Ordinance into the plan implementation language, as you will see from her substitute Page 2 to Attachment 5. • Added that if the City simply refers to the Zoning Ordinance, it would be inconsistent with other elements of the Master Plan. It would be cleaner to import the relevant language from the Zoning Ordinance into this Master Plan. • Stated her hope that the Commission will embrace the changes they have suggested. Commissioner Roseberry said he is hearing more gloom and doom than is really there. He said he hears the phrase "inhibit development" and one has to ask where that ends. Does the developer or owner of the property owe the City something? Doesn't the City have some right to ask for developments that are in keeping with a Master Plan that it has? Ms. Anna Shimko: • Said that what you are doing here is changing the rules of the game. You are saying that you don't want the development that you have now. You are saying that you want something entirely different, which is going to be inordinately costly. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 27 • Stated that maybe this will happen over time. It probably will because these are laudable goals and ideas. But to force them and to cause Safeway, for example, to not want to invest in its property doesn't seem appropriate. Commissioner Roseberry asked Ms. Anna Shimko, "Is it that you don't want to make the changes or do you believe that the trigger or mechanism is too low?" Ms. Anna Shimko replied, yes, the mechanism is too low. Commissioner Roseberry continued, so in principle Safeway could say, yes, this is a good plan that Safeway could buy into if it was coming into a green field's site but it doesn't want to be stuck with the public improvements tab simply for repainting the front of their building. Ms. Anna Shimko replied right. Commissioner Roseberry asked whether modifications to the language might be an alternative to striking it. Is there some way to reach a reasonable compromise on what the trigger level could be? Ms. Anna Shimko reiterated that they are fine with the 25 percent addition trigger level for implementation of the Master Plan. Now, perhaps the discussion is on what the trigger level would be to impose the public improvements. That has not really been discussed. Commissioner Rocha: • Said that from where he sits, Ms. Shimko is here to comment on Safeway's position. • Expressed appreciation that she is here on behalf of her client but pointed out that there are also other people here who are residents of the City of Campbell who are ready to talk as well. • Added that he is not prepared to dig into all issues raised in Safeway's letter received tonight. • Assured that the Commission clearly understands what Safeway's position is. • Said that with all due respect, he would like to hear what other citizens have to say about this. Commissioner Gairaud added that the Commission could suggest that staff continue to work through these problems. The Commission does not have to make that decision right now. Commissioner Alderete: Agreed. Pointed out typically speakers are given up to five minutes to make their point. He assured Safeway's representatives that the Commission has heard their point and it can move on from there. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 28 • Added that the City Attorney would determine the technical language. • Stated that the City needs to do what is best for the community and right now as a point of order it is time to hear from the rest of the folks here now. Chair Ebner agreed, saying that it sounds complicated and like it is something that staff and the City Attorney need to work out. Mr. Jonathan D'Amico, Resident on Manchester Avenue: • Reported that he was in attendance at the October meeting. • Said he heard tonight that the plan was "in concept." • Said that it seems that the plan has changed as it refers to Area 2, for example removing the medians. • Stated that from that, he would assume that left turns would be allowed in that area. From his perspective as a property owner in Area 2, personally he thinks that is good. • Reiterated the need for left turns to access businesses fronting on Winchester. • Added that he thinks it (left turns) is appropriate for Areas 1 and 3 as well. • Questioned the concept of this plan being an extension of the Downtown. • Advised that he was there today and does not think there is a draw to walk from Winchester to Downtown. Ms. Jackie Costanzo, Resident of Alice Avenue: • Thanked Commissioner Gibbons for talking about saving the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods and keeping the traffic from making too much of an impact, which it already has. • Stated that the cumulative effect is what has to constantly be looked at as far as traffic. • Said that she would love to see Winchester become more of a walking area and a draw for that sort of thing. • Stated that more people should be walking to Safeway instead of getting in their cars. • Urged the Commission to keep remembering the Downtown neighborhoods. Char Ebner agreed and assured Ms. Costanzo that all of the Commissioners are concerned about the neighborhoods. Chair Ebner closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Interim Director Ciddy Wordell said she wanted to make sure that the Commission is aware that the Streetscape Standards already require the same triggers that are in the proposed Master Plan. It is not more onerous. If they were taken out of this Master Plan, they are still in the Streetscape Standards. Commissioner Roseberry asked how long these Streetscape Standards have been in effect. Were they in place with Safeway's last remodel? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 29 Principal Planner Tim J. Haley: • Explained that the current requirement for Winchester Boulevard is 10-foot sidewalk with street trees. • Added that there has been a change with the street improvements with the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan under review this evening that includes a separated sidewalk and medians at this point. • Said that the current Streetscape Standards, adopted as a part of the General Plan, includes monolithic sidewalks that are 10-feet wide and street trees. PW Director Bob Kass: • Added that it does not include medians. • Said that with respect to undergrounding, that is not addressed with the Streetscape Plan. In fact, the undergrounding requirement is in the Municipal Code and is required for new residential developments with five or more units or for new industrial/commercial buildings. • Clarified that the City does not require undergrounding for a remodel or expansion. Basically, the requirement to underground the frontage utilities is triggered for new development. That's why, for example, Merrill Gardens is required to underground. Why EI Caminito is. They are both scrape down and rebuild projects. • Said that if Safeway were to come in with facade or minor additions, the City does not have the authority, under the Municipal Code, to require underground utilities. Chair Ebner said, "So that becomes a moot point." PW Director Bob Kass: • Agreed that undergrounding is a moot point. • Advised that staff is currently developing a City-wide in-lieu undergrounding program to address these issues where there is major development but where it's not practical to do spot undergrounding. A number of cities have these and it's on our work program. • Reiterated that there is no substantive change as the triggers are the same. The City is proposing a new streetscape standard that is not any different that when it implemented the new boulevard treatment on Hamilton Avenue. That treatment was installed on Hamilton with Kohl's and Home Depot. On Bascom, as well, where the City has required streetscape improvements with new development. • Said that the existing public improvements along Winchester would not be consistent with those included with this new Master Plan. So when those triggers are hit, the City would be in a position to require the full streetscape improvements consistent with the Master Plan. Commissioner Alderete: • Expressed concern that a disproportionate amount of time is being spent on the Safeway end of this. While it is very important, there is a lot more to consider. • Reported that the heart of the issue for him is that Home Church was required to do streetscape improvements when they did some remodeling. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 30 • Added that he did not believe they added any square footage whatsoever. They completely redid their parking lot, landscaped it and did the 10 or 12 foot out from the sidewalk. • Reminded that Home Church is an entity that is anot-for-profit and that does a lot for the community. They were ready, willing and able to contribute that to help beautify the community. • Concluded that he felt that for-profit businesses could certainly do the same thing. City Attorney Bill Seligman: • Clarified that the example given by Safeway of repainting the facade triggering streetscape improvements would not be the case. What 2-B reads is that, "more than 50 percent of the total building facade be remodeled." • Added that "remodeled" in the language includes, "any building or structural alterations that change support members of the building." That clearly would not be painting. Chair Ebner thanked City Attorney Bill Seligman for clarifying that point. Commissioner Roseberry: • Stated that this is a good effort. It has gone a long way. It is not perfectible because seven people won't describe it as perfect at the same time. • Said he wanted to remind everyone that the Commission wanted to have something that would help staff steer applicants in the right direction. • Stated that a lot of concerns have been addressed and this is good to go. Commissioner Alderete said he concurred. He said that this is a document that will help folks by providing better guidance for when development occurs next to existing residential. He agreed that it is ready to move forward. Chair Ebner agreed that all the Commissioners are sensitive to the neighborhood issue. Commissioner Rocha: • Reminded that this is the fourth or fifth time this Commission has looked at this Master Plan and has had the chance to address items. • Advised that he lives nearby and walks in this area. • Added that while the plan is not perfect, development is still reviewed on a case-by- case basis. • Pointed out that there is no crystal ball to look out into the future. Instead every project will have to be evaluated on its own merits. • Stated that staff has done a great job. • Expressed his support for the plan. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that staff has made an effort to listen and respond to her comments. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 31 • Said that she would try to be as pointed as she can be. Some of these points are not yet addressed but she wants them to be forwarded on to Council. • Explained that staff has been asked to establish a vision for what this section of Winchester should be. • Stated that in developing this vision of Winchester, the right question is not being asked. No plan can properly be prepared without asking the right question. • Suggested that the question is, "what is the vision of Winchester in context with the Campbell community?" • Continued to say that it isn't a vision of component pieces or streetscape improvements, undergrounding or development. It isn't the vision of an extension of Downtown. It isn't the vision of getting more square footage to get sales tax. It's a vision for the community. • Offered some comments as follows: She was on the General Plan Update Committee. That mid-section of Winchester (Area 2) is not an extension of the Downtown. It is a contiguous extension but it isn't a physical extension. Winchester is wider. Breaking it up into partial boulevards is not beneficial. The properties on either side are not the same depth and they don't have the same development potential. They won't establish the same type of a downtown feel that Downtown Campbell does. • Stated that there is discussion of Downtown Campbell using three sets of phrasing in the report that seem contradictory about consistent combinations of materials, diverse character and scale. Then it talks about high quality and consistent materials to maintain consistency and the eclectic rhythm. There are several places where those are contradictory and conflicting. • Questioned what are we trying to achieve on Winchester? Tying it to Downtown Campbell is a false image. • Said that we need to really clarify what it is we are trying to do with Winchester. • Pointed out a second premise, requiring retail on the first floor. • Posed the question, "how can our community absorb that much retail space in this one area?" • Stated that the eclecticism of Campbell's Downtown is the diversity of the shapes and sizes and colors not any sense of homogeneity. • Added that as a professional, she knows that 15-foot high ceilings are totally and completely an arbitrary dimension. It has no reality to the vitality of the market and the rent-ability of the space that one is going to try and lease. It has to do with the proportion. The height, width and depth of the space in relation to the height. It's much more to that than to the marketability. • Continued that the building diversity of materials and shapes and proportions has much more to do with branding of a market and successful marketing and generating sales tax, not homogeneity. • Said that the other idea of putting these height limits and proximities to residential uses, those standards would have allowed the original project proposed at EI Caminito to be built instead of the reduced project the Commission did approve. • Stated that she does not think that this Master Plan helps us. The sense of this development and having people on the street is just, if not more, viable with the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 32 residential uses as with having commercial and, in fact, may be a much better mix of intensities and timing for traffic. • Said that she thinks there is a lot to be said about the vision. The vision comes across as being sole purpose of having retail on the first floor in order to generate sales tax. She does not see that as the right question although she understands the question but she does not see it as the right question to establish this vision. • Reiterated heights and setbacks and added that one of the difficulties, again as a professional, is that guidelines are her opportunity to make her client as "happy as a clam" because she can get more square footage out of guidelines than one can ever imagine and she can see that here. • Reminded that the height limits don't include mechanical equipment or systems on the roof. They don't address privacy on the adjoining yards. They don't address the inclusionary housing, which she knows is a challenge. They don't address a lot of things. Instead, they open doors. They allow me to build out to the maximum of anything. • Provided specific examples. There are no requirements in this material to address side streets. This has been paramount to the discussions with the community. • Said that residential neighbors adjacent to Area 2 are historic sections and there is a commitment in the General Plan and other City documents to maintain that. • Cautioned that there could be a 55-foot high building with just afive-foot setback going in adjacent to Cherry, Catalpa or Alice. There is nothing in this that controls the proportion in relation to our neighborhood side streets. • Suggested that some of the references in the material to Campbell, Bascom and Hamilton Avenue projects are not relevant to the Winchester area. Those are false comparisons. • Said that she hears mention that this Master Plan is conceptual. That statement, while okay when referring to street improvement guidelines, makes her nervous as it relates to design. • Opined that the design guidelines in this Master Plan are nothing more than a regurgitation of the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan guidelines, which she thought was seriously flawed. There is no mention of corner properties. There is no recognition of traffic patters from the residential side streets. There is no recognition of private streets entering onto Winchester. There is no recommendation of residual parcels and/or combining parcels or infill parcels, such as the senior housing project site. There is no mention of delivery or garbage collection. • Said that if this is to move forward tonight, for all the good information that is here, it is simply a collection of pieces and not a complete vision. In the long run, it does a disservice to our community with its piecemeal solutions. Commissioner Alster: • Said that she sees this plan different. • Added that it was a very enjoyable read. • Explained that she just finished her master's degree in Community Development and Design and can appreciate all the work that goes into this. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 33 • Stated that she sees it as very comprehensive and the whole point of this plan is to have guidelines. • Said that use of "like" materials would create complementary designs. • Pointed out that when there is something to walk to, it becomes a more walk-able community. She added that she sees this plan _as making it more walk-able and will offer more places to walk to. • Said that there would be more of a connection from Winchester to the Downtown as the community grows. • Added that growth is State-mandated and predicted. As the community grows, the Downtown is going to spread and it's good to have a plan in place. • Stated that she sees this as a viable plan. • Said that the use of bulb-outs will be decided on a case-by-case basis if they are reasonable. They will make sense in some cases and not in others but there is flexibility with case-by-case development review. • Concluded that she thinks this is a beautiful plan. Chair Ebner said that he did remember distinctly discussion of an eclectic mix. He said that he would love to see a nice mix of residential and commercial uses. Commissioner Alderete asked staff to make sure that the written comments prepared by Commissioner Gibbons be added to the staff report that goes on to Council. Commissioner Rocha asked that they not be presented as a mandate from all of the Commissioners. Chair Ebner said they would not be. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 3926 recommending that the EIR prepared in January 2001, for the General Plan Update be found to provide adequate environmental review for the adoption of a new Winchester Boulevard Master Plan; and • Adopted Resolution No. 3927 recommending that Council adopt the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Alster, Ebner, Gairaud, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Ebner advised that this item would be considered by the City Council for final action at its meeting set for February 17, 2009. He thanked everyone for the work done on this draft Master Plan over the last 1.5 years. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 27, 2009 Page 34 REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Ciddy Wordell, Interim Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meetin February 10, 2009. SUBMITTED BY: L~~ ~ywrvr Corinn .Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: ~~'`~.c ~~~.~~ ~,0 Ciddy Wordell, cting Secretary