REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION City of Campbell, California AGENDA

(1)

REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION City of Campbell, California

Register in advance for this webinar:

https://bit.ly/PCMtg11232021

After registration, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss.

November 23, 2021 Tuesday 7:30 PM In-Person at City Hall Council Chambers 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008

AGENDA

NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.

This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person as well as via telecommunication (Zoom) and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act.

The Planning Commission meeting will be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at https://bit.ly/PCMtg11232021. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting via Zoom.

Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers. If attending in person, face coverings and physical distancing will be required until further notice.

Public comment for the Planning Commission meetings will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the PC. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES November 9, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS

AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL REQUESTS

This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.

(2)

Planning Commission Agenda for November 23, 2021 Page 2 of 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. PLN-2021-144 Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2021-144) ACE Hardware for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store in a vacant tenant space (former OfficeMax) within the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, on property located at 1760 S. Bascom Avenue in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this item 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, Senior Planner

REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT

Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2021, at 7:30 p.m.. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going face covering and social distancing).

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact Corinne Shinn at the Community Development Department, at corinnes@cityofcampbell.com or (408) 866-2140.

(3)

C

ITY OF

C

AMPBELL

Planning Commission Action Minutes

7:30 P.M. TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 9, 2021

REMOTE ON-LINE ZOOM MEETING

The Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2021, was called to order at 6:38 p.m.

by Acting Chair Stuart Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:

ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair: Maggie Ostrowski (arrived 6:53 p.m.)

Vice Chair: Stuart Ching

Commissioner: Adam Buchbinder

Commissioner: Matt Kamkar

Commissioner: Michael Krey

Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin

Commissioner: Alan Zisser

Commissioners Absent:

Staff Present: Community Development

Director: Rob Eastwood

Senior Planner: Daniel Fama

Senior Planner: Stephen Rose

City Attorney: William Seligmann Recording Secretary: Corinne Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Buchbinder, the Planning Commission action minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2021, were approved as submitted. (5-0-1-1; Chair Ostrowski was absent for this vote and Vice Chair Ching abstained)

(4)

Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 9, 2021 Page 2

COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Director Rob Eastwood:

• Advised the Commission that there were no additional communication items for Agenda Items 1 (Public Hearing) and 2 (Study Session #1).

• Said that several communication items were received and forwarded to the members of the Planning Commission for Item 3 (Study Session #2) that will be held at or after 7:30 p.m. this evening.

• Reported that the start time was wrong for an early noticing that went out. Instead of a 5:30 p.m. start reflected on a postcard mailing, the actual start time as later changed to 6:30 p.m.

ORAL REQUESTS None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Acting Chair Ching asked if there were any disclosures from the Commission.

There were none.

Acting Chair Ching advised the Commission that he would actually have to recuse himself from participating on Item 1 due to a professional conflict of interest.

Commissioner Krey assumed the role of Chair from Acting Chair Ching to oversee Agenda Item 1.

Acting Chair Krey read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:

1. PLN-2021-128

PLN-2021-129 Public Hearing to consider the applications (PLN-2021-128 / PLN-2021-129) of Nicole Comach for Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review for T-Mobile & AT&T to allow for the reestablishment and continued operation of an existing concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a requested exception to the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan to allow the retention of an approximately 69-foot tall facility, where otherwise limited to 45-feet, on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard. This item is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner.

Mr. Stephen Rose, Senior Planner, provided the staff report.

Commissioner Buchbinder provided a Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) report, advising there were no issues, and this installation is well concealed at the back of this site.

(5)

Chair Ostrowski asked if there were any questions for staff.

Commissioners Rivlin and Zisser had questions about coverage and the effective concealment of this wireless telecommunications facility on this site.

Chair Ostrowski arrive at 6:53 p.m.

Acting Chair Krey turned the gavel over to Chair Ostrowski for the balance of Item 1.

Commissioner Kamkar asked if this installation would provide 5G wireless services.

Planner Stephen Rose replied no. He added that usually 5G installations are situated on light poles.

Chair Ostrowski opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.

Male Speaker, on behalf of Nicole Comach, spoke in support of their request.

There was no one else present wishing to speak about Agenda Item No. 1.

Chair Ostrowski closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.

Chair Ostrowski suggested the members of the Commission begin their deliberations on this application.

Commissioner Krey advised he was at the SARC meeting for this item. There were no problems. This was found to be a good location for this use.

Commissioner Rivlin stated his support.

Commissioner Buchbinder agreed this installation is well concealed and not visible. He too is supportive of this project.

Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zisser, seconded by Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4627 approving Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review for T-Mobile & AT&T to allow for the reestablishment and continued operation of an existing concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a requested exception to the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan to allow the retention of an approximately 69-foot tall facility, where otherwise limited to 45-feet, on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard, and finding the project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Buchbinder, Kamkar, Krey, Rivlin, and Zisser NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: Ching and Ostrowski

(6)

Chair Ostrowski advised that this item would be considered by the City Council for final action.

***

STUDY SESSION 1

2. PLN-2021-169 Study Session to consider a Preliminary Application (PLN- 2021-169) to review the proposed reconstruction of an existing service station (Shell) with a new convenience market and drive-through carwash on property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner.

Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, provided the staff report.

Chair Ostrowski asked if there were Commission questions for staff.

Planner Daniel Fama advised that the current General Plan calls for more intensive development. However, the existing use can stay as it is. The reinvestment of this scale is inconsistent with the General Plan.

Commissioner Kamkar asked if this upgrade proposal is consistent with the current General Plan. Just not with the new General Plan currently being updated.

Planner Daniel Fama said that the current General Plan polices were adopted 20 years ago and are consistent with the Land Use diagram.

Commissioner Kamkar pointed out that there are inconsistencies within the General Plan, but he understands the ultimate goal.

Planner Daniel Fama restated that these General Plan polices being referenced were adopted 20 years ago.

Commissioner Buchbinder asked what date of compliance this current use is at with respect to the General Plan

Planner Daniel Fama replied a 1983 Conditional Use Permit approval.

Commissioner Zisser admitted to having misgivings in denying this expansion of a long- standing business.

Director Rob Eastwood:

• Reiterated that the existing General Plan established the Gateways policies.

• Added that the City Council has been favorable with the development of a Specific Plan for this area as part of the Envision General Plan Update.

• Concluded that the PC should consider the existing General Plan when considering this project.

(7)

Chair Ostrowski:

• Reminded that this service station use was approved in 1983.

• Added that with the General Plan adopted 20 years ago, the City’s entry points were to be considered Gateways. There was an idea of what the City wanted at these Gateways but there is/are no Gateway(s) in place now.

• Agreed that it is important for Campbell to have its own sense of identity.

• Concluded that she supports the staff recommendation.

Chair Ostrowski opened the meeting to allow public comment.

Muthana Ibrahim, Architect/Applicant:

• Reported that a new 25-year lease is in place for this site serving as a gas station

• Advised that they are open to any style of architecture requested by the City.

Sunny Goyal, Property Owner:

• Reported that his company has 40 locations of Loop, which is a convenience store.

Loop is a high-end market with healthy options.

Commissioner Rivlin suggested use of compatible Downtown architecture and materials.

Vice Chair Ching asked why there are no ChargePoint stations.

Sunny Goyal said there is room to accommodate them at the front of the property.

Commissioner Kamkar asked if they have considered a multi-story building on this site.

Sunny Goyal replied yes. This is a smaller site. A two-story with a mezzanine or with offices above could be considered. The limiting factor is parking requirements to support the uses.

Commissioner Kamkar expressed concern about the traffic flow and site circulation.

Rob Lopez pointed out that there already is a car wash just down the street on Hamilton Avenue that regularly overflows its traffic queuing onto the public street. This is not a great location for this kind of business (carwash).

Chair Ostrowski closed the public comment period and asked for Commission discussion.

Commissioner Zisser pointed out that a new 25-year lease means this service station will be on this location for the next 25 years. He said that it is a nice-looking gas station as it is.

He is loathe to reject this business that was established some 35 plus years ago at this site.

Said he likes the inclusion of a better market and inclusion of a second floor to the building might be good. He said he is leaning toward being in favor of moving this proposal forward with a formal application.

Commissioner Krey said he liked the presentation provided by the architect and property owner. This is a successful business, but the staff report advises that there is a conflict with expansion of this use per the existing General Plan that requires this area be treated as a

(8)

Gateway. Questioned whether a more appropriate development of this property would include a service station at all.

Planner Daniel Fama replied not in staff’s position.

Commissioner Krey said that for a long-time successful business this is not a minor issue.

He is on the fence.

Vice Chair Ching thanked staff for their report. Encouraged the Commission to see the housing crisis in the State of California. This site is just five minutes from the Light Rail station although there are a number of practical concerns. It seems this request is inconsistent with the current and future General Plans. There remains an opportunity to do something special here.

Commissioner Buchbinder said having a two-story building on this site is a great idea.

Perhaps with the inclusion of a roof deck. Agreed with Mr. Lopez about the overflow at the current carwash located on Hamilton Avenue. That could be a problem here.

Commissioner Rivlin said the question to ask is what Campbell looks like in 20, 30 or even 50 years from now that can help make this site a Gateway.

Chair Ostrowski reiterated that as proposed this project is not consistent with either the current or future General Plans. As leaders, it is our role to implement the General Plan and create a vision on what we want our community to look like. It would take a lot of work in order for this proposal to meet the guidelines of the existing General Plan.

Commissioner Kamkar said he would go with the staff on this one, but he doesn’t want to drive away a good business from our city. However, this is the wrong location to intensify for such a use. A convenience store does not make much sense. It is clear that this is not the right place for intensification of this use.

Chair Ostrowski told the applicant and property owner that she hopes the feedback and guidance provided will help them determine how to move forward.

Director Rob Eastwood said that there is no formal action to take tonight on this item.

(8:09 p.m.)

***

STUDY SESSION 2 (Will start no sooner than 7:30 p.m.)

3. PLN-2021-12 Study Session to review Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Site Methodology and Selection. Presentation by Housing Consultant (M-Group) & City Staff.

(9)

Director Rob Eastwood:

• Introduced the consultants from M-Group, Geoff Bradley, David Hogan, and Christabel Soria Mendoza.

Geoff Bradley discussed tonight’s meeting presentation slides as follows:

• RHNA & Housing Allocation Target

• Housing Opportunity Site Mapping

• Public Feedback/Survey Results

• Policy Options – Housing Opportunity Sites

• Next Steps

• Discussed the first item – RHNA & Housing Allocation Target o Housing Allocation Target

 Draft 2,977 units

 30% buffer +893 units

 Total units 3,870

o By Income Levels

 Very low income 25%

 Low income 15%

 Moderate income 17%

 Above moderate income 43%

• Asked if there were any questions to this point.

Commissioner Buchbinder said that these estimates seem high based on current numbers.

Commissioner Krey asked about how sites are calculated by income levels.

Consultant Geoff Bradley replied there will be quantifiable data based on surveys.

Commissioner Kamkar asked if units to be built would start to be counted.

Consultant Geoff Bradley replied yes. If permits are issued the units are counted. If those units are not built, there is no penalty to the City.

Chair Ostrowski asked about income levels for affordable housing developments and what constitutes affordable.

Consultant Geoff Bradley replied that there are two variables – the size of household and the income level of a household. Housing cost is not to exceed 30 percent of the household income.

Chair Ostrowski clarified that larger affordable units would be intended to serve larger families.

Consultant David Hogan said that issues of importance in terms of placement of affordable housing units is:

• Access to Transit – such as Light Rail and bus stops.

• Access to Resources – such as commercial centers, food, parks, and schools.

(10)

Consultant Christabel Soria Mendoza:

• Discussed Public Outreach efforts as including, postcards, emails, website (Envision Campbell page).

• Added that there were three community meetings and two pop-up booths at both Oktoberfest and Farmers Market in Downtown Campbell.

• Reported that over 300 survey responses were received.

o 88% of respondents are Campbell residents.

o 41% of respondents live in Campbell but work elsewhere.

o 24% of respondents are retired and live in Campbell.

o 23% of respondents both live and work in Campbell.

• Discussed the Demographics of the respondents:

o 69% of respondents are “White”.

o 17% of respondents are “Asian”.

o 7% of respondents are “Hispanic/Latinx”.

o 2% of respondents are “Black”.

o 2% of respondents are “Alaskan or Native American”.

o 1% of respondents are “Hawaiian”.

• Listed Age Groups of the respondents:

o 48% are between ages of 30 and 54 years.

o 45% are 55 years of age and over.

o 7% are “Young”.

Chair Ostrowski said it is good to see so much community outreach done. She asked for questions by the Commission and then there will be Public Comment.

Commissioner Buchbinder asked about resources.

Director Rob Eastwood said that the focus at this meeting is on housing. Resources are outside of this discussion.

Commissioner Buchbinder expressed concern that the survey results match the City’s demographics. He pointed out that the survey is not available in Spanish. Are there plans for Spanish survey forms? How about outreach to the Youth Commission?

Director Rob Eastwood said that we have been as inclusive as possible. There are limited translation tools available, but we hope to reach more diversity.

Commissioner Buchbinder said that outreach to the largest employers of Campbell is the next category he will reach out to.

Consultant David Hogan said that they had noticed the gaps in diversity as well.

Commissioner Krey sought clarification that it might take 60 unit per acre to pencil out to the required new housing units allocated for Campbell. Is that right?

Consultant David Hogan replied that he has heard that number before, but he has no specific information to either confirm it or refute it at this time.

(11)

Commissioner Krey asked if it is true that Los Gatos and West San Jose have areas with a density of 75 units per acre?

Consultant David Hogan said he doesn’t have that information.

Consultant Geoff Bradley said that Los Gatos is not in the same ballpark as San Jose. They have much lower densities.

Planner Stephen Rose pointed out that as all cities in California are working on their own Housing Elements, their existing densities certainly may change.

Commissioner Zisser:

• Applauded Consultant Geoff Bradley for “flipping the script.”

• Pointed out that in terms of mapping, half the City has few to no opportunity sites.

• Opined that the STANP (San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan) is the reason for that as the STANP emphasizes single-family residential and no commercial development.

• Added that means that a large swarth of Campbell is not impacted by this development plan.

• Asked if there is a way to adjust that discrepancy.

Consultant Geoff Bradley told Commissioner Zisser he has made a good observation. He added that the Housing Element will be obligated to help break down barriers to affordable housing. He added that to implement the SB10 Law, the City will need policies and a program to implement.

Chair Ostrowski said she had the same observation as Commissioner Zisser. The STANP area consists of lots of larger lots with single-family residential.

Commissioner Zisser pointed out that we don’t have many vacant sites in Campbell. Asked if there a number of vacant lots that is known? Should the buffer perhaps be higher than the 30 percent currently proposed?

Commissioner Ching stated that high density development, as done from his home country, is full of high density that is built around parks that act as shared open space.

Chair Ostrowski opened the Public Comment period to the members of the public in attendance.

Susan O’Brien stated her support for options 3, 4 and 5 and specifically higher density be located near transit.

Ray Pallela suggested that the City plan beyond the prescribe 8-year period and 3,000 assigned housing units. The City should provide incentives as it is a fully developed City.

He recommended that all large lots be designated as high density.

Michael Stevens pointed out that nurses, firefighters, and other important service provides need affordable housing to live where they work. Suggested that densities that are changed match the existing densities of the area in which they will occur. Stressed the need to build

(12)

high density near mass transit. Walkability and availability of mass transit are what lead to prime locations for redevelopment of higher density housing.

Rob (no last name provide) said he has an alternate viewpoint. He pointed out that all of the proposed sites will be placed within San Tomas, Highway 17and Hamilton Avenue. He said, “That is codified NIMBYism.” He recommended efforts to disburse affordable housing residents within the entire City of Campbell.

Allen Ishibashi, said he is a third generation Campbell resident as well as a pro- development person. Advised that he finds Option 3 to be best for Campbell. It gets the density right and helps create walkable neighborhoods. He suggested medium-density townhome developments as the best alternative housing format.

Gullian Gao said she is a new Campbell resident and likes the small-town environment and hopes that small-town environment is kept. Expressed concern about the Campbell Community Center being marked as a potential high-density housing site. That would really change Campbell’s character.

James Sullivan complimented staff and M-Group consultants for their work. He said he is a 17-year resident of Campbell with three kids, and they live within the STANP area. The area consists of larger lots. With the State granted provisions for ADUs and the SB-9 Law, larger lots would likely go from the current one unit up to four units. He said that very-low and low-income units are needed. He is a huge proponent of ADUs as they are a great way to tackle that need.

Oleksii Kuchaiev said he is an 8-year resident of Campbell. Stated that high-density near transit makes both housing stock and transit better. High density in low-density areas doesn’t work. Stated, “Stand up for residents here.”

Caroline Field said she is a 16-year resident of Campbell and understands the need for higher density and transit-oriented approach. Said that the lower density character should also be preserved. Suggested that the Hacienda VTA station be revisited that was voted down in 2018.

Janette Rupp agreed with the comments of Caroline Field. Transit areas are the best for higher density housing. Said that it’s important to make sure that the assigned new densities match the existing adjacencies to help retain the character of a local direct area.

Supported building high density around green spaces. Cautioned on the need to make sure adequate parking is still provided as we will still have cars.

Scott Connelly thanked the PC for this opportunity to speak and said he appreciates the Commission’s efforts. He suggested that larger sites be placed on an opportunity-housing list. Cautioned that a lot of those larger sites are currently encumbered by long-term leases.

That includes the Kohl’s site and the recently remodeled shopping center at Campbell Ave

& San Tomas Aquino Road.

(13)

Perry Osa is a former resident of Campbell that kept their townhome located on Latimer Circle. Said that access to Hamilton Avenue was brought up by potential tenants.

Supported transit areas for high-density residential.

Chair Ostrowski thanked all of the public speakers. This has been a great session allowing for great feedback by the Commission. Planner Stephen Rose did a great job on the staff report.

Director Rob Eastwood said that there is on last portion to complete this evening.

Planner Stephen Rose:

• Said that the current map shows some options for housing opportunity sites.

• Added that a number of options were presented.

• Stated there is potential ways of housing production strategies.

• Said that Campbell’s baseline target is 3,300 units.

• Reminded that five options were outlined.

• Asked the Commission to share which option(s) they feel could be the preferred starting point.

Chair Ostrowski asked for comments by the Commission.

Commissioner Kamkar said that Planner Stephen Rose provided an excellent summary.

He said the main issue is how realistic are we being and how successful have we been with previous RHNA allocations.

Planner Stephen Rose replied “not too well at the very-low-income level”. He said that the proposed 30 percent buffer allows a target that exceeds our allocation. He added that Density Bonus Laws will equate to 80 percent more.

Commissioner Kamkar pointed out that often in-lieu fees are paid instead of construction of lower-income level affordable homes. He said we should look to incentivize construction of the needed affordable housing rather than accepting in-lieu fees. He agreed that existing long-term leases will prevent redevelopment of some of the sites included on the opportunity site mapping.

Commissioner Krey supported Options 3, 4 and 5.

Commissioner Rivlin said he would not support loss of commercial pace. He said TOD is a no-brainer. Suggested focusing on the three VTA stations in Campbell. Said he too supports Options 3, 4 and 5 and says no to inclusion of the Campbell Community Center as an opportunity site.

Commissioner Ching said that the M-Group team and staff did a great job presenting this material and great comments were provided by members of the community. Agreed that Options 3, 4 and 5 stand out as does the Dell Avenue Area.

Commissioner Zisser agreed the public input was great. He is in accord with the other members of the PC in supporting Options 3, 4 and 5 with appropriate densities. He also

(14)

supported the concept of the fourth office building approved for Pruneyard could well be reconsidered for a high-density residential use.

Planner Stephen Rose:

• Said there is no consideration of replacing shopping centers with housing. Instead, the consideration is the “right-sizing” of oceans of parking that are underutilized that might be able to accommodate housing in addition to the existing commercial uses on the site.

• Added that in regard to the Campbell Community Center, the target for housing potential is parking lots and not the entire site. However, it is premature as Council has not yet decided if they have any interest in even considering that option for the CCC.

Commissioner Buchbinder said it would be nice to have a GIS layer for these opportunity sites. He said that in his opinion, Option 3 is the winner here. He asked if there is an assumption that the entire Pruneyard would be raised and rebuilt with high-density housing?

Planner Stephen Rose replied no. There is no talking about razing existing sites.

Commissioner Buchbinder pointed out that we cannot count density bonus units until they are built.

Chair Ostrowski suggested flexibility and looking at multiple options. She stated that it is important in terms of quality of life for residential developments to include green/open space. Open space should be included in what we are requiring. Pointed out that there has been a lot of support from the Commission for Options 3, 4 and 5. Option 1 is existing land use.

Commissioner Buchbinder suggested updating the existing density from Union Avenue back to Highway 17 to 45 units per gross acre.

***

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Rob Eastwood provided a brief oral report with the following:

• Advised that at the November 16^th Council meeting the Council will consider the modification to the Emergency Authorization to allow the Commission to conduct its meeting in house. Perhaps the November 23^rd Planning Commission meeting could occur in Council Chambers.

ADJOURNMENT

The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on November 23, 2021, which will likely be conducted on Zoom.

PREPARED BY: Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary

(15)

RESOLUTION NO. 4627

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WITH SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (PLN-2021-128 / PLN-2021-129) FOR T-MOBILE & AT&T TO ALLOW FOR THE REESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN EXISTING CONCEALED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (FAUX TREE POLE) WITH A REQUESTED EXCEPTION TO THE WINCHESTER BOULEVARD MASTER PLAN TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 69-FOOT TALL FACILITY, WHERE OTHERWISE LIMITED TO 45-FEET, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2041 S.

WINCHESTER BOULEVARD IN THE P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT.

After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.

The Planning Commission did find as follows with regard to application PLN-2021-128 and 129:

1. The project site is zoned P-D (Neighborhood Commercial) and designated Neighborhood Commercial by the General Plan.

2. The project site is located on the west side of Winchester Boulevard, south of Campbell Avenue, behind Merrill Gardens a mixed-use assisted living senior housing community.

3. The faux monopine tree pole was originally approved by the Community Development Director in 2005 through an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2005-1021). The pole originally served AT&T (then Cingular Wireless), was 60-feet tall, and had a five-year approval which expired on April 4, 2010. In 2011, AT&T obtained an approval for a modification and reinstatement of the existing wireless facility (PLN2011-104) for 10-years with an expiration date of September 2, 2021.

4. In 2017, T-Mobile received authorization to collocate equipment on the facility through an Eligible Facilities Request (PLN2017-374) but did not obtain a building permit resulting in the permit expiring one year later. In 2018, T-Mobile obtained an Eligible Facilities Request (PLN-2018-165) to increase the height of the pole to its present height of 68-feet, 11-inches to accommodate an additional antenna array. In 2018 and in 2019, AT&T obtained Eligible Facilities Requests (PLN2018-199 and PLN2019-28 respectively) to swap/replace antennas and equipment but did not seek an extension of the permit approval and, accordingly, the permit expired on September 2, 2021.

However, as the applicant submitted the subject permit prior to the permit expiration deadline (August 5, 2021) the permit remains in effect until a decision on the renewal is made or the application is withdrawn.

5. The existing facility serves AT&T and T-Mobile.

(16)

Planning Commission Resolution No. 4627 Page 2 of 4 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard

Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-128/129) – Faux Tree Pole (AT&T / T-Mobile)

6. The applicant is requesting approval of two (2) Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review, on behalf of for T-Mobile & AT&T, to allow for the reestablishment and continued operation of an existing concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux monopine tree pole) on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard.

7. While the applicant is not proposing any changes to the facility, since the permit was approved in 2011, prior to the adoption of the City’s updated Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance in 2017, permit renewal requires a new land use approval to ensure the facility meets today’s standards.

8. The City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance defines a concealed facility as follows:

"Concealed facility" means any wireless communications facility which results in new site or architectural features being added to a property in a manner which complements, enhances, or seamlessly integrates into their surroundings. Examples of concealed facilities include, but are not limited to the construction of new rooftop, louver, chimney, silo, pole, railing, sign, window, parapets, dormers, steeples, penthouses, water towers, bell towers, artificial trees, and flag poles.

9. The faux monopine tree pole (as a type of artificial tree) satisfies the definition of a

‘concealed facility’ under the City’s Wireless Ordinance.

10. Approval of a of a ‘concealed facility’ is subject to the requirements of the City’s adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, Wireless Facility Design Requirements which includes an assessment of the tree species, shape, and size as well as the quality and longevity of materials (branches & bark), color, and finish in consideration of the facilities’ surroundings.

11. Although the project includes development plans, it does not require a separate architectural review permit application but is subject to site and architectural review in accordance with CMC 21.45.050.

12. Applicable General Plan Policies considered by the Planning Commission included, but were not limited to, the following:

Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community.

13. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:

(17)

Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-128/129) – Faux Tree Pole (AT&T / T-Mobile) Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):

14. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code;

15. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

16. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area;

17. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate;

18. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property;

19. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city;

Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):

20. The project will be consistent with the General Plan;

21. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area;

22. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s);

Exemption to the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Findings (Page 37):

23. There are special circumstances and conditions affecting subject property;

24. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the developer;

25. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other property in the area in which said property is situated;

(18)

Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-128/129) – Faux Tree Pole (AT&T / T-Mobile)

26. The Planning Commission has substantially secured the objectives of the regulations to which exceptions are requested, and shall act to protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare;

27. The Planning Commission will report its findings with respect thereto, and all facts in connection therewith, and shall specifically and fully set forth the exceptions recommended and the conditions designated;

Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):

28. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and minor alteration of an existing private structure; and

29. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-128 / 129) for T- Mobile & AT&T to allow for the reestablishment and continued operation of an existing concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a requested exception to the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan to allow the retention of an approximately 69-foot tall facility, where otherwise limited to 45-feet, on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November, 2021, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioners: Buchbinder, Krey, Kamkar, Rivlin, Zisser NOES: Commissioners: None

ABSENT: Commissioners: None

ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Ching, Ostrowski

APPROVED:

Maggie Ostrowski, Chair

ATTEST:

Rob Eastwood, Secretary

(19)

EXHIBIT A

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-128/129)

Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-128 / 129) for T-Mobile & AT&T to allow for the reestablishment and continued operation of an existing concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a requested exception to the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan to allow the retention of an approximately 69-foot tall facility, where otherwise limited to 45-feet, on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard.

The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans Attachment 3 in the November 9, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.

2. Permit Approval Expiration: The Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-128 / 129) shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring November 5, 2022). Within this one-year period, an application for the Building Permit to modify the tree branches must be submitted. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of the Building Permit plan check or issued Building Permit will result in the Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review being rendered void.

3. Previous Approvals: All conditions of approval and land use authorization granted by previously approved permits (e.g., PLN2005-1021, PLN2017-374, PLN-2018-165, PLN- 2018-199, and PLN-2019-28) are hereby superseded. Notwithstanding anything in the resolution, or conditions of approval to the contrary, the basis for future Eligible Facility Requests, or similar preemptions from local land use authority, shall remain based on the original PLN2005-1021 permit.

4. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection. Further, prior to building permit submittal, the following revisions to the plans shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director:

(20)

Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-128/129)

a. Branch Length and Density. The tree branches shall be extended to completely envelop all tower-mounted equipment and extend beyond the edge of equipment by at least 18 inches. Further, at least 3-branches per foot shall be provided around the equipment as required the City’s Wireless Facility Design Guidelines. This condition shall be applied to the extent feasible to the in recognition of potential structural limitations for the existing tower equipment but shall apply as a mandatory requirement prior to adding any additional equipment to the artificial tree, such as equipment that may be proposed through an Eligible Facilities Request. The applicant shall provide a structural analysis to support any deviation from these standards and the City retains the right to require a refundable deposit from the applicant to capture the cost of a peer review of this structural support analysis.

5. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. The contractor contact information posting shall be removed upon project completion (building permit final).

6. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during construction:

a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits.

b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official.

c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition.

d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited.

e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses.

f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell.

7. Construction Hours/Fines/Stop Work Notice: Failure to comply with permitted working hours that result in verified complaints may result in the issuance of a Stop Work Notice issued to the project with cessation of work for a minimum of seven (7) days from the date of issuance and an Administrative fine of up to $1,000.00.

8. Timely Completion: Once under construction it shall be the obligation of the property owner and contractor to demonstrate continued progress on the project. In the event the

(21)

building permit expires, the City may impose fines or exercise administrative remedies to compel timely completion of work.

9. No Ground Mounted Equipment: The facility is not approved for any ground mounted equipment. Accordingly, no ground mounted equipment shall be permitted to be added to the site as part of an Eligible Facilities Request (EFR) request made under Section 6409(a) and FCC rules implementing Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455.

10. Cessation of Operations: The service provider shall provide written notification to the community development director upon cessation of operations on the site exceeding a ninety-calendar day period. The service provider, permittee and/or property owner shall remove all obsolete or unused facilities from the site within one hundred eighty calendar days of termination of the lease with the property owner or cessation of operations, whichever comes earlier.

a. New Permit Required. If a consecutive period of one hundred eighty calendar days has lapsed since cessation of operations, a new permit shall be required prior to use or reuse of the site.

11. Length of Approval: A validly issued conditional use permit, or administrative site and architectural review permit shall be valid for a period of ten years from the effective date of the approval or date the facility gains a "deemed granted" status (subject permit is for a Conditional Use Permits with Site and Architectural Review and expires November 19, 2031) but may be reduced for public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons pursuant to Government Code Section 65964(b). Use permits and site and architectural review permits approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall expire pursuant to the previously approved permit term. If a request for a renewal of the required permits(s) is received before the permit expiration, the permit shall remain in effect until a decision on the renewal is made or the application is withdrawn. Communication facilities that exist on the effective date of this chapter without a specified expiration date (e.g. because the governing permit(s) contained no expiration date or due to non- conforming status), and which had not otherwise already expired (e.g. due to the previously established amortization period(s) contained in City Council Ordinance 2070, CMC Section 21.34.060(E), and/or CMC Section 21.58.040(F), as they existed prior to the effective date of this Chapter), shall expire five years from the effective date of this chapter or ten years from the date of their establishment, whichever is greater. Nothing contained in this Chapter is intended to revive or extend any permit or use that expired on or prior to the effective date of this Chapter.

a. The permit may be renewed for subsequent time periods, subject to the following:

i. The renewal application is filed with the community development department prior to expiration, but no earlier than twenty-four months prior to expiration.

(22)

ii. The permit approval may be administratively extended by the community development director from the initial approval date for a subsequent ten years and may be extended by the community development director every ten years thereafter upon verification that the facility continues to comply with this chapter (as may be amended from time to time) and all conditions of approval under which the facility was approved. All costs associated with the review process shall be borne by the service provider, permittee and/or property owner.

iii. This provision shall not apply to conditional use permits or administrative site and architectural review permits granted prior to the effective date of this chapter. However, applications for use permits or site and architectural review permits to modify existing wireless communications facilities that are granted on or after the effective date of this chapter are subject to this subsection 21.34.070(A)(2)(a).

b. If a request for renewal of the required permit(s) is not timely received and the permit expires, the City may declare the facility(ies) abandoned or discontinued in accordance with Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment).

12. Business License Required: Each service provider with a wireless communications facility in the City shall obtain and maintain a City business license.

13. Impact on Parking: The installation of wireless communication facilities shall not reduce required parking on the site. For the purposes of this requirement, routine maintenance activities shall not be considered to result in a measurable impact on parking.

Applications for eligible facilities requests shall be exempt from this condition provided that any reduction in onsite parking spaces does not violate a prior condition of approval or applicable building or safety code.

14. Implementation and Monitoring Costs: The wireless communications permittee, service provider or its/their successor shall be responsible for the payment of all reasonable costs associated with the monitoring of the conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, costs incurred by the community development department, the office of the city attorney or any other appropriate City department or agency, to the full extent such costs are recoverable or collectible under applicable state and/or federal law. The community development department shall collect costs on behalf of the City.

15. Development and Operational Standards: All facilities shall satisfy the development standards of the district in which they are proposed, as well as the Development and Operational Standards outlined in CMC 21.16 (e.g. Electrical Interference, Light and Glare, Noise, Odor, Vibration, Maintenance) and the Site Development Standards (e.g.

as specified in CMC 21.18). Exceptions to development and operational standards shall only be permitted for (A) an eligible facility request to the extent required by law, (B) a subsequent collocation facility to the extent required by California Government Code section 65850.6(a), or (C) for a stealth facility when such exception is limited to maximum

(23)

allowable heights, or minimum setbacks, and when such exception would not result in a perceivable visual impact.

16. Permits: All permits required for the installation of the facility and associated improvements, shall be completed prior to operation of the facility (or component of that facility).

17. Concealment: Every aspect of a stealth and/or concealed facility is considered an element of concealment including, but not limited to, the dimensions, bulk and scale, color, materials and texture. For all other facilities, elements such as dimension, scale, color, materials, and textures may be considered stealth and/or concealment elements of the facility. Any future modifications to the facility must not defeat concealment.

18. Compliance with Applicable Laws: The permittee and service provider shall at all times comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations.

Failure by the City to enforce compliance with applicable laws, rules or regulations shall not relieve any permittee of its obligations under the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC, or any other applicable laws, rules and regulations.

19. Compliance with Approved Plans: The facility shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the community development department.

20. Inspections; Emergencies: The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon reasonable notice to the permittee in times of emergency. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections. The City reserves the right to enter (or direct its designee to enter) the facility and support, repair, disable or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property.

21. Contact Information for Responsible Parties: The permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person. All such contact information for responsible parties shall be provided to the community development director upon request.

22. General Maintenance: The site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing, concealment features, and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval.

23. Graffiti Removal: All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within forty-eight hours after notification from the City.

(24)

24. FCC (including, but not limited to, RF Exposure) Compliance: All facilities must comply with all standards and regulations of the FCC and any other state or federal government agency with the authority to regulate such facilities.

25. Abandonment:

a. To promote the public health, safety and welfare, the community development director may declare a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued when: (a) The permittee or service provider abandoned or discontinued the use of a facility (or component of a facility) for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (b) The permittee or service provider fails to respond within thirty calendar days to a written notice from the community development director that states the basis for the community development director's belief that the facility (or component of the facility) has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (c) The permit expires and the permittee has failed to file a timely application for renewal.

b. After the community development director declares a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued, the permittee shall have sixty calendar days from the date of the declaration (or longer time as the community development director may approve in writing as reasonably necessary) to: (a) reactivate the use of the abandoned or discontinued facility (or component thereof) subject to the provisions of this chapter and all conditions of approval; or (b) remove the facility (or component of that facility) and all improvements installed in connection with the facility (or component of that facility), unless directed otherwise by the community development director, and restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then-existing surrounding area.

c. If the permittee fails to act as required in Section 21.34.070(A)(16)(b) within the prescribed time period, the City may (but shall not be obligated to) remove the abandoned facility (or abandoned component of the facility), restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then- existing surrounding area, and repair any and all damages that occurred in connection with such removal and restoration work. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, store the removed facility (or component of the facility) or any part thereof, and may use, sell or otherwise dispose of it in any manner the City deems appropriate. The last-known permittee or its successor-in-interest and, if on private property, the real property owner shall be jointly liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with such removal, restoration, repair and storage, and shall promptly reimburse the City upon receipt of a written demand, including, without limitation, any interest on the balance owing at the maximum lawful rate. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, use any financial security required in connection with the granting of the facility permit to recover its costs and interest. Until the costs are paid in full, a lien shall be placed on the facility, all related personal property in connection with the facility and, if applicable, the real private property on which the facility was located for the full

(25)

amount of all costs for removal, restoration, repair and storage (plus applicable interest). The City Clerk shall cause the lien to be recorded with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office. Within sixty calendar days after the lien amount is fully satisfied including costs and interest, the City Clerk shall cause the lien to be released with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office.

d. After a permittee fails to comply with any provisions of this Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment), the City may elect to treat the facility as a nuisance to be abated as provided in the CMC (including, but not limited to, Chapter 6.10).

26. Indemnities: The permittee, service provider, and, if applicable, the non-government owner of the private property upon which the tower and/or base station is installed (or is to be installed) shall defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City of Campbell its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, and employees (i) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings brought against the City or its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the City's approval of the permit, and (ii) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of, in connection with or relating to the acts, omissions, negligence, or performance of the permittee, the service provider, and/or, if applicable, the private property owner, or any of each one's agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and the property owner, service provider, and/or permittee (as applicable) shall reimburse City for any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in the course of the defense.

Building Division

27. Permit Required: A Building Permit application shall be required for the proposed project.

The Building Permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit.

28. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

29. Formal Plan Review: Review of this development proposal is limited to accessibility of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted

(26)

model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Division all applicable construction permits.

30. No Violation: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6].

(27)

ITEM NO. 1

CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙PLANNING COMMISSION

Staff Report

∙

November 23, 2021 PLN-2021-144

ACE Hardware

Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2021-144) ACE Hardware for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store in a vacant tenant space (former OfficeMax) within the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, on property located at 1760 S. Bascom Avenue in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Commission take the following action:

1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Conditional Use Permit and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the minor alteration of existing facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the determination that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation, permitting, and minor alterations of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

PROJECT DATA

Lot Size (Hamilton Plaza): 12.4 Acres

Tenant Space: 12,275 square-feet

Zoning District: C-2 (General Commercial) General Plan Land Use: General Commercial Operational Hours:

Business Hours: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, M-F 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Sat./Sun.

Operational Hours: 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, M-F 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Sat./Sun.

Parking:

Total Existing Parking: 691 stalls (shopping center supply) Provided Parking (proportional share): 61 stalls (1/200 SF)

Required Parking: 42 stalls (1/300 SF + 1 stall for outdoor display) 19 stalls (parking surplus)

(28)

Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2021 Page 2 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ 1760 S. Bascom Avenue

DISCUSSION

Project Site: The project site is the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, located at the southeast corner of Hamilton and Bascom Avenues, within the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District and General Commercial General Plan land use district. The shopping center abuts single-family residences and a commercial building to the south and apartments to the east. The subject tenant space is located at the southern end of the center:

Proposed Project: As depicted on the submitted Project Plans and described in the Project Description (reference Attachments 2 and 3), the proposed project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow establishment of an ACE hardware store within a 12,275 square-foot tenant space last occupied by OfficeMax. The proposed hardware store would have business hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday and Sunday.

Site Layout: In addition to the interior retail improvements, the proposed hardware store would include limited outdoor display areas as depicted by the hashed area, below, of approximately 425 square-feet.

Additionally, two parking stalls are proposed to be dedicated loading stalls for ACE hardware customers. Other related changes to the building have already been approved by staff under a ministerial building permit in anticipation of the tenant.