Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. By way of introductions, my name is Matt Comar and I'm the chair of the planning commission. I'd like to call to order the meeting of July 22nd, 2025. And we have a roll call, please. Commissioner Scizer, here. Commissioner Majuski here. Commissioner Ostroski absent. Commissioner Craig here. Commissioner Buckbinder here. Vice Chair Fields present. Chair Kart here.

Thank you for that. Uh, okay. Minutes. Has anyone have had a chance to review the minutes? Um, and are there any corrections? I I'll move to approve the minutes of July 8th, 2025. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Uh we'll voice the role, please. Commissioner Scissor. I commissioner. Hi. Commissioner Craig. Hi. Commissioner Bwander. Hi. Vice Fields. Hi. Karter. Hi.

Thank you. Um, so those minutes are approved. Next we go to communications. Director Eastwood, do we have any communications? Uh, yes. Uh, Chair Cam Car, plan commissioners. Uh, you have received a desk item from planner Wilman contains a number of correspondents. So, just want to direct your attention to that. Should have been sent out this afternoon and you should have received it. Uh, and going to the next time, there is no agenda modifications or

wonderful. Thank you for that. Okay. Oral communications. This portion of meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the planning commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, chair may limit the speakers to two minutes. I'm sorry to five minutes for oral communication. Please be aware that state law prohibits the commission from acting on non-aggendaized item. However, I may refer the matter to staff for followup. Are there any anybody here for oral communications? Okay. Don't see any hands raised. How about online, clerk? No, not online. Okay. So, we move on to our public hearing portion of the um meeting. The first item is 812 Almarida Drive. That's for extension of approval. Public hearing to consider a three-year extension of a previously approved tenative paro map to allow the subdivision of the property into two new lots located at 812 Almarida Drive. This is um uh PLN2025-94. staff.

Thank you so much, Chair. Uh the item before you is an extension of approval of a previously approved uh standard subdivision for a single family uh property. Uh the project site is a zone for single family residential. It's R16. It's located in the city's northern uh quadrant uh off of Almarita Drive and Pamlar Avenue bordering the Highway 17. Uh it's an unusually large site. It's about 13,000 square feet. Um which is unusual for an R16 property, which is generally about 6,000 square feet. Uh so the property owner uh applied for and was subsequently approved for a subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots. Um, however, uh, since the application was approved in 2022, uh, the time limit has lapsed and so the applicant filed for a one-time extension with the community development director for 12 months. Uh, that was in 2024. And as that 12-month extension is coming to a close, the applicant is uh, moving forward with their administr administrative remedies and seeking uh, an additional approval from the planning commission. uh which exceeds the community d development director's authority to approve. Uh and the request has now been referred to the planning commission for consideration and action here tonight. Um so as I mentioned uh this is a second extension request for a proposed project that was originally approved in 2022. Uh the applicant appro uh applied for this project in around May of that year. Uh and the applicant was initially unaware of recent legislation, specifically SB9, Senate Bill 9, which was effective January of that year, 2022. Upon learning about SB9, the applicant began evaluating an urban lot split as part of the application. uh SB9 has several

allowances that differ from regular from the regular R16 standards in terms of uh setbacks uh and other floor um uh allowances for existing buildings. Therefore, the applicant uh began uh uh considering possibilities of preserving the existing dwelling rather than demolishing it as previously uh applied for under the uh previous scope of work. um and was hesitant to demolish the house as it was his primary residence. As we can see here from the proposed project, the original approval here on the on the left shows the existing dwelling in blue with the proposed subdivision here in yellow uh resulting in a demolition of the existing dwelling uh and with the uh assumed development of two new single family law split um as we see here in green. And uh the determination criteria here in making the decision tonight as a planning commission uh would be to consider whether or not the applicant has demonstrated a good faith effort to continue with the application. Uh staff has considered that the applicant has uh demonstrated a good faith effort as they ha as the applicant has provided staff with preliminary plans with demonstrating a proposal for retaining as much of the existing single family dwelling as possible. uh continue on continuing on with the original subdivision and also seeking an urban law split in the future. Uh a six-year term uh time extension uh from the original approval of 2022 to 2028 does align with the subdivision map act and city past practices and uh the revised propos proposal reflects a more comprehensive view of the entire site

considering new legislation that the applicants can uh utilize. Uh therefore staff does recommend that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving an extension of approval. And that concludes my presentation. I can take questions at this time. Okay. Wonderful. Mr. Chairman, can can we uh express the transparency before we go further? Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. Um uh one of the things that we need to do is has anyone uh heard from the applicant on this item um in any way or visited

or or or visited the site if you know if we can go through our disclosures for this item at this time. Yeah. So, my disclosure is I um I drove by this this site um recently as well as the um Central Avenue site. Okay, that's that's the next item. Yes, covering it all. Nothing. Okay. Um I used to live pretty close to here and I'm sure I've gone by it. Also, I spoke to the applicant for item four. For item four, the pickle ball court, right? Okay. Mike, yeah. Yeah, I visited the Elm Marina and the central sites.

You did? Okay. Thank you. Um, vice chair, I've visited uh item for site. Okay. As for myself, I also visited item four site, but uh not this one. So, okay. So, thank you for the reminder. As far as questions for staff at this time, do you have do you have any questions?

Okay. So I I I just for my edification maybe others um this is the the original subdivision lot split front to back. Okay. Is that done or was that going to be done? And then then after that it would be a SB9 type division of the front parcel. Is that is that how it's going to work? Yeah. So, as seen on the screen here, um the right hand side would be the revised proposal. Um as seen in yellow, it's a little faint here, but this was the original proposal. The applicant is still uh planning to move forward with the original subdivision, so the plans will not be changing at all. Um however, what was previously not contemplated was preserving as much of the existing single family dwelling as possible. SP9 does have a provision that states that uh properties that move forward um with an urban lot split can retain as much of the existing primary dwelling as possible and don't need to uh maintain all required setbacks for the underlying zoning district which at the time were uh specialized to the R16 property. As this is the applicant's primary residence, um he had wanted to retain as much of the the building as possible. Uh the parcel map has not yet been reported. So that's why we're keeping asking for the extension approval tonight to um keep the application uh alive so that the applicant can demolish as much of the house as possible until he's able to record the parcel.

So I'm unclear on this because I've not seen a single family parcel be lots split that isn't SP9 based. So how are they doing the first lot? Under what opices is that being done? Yeah. So this would be under a standard subdivision process. So as seen from the project data, the project site is about 13,000 square feet in size, which is atypical for an R16 property, which has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. So as long as a property is able to maintain the width, uh the street frontage, and the minimum size, which is 6,000, a property in the past could have applied for a standard subdivision, which was a common practice for people.

Yeah. before SB9, you know, came about, everything would be regular subdivision. Okay. I just didn't fully understand. Okay. And the only other question I have is is if we don't give them the extension, what's the negative repercussions to the owner? They have to reapply and there's new fees.

Yes, that's correct. So, the owner would have to reapply for a new subdivision application. Um I believe also the planning commission was recently briefed on the city's updated SB450 regulations in terms of lot types. Um so as we as uh senior planner Daniel Femer presented, the city has new definitions for lot types uh which uh require a more standardized uh shape. Um and as you can see from this proposal, the proposed the existing lot does not fit any of these lot type allowances. So the applicant would be procluded from reapplying until such time that the city did update their code.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions? No questions at this time. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bquinder, do you would you want to go next? So have they already done the first lot split? So at this time no uh the house the existing dwelling is still standing. So in order to have recorded the parcel map the applicant would have had to demolish uh the house. Okay.

And the applicant has not demolished the house as of today. That's why they're seeking the extens extension to seek other options to limit the extent to which they demolish the existing dwelling. But under a nons lot, they would have to demolish the house. So that the proposal on the right requires something that's not clear under the law.

Not exactly. The applicant hadn't considered the fact that there could be an urban lot split in addition to to the standard subdivision. So now with the ability to further subdivide the property, the applicant is considering retaining as much of the single family dwelling as possible, building a new dwelling on the lefthand side as seen as on the new parcel as seen here and building a third parcel here. And so in the interest of retaining as much of the dwelling as the existing dwelling as possible, the applicant would like to um utilize the provisions of SB9 which speak to um the ability to um retain as much of the existing building and not adhering to the setbacks otherwise applicable for this type of problem.

So my understanding is that you can't use SP9 more than once on a parcel. Correct. So if you use using doing a non SP9 lot split means you have to demolish the house. Actually I'm sorry if I can interject one second. Um the rule is you can't have a structure that a property line. So they have to take away the portion that exceeds. Okay. So it doesn't have to be all of it. It could be just a portion. So removing part of the house was was possible from the beginning. Okay. That that was where I was a bit confused.

Sorry. Yeah. Correct. It was possible, which is now what the applicant has come up with in their holistic design to to build two new dwellings but and retain as much of the existing dwelling as possible. Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions or that's it? Yeah. Uh, I just got a couple questions really regarding the length of our approvals because it's getting confusing and we know it's so hard to build nowadays. So, uh, so in 2022, we approved a a parcel map, and that gave the owner two years to get a building permit and to record the map, correct?

So, so that was a two-year permit, and then they I guess there's an automatic they can apply for an automatic one-year extension, uh, as approved by the community development director.

So, if we had the two years, then we had the one year, and now we're asking for the three-year extension. So I I as so I I can imagine that it's just good common practice for any city to only allow a permit for one year or two years because the laws are changing. You don't want things just standing there not happening. Uh but with the with the fact that it's so hard to build nowadays and everything. Now we got a three-year extension and these are coming up a lot I think with us. you know, these extensions. Are are we Is there any thought to uh making the original approval for a longer length of time?

It's a possibility. It is how our code is written. It's a two-year allowance for this type of permit. And that's pretty typical. Is that like universal or is it standard or just majority? Yeah, that is the way the code is written as of today.

Is that the great majority of cities and counties do it that way? I'd say we're obviously commun director there's variation of course um one thing we do need to do to do with a future code update is to reconcile better our permaning allowances with the subject and map act those are very prescriptive on how much time is allowed as you see here this is to conform with state law so that that is an action we need to do and as part of that commissioner would look at do you get more allowance for these type of projects where it's a subdivision than just the two years.

Well, yeah, I know it makes sense that you don't want to allow, you know, you don't want to give blanket approval for from now till eternity, but and of course laws are always changing, etc. But, uh, a greater length of time seems to be pretty logical thing to start not abnormal in many jurisdictions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Craig. Vice Chair questions have been raised as for myself. I think all the questions have been answer. So, thank you. You have one more question. Okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. The the three-year extension is that something we normally do in something like this with it being this a residential. I mean, I could see it for a big development. three years since they originally got a two-year and then a one-year extension. Another three years seems like to me a fairly long time. What's the rationale behind picking three years?

Uh the rationale was the alignment with the subdivision map act for the total six years from 2022 to 2028. Um the other um determination criteria came from the applicant's own written uh statement which cited financial difficulty, the fact that the primary residence which was originally to be demolished is his primary residence and he wants to contemplate keeping it as much as possible. Um and then just uh concerning concerns over existing market conditions and to allow for some leeway to ensure that the project um can continue on. um considering that this is where he is taking private residence. Okay, thank you.

Okay, seeing no other question, I'm going to open the public hearing. Applicant presentation is applicant here. The applicant is here. Um if there are any questions for him, he can speak.

Right. You don't have to present if you don't want to, but I just want to make sure you know that you have an opportunity to um give a quick presentation. If if no, then uh any questions for the applicants before I open it to the p to the public? No. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to talk on this item? Seeing none, anybody on online? No, not okay. So, we go back to um we go back to commissioners. Do you have any um questions or No more no more questions, but do you have any comments before we close and vote?

No, start. Do you have any opinions on the issue? I think it's interesting that it took this long, but I know that everything's been kind of slowing down because of supply chain issues and every other possible issue for this specifically. I don't see any reason to say no, you have to start from scratch. That doesn't seem particularly productive. Yeah, I would just say it seems like a reasonable request to me. Again, I do think it's just kind of kind of random, you know, two years, one year extension, three years. uh be nice to have a little more uniformity in what we're you know really here but I think this is this is fine regarding the specific issue.

Yes. Um is it

um yeah I mean since since the um owner is living there and it's it's a house that's there in the neighborhood and there's it's not an empty field or it's not light or something. I I you know to me it's it's reasonable to provide an extension and um it's kind of a it's kind of a clever concept for putting two more uh homes on that site. Um because you know it's an oversized site and you can turn it from one home into three homes and since it's like on a dead end it it doesn't like impact the neighborhood as much I think. Um uh Lissa, what is the is the idea for the back place that would be a uh whatever that street is that would be addressed from on the street that is the cross street is is that going to be a separate parcel that's going to be on whatever that street is Palmar or whatever it is

alo well no the it's a side street that's uh Palmar so that would that would be likely a Pelmy address. Is that the way it would work with that fronting that house fronting to Palmire? Let's see. Um or don't you know that

the uh so the addressing is uh all contemplated by building division, the police department and the USPS. Um the in terms of the frontage, the frontage for the uh I can pull up I can screen. Yeah. So the frontage for this parcel here on the right on Pamelar. Uh the original the original concept had both of the lots fronting onto Pamelar. The new concept with the three the three lot configuration would have this uh parcel fronting onto Pamelar. Uh this parcel in front onto Almarita and then this parcel in front.

That makes sense. That makes sense. It's not that big. I just was curious. Okay, I'm done. Take a um a few Yes. All right, we're back from recess. Sorry.

Yeah, I was just going to say that I think it's finish off that that I think it's a good I think it's a good potential um design in the future and so I I would be supportive of an extension. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Zisser. Um, since they're, you know, living in that property, um, it makes sense to me that they have time to, um, figure out the next steps and have them do that. I can make a motion. Um, okay. Unless you want to. No, no, no, no. You, you can make a motion, but I was going to, you know, do a little talk to So, first talk first.

I'll go first. Okay. Thank you. So um so to me as a uh practicing civil engineer I think their their request is extremely reasonable. Um the development um environment is not as easy as you might think. you know, with interest rates being high, the um you know, the government rules the SQA, the all that stuff, you know, um adds time and money to development process. So, um uh you know, absolutely, you know, anything to help them increase the housing stock, you know, for our city, I think, uh it's worth it. So, that's my little spiel. question.

Agreed. Uh, make a motion the planning commission take the following action to adopt a resolution approving a three-year extension of a previously approved tenative partial map PLN 202247 to allow the subdivision of the property under two new lots and finding the project categorically exempt under section 15315, the California Environmental Quality Act. I'll second it. Excellent. We have a motion and a second. Um, let's let's do a roll call, please. Mr. Scissor. Hi. Mr. Wiski. Hi. Mr. Craig. Hi. Mr. Buckminer. Hi. Vice Chair Fields. Hi. Short. Hi.

Okay. So, um that motion passes. Uh now I got to go through the appeal process. If anybody needs to appeal this. Do I go through the appeal? Um no. Normally it's not needed listed on the agenda. Chair cam car you can but you'll have to traditionally we just say the decision is final unless appealed to the city council within the next calendar days in the next Right.

So thank you. Um you know exactly what he said. This decision is final unless it's appealed in the next 10 days with the city c with with the city clerk. than 10 calendar days. Okay, congratulations. This item is passed. Um, on to the next one. 370 North Central Avenue fence exception permit appeal. Public hearing to consider an appeal to of the community development director's conditional approval of a fence exception permit to allow for an 8 foot tall wood fence where a 6ft tall wood fence would otherwise be allowed allowing an approximately 52 foot portion of a rear property line on property located at 370 North Central Avenue. application under consideration is an appeal uh file number PLN 2025-39. Um uh staff go ahead.

Thank you so much chair. As mentioned this is a item this is item three which is an appeal of a previously approved fence exception permit uh PLM 202539 located at 370 North Central Avenue. Uh the project site is a uh zone for plan development or PD with a general plan of low density residential. We can think of that as akin to single family residential. Uh the development type through a PD permit is what the city would have considered as a small lot single family plan development. It's one of four units within off of this private street as seen here on the site uh site plan. Uh it is located on the east side of North Central Avenue and is generally surrounded by other single family uh residential land uses. Uh so for some project background uh the city received a complaint in October uh that the uh project site uh had a fence that exceeded the city's uh fence standards. on nove in November of that year a code enforcement case was opened uh by the city's code enforcement division uh with um the request from the applicant to either remove the fence or to apply for legalization. The applicant applied for legalization in January of 2025 and in March of that year, the fence exception was approved with a condition that required the fence to be limited to 8 feet overall. Uh in as opposed to the 9 foot 10 in height fence which exists there today. Uh the subject fence was built without permits and does exceed the height allowed by the code which is six feet as measured from the adjacent grade up until the tallest point of the fence. So, here is the existing fence as it as it is today. Um, it's on a portion of the rear yard spanning about 51 feet um uh from the property at uh 370 North

Central. And then, as we can see from the site plan, this is the project site here as part of this plan development. And the portion of the fence spans the entire rear property line, pretty much in sync with the neighboring property at 373 Harrison Avenue. And so tonight's appeal um is a request to appeal the condition by the community development director which had required the applicant to reduce the height from 9 ft 10 in to 8 ft total. And so uh the applicant's written statement for the appeal was attached to tonight's uh staff report. Um however summary uh is provided here on the screen. Uh the four main points that the applicant has provided is that there is no visual impact to the site as the fence is fully located behind the existing single family dwelling. That the fence at the height built is necessary to protect the privacy of the existing uh the existing site. um that there are some exceptional circumstances as the uh adjacent ADU on the neighboring property is built uh with a setback of less than four feet from the property line and that there have been some additional psychological and financial hardships that would be associated with removing the fence. Uh in response to the appeal, as further ex explained in the staff report provided, um despite the fact that the fence is located uh entirely behind the existing single family dwelling, uh the height requirements still are intact. Uh the fence height at over at about 10 feet tall, still does have impact to adjacent property spatial and uh visual experience. Um the rear yard um is still must maintain compatibility with the neighborhood in general and to allow this exception would be uh quite quite a change from the otherwise allowable six feet which are seen in most the majority of the rear yards. Uh moreover the land

use exchange between this property and the neighboring property is still uh single family residential to single family residential. So there should be no reason to approve a height of this size and that community design still regulates uh the relationship between private space to private space. So even though this is not necessarily visible from the public right of way, it is still under the governance of the this city zoning code and therefore um was required by the city to was required to be reviewed by the um community development department. And so some of the concerns with approving a fence of this height, even though it has limited effect on the overall city, is that it can create walled off spaces which obstructs light and air as seen from the photographs provided. This is a photograph of the uh subject property. um the distance from the house to the proposed fence which is almost about 10 feet and then the distance from the neighboring ADU to the uh fence as well which can create uh some uh darker more uh walled off spaces as seen on the screen. Uh the uh second point for the applicant is privacy concerns. Um the applicant has stated that the fence is essential to preserve privacy and to block all views from the neighboring AU. Um the city um has responded that uh this can be achieved uh through a fence of about eight feet. A fence of 10 feet is not necessary to block any privac or to achieve any uh privacy uh to provide for any privacy concerns that the applicant may have. Um this is consistent with the city's fence standards and any additional privacy can be achieved through landscaping or other low impact solutions. As seen, this is a view of the elevation that the applicant can see the rear elevation of the neighboring ADU. As seen, it's a majority of a blank wall. So there not an abundance of windows or other uh visual or other uh uh openings within

the walls that would allow for vis high visibility between the neighboring ADU and the subject property uh except for one uh door which otherwise is a uh generally unobstructed uh wall. Uh the third the third point that the applicant makes is that this is an exceptional circumstance. Um, as noted, the adjacent ADU on the neighboring property is situated less than the required four feet from the property line. That's both state law and also consistent with the city zoning code regarding ADUs. However, staff's response is that, as we've seen in recent years, state housing laws such as SB9, SB415, ADUs have reduced setback requirements for residential properties. Structures may now be as close as four feet from rear property lines, which results can result in buildings as close to each other as 8 feet. Um, this is this also means that buildings can be up to 35 feet tall with a 4 foot setback, which could create even more uh privacy and visibility concerns. And that it's not unique to this particular property. We're seeing this throughout the state of California and throughout Campbell. Um, the privacy or the primary home and the adjacent ADU was known to have about a seven and a half foot distance, which is consistent with the state allowance of having an 8 foot distance between two primary uh two residential buildings. Um furthermore, uh despite the fact that the ADU is located about two and a half feet from the property line, which is less than the otherwise required setback, um state law does allow for existing accessory structures um that do not meet the existing setback requirements to be converted to ADUs without rectifying that existing uh setback. So for instance, if a legal accessory structure with a one foot, no foot or two foot setback is converted to an ADU, that would be allowable, and the ADU would not have to be relocated to meet that 4-foot standard. Uh, historically, the city of Campbell did not require setbacks for a lot of their accessory

structures uh, in the rear and side. It wasn't until about 2006 that the city underwent a comprehensive zoning code update which then required setbacks for accessory structures. As a result, many of the uh properties within the city of Campbell do have accessory structures um that have a setback lesser than the required 4T uh that ADUs are required and therefore these structures could be then converted into ADUs um and that setback would not need to be expanded to meet that 4 foot requirement. meaning that many properties in Campbell do have conditions similar to this and it's not considered an exceptional circumstance. And so just to show some visibility, here's the existing building as from the plans from the ADU at uh 370 North Central Avenue. There's a an opening here and then here's the distance um between the primary dwelling and the rear ADU. It's about a six seven foot six inch separation consistent with that eight foot requirement that we're going to start seeing in in a lot of other primary between the a lot of other primary dwellings in R1 zoning districts. And then finally, the applicant has cited some psychological and financial hardship. Um the uh applicant um states that if the uh if she is required to reduce the height of the fence, it's going to cause uh some financial hardship. However, the fence was built without permits and it would have to be reassessed and potentially modified at this point regardless in order to pass building inspection. So, the city anticipates there will likely be necessary changes regardless of the height condition. Um, and then furthermore, um, the applicant has cited a recent fire that occurred on the property. There's a fire that occurred on at three, uh, 373 and 370 North Central Avenue, um, as a reason that she wanted to install the fence for additional privacy concerns to mitigate

for that issue. However, this previous fire should have no impact on whether or not the city should allow this fence and does not have any basis on the determination tonight. And so for that reason, um, as conditioned by the community development director, the 8-oot fence does meet all the findings for a fence exception permit. And staff does recommend, uh, that the planning commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the community development director's conditional approval of a fence exception permit. Um the applicant is in uh the uh is in the chambers tonight and has also prepared a presentation which she'd like to present after at when we open the public hearing and I can now take questions at this time.

Actually I'd like to start with one quick question. You said applicant you you were talking about appellent. Appellent correct. Okay. So just want to be clear. Okay. Thank you for that. Um any questions come off? Of course. Of course I have questions. Um, so, um, the ADU, uh, uh, maybe you can go back to the the ADU. So, so how long has that been in place? So, um, what's what's the history behind that ADU?

That's correct. Uh, so, uh, the ADU, it was originally an accessory structure that was converted into an ADU. um the uh accessory structure as as well as part of the um building at 370 North Central Avenue underwent uh some fire damage that occurred um in 2022. And so as part of the rebuild of the of the accessory structure and the ADU, the applicant has proposed a slight addition as well. However, this is as I mentioned the ADU uh was legally approved um by the building division and it should not necessarily be subject to the decision or creating an exceptional circumstance for this fence exception here as it is is standard ADU in terms of ADU law and the zoning code.

Okay. So it was approved in whenever 2022 or before including the twoft setback that was that was approved.

Correct. So uh the original accessory structure that was originally uh that was originally existing was a legal accessory structure with a 2 and a half foot setback that was then converted into an ADU utilizing government code and also provisions within the city's zoning code. Can you you got that one picture where it kind of shows the side of the ADU? Um I I kind of want to understand what's on the back of the ADU. I is is that the portion that's like the garage side? What's the garage side or that's the closer? That's the closer portion. Do you have something to show what's the back side of the ADU in terms of windows and doors?

Yeah. So this was um this is the rear elevation which is adjacent to the subject property. Okay. So what are we seeing there? So you're seeing this uh covered porch right here.

Okay. And and and the height the height of the ADU uh 14 feet, but that's the to the peak or is that to the That's the overall height and and to the the cover. What? You know what I'm saying? There's like a a roof there's a there's a roof cover or something, right? Um so the overall height to this ridge line from the adjacent is 14. And and what's the the lower roof line? Um I still plate I could pull up the plans. Um if we want to get the exact measurement, but I believe it was around 12, but I can pull up the plans.

So uh so even with the 10-ft fence, in theory, you'd be below the roof line. Is that correct? But would are they're going to be below the 10 foot down to the 8 foot fence? I'm I'm trying to figure out if there are windows exposed, whether there's a door with a window exposed. Uh no windows proposed at this time. And um the uh build the elevation is limited in the number of openings that it can have per fire code. Um and so that would have to be evaluated if the if the applicant came in with any sort of uh uh proposed uh renovation to the existing ad. So, so are you saying that the ADU has a blank back?

Correct. This is the rear elevation as it was approved. Okay. So, there there's no there's no windows. There's no doorway. There's there is a door as seen right here. That's I guess we saw in the in the picture. Okay. But otherwise, there's there's Okay. So, there's the door. But but yeah, I don't know what else is there. I just to me I just wanted to get an idea of what what you would see from 8 feet. It looks to me that to me that looks like even at 8 feet you're above the the the the lower roof line. It could be the difference in grade that's causing the that

Yeah. And that was the other question I had. There was somebody who put in this thing from the I guess from Harrison that said something about 13 effectively 13 foot height and you know does that mean that there's a a big elevation difference between the two streets? Yes. Uh after the con the major construction that occurred at 373 there's a slight differential between the two properties. The city zoning code for fences uh measures from the higher elevation. So we would allow six feet measurements from the higher adjacent elevation. All right. I think that's all I have. Okay.

Um is the converting of the ADU or into an ADU would that have been something that would have triggered like a notice to the surrounding properties? No, that would be uh through ministerial action. That was my question. Thank you. Book pointer. Do you have any questions for staff before open? No. Okay. Correct.

Uh yeah, Liss and I it was a good presentation. You covered a lot of things here. Uh and I know you had a a slide that showed uh the the approval of an 8oot fence where six foot would be allowed. Uh, but I guess I'm still wondering so why did why why did we Okay, is that is that typically what? So six feet is our standard fence height in most residential areas. Correct. Correct. For the zoning code, six foot is the highest you can go in all zoning districts. All zoning districts

except for um MFDDS projects which allow for greater heights. And then when these things come up and we uh we grant greater height is 8 foot you usually what we approve or is there all kinds of different uh correct. Uh so if there extenduating circumstances uh generally 8 foot is the highest um that will we will approve in terms of a fence exception. Pulling in the last five years of fence exception permits eight is the tallest that the city has approved. That's that was gonna be my that's what the question I was leading to is has we have we ever approved a fence exception higher than eight feet.

So I only lived in the last five years. five years we haven't

another question would be and and I know that's not it's a macro but of course so we got all the ADUs we got the ADU era which is which is nice for housing and we know that the setbacks even four feet setbacks which is the standard is very minor and given that these ADUs will be right next to other residents residences has has our city or has any city in the state considered allowing taller fences now that all these ADUs not all these but now that ADUs will be coming in right next to other lots. Have you heard of anything in the works on on that at all?

No. Uh I don't believe so. I don't think that's come up in terms of any of the uh discussions around ADUs I've had with people in other jurisdictions. Okay. I'm just wondering so so that so that that concept of neighbor neighborhood compatibility still remains at an at an 8 foot height for a fence as a maximum. That's that's what we're saying that you really can't go higher than 8 feet. The city has not

maintain neighborhood compatibility even with ADUs and next etc. There could be instances where the city might want to approve a taller fence if the land uses adjacent or incompatible. But between residence to residents, uh the city has historically only approved over an 8ft tall fence. Okay. So, so even if the if the applicant in this case had happened to build a 12 1/2t fence originally, uh our approval, our exception would not be halfway point between six and 12 and a half. it would still be v8.

Yeah. Um well, we would have to the applicant's proposal if they were able to provide any extenduating circumstances or or any rationale to meet any of the fence exception findings. However, in this instance, staff reviewed the application materials and based on the sites and the adjacent land uses determined that 8 feet was the Okay. Yeah, you know, I keep kind of putting you on the spot here a little bit, but so this whole neighborhood of know compatibility and sight lines and probably, you know, it's a little nebulous. You know, it's a little subjective. So, I can see where there's, you know, room for other opinions on this, but uh and also that, you know, this fence, there's a limited number of lots that'll ever see the fence. Maybe maybe two others in this one. Um, but you know, it's everybody else has been stuck with anyway. I'm not I'm getting away from questions, so I'll stop. Thanks.

Uh, how many fence exceptions have there been in the last five years? Um, not too many. I don't have the exact number, but we get generally around uh maybe about an average of six per year, one every two months. Okay, great. That was my answer. Rest of mine. Thank you. Uh, so my questions are regarding uh the from a six foot to 8 foot. Do we normally require that two foot to be lattice rather than a solid fence?

So our design standards require a an opening a lattice such as a lattice uh when the fence exception occurs in the front uh property line or on the street side property line but how but in the rear we do not have any design requirements that speak to it could be solid if if the two foot was granted. Correct.

Okay. And then this This 10 foot or 9 foot 10 inch fence extends only 50 51 52 feet. It doesn't extend the entire length of the appalance property. It it comes down, you know, and so that was kind of questionable for me as to why wouldn't they do the whole thing if privacy was important for them? Why just in front of this one unit? Do you know the reason or

the applicant is or sorry the appellent is here and can speak more to the issue. The statements provided by the appellent both in the initial offense exception request and in the appeal speak strongly to the desire to uh block any views of the ad from their property.

I see. So that's the goal that it looks to me like it went all the way to the property line of the other house on the other street. not to their property, but you can see it's exposed to an entire back that property to to the edge of the other house that makes sense. Well, I mean it seems like, you know, looking at the red line that is just behind the ADU's back rear lot line, not the adjacent one, lower one on the screen. Is that correct, staff?

Yeah, as you can see from the proposal, it extends uh it looks like it sends slightly um from the property line. Uh so this is the this is the subject property line here at 370 and this is the neighboring property at 373 and it does look like there is a slight extension beyond that property line but it is seemingly matches up with the existing lot line at 373 Harrison.

Right. Exactly. Then that's what I see. Okay. Um I think we've asked our questions. Um we're ready to open public hearing and I just want to go over the um the way we're going to conduct this. We're going to have the appellent come and uh give us their presentation and then after that we open it to the public. Uh then the appellant gets another chance to uh respond to what they heard from the public and then um we get to ask questions you know as they come up and uh as that and then after that we close the public hearing and then we go back to the staff so that they can address what they've heard and then back to us. So with that I'm going to open the public hearing is appalent here. Welcome.

Okay. Hello. Good evening, commissioners, staff, and to the community of Campbell. My name is Andrea Shaheen, and I've been a proud Campbell resident for almost 24 years. In my time as a Campbell resident where I raised my two sons. They were born in in the house 370 North Central. Um I have also been an active member in the community. I've served on the BPAC, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission Committee. I am also a new member of the Campbell Multimodal Transportation Community Advisory Committee. I'm here tonight to ask you for something simple, reasonable, and compassionate. The ability to keep a three-foot redwood lattice on top of my existing rear fence. A structure that protects my family's privacy, emotional well-being, and safety, surviving one of the most traumatic events of our lives. So on May 24th, 2022, our home was destroyed in a catastrophic fire. The fire originated from an unpermitted shed at 373 Harrison, a structure built directly at my fence line shared with that property. The fire department confirmed the structure was not permitted. It was unmaintained and the fire began due to faulty electrical wiring in an old refrigerator inside the shed that appeared to be inhabited.

Imagine this. I'm working upstairs, you know, having started working from home, working upstairs in my bedroom. My son, my my teenage son was sleeping, had just finished his freshman year of high school. My youngest son, who's here tonight, was just at school in seventh grade, had already been at school for the day, leaving a perfectly um perfectly normal house. And um a Catholic Charities van sped into my driveway and a man jumped out and I could see this from my window looking down into the driveway frantically banging on the door and the windows shouting, "You've got to get out of the house. The house behind you is on fire." We were lucky to escape physically unharmed. Um our emotional, psychological, and financial lives were devastated as a result of this fire. We were displaced from our home for more than two years. We lived through insurance battles, contractor delays, and mental health consequences that no family should endure. We returned to our rebuilt home in June of 2024. So, it's just been about a year. emotionally, financially exhausted, relieved to be back in our home, only to face another blow just months later. In October of 2024, a brand new ADU started to be erected over our fence line on that back line that had been completely burned out. So, we had had trees and foliage, all of that. It was, you know, really cute little private patio. all of that burned out and and a new fence put up along the whole fence line which we incurred the cost of. Um there are still insurance

battles going on between the two insurance companies but fault of where the fire started is not in dispute. Um so this was not a rebuild. This towering monstrosity is a brand new construction. There was not a permitted legal ADU. It was not an ADU. It was a shed. It was a dilapitated shed that was literally sitting on the fence line. So there was not a twoft. It's currently 2 feet I think two and a half ft from my fence line. Um, it was literally on the fence line and we had a lattice erected to to block the view of it. From every first floor window, our kitchen, our family room, living room, all we could see is the wall of this new structure looming over us. And it felt like the trauma was happening over and over to see this structure where we saw flames coming out over the window and I'm grabbing my son and running. I mean, it is a very harrowing experience. It felt like we were living in this constant state of panic. We could just see it from every window. flashbacks, the feeling that our sanctu sanctuary would be taken again. So to shield ourselves emotionally, maintain some privacy and to not have this constant reminder of this very traumatic experience in our faces wherever we were in our in our house. We added a structurally sound redwood lattice that is attractive, non-intrusive, and just 50 feet of the rear fence

blocking commissioner chair. it that was that was the intention was just to block that particular view. It it did help because we do see that there is another structure from the neighboring property. There is a window that could that looks down into our property as well, but that was existing. The fence is not visible from any public road. It causes no obstruction to light, to air, to view. It It's It simply restores peace and safety to my family. Lissa, could I ask you to just um advance the slides? Is that okay?

Yeah. I'm sorry. I forgot. I I forgot to advance the slides. So, I just wanted to show Oh, um if you go back to the Go back one more. Yeah. So, this is just this was in the news. Fire was in the news. I don't know if anyone remembers that. So um if I may interject um how per how long has she been um presenting? Yeah. Five minutes. Five minutes. Okay. So I give you two more minutes to finish. Um but you know normally you only get five minutes. Go ahead please. Thank you. I just wanted to speak clearly for the and slowly. I normally speak really fast. So I appreciate.

Um okay. So if you could advance it. This is just a vision to show you my son's room completely destroyed. You can keep going. Um, this is the view from 373 Harrison. You can see the complete destruction of the home. You can keep going to give you a flavor for what we experienced. And you can see actually if you go back one, Lissa, I'm sorry. So the see this the brick that is exact that is was in the shed that brick structure right like my fence was right there and then right on the fence line was this brick um wood burning stove in that structure that was there. So yeah you can keep going. Um go go ahead. Yeah. Then one more. And then see this is how you could see during the construction of just how close it is to my fence line. Just some pictures of that. And you can keep going. Yeah. And then this is how I mean basically the the lattice was very specifically measured to cover the view. That was the purpose. So the staff recommendation says my fence is inconsistent with neighborhood character, but no other cam home in Campbell has experienced what we have and this is not a precedent. This is an exception which is exactly the discretionary authority that exists in the code. So, one of um my neighbors who's here this evening, Michelle Tibbles, my neighbor since early 2000s, supports this, says it shields the ADU from their view as well. 373 Harrison, where the ADU is located, has not objected to this, has not

objected to it. As for concerns of aesthetics, the lattice is wellmaintained, natural redwood, and more than attractive. Okay. Thank you. And I'll finish up with my final before you before you move, is there any questions for the appalent at this time? Um, yeah. One question about about the shed that was originally there. Yes. Was that shed there when you bought the house or is that was that shed put in during the at some point later when you when you were there already?

I I don't recall. It looked very dilapitated and old. I mean, we joked, "Oh, this is a relic from the old, you know, Campbell fruit packing days because it just it and and the roof was flat. It just was it existed below the fence line." So, but it was right on the fence line like built with the fence. I understand. By the way, we we I'm assuming Yeah, I won't speak for the other commissioners, but I read your entire uh outline, so we know a lot about what your position is. So, thank you. Don't be worried that we didn't. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Craig.

Yeah, you know, I was going to ask and you you already answered it uh though, I guess. uh why you know why you didn't even go higher with the fence but but you said that you went specifically measured to cover the view of the so this was when you say then this was the shortest test that you could do to cover the view of the ADU that's exactly okay all right thank you

any other questions I have one question um so one thing that u I don't understand is fire is your concern. Why would fence? You're just supplying I mean if god forbid fire going to start again extra wood is more fuel you know and so I don't understand I understand the view argument that you're making. It's just you know um so I so um I mean you don't have to answer it. It's just something that's in my mind. Yeah, I think to some extent we all have to live with wood structures and we have to

accept the risks that come along with that. So for us it is very much about the visual and the the trauma that is caused from that. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. So now I'm going to now we go to members of the public. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item specifically? Sure. I have two uh Patrick Todd and Michelle and Tibbles. So Michelle and Tibbles is Patrick or Michelle here?

Okay, wonderful. So Patrick, please you have two minutes to address us and you know comment on what

Okay. So Kathy Todd, I live at 362 Harrison Avenue across the street from 373 Garrison Avenue. And so I'm not advocating against his family or anything. My only concern is setting a precedent here. You know, I understand the sensitivity of all this and God forbid that anybody has to go through that, but from a city standpoint, you establish something and it becomes a president setting so that the next person, the next person, next person. So, that's really where I'm coming at it from. I'm not saying for me, you know, I really don't see it. I can see it through the parking lot or his driveway, but it doesn't really affect my view or anything. But I'm concerned in the future that sets a precedent based on the conversations we've had tonight. You've had fence exemptions up to 8 feet. So, so that's really really where I'm coming from from a citywide approach that it becomes a precedent saying that this is established and now pretty soon we've got 10 foot high fences throughout the city. So, understanding that there are going to be more ADUs, more properties closed together and so we're going to have to you're going to be addressing those in the future. That's where I'm coming from in my my I'm not saying tear it all down, but I'm just saying there is an issue there from a president's standpoint.

unintended consequences. Um, so I do have a question for you. You said you can see it or you cannot see it. I can see it because I can see through his driveway and I can see, but it doesn't bother you. No, it's okay. So, you live on Harrison on the opposite side? Yeah, I live kind of east side. Yeah, I Yeah, I live kind of directly across 362. So, yeah. Thank you. Okay, next. Michelle, welcome.

Hi. Okay, so I am the property owner at 386 North Central. So, on the map, um, Andre and I are direct neighbors. So if I was facing the street be the m to the left and um our parcels the depth. Um do you do you share a fence with the appellent? We do. Okay.

We do and when the I am in support of keeping the fence the height it is because um from our lot we can see the ADU and when that thing started going up I texted Andrew. like what is that monstrosity going up? And it was so close. Um, and I think you're going to see more of these people wanting taller fences because we could not believe that it was so close to the fence. And not only is it close on her side, but it also it butts up against our ne our neighbor that we share the back, you know, on the back side and then us. And um, we my husband and I got a ladder and I'm like, we got to we got to look at that. We went to the corner of our property and we stood up on the ladder and we looked at it and we're like, "How close is that? It literally looks visually I mean it's two feet, right? It looks closer. It looks literally like this." And that so that butts up um on my neighbor's property that's not here and then Andrea's uh property. So, and also we were one of the properties impacted by the fire as well. our parcel part of it. There was some damage and um our our shed caught on fire because it there's a big redwood tree, but it actually the the fence that she's built it looks fine aesthetically. It blocks our view too from that monstrosity ADU. So, at least I look and I see a fence. So, I support it. And also, I know even just from our family, the little bit of trauma can't compare to what they went through. But

okay, thank you for the presentation. And that's the only reason that the fence is there now is because the fire happened and then they then decided to rebuild and she had to rebuild. This whole thing wouldn't even be happening if the fire hadn't happened. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for her? No. Thank you so much. Is there anybody online that comments? Okay, not seeing anything. Um you can come back and um we get another five minutes to if you need to address whatever you heard or you you don't have to use it all if you don't want to. But

thank you. Did people have to actually register if they were going to make comments? No comment. They don't have to. Is that okay? Okay. Absolutely. Please. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Please identify yourself.

Yeah. My name is David Pope. I'm Andre's partner. Um, we had been together since just before the fire, so I witnessed the entirety of that that ordeal. Um, and I did see the emotional stress of being displaced, losing all of your worldly possessions, and ensuring that your kids don't suffer from that. very young, impressionable children and the joy of coming back to your home and to feel that confidence, regain that security, to only have that ADU revive those those feelings um that trauma and just takes those few inches to actually bring relief to shield them from that ordeal and to allow them to heal in their privacy and comfort of their home. So that's all I just wanted to say having witnessed it all.

Okay. So, I do have a question. And uh does anybody else have a question? My question is you you can see it from your second floor, right? The fence is not tall enough to block the second view. Yeah. No, it's it's the patio. It's the first floor that Sorry, right from patio and the kitchen and the dining room like from that full wall on the back. Okay. Thank you for that. Um no other questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anybody else please? Welcome.

Good evening. My name is Victoria Shaheen. I'm Andre Shaheen's mother. Okay.

And I'm here uh to support um I I'm sorry, I have to read this. I'm not very good. Thank you. I do not believe anyone in this room can argue how emotionally devastating it is to see uh the home that you worked so hard for and lived in for decades to burn up and to watch your personal sentimental items be destroyed. Their home has since been repaired and my daughter has moved in and um back in. However, the owners behind her have now built a brand new, as you heard, a very large ADU looming above their backyard fence. It's a constant reminder of what destroyed her house. And um it is and it is twice as tall as the other one. They said, "Every time my daughter or my grand my two grandsons walk out into the backyard or even look out the window on the side of the house, they would be see the structure which represents the destruction of their home and security. It h was a constant visual reminder of those devastating uh events. Every time we all see, we all see that structure. The emotions and the trauma from that day are reignited. This caused stress, anxiety, fear for my daughter and her family. This is a reason why she added the additional lattice on the top of the fence. It is a way to help block the view that is affecting their emotional and mental well-being. The additional coverage provided by thi this lattice prevents additional emotional and mental injury to my daughter and my two grandsons. I believe the benefits gained for my daughter and

her children emotional and mental well-being significantly outweigh any other minor inconvenience caused by the additional lattice coverage. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anybody else? Nope. Okay. Please. Okay. Thank you again for the opportunity. Really appreciate it. Thank you for letting my family speak.

Um I'd like to close by directly addressing the city's findings and a and a few neighbor comments that were submitted in opposition. Um so first let's talk about the impact. So, three neighbors submitted objections to the fence exception, and really only one of those could actually see the lattice on a day-to-day basis, and none of them share a fence line with it. So, let me be clear. The three-foot on the back side of the property, not facing the street, any public area, sits in my backyard, not visible, unless you're intentionally looking for it. And it was con constructed very thoughtfully and it's attractive. There is no visual blight, no light obstruction, no blocked air flow, no impact public space. Um the neighbor at 363 Harrison, the only one who could see the lattice, does not share property line with it. And the complaint focuses more on the fact that I didn't consult with them before installing it, but it's not on their property at all. Um, and ironically, there was a towering edition built on their garage with a second story window that now looks directly into my living room and kitchen. I was never consulted about that construction project. Um, yet now the lattice is being objected to that gives my family a small sense of peace and privacy. So no money was contributed by that neighbor to rebuild the shared fence line and we were never once asked how we were dealing with all of this going through being displaced. So the other two neighbors um can't really see the fence in their day-to-day at all. Um the comments are speculative based on concerns about precedents and vague design values. Um there one even claimed

there were no extenduating circumstances to justify the lattice. But I respectfully ask the commission how is the total destruction of our home by fire, the displacement for over two years and the triggering trauma caused by this new ADU built just 2 feet from the site of the fire not an extenduating circumstance. I don't see this becoming an issue. I mean, I do think Commissioner Cray, you mentioned a very valid point that there will be other ADUs built and I imagine that people will not want them so close to their property lines where they will ask for extensions on their fence. But for now, I don't believe this is going to be a situation that is likely to happen in the near future to anyone else. Um, unique situation. The fire that destroyed our home was caused by an unpermitted illegal shed built directly on the fence line confirmed in the official fire report. A large ADU only two foot feet set back from the fence was approved by the city I believe incorrectly and under the justification that it was a reconstruction. This is abs there was absolutely not an ADU in place. In fact, there was no bathroom. There was nothing. It was a shed with a fire pit and some electrical wires that were falsally connected to a refrigerator. I believe this was a mistake and that while we're not here to debate that tonight, it makes one thing clear that if the city can approve a massive new structure 2 feet from the line of a trauma-causing fire, it can surely allow my family the ability to retain this three foot of modest, private, visually non-intrusive lattice for our emotional well-being as you have the power to do.

So I ask you, you have the discretion to grant this exception when it doesn't do harm to public health, safety or welfare. And in this case, there is no harm. So I respectfully ask the commission to uphold my full exception request and to leave it because it is justified, necessary, and well within the bounds of what a compassionate and thoughtful city that I absolutely love and will stay here for the rest of my life will allow. So, thank you for your time and your service and your consideration and I look forward to continuing in my civic activities.

Wonderful. Thank you. Um, let me see if there's any questions. Uh, let's let's start from this side. Commissioner Craig. Yeah, let me just because we're talking about all these details and these things are going to be coming up and I I don't know if it's pertinent to your issue, but two questions for you are if the city uh said you the fence can only be 8 feet, but they made the ADU get pulling down and move back two more feet, four feet instead of two feet. Would that make any difference at all?

Well, so I originally started with the whole thing when it when I started seeing this happen. I didn't just build the lattice. I went through the channels. I mean, I talked to Mr. Eastwood. I talked to many people in the city and actually talked to the state of California because I was referred to the the state ADU laws. Um, talked to several people in the state, talked to attorneys. I mean, I had attorneys willing to fight the battle. I did not want to go down that road, that road. I did not want legal battles. I did not want the structure was already built. I mean, when you look at co costbenefit analysis for the community and for people, I just wanted to block the site. And to your question, yeah, I I would have liked it to be adhering to a a a more thoughtful approval process where they thought they looked at, okay, yeah, there was a fire here a couple years ago or or a year ago. I don't know when the process to get the permit started, but a more thoughtful process to have actually looked at what happened on this property before just granting a reconstruction and and assuming that it was at 2 and a half it was not 2 and 1/2 ft from the fence.

But I I'm putting on on the spot though. The question is if it was four feet from your fence. Yeah. I mean, I think it still would have it still would have it would have a big issue. And if you had uh if the city had notified you ahead of time that that your neighbor was going to build this ADU, if they had not notified you, you know, six months ahead of time, would that have helped in any way or just as a just a courtesy or what? I would have been here. I would have been here fighting earlier maybe every day before it was built. I would have been here. I would have taken it as far as I possibly could. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Bookbinder, did you have a question for I don't have any questions. Okay, go ahead. Commission is it? Okay. Can I call you Andrea? Yes. Um, so a hard question. Um, I'm assuming you knew that you're supposed to get a permit for this fence. You said you even talked to the planning department, but you didn't submit a request for approval. You went ahead and built this thing without approval. Okay. So, that bothers me. Okay. Yeah.

Um I I'm assuming you probably understand. I mean, you you are a volunteer on a commission board. Um, I would I would assume you I mean not everybody knows they got to go to the city to get a fence permit, but I'm I'm guessing that you probably since you mentioned that you talked to the city um went ahead and built it anyway. So So I have that question. I also have a question whether or not you considered other solutions like a separate trellis that you could have stuff grow on it that would block it.

Yeah. No, I understand that question. And I I think in the kind of trauma of the moment that we were experiencing, I didn't explore or research what needed to be done. And I was very distressed because trying to figure out, you know, do do we take legal action? Do we do these other things? And I thought, no. So, I looked at a structure that um was on my property that would essentially be a solid, like a completely solid wall, but it would be on my property and it would have been unsightely. And I wanted something that looked more aesthetic. I felt like this the lattice looked more in line with the community and like the redwood tree, the tree right there. I mean, it it it looks it looks nice. I mean it doesn't

it's a continuation of the fence. I mean I get that it's an extension of the fence you already had. Yeah.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Majiski, any questions? Okay, vice chair. Um uh so I have a question. Um uh Commissioner Scizer alluded to it and um how about with vegetation? you know, can would you be able to grow vegetation to fill the extra 1 foot 9 in that you are um above what the city feels comfortable with? Is that a possibility? Um

like vines or something that would slowly fill up, you know? home. We had um for the decades that I lived there, there was no I mean there was no vegetation and grew took took 10 years to grow. I mean what we had a beautiful wall of green um and the time that it takes. I mean we were feeling we were feeling the effects of the stress, the anxiety, the

Okay. Yeah. One more question. Um, now you said the neighbor in the back is okay with this. You know, is there do you have documentation to show that they they don't mind the fence being that high? I don't have any affirmative um statements from them, but I haven't had any objections either. I see. I see. So, yeah, the fact that they haven't objected, you take that as, you know, they don't have issue with it. They had their contractors working on the ADU while we were erecting right the lattice. So they they had a full awareness of everything going on.

And I figure you must have paid a very good money because those those posts having to be that tall. They probably have to go into the ground and an extra four or five feet. We wanted them to be structurally sound to as not cause any safety issues. Makes sense. Okay. Um, I don't have any other questions. Thank you again. Thank you. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and staff, if you would like to comment on things you

just a couple items to um address that were brought up during the public hearing portion. The first was the concern over the lack of permits for the rear shed on the neighboring property. uh staff to document that there were permits dating back to at least 2001 and likely earlier um from the building division for the shed at the property at 373 Harrison. Um and then uh just another point of reference the um state governing um body that the applicant was or the appellent was referred to was HC and that's it for like clarifications. So, um, so you had documentation that the shed was legal, but not the wiring that they had done.

Uh, it's unclear what the wiring was at the time, but staff had a 2001 permit for electrical work. So, there was an uh a permit for electrical work to have wiring to uh the accessory structure which was once referred to as a shed and then also in the permits referred to as a wreck room and um was also depicted on a subsequent plan submitted by the

I see. So, so but on the fire report, my understanding is they think the fire started from the faulty refrigerator or from the wiring to the refrigerator. Um uh staff did not review the fire report as it wasn't relevant to the defense exception is thank you. Um any other questions for staff hearing? None. Um my commissioners let's have our discussions. Um let's come to bookbinder. Do you want to get us started? My best.

So this is a a very intense story. Um, first I just want to say that is that is awful. Um, I can't imagine having to run with my family out of the house as as fire suddenly shows up. Um, and it's got to be really uncomfortable to look out the window and see a building where the building that caused your house to burn down was. Um, and I agree. It seems I can see why it would seem unfair, unusual, odd that someone can build I believe that at least an 18t ADU and you can't put up a 10ft fence, which like you can see why the rules were put there in the first place, but that would definitely feel wrong if you're in the situation where somebody is putting up an 18 foot ADU and you can't put up 10 foot fence at the same time. I note that like as far as I can tell, this ADU is permitted and is built to code and will is hopefully no more likely to burn down than any other structure. Um, and I lean towards I want to hear what everybody else has to say, but I lean towards understanding staff is saying like none of these are objective reasons to change the fence rules which are there for a particular reason in a particular way. But I do want to hear what everyone else has to say. That's where I'm at.

Thank you.

Yeah. Oh, jeez. What a what a tough issue. I just so uh feel so sorry for the family. You can see that uh and uh so you know we so we've been talking about housing for forever up here in all cities everywhere in the state and in the country and actually in the world. And the ADUs are actually one of the things that are working. We're actually getting some quote unquote affordable units with ADUs. So even as we speak, even yesterday there were new laws uh recently new laws making it easier to build ADUs. So we get all these ADUs and then the the issue comes as one as the one speaker said and as Adam just mentioned here and as the the appellent said uh yeah so there's going to be uh this issue is going to come up a lot. It's just a natural issue and it's and it's a real emotional issue and it's going to you know this isn't the first time we're going to hear this unless people say well can't there's no sense in doing it. Uh, so yeah, I think Adam, you apparently I I was going to ask how tall the ADUs can be. I guess Adam just told us 18 feet. So it actually could have been even taller. I

could be wrong about that.

But yeah, so why, you know, why can't you build a higher fence? And uh so I you guess you know the issue here and the other one speaker mentioned you know you're setting a citywide precedent. I mean this is a great story and it is certainly unusual. Uh but it you know it it it opens up the door you know what what should the fence height be and what kind of issues might come up once you approve one. So that's kind of where I'm leaning. I I hate to set the precedent even when you know in most of these fences there are very few people that will see the fence just a very few number of lots. Uh, and I guess that, you know, I I it does sound like this ADU is is permitted and and legal and and uh this is really just the tip of the iceberg of an issue that that we're going to see throughout the whole state country with his ADUs being built right next to other properties. And you know, I don't know how it shakes out, you know, eventually. I think it's good, you know, appeal, get your get your point of views out there. you said some great some great points of view. I mean, you know, compassion and reasonleness and and there's all kinds of things that we could talk about, but uh you know, it it just comes down to the setting the precedent, you know, it's legal. Uh I don't know how we're going to deal with this. Uh maybe at some point, you know, we say, you know, taller fences, especially if the top parts lattice were open, maybe that's maybe that's fine. Uh I don't know if we want to get into that big issue right here if we want to ask staff to start researching this thing because we know it's going to come up again. Uh but in terms of where we're at right now, uh you know, I just think it sets a precedent that uh you know, I just hate to do that. So that's kind of where I'm at right now.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So um I normally go from one end to the other end and you know um I want to do something a little different. I want to go next and then Mr. Chairman. Thank you. may

and then um and then I will you know let others go because um everything my colleague said I agree with makes perfect sense except that the uh president issue was what resonated with me at the time but not now and let me explain why. um when the back property owner hasn't said anything they are they are as much affected as our appellant is when they don't say anything and when this really helps one of our um one of our residents and I think everything she has done has been reasonable and logical and gone through the process exhausted the all the administrative issues that she has to go through I She's acted in um perfect uh citizenry that we would expect people to behave, you know, and she's paid for the whole thing herself. Hasn't asked for, you know, half even though it's a shared uh fence. Um because of that, you know, it's 50/50, but I land on the side that if one place deserved the exception, it's this one because um because she's made it look beautiful, you know, and okay, you can see it from the street, but you know, I don't know. I don't get offended if I see a taller fence, you know, especially if it's built beautiful. So, um, so that's my point of view, you know, and I just wanted to, uh, go there. And, uh, now I want to open it to the other three commissioners that haven't spoken. We do.

Who would like to go next? I'll go. You go next. Okay.

Sure. Um, yeah. So, I'm so sorry that happened to you. I wasn't very looking at you because I'm trying to be like unemotional when I'm hearing your story and making this decision, but I could hear in your voice how much this affected you. Um that being said, I am kind of in agreement with that end um of the commissioners. I am worried about the first president. I don't want to live in a walled city and if we are having more and more ADUs built they can come in and say well I have an emotional reason also why I don't want to look at a a building. So who where do we draw the line? Who do we say yes to? who do we say no to? I think this is an exceptional circumstance, but it's we have to be kind of objective and fair and I just find making an emotional decision like that is it draw it creates a dangerous precedent. So that's kind of where I land. Um, I think a barrier could be made with landscaping, which is an additional expense, but um, that's kind of what I'm my add.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Uh, yeah. Um, yeah, I don't I don't want to discount the trauma that you've gone through. I mean, it's probably one of the most traumatic experiences people can have short of like losing family members, you know, lo losing all or part of your home, the fire, um, and then having to rebuild. You see it all the time on the news, right? So, um, the there is a couple things I wanted in terms of the thing that you submitted. Um, you know, first of all, I I was uncomfortable with the fact that you talked about misstatements by the planning commission, by the planning department. These aren't all misstatements. It's it's a kind of a mischaracterization. This is their position based on what they have interpreted the code to be and you know what what's the their determination. Um so um uh you know my one of my concerns is and and and Commissioner Majeski uh touched on it. It's like the standard is six feet. Well, why is the standard six feet in the first place? We have twotory homes in many places that you know six feet doesn't cover it, right? We have people who have windows that look out on other people's windows already. There is no total privacy in a neighborhood and it's a lovely neighborhood. I live nearby and so um outside the 500 ft but um so but that's the nature of a neighborhood like this is that even though we have I mean I grew up in a place where we didn't have fences and we we kids we ran through people's yards but here we have we have an option for fences but they're only six feet fences which means that you even on the first floor you see your neighbor if you look

out the side window in a lot of places that's only sometimes eight or 10 feet away because of the setbacks on the sides. Um, you happen to live in a in a a little development of four home I believe it's four homes where it's a a smaller parcel and your home is actually built with very little setback in the first place. So you only got a few feet of setback for most homes on standard parcels down the street, a big backyard where there's 10 or 15 or 20 foot setback on the backyard. So you kind of set yourself up a little bit for having the house so close to the back fence in the first place. And it's a lovely house, but it's a lovely little group of homes. Um, so that in itself, um, you know, begs the question, it's like, okay, I'm gonna I'm going to live in a house where there's only a five foot setback to, uh, to my neighbor on the back. Um, and that in general, the whole idea of six foot fences, not bigger than six foot fences, is that it's about having neighbors and that we're not welding each other off. I think it would be a terrible thing if everybody started putting up 10 12 foot fences. Um, so it to me it does set a a potentially bad precedent especially since there isn't any. I mean there's very few 8ft fences. I actually question the 8 foot but um most most everybody has six foot fences. There's a few that where people add another foot of lattice um in in a wide variety of neighborhoods in the city. And I've been here 40 years. I've lived in three different areas of the city including downtown west Campbell and and Santaas. So I've seen and since being on the the commission I've seen a lot of houses in a lot of neighborhoods. Um so um from from that point of view I'm I'm

kind of in agreement with the other commissioners. Um the other thing was that you you talked a little bit and this is just me. Um you talked about the general welfare. use the general welfare. Um I think you've misdefined what general welfare is in um the general plan and that originates from the preamble of the US Constitution. General welfare is about the communitywide or societywide. It's not about individual rights and individual welfare. So general welfare is about the greater good. Okay, that's really what general welfare is about rather than um your particular circumstances. Um we're not psychologists here. We're supposed to objectively determine based on city code, state state laws uh um and um and the rules that we have here. And so it's very hard for us to think in terms of despite your terrible trauma um that we could, you know, um use that as an emotional decision. Um uh so um I get it. You know, I get that that's a concern to you. You do have a twostory house and I assume that upstairs you're overlook. can see you can see the ADU in the backyard and and it's you know there's not total privacy in other parts of the house and so you know we we we we can't have total private if you want total privacy you know people go and get a couple acres in Santa Cruz Mountains and they get total privacy you know they they drive through their gate and then it's all woods here in neighborhoods you never get total privacy you know there's always going to be some public you non-private situations even if you're in

your home. Um so the the privacy factor it's kind of a it's a subjective relative kind of thing. So um my my I I I was actually thinking we were like going beyond by offering 8 feet but I would be certainly uh um um amable to the 8 foot uh requirement. Um and um I understand that that can is going to cause you concern, but um you know uh my experience with the commission now being on the commission for five years is that we try very hard to um do the right thing uh from a from a communitywide point of view. And so, um, I'm I'm in in concert with many of our commissioners on that respect.

Thank you for that, um, worship.

Uh, again, echoing very sorry this happened to you and your family. Um, I am aligned on the precedent angle. I think the city of Campbell should reconsider our fence rules in light of setback updates. We're below other cities. San Jose is seven. I think seven is reasonable. Um I do think we're over subscribed hopelessly for this year, but I hope we do that in the next year or two and and talk more about what the fence rules are. Um, that being said, I don't see a world where we get to 10 and I'm aligned with the precedent argument that we're making here.

Okay. So, we've heard from the commissioners um uh you know, and that's what we're here for. So, with that um unless there's any other discussion, I'm looking for a motion. I guess I'll make a motion that the planning commission of city of Campbell denying the appeal and upholding the community development director's conditional approval of a fence exception permit 2025-14 to allow for an 8ft tall 8ft tall wood fence with a 6 foot tall fence would otherwise be allowed along a property along approximately 52 foot portion of a rear property line on property located at 370 North Central Avenue. Okay, I'll second it.

We have a motion. We have a second. Let's do a roll call, please. Mr. Scissor, I. Commissioner Majuski, I. Mr. um I. Mr. Buckbinder. Hi. Vice Fields. Hi. Chair Kamar. No. Uh okay. So with that uh the motion passes 51 with one commissioner uh not present. Uh I believe they get a 10day uh appeal as well. There are there are appeal rights appeals the decision to the city council.

Okay. So um so you can appeal this decision to city council within the next 10 calendar days. Otherwise, it will be fine. Thank you. All right, let's go to the next one is uh item four. That's the Sorry, I'm trying having trouble finding it. I don't um agenda. Okay, there we go. Um, sorry. Having trouble. [Music] Okay, now I have it. Two, three, four. I'm not all the way up. find it. Um,

it's like wait, it's page 103 of the pages. Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah, this is what I want. Okay,

I'm there now. Um, 600 East Hamilton Avenue. It is a conditional use permit public hearing to consider the application of Patrick Ruffles Ruffles to allow a 26,646 ft expansion of an existing fitness center studio or a pickle ball facility DBA the hub within an existing commercial building inclusive of nine new pickle ball courts resulting in 81,000 229 square ft in total area and 29 courts on property located at 600 East Hamilton Avenue. The application under consideration is a conditional use permit file number PLN2024-157 staff.

Thank you so much chair. As mentioned, the uh item number four is for a conditional use permit uh for a new fitness facility studio use located at 600 East Hamilton. Uh the project site is located on the uh southeast corner of Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue abuing Highway 17 on the east. It's this triangular lot you see on the screen uh with proximity to the Hamilton Avenue light rail station which also runs adjacent on the Southerntherly line. Uh the zoning for the property is transit oriented mixed use similar the general plan as well um which would allow for 57 to 75 units per acre. Uh the site is a little over 7 acres. Um and it is within the proposed Hamilton Avenue precise plan boundary which is a forthcoming area plan uh which the city is currently working on. Uh for some context, the site was originally developed uh as retail and warehouse for a furniture store. Subsequently, Fries was a major tenant that occupied the space uh in 1992. Um uh as the Fry was operating in the space, portions of the rear warehouse, the Southern portion was repurposed for various uses. Uh some recreational such as Bentang Badman, other were additional warehouses. Bentang Badman still remains. Uh in 2020, Fry Electronics officially closed uh and the remaining warehouse space that was was converted into another health and fitness use uh the hub in 2023. So the entire warehouse is made up of the hub and the benton bathroom use with the retail portion uh occupied by seasonal uses most recently spearing. Uh some other uh zoning context. Uh in 2023 after the uh the hub uh was yeah

the hub was approved uh the site was later then designated that year as a housing opportunity site. Uh the zoning was changed from PD to transit oriented mixed use which renders the existing wall facility use as legal uh but non-conforming to the changes. Uh the new designation uh updates the land use from commercial to mixed use allowing for 57 to 75 units per acre. Um and these changes are meant to support and facilitate high density redevelopment uh specifically transit accessible residential mixeduse development concerning its proximity to light rail which is consistent with the city's housing and maintenance goals. And so the proposed project that the applicant has put forward is an expansion of the existing space which we can see here in blue. This was previously approved under an admin PD permit in 2023 uh with an increase of about half of the retail space seen here in red about 26,000 square feet and to increase the total number of uh to add nine additional pickle ball courts increasing that to 30. So adding about a third uh additional courts um uh something to be carried through from the previous PD permit. They will continue to allow for up to four tournaments per year. However, this conditional use permit will allow the flexibility of the site to apply for additional events via temporary use permits that will subsequently be analyzed um for uh consistency. Uh as part of their construction scope, it's very minor. Uh they're not proposing, the applicant is not proposing any exterior building change or site changes. Um and the interior changes are limited just to accommodate the overall facility use. And then here is a larger image of the uh site proposal. We see here blue is the existing this space here uh is made up entirely of the bentang badman use. This is the uh retail portion of the building which is currently vacant although it's been operated seasonally by various users and the proposed expansion will be limited to what we see

here in red. Um so uh the applicant is proposed uh to have a conditional use permit that will subsume the admin PD permit and allow for this use uh in perpetuity. Uh staff does recommend that the applicant consider a term limited five-year conditional use permit. Uh this will support um the use permit. Uh this will support an interimm use while preserving the site for long-term housing goals. Um and this will ensure with the minimal upgrades and site changes that the site still remains viable for any future uh housing or mixeduse development. So the applicant won't be uh redefining the site for a commercial use. It's important to note as described earlier that this is a housing opportunity site. Uh it was designated in the 2023 housing element uh which is estimated to produce about 416 units uh which is about 14% of our arena allocation. As you can see here from the slide, we are somewhat behind in our arena goals. Um and so this site was uh meant to provide a quite substantial number of units um to help meet this goal by 2031. Uh the furthermore, the TomaU reszoning does reflect the city's um uh goals to um support higher density housing at this location. It's our higher highest density uh uh general plan land use designation for housing um and also to capitalize on the city's existing infrastructure um such as the location to transit um which is the Hamilton Avenue station. And so the concerns from staff and reason for the five-year term limitation is that long-term use um could tie up the site and further undermine uh our arena capacity and our housing production targets. However, that said, the city does recognize that there is significant mark market uh feasibility at the moment. Um so the city underwent uh some economic

develop uh so uh the city uh looked at uh some uh feasibility studies for housing development uh within the city and was it was determined that there are significant financial challenges to building higher density housing especially condominiums and for rental units. Um the primary barriers seem to be construction costs and uh interest rates that have and and other labor shortages that have really limited uh some of the feasibility of this type of development. And um there's a lot of financing uh there's a lot of issues securing financing as well for any affordable housing projects which is the type of projects the city would want to see at this location. Furthermore, um the city does recognize that there are potential site uh specific constraints for this location. So, uh while the site is zonu, which could allow residential or commercial land use, uh a lot of commercial tenants may not want to consider this building for moving in as it is was built quite some time ago and um may no longer uh support uh what today's commercial tenants may need in space. Uh and also as noted in our economic development plan, uh oftentimes we see some of these extended vacancies as we've seen since 2020, it could uh be an indication that the building itself needs significant upgrades in order to uh viable for commercial use. So uh that being said, um the city is in support of uh this application. Oops. uh it uh will facilitate uh interim activation without uh for stalling future redevelopments. Um it's uh because of the low impact to the site uh it will still maintain viability for future development. Uh we'll respond to current market conditions. Um and allowing for future uh redevelopment of the site without too much uh impact and it does support a uh landing strategy

that considers both the future and the current needs for the site. And most importantly, the city is supportive of this land use with the option for the applicant to reapply in the future. If after the five-year term limitation elapses and the market conditions have not changed, city staff would be supportive of the applicant um moving uh coming back to the planning commission to seek a relication. Um so as seen here by the planning commission um the option one would be staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution which would be approving a condition of approval to allow for a term limited 5-year conditional use permit for the applicant. Um however uh based on the applicant's pro uh provided uh materials in their project description uh they would um seek a uh conditional use permit in perpetuity. And so if that were the option um the planning commission I'll just mention verbally that the planning commission could consider uh continuing the item to reassess what the what those impacts would be if the applicant uh were seeking a long-term application for this project in terms of what types of site improvements would be required. traffic analysis um and other uh impacts to the site would be required if we if the city wanted to move forward with the long-term uh conditional use for for the site. Um this concludes staff's presentation. I can now take questions at this time. Um the applicant is also here in the audience and they have also prepared a PowerPoint presentation that they would like to present as well.

So um I'm going to start with questions but can you go over your option two again? Why? It I'm so sorry. Since you went back, I didn't quite understand what that option was. Yeah, I'm so sorry. I might have pulled the wrong um slide, but um option two, it wasn't written on the slide, but the option two would be to continue the hearing to reassess the application considering a uh a conditional use permit in perpetuity and what those impacts would be to traffic, public works, uh and our other regulatory bodies who review the application during our uh DRC review. Got it. Okay. Commissioner book. To be clear, the current permit they have for the people courts, is that time limited or is that?

So that is in perpetuity. Um the administrative plan development permit that was approved in 2023 um has no term limitation on it. And so what staff is trying to do is to get them to put a term limit on all of their pickup ball courts in exchange for getting nine more pickle ball courts.

That's correct. uh this is a voluntary action taken by the applicant um to expand a legal non-conforming uh uh permit and so as such the staff will have to review the application in its entirety to determine whether or not it fits with the uh general plan and housing all the other governing documents this has adopted since the original approval. And in terms of needing like more paperwork, more study, it's going to be in perpetuity as opposed to five years. That's because traffic impacts won't show up for five years. Is like that seems like five years seems like long enough for it to make a difference. Just seems like what's the justification for there being more streamlining on a time limited permit than on one that's in perpuity, especially if time limited is five years. Uh well, the application was reviewed by the different regulatory bodies with the initial understanding that this would be a term limited application for five years. Um and rather than invest some upgrades into the site such as putting additional stop signs which would trigger additional site improvements um based on the limited term of the use permit um staff uh city staff determined that this would not be necessary in order to move forward with this application since it was not a per it's on a permanent land use.

Okay. Thank you. Uh we do have someone from the public works department online who can also speak to those questions about what types of site improvements we would be looking at. Thank you. Commissioner Craig.

Yeah, just two questions. Lucer, uh I've done it. Oh, so yeah. So you're recommending the five year apart. Was there any consideration of uh requiring yearby-year approval? staff didn't consider that considering the administrative burden that would place both on the applicant and the staff. Uh five years is also consistent with the term limit that we place on health and fitness facilities and studio uses in our light industrial and art research and development zoning districts that where we want to preserve land for a specific type of use. Okay. So in modeling with that time frame and also with the frame of the housing element, staff landed on five years for the term.

And so I guess staff doesn't think there's any chance of any kind of a major mixeduse development within based on the feasibility analysis uh conducted in 2024. Uh we're optimistic but not certain. Um we also understand that these types of applications do take long to entitle to conceive of and then to put into action. So that amount of time might be consistent with the amount of time that we've allowed for this approval. Okay. And just the other qu real quick question. I remember when the pickle ball went in, I remember hearing about it and but it never came before the planning commission, did it? The original uh the original approval was an administrative level decision

because what's the difference now versus then? Uh at the time um the land use uh it was a PD permit which allowed for certain land use changes um which did not require significant upgrades to the site um that could be processed administratively. Uh since we've done away with our PD permits our PD zoning and also our PD permits um that option is no longer available to that comes before okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. um come.

So, thank you. Um so first on on the limited term um you mentioned a couple examples of where we we we limit the term but but you know in terms of uh I don't know what's a comparable site but but what isn't it is how common is it to give indefinite term for things like you know CBS or Ace Hardware or the the who who's getting who's getting unlimited term normally is there kind of a standard in terms of um you know the reason I ask is that whether it's five years or unlimited the landlord can give if they want to they want to close it down and knock it down and put up new housing they can give them four months notice right so it doesn't really matter if they have term. Okay? Because the land court can say, "I changed my mind and tell me if I'm wrong, that that um we're going to go ahead in two years and we're going to give you four months notice and they have to disappear. Is that correct?"

Uh that is correct. And the applicant did provide that they do have this uh termination clause in the lease. Yes. However, it is the city's duty and the planning commission's duty to review the application in the context of its housing element, its general plan. And so, approving a new uh conditional use permit like this in perpetuity uh would have for a long-term use would have some major u conflicts with our general plan and land use. our proposed um uh Hamilton Avenue precise plan and the fact that the location is also uh a gateway identified in the general plan which is meant to bring awareness and to reflect the uh character and uh design of the city. And so while the applicant always has the opportunity to exist in the will at the will of the free market, it is still the city's duty to review these land use applications and ensure that they're consistent with the policies in place that we have.

Yeah. Um the the the original the applicant's initial proposal was to do um take the whole thing, right? This is going to take like the back half of the upstairs if I read the plans right. Yeah. It's going to be upstairs for the additional nine courts. By the way, is there a back entrance from there? How do they get to the upstairs? They're not going up through the front, are they? Uh, so no, the entrance would be through the existing

thing. Okay. Okay. So, there's some stairway or something. Okay. So, so it only leaves like the other half of the upstairs is what's empty. And they proposed initially they wanted to take the whole thing. They want to put in more courts. They wanted to put in some food and beverage and who knows what else. So, um and and and the and the and and and you folks said that there there will be need to be um more um uh more um work to be done. Uh, and I'd like to hear about that, what what the additional work that would have been, you know, because, you know, up until Fries closed, it was this big retail place that seemed to be fine. You know, I was busy and it it worked fine the way it was. So, I'm I'm curious as to what what the additional requirements would be if they wanted to take the entire the entire space. And can we So, we you talked about it. There's somebody online that we can hear that from. Uh well, we do have Roger stores online, but um I could read I could go over the high level from so as part of the first application that the applicant submitted um it did have reference to um an eight-year term limitation, but uh uh subsuming of the entire retail space. And based off of that incompleteness letter, the public works the traffic division was asking for additional stop signs. The public works department was asking for frontage improvements along two different driveways to create ADA accessible passive travel along the sidewalks. Uh the building division uh was inconclusive, but we were looking at that front entrance to ensure that it was meeting all building code requirements, that uh that ramp that goes up to it. We were going to have to reassess that. So asking for additional code analysis there. Um and then also

the fire department was going to look at the alarm system and the occupancy as it looked in. And so after the applicant scaled that back, um those comments put away. Okay. Okay. I guess I'll leave other questions for the applicant on that. Um

the the the uh let's see if I have anything else. Um um uh so the only other question I have is I I you know we we all most of us went through the housing element and the fries thing was there and it got included because it was now empty and looked like a good place. And so we we went through the whole thing of turning it into a highdensity mixed use, but they never submitted the application. It always was speculative and you know from my perspective is like are they going to do it? What's going to you know are they going to go go ahead with this kind of thing and nothing happened. So, do we have any reason to believe that the landlord has more has has still considerable interest in putting in mixed juice residential.

Um, in some preliminary discussions with the landlord, uh, he has expressed interest. However, he's also here in the audience tonight and can answer questions to that. Okay, I think that's all I have for now. Thank you, Commissioner Scissor. Commissioner Majuski, my questions were answered. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Question,

I think you answered it when you said the position about um compliance with the general plan because I I mostly had about the five-year term. So, I'm good. Okay. Thank you. Um uh I um I would like to hear from Roger Stores as to um uh public, you know, what public improvements would he would the public public works department would ask for? Good evening, Commissioner Chairman Kim Card. This is Roger Stores with public works. Can you hear me? Yes, Roger. Very.

Yes. So really the uh you know for the from a frontage improvement perspective our focus is primarily ADA compliance and it's primarily the two driveways off of Selmar. Uh when the project was much larger in scope uh for a longer duration we felt we had the nexus to require that ADA compliance. And we also need to remember that the east side of Salmar is the connection, the pedestrian connection between Hamilton and our downtown because the west side of Salmar, the sidewalk ends at the public storage and it's kind of intermittent throughout there. So if anybody uh you know from an ADA perspective is trying to get to um you know our downtown area from Hamilton, that would be the side of the street that they would use. And so, uh, you know, with, like I said, with a larger scope, with a longer duration, we felt we had the nexus. I mean, because we, we recognize, you know, that ultimately this site should be redeveloped, um, and that those improvements would, you know, we we hate building things that are just going to be ripped out later, but there's only so so long that you can say that something is temporary. you know, if if it's going to become an indefinite approval and these improvements, you know, this this configuration could be there for another 15 or 20 years, you know, because that's what we say when we when we say indefinite. Um, then we we want that frontage to be ADA compliant. We want people who are using wheelchairs along that frontage to be able to get through those driveways in a safe and efficient manner. So, the other issue uh that Matthew J, our city traffic engineer, raised is the the the center driveway coming kind of out of the uh underground, not underground, but the first floor parking area currently doesn't have a stop sign and uh unfortunately now with uh or fortunately depending on how you look at it with the ProWAG requirements, the minute you add a stop sign and make that a stop

controlled intersection, there's certain ADA um you know, truncated dome requirements and other ADA requirements ments that would trigger um reconstruction of that driveway as well. So there's there's you know it's it's all again it's not we're not asking for you know goldplated sidewalks or anything. We're just asking for basic ADA compliance and especially if it goes longer than a shortterm temporary approval. Hopefully I've answered your question. Got it. Thank you. Um we have one more question for you. When it says can reapply reapply to who? to the planning commission if the process is still the same.

Okay. So if five years from now, so in a hypothetical, it's five years from now, economic conditions largely the same, we could just grant another five-year extension. Uh that's correct. Um, and we would review it as a five-year term limited CUP in the same way Roger was describing where it potentially is a where it will continue to be reviewed as a term limited use. Um, and we will take that into account when um reviewing the application as part of the regulatory bodies. Got it.

Okay. So following up on this question, the I think if I'm not saying the issue is this five years um applicant wants apply to the nine new courts, staff wants it to apply to the to all the courts. Correct. So uh the initial application materials that the applicant submitted speaks to a term limited application or term limit for the conditional use permit which the applicant is prov uh applying for which will supersede the administrative plan development permit and entitle the entire site. Uh in the applicant's more recent uh proposal they would like to seek the to appeal to the planning commission to seek a cup in perpetuity for the entire site. Okay,

we have one more question. Okay, go ahead. Okay, come on. Last one. No, I can ask as many as I want. Sure. Um, so so if we approve the five-year, it applies to the entire site. Uh, that is correct. From this point on, yes, that is correct. Um, as the city no longer uh reviews uh plan development permits, we are not able to make amendments to those as part of our eradication of the plan development zoning district. Therefore, any new entitlements on the site would supersede any previous legacy permits as described in our zoning code that was adopted in 2023 as the comprehensive zoning code updates. So, when they first came in, what was the term limit?

Uh the initial application requested eight years. Uh the second submitt requested five and then the third uh sought a application in perpetually. What do they what do they get for the existing Oh, uh the existing plan development permit had no um term limit on it. Oh, okay. So, we're kind of going backwards a little bit in terms of what's existing there. Now, they're constrained to five years. It could be seen that way, but it's important to note that the general plan update, zoning code, and housing ament had not been adopted at the time this applicant did receive the initial uh initial permit.

Okay. And then the other point I wanted was with Roger. Um he talked about, you know, I I don't know how much a big deal it is in terms of putting in the stop sign and all the stuff that goes around the stop sign, but but the other ADA requirements for like the entrance, how big it what was the imp what was the uh Roger, what's the estimate that you had in terms of what was going to need to be done? Were they going to need to knock down that whole entrance and put something new up or was there just going to be um modifications?

Yeah. No, the both driveways would need to be completely reconstructed. So, it's a significant expense and that's why when when the scope was reduced and the uh time limit was reduced um we we felt more comfortable eliminating that requirement but it is a significant expense. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And with that um thank you commissioners. With that, we I'm going to open the public hearing or

I'm sorry. I just wanted to redirect uh planning commission to the option two, which I'm not sure if that was covered um on the previous slide, but if option one, this uh planning commission does not want to approve the resolution, uh they have the option to continue the hearing to allow additional time for the regulatory agencies such as the building division, public works you've heard from to uh evaluate the implications of a non-terminative. So that being said, and how long would that take? Well, if we could expedite it and it depends on the schedule of the planning commission that maybe about six weeks. Okay.

Okay. We will ask. Okay. Thank you. So, I'm going to open the public hearing and um we're going to ask the applicant to come and address us first. Uh and so you have five minutes and you get to address us after the um we get from the we hear from the public again. So go ahead.

Good evening chair, vice chair, commissioners. Thank you very much for allowing me to come speak tonight. My name is Brett Ferstein. I represent the property owner of the subject property. First I'd like to start off by thanking Director Eastwood, Lissa staff, and everyone. Very much appreciate, you know, always working with us throughout the years. Um, with me today I have the hubs manager, Mike Fox. I have our architect, Kurt Anderson, as well as, uh, Kelly Schneider, our land use advisor. Um, hopefully I'm sure all of you have heard of the hub, but hopefully you've had a chance to come check it out. If not, please do. It really is quite a venue. We're very proud of it, and obviously based on how many people are members, you very excited. And I heard that, you know, that is true. This is a voluntary action. We decided to do this but not really planned on it because it is so popular. It's almost an involuntary um request just because the amount of members and I was there today playing pickle ball and it was a non- busy day. You can absolutely see how many people are lined up. If you you know usually when you win you get to stay but it's so busy even if you win you're off the court. So it is um something that we're very proud of and very excited. Um if uh thank you Lissa very much for doing the slides. So the existing condition today uh we have Badmin which takes up about 36,000 feet um and we have the hub pickle ball taking up about uh 55,000 ft. There's also a temporary uh parking for Stanford Medical Center that uh we wanted to make sure to have activity at that facility. We unfortunately remember when it was more vacant and it was a mess. It was unsightly for us, for the community and just led to a lot of problems. So we're very excited to be increasing the activity at that center that area because it really has made a

difference. Next please. So a little bit about be uh bent bad mitten. uh they started in 2007 in 24,000 ft and they were so popular that in 2022 we expanded them by you know 50% added more quartz and even today when I was just there they want to add more quartz it's not possible we we're not going to have that issue so don't worry but um you know it's it just speaks to the area to the need to the desire of the community so next please quick question um the operator of the batminton is a different operator than the pickle That is correct. Completely separate. Uh they're not connected in any way, ownership physically, any which way.

Thank you.

Um the hub uh that uh had a relationship with Mr. Rus uh from a club in Newport Beach in San Diego. We were very excited for this opportunity to bring him up here. He saw this vision. I wasn't exactly sure, you know, as much indoor pickle ball and obviously created something just magical. So, um that what's very important for us and I know that we've already said it is is that this permit does not have an expiration that uh you know we uh made that investment and uh knew knowing that it can continue on for the long term. Uh what's just I hope everyone's you know at least that I know there's not been parking traffic neighbors no problems. I mean haven't heard of a single thing and you know which is I think pretty rare in today's age. Next, please. Just a quick reminder of what's existing today. Next, please. So, we had a little history with the requested expansion. Um, I thought 24s would be plenty and, uh, Pat originally told me it's probably not going to be enough and, uh, fortunately, I'll admit he was right. I was wrong. And so, uh, I mean, there's so many events that they're turning down, people that are complaining about not having court time. I mean, when you go to play, if you have an hour, you want to play. you don't want to be watching others. As fun as it is to watch others, you you want to play. And so we did come in with a request for 20 courts. Um I'll tell you just from my experience, uh again, that's why I thank Director Eastwood and Lissa. They've been very communicative. Um they've been trying to see what we can do, understanding, telling us what their goals are and you know, how can we work together to figure this out? So we understood 20 courts is going to cause some problems and so we talked about reducing it down the number of courts. Uh we reduced it down to nine. We also talked about having time limits. Um so uh that you know again trying to work

together to a common goal. And so because originally we didn't we didn't have any time limits on the existing space. We shouldn't have any on the uh new space. But we understood that housing is a priority here and it's important to us you know to honor our needs as well as the city's needs. And um so we you know came from no time limit down to eight down to five. But and maybe it's a miscommunication but in our minds we thought it was crystal clear that it was only on the expansion area. There's zero way that we will touch the uh putting a time limit on the existing space. It's just not feasible in our business plan. It's not something we can possibly do. So um that's how we've uh we've always looked at it and um part of the reason is to you know kind of keep it less amount of courts less time was for the investment so that you know when housing does come back you know we'll be able to um switch over to that use and just for a little history you asked a great question um we we have not submitted a plan for housing um I'm going to get back to that because I'm just going to finish real quick so uh next slide Um we understand planning staff's recommendation. Um again I think just the biggest thing is is that it was news to us when we saw the conditions that the existing pickup ball facility would have a term um of five years when that is not the case and doesn't make a lot of sense to us when badminton itself does not have any uh term limit. So what are you going to do? You're going to have an empty building except for bad mitten. So, I don't know if I can have another minute or

if if you can take a minute to finish. Yes.

Okay. Um side finish up real quick. So, we are uh requesting that uh we be allowed to maintain um get our expansion area uh for uh we ideally we were fine with five years just for that area. We wanted to work with the city. Um but when we were discussing, you know, uh this new condition that it would be on the entire project, we were under the impression that you can't split a permit. And so then we said, okay, well then we have to ask for the entire uh permits, the entire pickle ball facility to have no term limit. We are fine, you know, with our original agreement that five years for just the expansion area. Less than ideal spirit of cooperation, we understand. So, um, my whole team is here, uh, to answer any questions. We'd love to talk to you about that. And, um, thank you very much for your consideration.

Okay. So, I know I have a question. Um, so I'm going to start with my question for you. Is that is the property just one parcel or is it three different parcels or two different parcels? Supp it is one it's one major parcel. There's two APNs. Um but it's one one parcel and parcel

and then um let's say let's say the you know commission or whatever uh vote to let's say you get eightyear term for the whole thing okay now you could reject it you know but that wouldn't affect the bminton right bminton is separate business separate um entitlement and it wouldn't affect their um termination point. That is correct.

Okay. So then my question is if if you were to start a second business call it hop two and hop two is now in charge of the expansion and it comes in as a brand new applicant you know and says I want to put let's say 20 court 9 whatever then the term limit they would give that hop to wouldn't affect the hop it wouldn't affect that because it's separate business so separate applicants that's what we would like that is not what staff is recommending.

That's what um but but then would hop too in that you know question be you okay with doing the public works improvement or whatever else that's needed to bring the that you know upper portion uh to a condition where it needs to be.

But there's less than ideal because in this lease you know we have termination rights that is not a normal thing. We mostly do shopping centers and most of these leases have no termination rights because the tenant once they go in they spend a lot of money and they don't want to be forced out u until their term is up. And so the goal is working together not spend you know so much so that we can have those termination rights so that uh we can tell the tenant when the market is correct for housing. Sorry you know we're we're switching uses. I don't know if that answers your question. It depends on what the number is. I mean ideally it is you know uh not um at some point at some point it may make sense may pencil out.

Yeah because it's temporary. I mean in our mind it's still temporary. We're asking for longer term but we know that housing is the right thing and so it's silly to us to put in brand new ADA compliant ramps and you know in our experience they're at least $25,000 each and then you know you're going to have to redo them when you do a housing project. So Okay. Thank you. Any other question? Any any other questions? Question. Uh, can you help me understand? You said you were okay if just the new courts got fiveyear. I don't I don't quite understand that. Like what why is that okay in terms of like the business versus having it everywhere? Sure.

So I guess that it wasn't going to cost us very much to put in the additional nine courts. We worked with city staff to kind of ensure, hey, let's, you know, allow it to be a shorter term and not have all these off-site improvements. um other improvements that you know could normally be required on a permanent tenant. And so it's just part of a business decision that we would you know be okay with that in order to have any chance of getting approval. Got staff support ideally. Okay. So the incremental for this is small and so if that went away, not a big deal. Yep. Got it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. Commissioner Craig.

Yeah. So I guess I would just ask along the same lines though. Uh so if there is no expiration date on the uh on on the existing you said it's not feasible with your business plan. What is that just a question of loans? The loans that are needed to make improvements paying off the loans and you just no loans. um just the business plan of being able to keep an occupant in that uh center and not have it turn into something pretty blightful. So, if they left in five years and it's unfeasible to build housing, then we're going to have that same problem we had for a year or two. And we just

Well, if we do approve if we do uh go with the staff's recommendation and we, you know, we say an expiration date on all the all the courts, then what happens? Are you guys going to close up shop and No, we just won't move forward with the You just wouldn't go with the expansion. Yep. Thank you. So, just to be clear, the thing that you're worried about happening is that you get a five a fiveyear time limit in five years the city does not want to renew it and they essentially shut you down. Correct. Okay. Um, yeah. So, so you're representing the landlord. Yes. The owner of the building. Yes.

Okay. So, um I go back to my first question is like you know I I like the idea of the whole thing. Okay. But but um how seriously is the landlord considering in the future to move towards? I mean I understand from planning from PL planners and the city about where we stood on it being a mixeduse residential high density. I get it. I was there when we put the house housing element together. But you never submitted a you never submitted an application. It was always in my mind somewhat speculative. It's like there was this empty building. We put the maps together. It says like that's a great place for high density. So we we reszoned the whole thing. But I've never heard from the landlord. You guys have had talks, but the commission has never heard directly from the landlord saying we really want to do this because It doesn't sound, you know, from from our distance there's never been any activity, you know, from where we stand. So my qu kind of question is I don't know if you can answer it is like how serious are you potentially now that you got the hub in and potentially threequarters of the whole thing uh being used that you would look in the future five years three three years five years down the line and say we really want to go to the high density mixed use. Great question and uh we are very serious and that is why we've been insistent on all of our leases we have termination rates. Again, that is a very uncommon thing. If we put in target there, no termination rights,

you know, but we pick these uses because they don't have as much investment into it and we have the rights to get rid of uh to terminate them and do housing. And we're dead serious. We are very very involved myself and Kelly in the general plan amendment in all of the uh test studies and all of the um I can't remember the name of the design standards and so I mean we've been active we've been you know came up for meetings you know very um I have many conversations with staff about how we can make sure that our the zoning code and the design standards actually work in a real way so that we could build something on there. We actually signed, we didn't act, we got almost to a lease. We had a signed LOI with a large national uh multif family developer. We're working on a lease. Market fell apart and they're just like zero chance this is happening. So pencil's down. We're not doing anything. So it's the highest and best use. There's no question for that. We, you know, want to do what's good for the city, what's good economically. So it is definitely the long-term vision. It's just that, you know, we have to be realist and it's not there today.

And and that would include knock that would that concept was to knock down the building, right? 100%. Knock it down and do you know full 75 units per acre and uh you know make it uh just a a proud uh exciting project for the city.

Right. I get it. So, so the other thing about when the when when the the planning department said we have to do these, you know, if you wanted to do the whole thing for the h, you know, the all upstairs putting in 20 more courts and food and drink and the whole thing and so you'd have to have to come in through the front entrance and you have to change the the parking lot and the access and all that kind of stuff. Did based on that information, did you do an estimate of the cost that would involve and then decided that was just too much for you to do? It was a more, yes, a preliminary estimate, but it was more wanting to work with the city. It was more of relationships are very important to us. We know what our long-term goal is. No offense, Pat, but it's housing. And, you know, the best way to keep that relationship is to work together on your interim use. And so, I think it was more important to us, hey, you know, if you're not interested in this, then, you know, let's I don't even need to do that much studying because I want to keep the relationship.

I'm done. Um, questions. Okay, question. Uh, different question. If the hub is going to be there for years, would you take one more voluntary action and paint over that awful fries electronics? Serious on the front? Yes. The gateway hub to the city. It's been closed for 5 years. If it's really going to be there through 2030, can you paint it over, put a banner up or something on top of that? I know you say no exterior improvements, but like if we do approve this for five more years or more, I would love to paint it and do it right. Yeah, 100%. Okay, I agree with you. Yeah. So, and I'm sorry that it hasn't. I'll be honest. It's something we should have done. Yeah. Thank you.

I actually have another question if anybody else. Does it involve fries and burgers or no? Go ahead.

It was a question about the alternative the the plan B or whatever it was. Uh would you prefer us to approve what what's the resolution tonight or wait the six weeks or eight weeks to evaluate the the question of the long term because we can continue this. I I I forget exactly what that is, but uh we would continue this until we evaluate what the implications of a a a a uh long term. Is that right? Is that right? And that that would take 68 weeks.

Yes. as assistant planner Marissa mentioned uh and as the engineer Roger Stewarts we'd have to come back with new conditions and the improvements sure the landlord would have to consider the extent of this improvement so okay uh to affirm they would have to come back so I guess my question is are you are you interested in that continuation to look at that or it going to take the five five years

we would not take the five years um the way it's presented it doesn't make sense so Yes. Um ideally we would take uh that'd be the best option. Uh but uh I guess we're just having a hard time understanding why there would be additional conditions when it's retail now. Retail has I forget it's probably four times the amount of traffic than what we're proposing. And so I didn't was surprised you know wasn't sure that that would be needed but that's the only option that we could consider. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Now we're going to go through the um public uh uh members of public. Uh I guess everybody's here for that. So um if we can start Donna Strauss,

welcome and thank you for waiting this.

Thank you very much. Good evening. Good evening commissions, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Donna Strauss. I'm a proud Camel resident and local business owner. I'm the founder CEO Dink of Dinkate LC. It's an AIdriven pickle ball dating application. Its core purpose is designed to connect like-minded pickle ball enthusiasts based on one shared interest, pickle ball. I believe when you combine one common passion and play, it will build a healthy foundation on and off the court. I first picked up a paddle about two years ago. What started as a fun way to stay active quickly turned into something much more. It became a huge part of my life. A way to stay active quickly turned into something much more. Pickle ball brought me fitness, friendship, and a renewed sense of joy. And yes, I did learn to play at the hub. I'm spoiled because it's about 4 minutes away from where I live. The hub means the world to me. It's more than just an indoor facility. It's welcoming, safe space that brings people together from all walks of life. I've met new friends, built meaning connection meaningful connections, seen firsthand how inclusive and positive this community really is. The hub provides incredible value to Campbell. It supports active aging, provides healthy recreation for all ages, and creates local jobs. For many of us, it's filled a huge gap yearround indoor recreation, especially during heat waves and rainy months. I strongly support the proposed expansion into the vacant space. We

desperately need more courts to meet the growing demand. More space means shorter wait times, better programming, even more opportunities to bring people together socially, physically, and emotionally. For a city like Campbell, that's a win. Thank you for your time and consideration. I truly believe this expansion will elevate not just the hub, but the health and connection of our entire community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions for her? No. Thank you. Next, Douglas Robinson. And um I just want to reiterate, we're going to go with two minute time. Thank you.

Thank you for having me. I'm Dr. Douglas Robinson. a foot and ankle specialist on health and in Winchester Boulevard. Pickle ball. Why do they call it Pickle? 1965 in Bainbridge in Washington, some families developed this game and the dog they had was named Pickle. Pickle used to steal the ball. Okay. They had joy. This is something that's like magic to our community and all the communities around. We have people that played pingpong and bad mitten and tennis. If you have any hand to eye coordination, you get on this court first couple times. You experience joy and it continues and that's why we are all here because we get joy when we are there and there's not enough space now. We've outgrown this two years and we need to expand. And I'm a I've been practicing uh foot and an as a foot and ankle specialist in Campbell since a long time. It's been 35 years. I'm a a big supporter of Girls on the Run and I love this facility. It brings me joy and I hope you will really consider allowing them to expand and if you haven't been out there, you should just walk in there. You're going to go, it's like a sea of courts. It's just amazing. And this is the guy and that's the guy. and I really hope you'll consider letting them do this. It's amazing.

Thank you. I have a question for you. Um, how close are you to the facility? I'm three blocks away. Three blocks away. So, I stopped there before I go home. Towards Winchester. What's that? You're towards Winchester. I'm Yeah, I'm right by Mount Hamilton. Right by Winchester. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Disclosure, he's my podiatrist. Ah, I probably don't remember. You probably don't remember me. It's been three or four years. I do remember you. Everybody I have to I have to visit him. I'm a soccer player. So, okay. Next, please. Steve Keagan. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh, wow. My colleague who friend I met at the hub, Donna, earlier said eloquently everything I was going to say. So, I'm not going to repeat all that. You've heard it, but but it's uh the truth. I started playing pickle ball actually about six years ago. I started out at the community center. It's very limited. It's two days a week about two hours each, Tuesday, Thursday. Four courts on a on a basketball court. Not real safe if it gets a little slippery. And then during the summertime, that's in the main gym. Summertime it goes to the auxiliary gym. Three courts. Tremendous weight. People are paying for it. It's not free. Also, there's only about six, if that, tennis courts in the city of Campbell. No pickle ball courts. I used to play tennis. It's very difficult to get a court. So, anything else you have to go outside of Campbell 4 and those are all packed also, especially the pickle ball courts. having a year-round indoor facility, not only for the health, the socialization, the what, but it gives Campbell, you can't pay for the idea that or the information that people know Campbell because of the hub. Uh it's just a great place. I certainly encourage that a uh resolution can come as satisfactory for the uh hub and the owners of the building and so you can it could be expanded so uh we can play and not have to wait watch other people play. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Pat Rols.

Hi everybody. Pat Rolf is here. I'm one of the owners of the house my pet Angelo the win from Florida for this as well. So um basically we're really proud to be here in Campbell. We're proud of what we built um we've built into the community. We um sponsor and put together a battle of the shields for the fire department as well as the police department to get together and play. We support schools. We support women. We support kids. um and just the community as a whole. So, you know, we built this just for that reason. In six months after opening, uh which was two years ago, I went back to Lissa who's been wonderful and and staff in general has and said we'd like to expand it. We started this process now over a year and a half ago. And so it's, you know, it's been a long process and as you know, Brett communicated, we've been trying to work with the city every way through the process. We understand the the arena numbers. We understand what you're trying to accomplish. So the idea of expansion, um, you know, we wanted the whole building. Um, staff came back and said, "Well, it's going to be expensive because we want this driveway and that driveway, and we know that it's a limited deal." So we worked with staff to go back and forth to scale that back to come up with this limited number of five years and it my understanding at the time so I think it was just a misunderstanding is that it wouldn't include the other part of the building and so basically it's difficult for us to give our business away in five years that we've invested you know millions of dollars in to be able to create it to then say okay well to expand it to just nine more courts we're going to lose it that's 36 players just a so it's difficult for us and but we want to do the right thing with the city and we want to work together. Um so we're just

here to basically have you understand the business side of it. um what we bring to the community. We just had the California State Championships here and we brought in so many people and this is the reason why people come to Can Campbell from Los Gatos from Palo Alto from everywhere else because this is one of the you know worldass facilities of pickle ball in the world. So wonderful. Any questions for me?

Um actually you know so I want to ask the same question I asked um I apologize I forgot his name. Correct. Right. Right. Thank you. Um so, uh have you entertained the idea of instead of expanding your Pony Court facility is coming in with a brand new entity, you know, call it something else, not the hub. And so applying like, hey, we're going to put nine or 10 or 20 or whatever course in this side. Just like badinton is a different business, this would be a different business. And and so this way whatever you agree with agree on wouldn't apply to the 20 courts that has and and honestly sir I appreciate you saying that because I had the same thing way back when you know a year ago or whatever bringing it up and the reality is is that it's not the reality is it's the same staff. The reality is that's not what the city wanted. They didn't want us to take the whole building. they made it, you know, to say, you know, here change these parking lots, change this, change that, knowing that ultimately, you know, it may be housing. So, that didn't feel like um um a the proper thing to do to be try to gain the system. It's more this is who we are. Go into our ifs haven't been our facility, please go in. I mean, yeah,

it's clean, it's healthy, it's fun, it's it's gorgeous, you know,

we bring so much value to this community. It's incredible. And will housing and another comment on the housing, it's truly possible to potentially, you know, in five years build that section of housing and leave the recreational set alone. So by bifurcating the cup to me makes a lot of sense because you don't know what's going to happen and to give part of your arena numbers may be a good solution and address that a little bit further down the road because I don't think with the economy and everything else and what I'm hearing from your staff. How's this tax happen you know in the next few years? So

anyway that's that's my thought. Thank you very much. You know that was my question. Is there any anybody else? No. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Michael Fox. Okay. Welcome.

Hi, I'm Mike Fox. Uh you asked for my address. I'm 1843 Linda in San Jose uh in Cambrian. So, I've lived, worked, and played in around Campbell for all of my life. I want to thank the commissioner and staff for letting us speak and for all the members of the hub that have come to join us here today to show their support. You know, uh two years ago, the ownership group stepped into an empty warehouse and created what is really one of the premier pickle ball facilities in the country. Uh our members love it. We draw people from all over the Bay Area and people that fly in for work or to visit family come regularly. We've got people that come from Gilroy, from San Monteo, from Fremont, all driving in uh to come and play at at our facility. Since we've opened two years ago, we've had over 17,000 different players play at our facility. We just had a state championship tournament with 650 players that were here for for five days staying at hotels, eating at the restaurants, and shopping in Campbell. This is really uh in my mind a crown jewel of Campbell. There's uh it is a thing that draws people in, makes people recognize. We had NFL Films here last month filming documentary with Terrell Owens that'll be showing during the football season. Uh Donna forgot to mention that she'll be on Shark Tank with a pickle ball related uh idea that she's got here coming up in in you know later this season. We believe that that the community uh needs this facility. We see people of all ages. We've got an 82year-old member who won the uh California championship will be competing for a national title. We've got a high school player here who will also be competing for a national championship here later this year.

Right. This is something that's really fun and healthy, great for the mental, social, physical being of our uh of the community. And we really believe that that this is the crown jewel of of Gamble. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Uh is that it? Anybody else? That's it for now.

So, I have a question. By show of hands, can the people in the audience that haven't spoken, if you're here to support the hub, can you raise your hand? Just want to get a feel. And if you are here to oppose, can you do a show of hands? Anybody on the line that might There are six people online. So, and no one has requested to speak, but there are six people online. Uh okay. Uh so can they do a show of hands to see if any of them are are opposed? Uh

attendees present uh Chris Boso, Mike Naveritz, Sean Lamb, Terry Edinger, Willa Cow, Zack Tone. If you are in favor, can you please uh request uh to speak or raise your hand? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They don't have to speak. I'll raise your hand. Well, they're all raising their own. Raise your hand. Got it. Okay. Thank you for that. That was a a just a unofficial poll. Um okay. Uh so I'm going to close the public hearing. Uh actually no. Does the applicant want to talk anymore? No.

No. Thank you. Available if there's any other questions. Thank you. Okay. So um let's go back to the staff. Yeah. So staff if you could comment on what you've heard.

Yeah. Thanks. Um just a one point of clarification technical nature is that the site is actually two parcels uh with two different APNs. However, the building spans both parcels and is operates as a single shopping center. Um, I also wanted to point out that based on the testimony provided tonight, it does seem as though the applicant is supportive uh and this uh community is also supportive use uh especially considering keeping it at a long term um uh for a long-term use uh time length. However, as mentioned as option two, staff would have to take back the application and re-evaluate it in terms of our regulatory bodies including building, public works, um fire department, and also planning. Uh the approval of a non-terming a non-term limited CUP would require the city to reassess its housing opportunity sites inventory and housing element to determine the long-term implications of housing capacity and compliance with H&. So that would also be part of the uh review that we would have to do internally. Um I also wanted to point out that if in the future if the five years um elapses and the market conditions are the same um the applicant could come back and present the same application which we considered in the same type of way. uh we do this with uh all the f fitness facilities in the light industrial and uh research and development zoning districts as I previously mentioned. And so this is a common practice as I'm sure you've seen some of these applications coming back for uh reup uh to reup their cup. And the third point I wanted to make is that if in the future the uh property owner does receive a viable housing uh opport uh housing developer who makes a connection um there is a opportunity to utilize a provision within the municipal code uh under the temporary use section which would allow

the pickle ball facility to operate while the uh city is uh has received and um is reviewing an active application for development. And so if in the future the market's turn and the uh the property owner does receive um some interest in the site um the pickle ball facility could operate under this temporary use permit uh provision which would not require a C or require uh a decision by the planning commission. So there's a lot of opportunity to continue with the use uh in perpetuity outside of this 5-year term limitation that staff is proposing. Furthermore, staff um is happy to hear that there's a lot of community involvement and is also supportive of the use for a term limited opportunity. Uh staff considers it as a great interimm use for an underutilized site that has you know been sitting for quite some time. Um, and I believe uh, and then just the last thing to consider is that if if the planning commission does ask staff to um, review the implications of a non-term limited CUP, um, uh, we the city still needs to think critically and evaluate any policy tonight as well of that option.

I didn't catch that last part, Lisa. Uh, sure. So, if the um if the planning commission does direct staff to consider the um implications of uh uh and to review a non-term term limited conditional use permit, uh the planning commission still tonight can critically evaluate the policy implications of a long-term uh conditional use permit in terms of the uh consistency with the housing element and general plan. Um that should still be up for discussion tonight. Can I ask Lissa what what what long-term implications are there? So visioning here just

generally what what the considerations are from staff or with that slide that I had shown was that this site is designated as a housing opportunity site and so it is part of the capacity that staff has dedicated towards moving that arena and if that if the site is approved for a conditional use permit uh in perpetuity we staff would need to assess how that implicates um the housing element and um

but we'll talk about Okay. So, so in terms of what the last part you said, does that mean are you saying that we could do a resolution to do a non-term limited tonight? No, I'm saying that if the planning commission uh would like have to have staff uh review the uh proposal to have a non-term limited cup, uh the city the planning commission should continue it

should continue it, but also think about the uh the policy implications can still be discussed tonight. We don't necessarily need to understand fully what the site implications are in order to make those policy decisions. Do you have any reason to believe that because we give a non-term limited the actually part of the site is already that well we could still leave it on the parcels for the housing element wouldn't wait because we've already it's already not non-term limited and it's it's still on the list of parcels for housing

for housing element. Is there any reason to think that would have to change and that that has some negative implications?

So, I'll weigh in as Lissa mentioned the again the Bang use has been there separate use. Um, and the city knew that when it designated a housing site uh the the original pickle ball use went in before the redesation. Uh, now it's a housing site. It's high stakes as mentioned. It's 14% arena. Uh, we are underperforming. Uh, I will say there are instances out there and HTT does watch if a city is actively taking actions to not encourage housing or dissuade housing, i.e. reszoning a site or proving a use that commits it to some long term that ties it up to housing. We could be liable to an audit and a review. So, I think I'll I'll say on behalf of the department of the city, a long-term commitment to a non-housing site at at this site would present a big liability probably for the city in terms of housing.

But that that that would be something you would investigate if we if we continue this that would be something one of the things you would investigate in terms of the implication of the Yeah. It' be it wouldn't it's our due diligence to fly debt tonight. You need to know that. But uh but if you want to go down that route, you'd refer to staff uh bring back with the improvements uh we talked about that the public works engineer mentioned and we'd have to to evaluate a bit more deeply the housing. And thank you.

When I'm sorry if we covered this like an hour ago, but can we can we ask staff to do what the applicants understanding is and just conditionally approve the new courts for five years? Is that legal? Um we Oh, so that's not the application. No, I understand that. But if we if if well I don't know who I'm asking then but like could we all just make a recommendation for that and then staff could take that into consideration? Making the recommendation for that to match the applicant's understanding that they don't want to touch their existing permit.

Yes. But just focusing on the put the five-year term on the expansion. Yes, that is something like that's possible for us to do. Yes. Okay. Okay. We could we could do that with a resolution that would be binding tonight or you mean tonight? So it would be our recommendation. So it's my recommendation. We haven't fully looked into that. Um that's we would want to make sure that there in doing so there wouldn't be any inconsistencies with the existing plan development permit. Um existing what?

Existing uh plan development permit on the on the property. Um but uh that is something we look into. Yes. So you you you want to be able to look into that and come back to us. Okay. So I'd say I mean that's obviously a middle ground, right? Yeah.

Uh and we talked with the city attorney's office before that as as a option. I know that the applicant had pursued that earlier. Um so I I'd say I I think staff and legal advice would be I mean there's nothing prohibits that. It's it's a bit unusual uh usually to have a use that operates together as one and have one part that terminates in five years not that's unindustry standard. It happens. Uh there's nothing uh in the state law our codes that says that's totally unpermissible.

Uh so to to answer two things, one is legally go forward with that. two is uh to to Tori's point, I think we'd recommend if you want to go down a route, uh make a motion to that effect, continue the meeting for at least one month for us to come back and and make sure there's no fatal flaws and amend the resolution and put in the record everything that's you know, um I liken this to let's say you got a house, you got a 3% mortgage on it, fixed, you know, you don't want to get rid of it and if you put an ADU and they go, okay, we'll give you a loan, but now we're going to refinance has everything said. No, I don't want to touch my 3% fixed loan. I'd like it to stay there. You know, I'll pay a little bit higher interest rate than the Are we in discussion now?

Yeah, it's good. Yes, we have. We have close the public hearing. I think I closed the public. If not, yeah, was it was it was to

unless Lissa has some more. Oh, I just wanted to mention that um the same policy implications that we would um analyze the the entire use of the expansion will be the same policy implications that we'll utilize to uh consider just uh what you're proposing as a um enshrining the underlying use but a term limit on the um as everything is under a new general plan and into new zoning code uh some of our policy documents have changed in our policy direct groups. So with that in mind continue. Okay. Yeah. So um Okay. So now we are in discussion.

All right.

So um uh if anybody wants to commission bookendo. Um yeah, my understanding of this is that I think we're dealing with the consequences of decisions that we made a couple years ago that we had this idea that we mostly want to not quite shrink wrap but not have you know a multiple of our renal as the buffer for our zone capacity and we wind up in situations like this where staff is I don't want to is able to strongarm, but the staff is really trying to nudge people to change a use that they're quite happy with. I mean, there's no point in having a a time limited conditional use permit unless you're trying to make sure that they shut down and turn it into housing at the end of that, which is a very awkward position to be in. We wouldn't be in this position if we had way more zone capacity, but we decided to focus on a small portion of sites and we'd weirdly be better off in this narrow narrow sense if this were an empty fries that somebody was spotting in right now, which is an awkward place to be. I I don't envy staff the position they're in, but I don't think it's So, we just had a discussion about how do we make it easier to to permit and build housing here. If we want more housing, just brought up fix this. We can fix the reasons why it is really hard to build housing here. Out of scope for here, but we were talking about this, I think two meetings ago. Um, there's stuff we can do. I don't think that we are like I realize we are on solid legal ground here but I feel like we're like really at the edge of our mandate trying to do this. This feels awkward

and uncomfortable and the extent to which you know we can not arbitrarily try and shut down their business because we hope that housing will become feasible in five years and we'll try and push them shut down then. I I I'm just not comfortable with doing that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, I like to weigh in on that and well, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead.

Well, no, I guess yeah, I know that we were really through all those out in discuss. We really kind of on this side to be a real savior almost. I I didn't realize it was 14% of our arena number, but uh that's even more than I thought, but it was already always really important. So, but I I I get so I again I have been mainly graing grappling with, you know, Lissa telling us that if we make this non-term limited that you you have to open up the door, you have to look at everything again. I I because it sounds like even the owners of the property are interested and want to see it as housing as a housing site some point. So uh you know I don't know why that changes it because apparently even if it's if it's you know nonexpiration term term non-term limited uh if all of a sudden a housing project develops then we can still go forward with the housing project there. So, uh, so yeah, I I agree like like Commissioner Piger said, I don't staff's position. I'm kind of a tough spot here and so is the owner. But uh I guess I would be leaning toward I don't know what the halfway halfway part is but maybe you know just keeping the existing 20 you know without a term limit and then the new ones limited and and still hoping hoping and and and encouraging as much as possible that the whole site will at some point be a a major housing mixture site for us. So, I'm definitely convinced that it's a it's a wonderful facility. Great great re, you know, when you look at that site, how many uses I got to work in there. Thank God that one work. That's that's awesome. That's really a plus for for Campbell and for the area. I can definitely see that. So,

uh, and I just I just I guess I'm just hesitant to to approve some or vote for something that makes life just completely miserable for staff and and and more importantly that that kind of short short changes are major housing goals. So, uh, that's the problem I think that we're we're all Thank you.

Okay. So, um, yeah, I I Commissioner Bookbender said a lot of did a very good job of reflecting my position on this. Uh, thanks, Adam. Um, so yeah, I'm I'm comfortable with this. Um, you know, I'm as painfully aware of the Reno requirement as anybody here. Okay. So, uh, we went through this, most of us, and and I'm very much into housing. Uh, probably there's only one commissioner on this commission that's more interested in affordable housing than me, and you know, Adam gets that honor. So, um, so I I certainly understand that, but you know, to me, it's been a couple years. I drive by I drive by there almost every day. It's on my way to, you know, Knob Hill or to to CVS or to the freeway to go somewhere else. I drive by there all the time. And um there's a very desirable, viable commercial thing going on there that apparently is incredibly successful. Okay. And my take is uh you know you know it's very speculative that we're going to get 400 units someday. Okay. Um it'd be a highrise high density high-rise high density apartments and condominiums are like not at the top of the list right now with developers and who knows when it will be. So I I believe under the landlord's you know positive

upbeat uh me uh message is that I'm I get the impression they're very happy with this tenant. Okay. This is a going enterprise. This is a growing enterprise. I would love to see the whole place fill up with the hub including something where we can get sales tax from it. you know, because I don't think we get sales tax because they pay a membership fee and that's not taxable. So, so, um, to me it's, you know, as far as the gateway, it's like, hey, I think it's a great place to be at the gateway. You know, there's there's nothing wrong with that being there at the gateway. You know, my take on the gateway is a little bit different than some people, but so I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a term limit. I I it seems to me the landlord has a choice of kicking his tenants out anyway at some point if he changes his mind. Um what the other implications are, I don't know, but I think that's why we should probably continue this for six to eight weeks so that you know and I don't you know I actually don't mind giving the staff more work. That's what their job is. So, you know, I'm sympathetic to the staff, but that's what they're here for. So, I would I would be in favor of continuing this, look into the the non-term limited implications and that we should um I I would be encouraging to to go that route if if there's any way we can do that reasonably. And you know, even if they could figure out a way to once they get that to expand fully because I like the idea of that whole space being full of people and having a good time and being uh tens of and hundreds of thousands of people coming there every year. I mean

that sounds great to me. So that's where I stand. Wonderful. Thank you. Um Majiski. Yeah, I think my thoughts have been stated, but I don't want to kneecap a really successful business that's bringing a lot of joy to our community. Um, I also don't want to give staff extra work and open ourselves to liability as a city. But, um, so I guess I don't know between a rock and a hard place. So, I guess we could find the happy middle ground by contining the Yeah. Makes sense. Do you want you want to take a consensus on the idea of a resolution to continue?

Not yet. I want to give a question chance too. Okay. All right. Uh I did want to briefly thank staff and Lissa. This was two incredibly dense items backtoback tactical.

Um so props to the staff. Um think we should continue this. I think we should let them I I I'm interested in the city's diligence. I I care about our housing numbers. If we do hear some smoking gun, I will be interested to hear that in six weeks. But otherwise, like feel like we should give a fiveyear carve out for these new things. We're not really 50% of this property roughly by square foot is already indefinitely approved. This is adding another 20%. It's fiveyear capped. I don't know. It doesn't feel super material to me, but I'm not in the business. I'm interested in what the experts think. But um this clearly is making a lot of residents happy. It's using the space like we've all been talking about. It's giving more money to the landlord who maybe someday will invest that in building housing. Maybe in 20 years there's 500 units of apartments and then the bottom floor is the hub 2.0 that all the residents are going to.

Um so yeah, I mean with the with the cheeky famil better to batch that in a drive. It's next to a freeway. So, no. I think we should continue it.

Excellent. Thank you. That was very well put. Um, you know, I also think a middle ground is the way to go. I uh, you know, I think they were very clear. um uh they don't want to give up their uh unturned lease, you know, makes perfect sense. Um I was actually very um encouraged when you know um the owner said I would be open to developing half of it sooner. And to me that's great, you know, to me that's the attitude because um the last thing I want to do is to have our staff go to CHD, you know, and AHCD and saying we have to, you know, reshuffle our numbers. We're going to take some opportunity sites away. um that's definitely counter um productive as to one of the things that we as a commission are trying to do but um middle ground I think would be a happy um h win-win situation in this case so um if there were to be a motion for continuation I would be supporting that as

I I I'll be happy to make a motion is there a motion I'll make a motion that we continue this uh until a future date. Hopefully in their term that would allow staff to investigate the implications of a non-term limited um uh use for the applicant. Is that good enough? No, wait. Non-term limited or term limited on a portion of it? Well, either one. We could I guess we can do either one. Okay. non-term limited for the entire I think the thing we're most interested in is not applying it to the existing property right

yeah you know to yeah exactly you know I mean I mean you can go ahead and make a motion you want you know I just can we can we look into both aspects of it versus unlimited those are the two choices right yeah five for the portion and and or I'm term limited for or non-term limited for all of it or or or a portion of the the new portion being only five term limit. I think nothing should touch the existing unit. The two choices onion are either fiveyear or indefinite. That's right. That that's what I was trying to get in the resolution. Okay. Is is look into both of those choices. Okay. You guys got that? Uh

are you clear or did

Yeah, I'll I'll say this from staff's standpoint. Um so two options. Uh I'd say money putting the two together would be very complicated. So and I think it'd be a lot clearer if you did one motion instead of two. So option number one uh hearing where the commission's going uh would be to terminal on the expansion space only. Staff's advice is uh in abundance caution to continue the hearing at least for one month. We'd amend the resolution. We make sure there's no fatal flaws. We don't see at this point we could bring it back ex expeditiously a month. Option number two is no term limit uh whatsoever uh on the expansion space or the existing space. Uh as I said there there are some major policy issues with that and we'd have to investigate public works. That's a 68 week core deal. Putting those two together does complicate things. Uh it sets expectations very different between the applicant and staff on what's next. So I highly advise you pick one or the other on your motion.

Well, I don't understand why can't why you can't investigate both. I don't understand why you can't investigate. Well, if the I mean there's time based expectations on this uh one is a a very big time commitment both for staff and likely the applicant taking that back in six to eight weeks. If the intention of of the commission is to do the first option uh that's that's three to four week I'm sorry that's that's a few week exercise. We'll be back to you very quickly. Yeah. I think the applicants said they were fine with five. I think all right. All right. wouldn't be able to. We'll do option one

resolution on option one to look at the uh uh five-year term only for the addition. Yeah. Okay. Second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Um uh can we have a roll call, please? Sure. Commissioner Zisser. Hi, Commissioner Majuski. Hi, Commissioner Gr. Hi, Commissioner Goinder. Hi, Vice Fields. Hi, Chair Kim Car.

I All right. Congratulations. So, that motion passes unanimously. And just just to be clear, we're in for August 12th plan commission meeting. August 12th. August 12th. So, so, so it's the next one. Not September 12, August. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience, everyone. All right. Are we going to stay for the um We could actually we could postpone it if that's okay.

I you know, it's 10:20. I would back. Yeah, postpone push it. I would vote it out. Okay. So, uh, all those It was a great report, but all those in favor of postponing the next item,

is that okay? Is that okay? Um, is that okay to postpone the Yeah. 6 65 630 is a good day. Okay. So, um with that I think we are uh that's that's it right. Oh, report from report from our uh so the plans so report from community development director.

Yeah, I have about an hour's worth of reports. So, I'm not gonna I'll just say we're starting to work on a multimodal plan precise plan. We'll get some dates to you when that comes back and I'd highly advertise again if you want to go to a great fall American Planning Association conference. We'll push that out. It's going to be in Monterey. Okay. Thank you very much. Can I mention one quick thing? Yes. Uh the commissioner on my left is retiring from this commission.

No, we got we got another month. Yeah. Well, but well, no, no, no, no. But I I I would I was wanting to see if we wanted to get together for maybe a Tuesday that we don't have a commission and get together as a council and have a meal or some drinks together. And are there brandations? Well, that's why I'm bringing this up here just to make sure we do this properly. Playing pickle ball. Yeah. Yeah. What's this for? Yes. As long as you Mike can tell me. Well, that's I mean that's Yeah. He's not gonna Irish goodbye us. I want us to to legally speaking, you do not talk about planning commission related matters. That is okay. Okay. Staff can volunteer to monitor. Yes. Enjoy with you. Sure.

We need stuff. Uh so who would plan this thing? I was thinking one of the next two Tuesdays. Okay. Uh how about we make it uh not August 5th. How about August 19th? Or is that too far out? That's reasonable. I uh I've got an operation that day. Oh, okay. So, how about That's all good. So, how about August 5th? I was That's next Tuesday. It's It's two weeks. Two Tuesdays, but it's not a It's not a It's not a commission night, but it's a city council night, but just get together for a drink or something. The uh city council's made on the fourth, not the fifth. Oh, really? It's not enough.

Yeah. Um. Oh, very nice. City council meets on I mean meets on Monday. They're typically on Tuesday for that meeting. They push it to Monday. Ah, got it. Okay. Well, then that's a sign. If you don't want it to be about you, it'll just be a summer gathering. Yeah. I like the idea. Yeah. I don't like it about Can I email? How do we coordinate a place about uh That's a question. Yeah. Um I if you want to can I email Rob and then Rob can email my first thought and then Rob can send if there's any date or location. Okay, great. The pub or blue line or

Yeah, something like that. There's something in Campbell. We're going to support that. Yeah. Oh, definitely. Yeah. Okay. Wonderful. With that we are ajourned to August 12th. I love Banganese.