PC Min 10/22/2002CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
OCTOBER 22, 2002
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2002, was called to order at 7:35 p.m., in
the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Francois, and the
following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Tom Francois
Bob Alderete
George Doorley
Elizabeth Gibbons
Brad Jones
Michael Rocha
Commissioners Absent:
Vice Chair:
Joseph D. Hernandez
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Senior Planner:
Associate Planner:
Planner II:
Land Development Mgr.:
Redevelopment Manager:
Traffic Engineer:
City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Sharon Fierro
Geoff I. Bradley
Tim J. Haley
Darcy Smith
Lynn Penoyer
Kirk Heinrichs
Matthew Jue
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Rocha,
the Planning Commission minutes of October 8, 2002, were approved. (5-
0-1-1; Vice Chair Hernandez was absent and Chair Francois abstained)
COMMUNICATIONS.
1. Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 1.
2. Correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2.
3. Revised Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 2.
Planning Commission Minut,~s of October 22, 2002 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no Oral Requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
PLN2002-108
Redevelopment
Agency
Public Hearing to consider the application of the Redevelopment
Agency for the City of Campbell for approval of a
Reinstatement/Extension of Approval (PLN2002-108) of a
previously-approved Site and Architectural Permit (PLN2001-82) to
allow the construction of a two-story retail/office building of 30,050
square feet on property located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue in
the C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. A Negative
Declaration was previously prepared for this project. Project
Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that he would be unable to offer legal representation
on this item as he has a conflict of interest.
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the Redevelopment Agency is seeking the Reinstatement/Extension of
Approval for a mixed-use development, which consists of 15,000 square feet of retail space
on the first floor and 15,000 square feet of office space on the second floor. The project
site is located on E. Campbell Avenue, adjacent to the recently completed City parking
structure.
· Informed that the approval expired on September 7, 2002, and that the Redevelopment
Agency is requesting a two-year extension. There are no proposed changes to the original
approval.
· Added that the agreement with Barry Swenson Builder has terminated.
· Said that the RDA wants to retain the entitlements for the property development in order to
market the site to another developer.
Recommended that the Commission approve a two-year Extension/Reinstatement.
Commissioner Doorley asked if the feasibility of including residential versus office use on the
second floor has been studied.
Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager:
· Advised that the agreement with Swenson terminated in August as the developer could not
perform because of the current economy.
· Said that there are concerns with the idea of installing residential uses directly across from
Stoddard's.
· Added that the density of residential required to work on this site would be too high.
· Stated that RDA is currently looking for other investors.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2002 Page 3
Informed that the purpose in seeking out this Extension is to have the ability to market the
property to other developers, if necessary. It is easier to sell a site that has approved
entitlements.
Commissioner Doorley asked how much more dense the residential component would have to
be compared to the Gateway Project just down the street.
RDA Manager Kirk Heinrichs replied that the lack of on-site parking would hinder the creation
of ownership units. There is not a high demand in the rental residential unit market right now.
Commissioner Doorley asked if it would still be a tough sell to get this project built with the
office over retail.
RDA Manager Kirk Heinrichs replied yes.
Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Chair Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3465 approving
a Reinstatement/Extension of Approval (PLN2002-108) of a previously
approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2001-82) to allow the
construction of a two-story retail/office building of 30,050 square feet on
property located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue and found the project
Categorically Exempt, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Jones and Rocha
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hernandez
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
PLN2002-39 (ZC)
PLN2002-40 (GP)
PLN2002-41 (TS)
PLN2002-95 (S)
PLN2002-112 (TRP)
Sullivan, J.
Public Hearing to consider the applications of Mr. Jim Sullivan,
on behalf of Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., for:
1. Zoning Classification Change (PLN2002-39) from P-D
(Planned Development) to R-l-9 (Single Family Residential,
9,000 square foot minimum lot size);
2. General Plan Amendment (PLN2002-40) to change the
General Plan Land Use Designation from Neighborhood
Commercial to Low Density Residential, less than 4.5 units per
gross acre;
3. Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2002-41) to create 30
residential lots and four private driveway (Turner Way) lots;
Planning Commission MinuL,~s of October 22, 2002 Page 4
4. Site and Architectural Review Permits (PLN2002-95) for the
development of 30 single family residences; and a
5. Tree Removal Permit (PLN2002-112) for the removal of 5 trees,
on property owned by U.S. Trust Company as Trustee of the
Vecchioli Family Trust at 1255-1461 W. Hacienda Avenue in a
P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. Tentative
City Council Meeting Date: November 19, 2002. Project
Planner: Darcy Smith, Planner II
Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
from Commercial to Low Density Residential; a Zoning Classification Change from P-D
(Planned Development) to R-l-9 (Single Family Residential; minimum lot size of 9,000
square feet); a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 30 single-family residential parcels and
four private driveway parcels; a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow the
development of 30 new single-family residences and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the
removal of five trees.
· Described the parcel as 6.66 net acres located on the northwest comer of W. Hacienda
Avenue and S. San Tomas Aquino Road. This site was originally developed in 1975 with a
60,000 square foot retail shopping center. The majority of the center was demolished in
January 2002 and the remaining liquor store will be demolished soon.
Said that the proposed project is consistent with the R-l-9 zoning requirements and the
proposed density is less than the maximum permitted. The lots will range in size from
9,008 to 14,163 square feet.
· Advised that the Tentative Subdivision Map would create 30 residential lots with four
private driveway lots. The project site will be accessed from W. Hacienda and the new
public street will be an L-shaped cul de sac that will be 40 feet wide and will include a
rolled curb with parking on both sides of the street. Both San Tomas Aquino Road and W.
Hacienda are residential collector streets, which would require full improvements. This
street design would prevent cut through traffic. There will be a 10-foot wide pedestrian
access to San Tomas Aquino Road.
· Said that the distribution of house plans is 8 (Plan 1), 10 (Plan 2) and 12 (Plan 3). The
maximum FAR is .45 and the maximum height is 28 feet. There are three floor plans with
three different exterior elevations, which results in nine significantly different exterior
elevations. Plan 1 includes three to four bedrooms in a 1.5 story structure, of which 75
percent of the footprint is single-story.
· Stated that each home would have two to three covered spaces and three to six uncovered
parking spaces. Staff finds this provision of parking to be consistent with the San Tomas
Area Neighborhood Plan. The representative architectural features of the area are
incorporated in these homes. The project meets all setbacks for the residences.
· Displayed photographs of recently completed homes in the area.
· Informed that the Tree Removal Permit is sought to remove five trees. Retention of these
trees would prohibit the relocation of sanitary sewer line as is required.
· Added that the front yards will be landscaped and that one new tree will be planted for each
2,000 net square feet of lot area, resulting in 160 new 24-inch box trees. This is ten times
the number of trees currently on site.
Planning Commission Minings of October 22, 2002 Page 5
· Stated that the applicant is requesting a reduced fence setback for three corner lots.
· Said that the applicant is giving four 10-foot private driveway lots to the property owners
on the adjacent Turner Way. Additionally, the sewer line will be relocated and the
applicant will resurface and reconstruct Turner Way to a 16-foot width. Applicant will
complete these improvements prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for the final residence.
· Advised that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 22nd. Concerns raised
included the safety of pedestrians crossing Hacienda and the lack of a single-story
residence. After review, a four-way stop was found to be unwarranted, as it is the policy of
the Public Works Department not to install uncontrolled crosswalks. As a result of
concerns over a lack of a single-story design, the applicant has developed a 1.5 story
design.
· Described outstanding issues as including street lighting, installation of a decomposed
granite pathway and fencing materials along Turner Way. Staff supports inclusion of
streetlights on the new public street. Staff is not supportive of the proposed use of
decompressed granite pathways and supports a masonry wall to separate the project from
Turner Way.
· Said that the unit distribution is 8 (Plan 1), 10 (Plan 2) and 12 (Plan 3). Lot 30 can only
accommodate Plan 2 per the applicant, which is the only plan for a shallow lot. However,
staff finds that using Plan 1 instead would soften the corner.
· Stated that an Initial Study was prepared that determined no significant impacts and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, of which staff is recommending adoption.
Five issues were raised, including noise impacts and the potential discovery of
archeological artifacts on site during construction.
· Recommended the adoption of six resolutions to forward to Council, recommending
approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Classification Change, Tentative
Subdivision Map, Site and Architectural Review Permits, Tree Removal Permit and the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the applicant believes they have a pre-determined Lot 30 on
which only one plan could fit however either the plan or the parcel could be changed to
accommodate Plan 1.
Planner Darcy Smith agreed that there are two other options.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that the current proposal requires issuance of a Variance.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this proposal on October 8, 2002 and made the following
recommendations:
o Increase the number of Plan 1 units to eight.
o Eliminate Plan 1-C from the lot facing Hacienda Avenue.
o Determine if Plan 1 fits onto Lot 30 (corner of San Tomas Aquino Road and Hacienda
Avenue).
Did not support the proposed decomposed granite path.
Suggested the elimination of the stone veneer on Plan 1-C.
O
O
Planning Commission MinuLcs of October 22, 2002 Page 6
o Regarding the proposed use of a masonry wall along Turner Way, one member of
SARC was neutral and the other was against. Both are more in favor of the use of a
thicker wood fence.
o Supported fence exceptions for Lots 2, 14 and 30.
o Recommended the alteration of the stone veneer on Plan 2-A.
Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Cathy Faulkner, 1135 Harriet Avenue, Campbell:
· Stated that she resides two blocks from the project site.
Expressed support for the installation of concrete
pedestrians, particularly students on the way to school.
sidewalks for the convenience of
Mr. Stanley Miel, 911 Peachtree Court, Campbell: Declared that he was happy to see this project.
Expressed that he does not understand the concept of rolled curbs as people often drive up
onto lawns simply to vandalize property.
· Said that he would prefer to see the street exit location moved to San Tomas Aquino Road
as he has concerns for people crossing Hacienda who might be hit by cars exiting this new
street.
· Stated his support for sidewalks for use by children walking to school.
Mr. Matthew Jue, City Traffic Engineer:
· Explained that having the street exit onto either Hacienda or San Tomas Aquino Road had
been carefully studied.
· Said that traffic is stopped along San Tomas Aquino Road during commute hours, which
would block people from leaving the new street via San Tomas Aquino Road.
Chair Francois expressed agreement that there is lots of queuing occurring on San Tomas
Aquino Road.
Mr. Jim Sullivan, Applicant, Braddock & Logan:
· Expressed his commendation of City Staff, particularly Planner Darcy Smith, and the
Planning and Public Works staff.
· Stated that the staff report was informative.
· Made himself available for questions.
· Said that they have attempted to address staff concerns and that they look forward to the
acquisition of the property and the development of an attractive residential housing project
in Campbell.
· Pointed out that they have alternatives suggested by SARC. One would require a Variance;
another would require a customized house plan for Lot 15.
Director Sharon Fierro cautioned that the Planning Commission couldn't act on a Variance or
Fence Exception request this evening, as those items were not noticed as a part of this hearing.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that a Variance is a big deal, with three specific criteria
that must be met, and is difficult to support in this circumstance.
Planning Commission MinuL,~s of October 22, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Doorley stated his concern over the corner of San Tomas Aquino Road and W.
Hacienda Avenue. Pointed out that there are already the "castles" to the right. The three
largest houses are proposed for this corner of the project, which create a mass issue. There is
need to break up that mass. Asked the Commissioners for their opinions on this matter.
Commissioner Jones asked if the homes on the exhibit are depicted on the same scale.
Mr. Jim Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Jones said that he does not see a big difference.
Commissioner Doorley said there is a difference in the front massing.
Mr. Frank Stolz, Project Architect:
· Pointed out that the Plan 1 has a one-story condition on the side elevation.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if all the changes proposed by SARC were made.
Planner Darcy Smith replied no.
Mr. Jim Sullivan advised that they propose to locate two Plan 1-C units inside the new public
street.
Mr. Frank Stolz:
· Stated that the use of stone veneer frames the entry just as it does on the garage. On Plan
2-A, the stone veneer is three-dimensional.
· Added that he felt strongly that this feature creates a centerpiece that is richer looking and
custom. Modifying it to appear like wainscoting would look more like a mass production
design.
Commissioner Doorley said that the street lighting issue is a minor one but that Council had
recommended investigating that issue. Suggested that street lighting not be placed on the new
interior street in order to adhere to the STANP.
Chair Francois said that lighting is a security and safety issue and that he is not opposed to it.
Director Sharon Fierro said that any deviation from the STANP is an issue for Council
approval. The Commission will forward a recommendation to Council. While lighting is
listed in the Conditions of Approval, the Commission could remove it.
Commissioner Doorley suggested that the Condition for street lighting be removed.
Commissioner Alderete said that this issue of street lighting should be left as an option for
Council to consider as a security and safety issue.
Commissioner Gibbons said that inclusion of street lighting is a tough issue and supported
leaving it for Council to make the final decision. Added that inclusion of lighting seems
natural to her.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Doofley said that there is a significant difference in appearance between this
development and the overall neighborhood therefore all efforts possible to blend into
surroundings should be pursued.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Agreed and stated that this is a big challenge.
· Thanked staff and the developer for their work on this large project.
· Stated that the developer worked very hard with staff and that needs to be commended.
· Pointed out that usually the San Tomas Area is developed in small parcels while this
project consists of 30 parcels.
· Said that this is a big project with a lot of land and a lot of houses.
· Stated that she would love to see the Zoning remain commercial but has to support this
change as a reasonable expectation of the owner.
· Advised that a large portion of W. Hacienda Avenue's width will be evened out.
· Stated that having the entrance off Hacienda is preferable to off San Tomas Aquino Road.
· Expressed support for the fence exception and for wood fencing over a stone or masonry
wall along Turner Way.
· Stated that landscaping and the addition of trees are positive improvements.
· Said that she has trouble evaluating whether this project complies with the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan. While it may comply with the letter of the STANP, she has trouble
finding compliance with its intent.
· Stated that having two to three very large lots and then determining the median lot distorts
the average.
· Said that the architectural designs have a lot going for them but that she does not find that
the materials are consistent with the STANP, as they include long solid walls and
complicated roofs, which are discouraged.
· Discussed the distribution of units and said that, in her opinion, the inclusion of anything
but a Unit 1 in the comer is a deal breaker.
· Added that it would be better if more Unit 1 models are incorporated into the project.
· Said that the project is great and will help the neighborhood but that she is not comfortable
that the project is where it should be.
· Said that the project is so big and needs a little integration.
Commissioner Jones asked if Commissioner Gibbons would be more inclined to support the
project with 28 lots.
Commissioner Gibbons replied absolutely.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Stated that Commissioner Gibbons' points are well taken.
· Said that there is an appearance of different treatment between a developer and
homeowner.
· Pointed out that any one of these designs would be approved if submitted by an individual
homeowner for a single family residence and that there should be no difference with the
consideration for a developer, simply because they have a larger property.
Planning Commission Minm,~s of October 22, 2002 Page 9
· Added that much of the San Tomas Neighborhood is moving in this direction and that we
will tend to see more and more of this as time goes no.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Said that staff did an excellent job with the information provided, the packet and the Study
Sessions.
· Added that while he was worried after the first Study Session, with the changes made as a
result of the October 8th SARC meeting, he finds these to be really well designed and
beautiful homes that meet the criteria of the STANP.
· Said that he believes that the project looks great.
· Stated that he was surprised that there were not more objections and/or input from the
neighborhood.
· Added that this lack of objection appears to indicate that a whole lot of criteria have been
covered in these plans.
· Said that each house in the comer meets requirements under the STANP and that he no
longer has a concern and finds this to be an excellent project that he is glad to see move
forward.
Commissioner Jones said that he likes the project overall but questions the number of lots
proposed, indicating that a total of 28 lots might be a better number.
Commissioner Doorley said that the owner has the right to develop the site to the size lot
required. They have done that. Reducing the number of lots is a burden beyond what is
expected.
Commissioner Jones asked which lots would need a Variance for fencing.
Planner Darcy Smith replied Lots 2, 14 and 30. Each lot has a required fencing setback of 15
feet. Lot 2 could provide 8 feet, Lot 14 could provide 5 feet and Lot 30 could provide 10 feet.
Commissioner Jones pointed out that based on that fact, this project does not meet the STANP.
Commissioner Doorley said that is a fair statement. Added that the issue is sight line traffic
issues. While the project can actually meet all fencing setbacks, SARC felt that there would be
a superior plan with a fencing Variance.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that the STANP establishes maximums but these
maximum limits don't always have to be reached.
Commissioner Doorley said that he would support Lot 30 with a Plan 1.
Commissioner Gibbons said that she has trouble with that comer and finds there would be a lot
of mass along the frontage of San Tomas Aquino Road.
Commissioner Jones asked staff to restate the outstanding issues.
Planning Commission M. inuLc;S of October 22, 2002 Page 10
Planner Darcy Smith listed streetlights, decompressed granite on the pathway, fencing, unit
distribution and Lot 30.
Commissioner Doorley said that the issues of streetlights, the path and fencing have been
addressed to his satisfaction.
Commissioner Jones asked about unit distribution.
Chair Francois:
Said that he concurred with Commissioner Alderete.
· Stated that he likes the project and finds it to be a good project.
Said he too is surprised by the apparent lack of concern by the San Tomas Area residents.
· Added that he will support the project as it is.
· Said that he would like to see wooden fencing to maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that she recently attended a San Tomas Area Neighborhood
Association meeting and understands that its representatives plan to attend Council rather than
this Commission meeting in regards to this project.
Mr. Jim Sullivan reminded that changes could be made between the Tentative and Final
Subdivision Maps. There is the ability to change lot lines.
Mr. John Dimberger, 1200 Steinway Avenue, Campbell:
· Declared that 10 years ago there were promises made by City Officials.
· Said that ample community meetings were promised but that the only community meeting
that was actually held was held by the Developer and not the City.
· Stated that the City has reneged on its promise.
· Exclaimed that no one in the San Tomas Community was informed.
Chair Francois said that meetings were called and held.
Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that staff has worked well.
Stated that a meeting with the Developer was held at Westmont High School and flyers
were sent. More than 50 attended.
· Agreed with Commissioner Gibbons that the letter of the STANP might be met but the
intent does not go along with this proposed plan.
· Said that while they have to back the STANP, they also have to be fair.
Stated that these proposed homes are gorgeous but will set the area apart from the rest of
the San Tomas Area.
· Said that she is in a quandary. As a representative of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood
Association, she has to uphold the STANP. This project appears to follow it to the letter.
The only problem is that this project does not really fit into the area, which is still pretty
much rural. This project will take away from that type of community and will impact it
down the road and into the future.
· Said that she is glad to see the addition of so many trees.
Planning Commission Minm,~s of October 22, 2002 Page 11
· Said that while this is a beautiful, well-planned development, it will stick out like a sore
thumb in the San Tomas Area.
· Said that lighting is usually incorporated in areas with lots of concrete while the San Tomas
Area does not have lots of concrete.
· Added that she personally does not see anything wrong with streetlights.
Mr. Jim Sullivan advised that per City Ordinance, the Director has the authority to approve
exceptions to fencing.
Mr. Mike Rose, 922 Sheila Court, Campbell:
· Identified himself as a member of the San Tomas Neighborhood Association.
· Advised that he attended all the meetings and found the feedback to be positive.
· Stated that Jim Sullivan and the City did a great job.
· Said he has lived in the neighborhood for eight years and has two young children.
· Said that there is lots of inconsistency in the area and that he likes sidewalks.
· Stated that this is a well thought out development that looks great.
· Said that he was thrilled when the shopping center was torn down.
Mr. Nate Dardanelli, 400 Dardanelli Lane, Los Gatos:
· Said that he owns property on Turner Way.
· Said that he remembers this area when it was full of prune trees.
· Stated that this is the best development in a long time. It is a great development.
· Supported approval.
Chair Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner
Alderete, the Planning Commission took the following action:
1. Adopted Resolution No. 3466 recommending approval of a Zoning
Classification Change (PLN2002-39) from P-D (Planned Development)
to R-l-9 (Single Family Residential, 9,000 square foot minimum lot
size);
2. Adopted Resolution No. 3467 recommending approval of a General
Plan Amendment (PLN2002-40) to change the General Plan Land Use
Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density
Residential, less than 4.5 units per gross acre;
3. Adopted Resolution No. 3468 recommending approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map (PLN2002-41) to create 30 residential lots and four
private driveway (Turner Way) lots;
4. Adopted Resolution No. 3469 recommending approval for Site and
Architectural Review Permits (PLN2002-95) for the development of 30
single-family residences with the amended Conditions of Approval for
fencing and with a minimized Plan 1 for Lot 30;
5. Adopted Resolution No. 3470 recommending approval of a Tree
Removal Permit (PLN2002-112) for the removal of five trees; and
6. Adopted Resolution NO. 3471 recommending that Council adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration;
Planning Commission MinuLes of October 22, 2002 Page 12
for property owned by U.S. Trust Company as Trustee of the Vecchioli
Family Trust at 1255-1461 W. Hacienda Avenue by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Jones and Rocha
NOES: Gibbons
ABSENT: Hernandez
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Francois advised that Council would consider this project at its November 19, 2002,
meeting.
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions:
· Advised that the Update to the UBC was introduced and a second reading would take place
at the next Council meeting.
· Informed that the four-unit townhome project at 750 W. Hacienda was approved.
· Reminded that the Commissioners' Dinner is set for Thursday, October 26, 2002.
· Stated that the next Planning agenda will include one item, a second story residential
addition.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. to the next Regular Public Hearing
on November 12, 2002, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California.
SUBMITTED BY: ~~ Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary