PC Min 10/23/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 23, 2001
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001, was called to order at 7:30 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:
Vice Chair:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissmner:
Commissioner:
Tom Francois
Joseph D. Hemandez
Bob Alderete
George Doorley
Elizabeth Gibbons
Brad Jones
Felicia Leonard
Commissioners Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Senior Planner:
Planner II:
Planner I:
City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Sharon Fierro
Geoff I. Bradley
Darcy Smith
Kristi Bascom
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 2001, were
approved. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Francois abstained)
COMMUNICATIONS.
1. Two letters re Agenda Item No. 1.
2. Revised Attachments 4 and 5 for Agenda Item No. 1.
3. Attachments 11 through 14 for Agenda Item No. 1
Planning Commission Minmcs of October 23, 2001 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REQEUST
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
PLN2000-150/
PLN2001-93/
PLN2001-114
City Staff
Public Hearing to consider a comprehensive update of the text and
diagrams of the Campbell General Plan (PLN2000-150) including
the Land Use, Transportation, Open Space, Noise, Safety and
Conservation Elements, and adding a Public Facilities Element; and
Amendments to the Zoning Map (PLN2001-114) to bring it into
consistency with the General Plan Land Use Diagram amendments;
and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report
(PLN2001-93), with the adoption of overriding considerations for
environmental impacts identified in the EIR as being significant
and unavoidable. City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2001.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows:
· Provided an overview of the process for the adoption of an Update to the General Plan,
which included the formation of a General Plan Task Force by Council in May 1998.
Commissioner Liz Gibbons represented the Planning Commission on this Task Force and
Vice Mayor Watson served as Chair.
· Advised that a list of goals, policies and objectives were developed, based in great part on
the City's adopted Strategic Plan. Additionally, the results of the Community Survey,
taken in 1997 and updated every other year, served as a resource.
· Announced that the newest Community Survey results will be released in the next couple
of months.
· Advised that this evening's review will consider all elements but the Housing Element.
The Public Hearing for the Housing Element will be held at a special meeting on Monday,
November 5, 2001.
· Identified the General Plan Update as a 20-year comprehensive document, which serves as
a blueprint for development and the basis for Land Use issues. The General Plan is a tool
by which policy and budgetary decisions made by the City must comply, including the
annual Capital Improvement Program budget, for which all projects must be found
consistent with the City's General Plan. The document contains very important policies
serving a 20-year period but will likely be updated within 10 years to ensure that it remains
relevant.
Reminded that the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on October 24, 2000,
at which time significant opposition was raised by property and business owners in the
McGlincey and Dell Avenue areas regarding the proposal to change the General Plan Land
Use designation from Industrial to Research and Development. At the subsequent Council
meeting, Council referred the General Plan Update back to staff for further consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2001 Page 3
· Advised that staff conducted two neighborhood meetings, both noticed extensively to both
affected property and business owners, on April 30 and May 3, 2001. At these meetings
several alternatives were examined including:
1. Adoption of Industrial Design Guidelines
2. Revision of the Zoning Code
3. No change
4. Change the Non-Conforming Ordinance
5. Change the Industrial Zoning Ordinance
6. Allow existing businesses to remain conforming uses
· Informed that Council directed staff to develop an Industrial Alternative to the R&D
Proposal for McGlincey and Dell. Staff's recommendation is to develop enhanced design
standards and enact a more aggressive code enforcement program for the area as a means
to achieve the same goals, which drove the proposal for an R&D designation. This
Industrial Alternative proposal leaves North Dell Avenue and South and East McGlincey as
Industrial. South Dell is already Controlled Manufacturing, which allows the same uses as
Research and Development. Therefore, staff recommends changing that Land Use
Designation on S. Dell from CM to R&D. There would be no change in requirements or
allowable uses with that amendment. Additionally, the Winchester Industrial Park is
proposed for change to R&D, which again will not change allowable uses or requirements.
· Said that issues of concern on McGlincey and Dell would be addressed through increased
design standards and Noise Ordinance standards for uses that abut to residential uses.
· Added that the next step in this process will be amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
implement the General Plan.
· Advised that Fehr & Peers conducted an EIR/Traffic Study. It has been determined that
there are significant impacts in some intersections.
· Expressed that, in reality, the existing General Plan already equals a potential for
significant impacts. Staff recommends adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, a common document in relation to the adoption of a General Plan. Prior to
future development in affected areas, an EIR will be required to monitor the potential
impacts.
· Said that the City's Traffic Consultant is available as is the Environmental Consultant.
· Pointed out some items summarized in the staff report, including the notations of the Light
Rail Stations at Hamilton Avenue, Downtown Campbell and at Hacienda/Winchester.
· Said that Mixed-Use Development is a key method to provide housing. Areas slated for
Mixed-Use designation include Bascom near Hamilton (near the Light Rail Station).
Mixed-Use allows housing above retail and allows an overlap of parking. Mixed-Use
provides an enhanced community appearance.
· Informed that the General Plan proposes the addition of Districts to the Historic
Preservation District and creation of a Conservation District.
· Said that the Plan proposes to limit auto repair to Industrial areas.
· Said that expansion is not permitted for legal non-conforming uses.
· Said that the Land Use Element has provisions for Open Space including amenities (such
as a parking lot basketball court) in non-residential sites. Pedestrian/bicycle routes are
emphasized. Countywide policies to alternate transportation other than automobiles are
noted.
· Addressed Land Use Map changes. Commercial designations include Neighborhood
Commercial (abut residential uses); General (on major arterials) and Central (in Historic
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2001 Page 4
Downtown and proposed to expand from the east to Pruneyard and from the west to the
Community Center). Pedestrian amenities are to be encouraged. Mixed-Use designations
are proposed for the Bascom/Hamilton Area, SOCA (South of Campbell Avenue) and
NOCA (North of Campbell Avenue) as well as two deteriorating shopping centers
(Riverside and the PetsMart Center). Additionally, the Home Church and
Hamilton/Winchester Shopping Center properties are also to be designated for Mixed-Use.
For Water District owned property at San Tomas Expressway and Campbell Avenue, staff
is recommending Low-Medium Density Residential with a requirement for a Traffic Study
prior to development of that site with residential. The Harrison/Tubby/Central area will be
downsized from Low-Medium Residential to Low-Density Residential. This reflects the
desires of the area residents and replaces the current Moratorium on that area.
· Reiterated that no Land Use designation change is proposed for North Dell or South
McGlincey.
· Advised that within the Open Space Element, consideration of Public Facilities is a new
component. The Heritage Theater renovation is an example of a public facility.
· Informed that State Law requires the Health and Safety Element. Within the Conservation
and Natural Resources Element, the preparation of a Noise Ordinance is called out.
· Discussed the Land Use and Transportation Element as providing policy direction and said
that guidelines will be developed at a later date to fully define these concepts. The same
goal in the McGlincey/Dell areas will be achieved in lieu of a R&D designation. Noise
will be considered for any new development. Energy Conservation is addressed in the
General Plan as are strategies for Archaeological Resources. Adoption of a Grading
Ordinance is called for as are policies for Public Art. Public art was included at Edith
Morley Park and will be incorporated in the new Downtown Parking Garage.
· Reiterated that the General Plan will be reviewed on a periodic basis and be amended as
necessary.
· Advised that the proposed Zoning Map amendments are consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map amendments. Property at Campbell Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road
are currently designated as C-2 while C-1 more accurately and appropriately reflects what
is there. Staff proposes to change that to C-1. The Community Center will be designated
as Park/Open Space. The C-3 Zoning District will be extended to include Winchester
Boulevard. A Planned Development Zoning designation will allow a case-by-case review
until a Winchester Boulevard Development Plan can be developed. The design standard
will be to have buildings located at the street's edge with pedestrian amenities. Advised
that the Downtown Area is already zoned C-3. At the present time, beauty shops are
prohibited on first floor spaces in the Downtown due to an existing over concentration of
such uses. This restriction will not be applied to Winchester Boulevard.
· Identified four roadways and two intersections as impacted by the General Plan.
· Discussed impact/mitigation measures. Said that the Draft EIR was prepared by a
consultant, distributed and made available during a 45-day public review period. The City
is required to respond to all written comments and the Final EIR contains mitigation-
monitoring measures. The unavoidable impacts are listed on pages 129 through 132. Staff
is recommending the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Staff has
prepared the necessary findings for certification of the EIR as well as the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. This calls out specific impacts and provides benefits of the
General Plan that justify not mitigating at this point.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,2001 Page 5
· Said that staff proposes that the Commission forward these actions to Council with the
recommendation that it repeals the current General Plan elements except the Housing
Element and adopt the Draft General Plan by Ordinance.
· Said that she was available for questions as are the Traffic and Environmental consultants.
Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Richard Pasek, Business and Property Owner, 911 McGlincey Lane, Campbell:
· Asked staff for a better description of R&D designation.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Pointed out that R&D is a broad category that allows uses that support electronic assembly,
small fabrication, businesses with less nuisance characteristics, more office intensive
incubator-type businesses that combine office space with inventory, electronic assembly,
drafting and design.
Mr. Richard Pasek:
· Opined that he did not think the City has a clear definition of what it wants for Research
and Development.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Reiterated that the few properties on Dell proposed for R&D are already zoned CM. The
allowable uses and requirements are identical so no changes or impacts on property use
will occur.
Added that there is no change proposed for any Industrial areas in McGlincey and Dell.
The uses in the CM Zoning Ordinance is well defined.
Mr. Richard Pasek asked why the change is even needed.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that one is a Zoning designation while the other is a General
Plan Land Use designation.
Commissioner Gibbons added that a Planned Development designation governs one affected
location. The others are CM, which is the same as R&D. Therefore, there is no change to
uses. Restated that R&D will no longer be considered for S. McGlincey.
Director Sharon Fierro read the CM Zoning description and allowable uses into the record.
She also clarified that the Winchester Technology Park will be designated R&D, which is
compatible with the Planned Development Permit that was approved for the site.
Mr. Peter Moosman, Property Owner, 85 Gilman Avenue:
· Asked for clarification about the plans for the Gilman/Dillon Area.
· Asked what would occur if an existing tenant leaves. Would an industrial use have to
change over to office.
· Stated that if the economy continues to be bad and a building is left vacant for over a year,
they could lose the legal use.
· Pointed out that he owns two buildings in this area, which represent their income.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2001 Page 6
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Stated that residential and commercial uses would be permitted while creating new
industrial uses would be prohibited. Existing uses could legally remain but could not
expand due to the proximity to residential.
City Attorney William Seligmann clarified that it does not matter who occupies as long as the
building is not vacant more than a year.
Chair Francois asked Mr. Moosman how long he has owned the buildings in the area and what
the longest period of vacancy has been during his ownership.
Mr. Paul Moosman replied that the longest period of vacancy to date has been three months.
Asked that the City reconsider the proposed change to the Gilman/Dillon area.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Said that the Task Force discussed the SOCA area a long time. These proposals were
developed taking this area's close proximity to the Downtown and to the expanded Light
Rail into consideration.
Mr. Steve Belanger, Owner, 60-66 Dillon Avenue:
· Said that his is a small manufacturing building.
· Questioned what would happen should he try to sell his property.
· Advised that he consulted with the City's Planning Department prior to purchase of his
second property in this area and assured of its viability paid a lot of money for it.
· Pointed out that he has a 4,000 square foot building on an 8,000 square foot lot.
Commissioner Doorley assured Mr. Belanger that the Land Use designation goes with the
property and not with the owner.
Mr. Steve Belanger:
· Stated that the prohibition to rebuild if more than 75 percent destroyed by fire puts him into
a quandary.
· Questioned why the 75 percent threshold was chosen.
Director Sharon Fierro clarified that the criteria is that if the cost to replace/rebuild a non-
conforming building or use is equal or is greater than 75 percent of the cost to construct a new
conforming building, the new building would be required to conform.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Concurred that this is a difficult topic but pointed out that these are existing Ordinances
being applied.
· Pointed out that legal non-conforming buildings/uses that are left vacant for a year or more
must be brought into compliance as a result.
· Added that the burn down rule also applies to other properties and zoning districts too.
· Despite significant discussions on these issues, the Task Force decided not to change these
criteria.
Planning Commission Mint,,¢s of October 23, 2001 Page 7
Commissioner Hernandez asked how many parcels are impacted in the Gilman/Dillon Area.
Director Sharon Fierro replied 60.
Chair Francois announced that Commissioner Gibbons was very instrumental on the General
Plan Task Force and is providing very useful information.
Ms. Dawn Sarkisian, Owner, 186 Dillon, 186 Gilman and 426 Sam Cava, Campbell:
· Pointed out that SOCA is a significant industrial area and that they have been located in the
area for 45 years. Additionally, they also reside in Campbell.
· Expressed her sadness that the City can simply throw away an industrial area like this.
· Said that they maintain their industrial properties beautifully.
· Advised that they have attended all related General Plan meetings and pointed out that high
density residential within an industrial area will not mix.
· Announced that their business obtained a large industrial (no-tax) bond to expand their
business a couple of years ago. Theirs was the only business in California to obtain this
bond and the City supported their application.
· Said that a mix in land uses is important and the City is trying to change that mix.
· Added that jobs are necessary and people cannot live off what they might make pouring
coffee at a retail shop.
· Inquired if it is necessary to change the Zoning along with this General Plan change.
· Asked that the Commission take a second look at the SOCA area prior to enacting this
change in land use for the area.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that the Zoning must be consistent with the General Plan
designation.
Commissioner Gibbons reiterated that there is nothing forcing Haig Precision out of the area.
Ms. Dawn Sarkisian:
· Disagreed and said that they feel forced out.
· Said that by changing the zoning, the City is telling them who they want to see go.
· Said that having high-density housing across the street will present problems although they
have always been conscious of their neighbors.
· Pointed out that having the Industrial Zoning and Land Use is their strength.
Director Sharon Fierro clarified that the Zoning for the SOCA area is PD (Planned
Development). The change is in the Land Use designation to eliminate the industrial
component. The current Zoning and Land Use already allows for residential development.
While current allowable uses include commercial, residential and industrial, the proposal is to
prohibit establishment of any future industrial uses.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out to Ms. Sarkisian that this meeting is but part of the
process. The Commission will make a recommendation to Council who will take final action.
Mr. Steve Belanger said that it appears that 22 percent residential in the SOCA is over stated.
Added that he has been in the area for 22 years.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2001 Page 8
Director Sharon Fierro said that conversely that leaves 80 percent of the SOCA area with non-
residential uses.
Mr. Steve Belanger said that he appreciates the process and that he believes that a community's
strength comes from multi-layers. Inclusion of industry is central.
Mr. Peter Moosman pointed out the problems of surrounding residential uses to airports and
cautioned that they will be forced out of the area much like some residential uses have been
forced away from air flight paths in San Jose. Agreed that the review process for the General
Plan Update has been a good one.
Commissioner Gibbons again stated that this General Plan would go to Council for final
review and adoption.
Mr. Don Rosenbaum, 1690 Dell Avenue:
· Asked for clarification on the plans for S. of Dell Avenue and the differences between the
General Plan and Zoning.
Director Sharon Fierro advised that the General Plan designation is currently Industrial while
the Zoning is Controlled Manufacturing. The proposed General Plan designation will be
Research and Development, which represents no change in allowable uses from those allowed
under the current Controlled Manufacturing Zoning. Added that the CM Zoning Designation
was created after the adoption of the current General Plan.
Mr. Dan Sarkisian invited Commissioners to visit the Dillon/Gillman area, stating that it does
not make sense to turn this clearly industrial area into a residential area.
Mr. Rick Fuller, 176 Gilman Avenue, Campbell:
· Pointed out that each morning at 7 a.m., thousands of cars are on this street.
· Declared that there will be great conflict with residential uses in this neighborhood.
· Said that traffic is already a mess and it would be ridiculous to add kids to the mix.
· Cautioned the Commission to look at this seriously before someone gets hurt.
Ms. Kimberly Fitzgerald, Property Owner, 1085 Ridgeley Drive, Campbell:
· Said that her main issues are Housing and Traffic related.
· Said that there does not appear to be a real discussion on traffic mitigation, particularly in
the Hamilton and Bascom Area.
· Questioned why it is stated that no mitigation is available.
· Said that perhaps less aggressive development might represent mitigation.
· Said that she has read the supporting documents and sees a call for nine percent increase in
commercial development and a 10 percent increase in residential units. However, with
1,600 residential units, the City will be maxed out. The five-year requirement is for 700
units.
· Declared that it is inconsistent to do nothing about traffic. No criteha has been provided to
address traffic and noise. No mitigations are offered for those people already living here.
· Pointed out that she can hear noise from her home coming from Hamilton and Bascom
Avenues.
Planning Commission MinuLcs of October 23, 2001 Page 9
· Said that the Hamilton/Bascom intersection is already grid locked as are the Freeway
Entrances to Highway 17.
· Asked that these concerns be considered and answered.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Agreed that there are troubling problems even with the existing General Plan.
· Concurred about the gridlock on Hamilton/Bascom and entering the freeway.
· Said that the General Plan does not solve everything and pointed out that traffic impacts are
a regional issue.
· Said that this Updated General Plan is trying to take an already bad situation and take
logical approaches such as mass transit into consideration.
· Pointed out that the assigned number of housing units is assigned by the State. While the
City does not have to build these units, it must demonstrate within its Housing Element
how those units can be accommodated.
· Said that this revised General Plan is better than the current.
Chair Francois invited the Traffic Consultant to address these issues raised by Ms. Fitzgerald.
Ms. Jane Bierstadt, Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers, San Jose:
· Introduced her associate, Christy Ann Choy, Project Engineer.
· Explained that in analyzing the impacts and lack of corresponding mitigation measures,
they evaluated two scenarios. One is if the City stays the same. The second is if the City
adopts the Updated General Plan.
· Pointed out that the impacts of the Updated General Plan include 3,900 new jobs and 1,600
new households. Two roadways will result in poor levels of service, as will four
intersections.
· One constraint in reaching roadway improvements is the lack of land for physical
improvements. One form of mitigation is a Mixed-Use Land Use designation around the
upcoming Light Rail stations. Transit-oriented development was analyzed conservatively
based on current use in the Bay Area or at about 10 to 15 percent of all trips. Realistically,
most trips are done by auto. However, if mass transit becomes more prevalent, the traffic
situation may not be as bad as they are predicting.
Commissioner Gibbons added that the basis of the Traffic Study is a base line and see what
happens. Assured that the City will not give carte blanche with the General Plan. The Plan
gives potential that must be evaluated on a project-by-project basis with built in mitigations
assigned to specific development projects.
Ms. Jane Bierstadt agreed that every project would need to have its own supporting traffic
study.
Commissioner Doorley inquired if the proposed General Plan creates a better or worse scenario
than the current one.
Ms. Lynette Stanchina, EIR Consultant, LSA Associates:
· Said that they evaluated a no project alternative. In other words, if the General Plan was
left unchanged versus this update.
Planning Commission MinuLes of October 23, 2001 Page 10
· Added that since Campbell is essentially a "built out" City, there was no significant
difference.
Commissioner Doorley asked about the potential for mass transit, including the Light Rail.
Ms. Lynette Stanchina said that it is difficult to quantify mass transit in a General Plan. It was
not factored in. In fact, worse case scenarios were used in the analysis.
Chair Francois asked how housing located within an industrial area, such as Gilman Avenue,
could be mitigated.
Ms. Jane Bierstadt replied that her General Plan Update traffic analysis evaluated built out
conditions. However, each specific development proposal would have to be analyzed through
a corresponding traffic study.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Assured that the Task Force has carefully considered the quality of life that is Campbell.
· Agreed that a balanced community with equal parts of jobs and housing were sought.
· Said that policies and strategies have been developed to reinforce these goals.
· Said that Bascom Avenue has transition land uses.
· Informed that the General Plan provides the tools by which the Planning Commission is
required to make findings to support a development project.
· Opined that the current General Plan is too lose.
· Advised that a City is mandated by State Law to develop a General Plan, including a
Housing Element. Additionally, a City is mandated to accommodate an assigned number
of regional housing units. A City cannot simply say that it is built out.
· Agreed that land use has an impact on traffic issues.
Mr. Dan Sarkisian asked staff what penalties a City faces if it refuses to accommodate the
assigned housing units.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Advised that the City did not meet its target number of housing units assigned in the last
Housing Element.
· Informed that the current assignment is for 770 units of which the City has already added
more than 200 units.
· Said that a City must have a plan in place to realistically demonstrate how the assigned
housing units can be accommodated.
· Informed that one penalty under consideration is the loss of a City's share of vehicle
license fee.
· Said that he is grudgingly accepting the requirement to produce a General Plan/Housing
Element that meets the State guidelines on the provision of housing units.
· Added that he would not lose sleep over not meeting the assigned housing goal.
Director Sharon Fierro advised that the bill (SB910), which would hold up vehicle registration
fees to cities, has been delayed and made a two-year bill. Pointed out that there are serious
ramifications for a City that does not have a State-certified Housing Element. The State could
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2001 Page 11
eliminate a City's ability to issue any permits but added that she was not aware of any case
where this step was taken by the State. Said that each City takes the requirement for a Housing
Element very seriously.
Mr. Chris Tedford, Owner, 133 Kennedy Avenue, Campbell:
· Informed that he has a project under Pre-Application review with the Planning Department
to construct 11 townhome units on property he purchased in April.
· Said that while he does not personally use public transportation, he believes that there
would be better quality of life if public transportation were increased.
· Said that he is excited to build his project and is finding the biggest problem with
development is what to do with cars. His project has already been reduced from 11 units to
10 to accommodate the necessary supporting parking.
Ms. Kimberly Fitzgerald stated that it does not make sense to say there is no significant
difference in impacts between the existing and proposed General Plan.
Commissioner Doorley said that "no growth" is not a viable comparison. Agreed that some
areas will be better as a result of the Update General Plan while others will not.
Ms. Kimberly Fitzgerald added that a 10 percent housing and 9 percent commercial growth is
pretty significant. Added that the difference in levels of service depicted in the supporting
Environmental documents is unclear.
Ms. Jane Bierstadt said that the tables reflect different things, roadways versus intersections.
Ms. Lynette Stanchina pointed out that the levels of service on Hamilton and Bascom are
already at level F with the current General Plan and will be at Level F under the new General
Plan.
Ms. Kimberly Fitzgerald suggested the adoption of traffic impact fees to be collected from
developers to mitigate traffic impacts in the area in which they are developing.
Ms. Jane Bierstadt said that this recommendation represents a policy rather than a mitigation
measure.
Director Sharon Fierro advised that the developers of the Creekside Project were required to
contribute to the extension of Campisi Way to the Pruneyard as a way to keep some traffic off
of Bascom Avenue. Added that State Law requires that impact fees assessed must be directed
to mitigating the specific development impacts for which they are being assessed.
City Attorney William Seligmann elaborated that it does not have to be a direct cause but
rather a reasonable relationship.
Commissioner Alderete said that he grew up in this Valley and has lived in Campbell for 20
years. Pointed out that it has become a standard for more than two cars per household over
that time frame.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,2001 Page 12
Chair Francois called for a recess at 9:40 p.m.
Chair Francois reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Tom Fitzgerald, Owner, 1085 Ridgeley Drive, Campbell:
· Inquired what recourse the public has in development review.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Stated that some applications can be approved at staff level, while others require Planning
Commission review. Projects that come before the Commission are publicly noticed.
Additionally, these meetings are broadcast on cable.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Added that any change in policy documents requires public notice. Property owners
directly impacted are noticed by first class mail. In the case of this General Plan Update,
all impacted property owners and business owners were noticed. Additionally, newspaper
ads were placed. Information was included in the Campbell Profile, the City newsletter
sent to all households. Stories were included in the Campbell Express and Campbell
Reporter.
· Said that at a project level some uses are approved at staff level but that most
commercial/industrial applications require Planning Commission scrutiny.
· Added that public notification includes property owners within 300 feet of a subject site.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Said that the Planning Commission are an unpaid, appointed group.
· Added that they are not City employees but are residents of Campbell who volunteer
because they love this City.
Mr. Mike Craig, 1334 Dell Avenue/Florence Way, Campbell:
· Expressed appreciation that Florence Way's Land Use designation will be kept as it is
currently rather than the previously proposed change to R&D.
· Said that he and his brother began constructing in this area in 1959 and that they need the
M-1 designation rather than R&D.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Pointed out that their area on Dell has been zoned CM for more than five years and is
already functioning under that designation.
· Added that the R&D designation will not result in any change in allowable uses.
Chair Francois closed the Public Heating at 9:58 p.m.
Commissioner Leonard said that she is very impressed with the Draft General Plan as a whole,
which will serve as a great guiding tool.
Commissioner Hemandez:
· Pointed out that all Commissioners reside in Campbell.
· Expressed appreciation for the public feedback and comments provided this evening.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,2001 Page 13
· Assured that this General Plan has been a tough thing and was not taken lightly.
· Added that the General Plan takes into account how things will fit together in the future
and the revisions have been carefully thought out with lots of public involvement.
· Said that he would be supportive.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Declared that the City is not deciding who it wants and who it does not want.
· Said that the City appreciates its citizens and public input has had an impact on the General
Plan Update.
· Said that he would be supportive.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Expressed support for the General Plan document and acknowledged that it has been a
difficult process.
· Said that the City of Campbell feels that same way it did 20 years ago.
· Stated that he likes and supports the General Plan.
Commissioner Jones said that he supports staffs' recommendation.
Commissioner Gibbons said that the General Plan will make it easier to understand what the
City wants and the same criteria will be used throughout the community. Said that it is
excellent document.
Chair Francois said that he agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Hemandez and
that he is also supportive of the General Plan. Commended the Task Force and staff for their
work on the General Plan Update. Pointed that not everyone will be in favor of the Update.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner
Hernandez, the Planning Commission:
1. Adopted Resolution No. 3383 recommending that Council certify the
final Environmental Impact Report for the Update to the Campbell
General Plan;
2. Adopted Resolution No. 3384 recommending that Council adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations consistent with Section 21000
et seq of the Public Resources Code, with particular reference to
Sections 15092 and 15093 in relation to the Update to the Campbell
General Plan;
3. Adopted Resolution No. 3385 recommending that Council adopt an
Ordinance repealing the following exiting General Plan Elements:
Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Open Space, Air Quality, Conservation,
Scenic Highways, Seismic and Safety, in relation to the Update to the
Campbell General Plan;
4. Adopted Resolution No. 3386 recommending that Council approve a
comprehensive amendment to the General Plan, including the Land
Use, Transportation, Open Space, Noise, Safety and Conservation
Elements and adding a Public Facilities Element, including the text and
diagram amendments as illustrated in the Draft General Plan; and
Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,2001 Page 14
5. Adopted Resolution No. 3387 recommending that Council approve an
amendment to the Zoning Map in support of the amendments to the
General Plan,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and
Leonard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Francois advised that this item will be considered by Council at its meeting of November
6, 2001, for final action.
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 Council will consider final adoption for the General Plan Update at its
meeting of November 6, 2001.
· Informed that on October 16, 2001, Council took action to approve the project at 811
Camden Avenue.
· Reminded that a Special Planning Commission Public Hearing will be held on October 30th
to consider three applications.
· Expressed her appreciation to her staff for their work on the General Plan Update including
Department Secretary, Corinne Shinn, for the public noticing; Planner II, Darcy Smith, for
her many contributions and particularly for her expertise with statistics; and Senior
Planner, Geoff Bradley, for his work with the public, developing necessary notices and
overall pulling the team together for the project. Added thanks to all other staff planners
for their contributions: Associate Planner, Tim J. Haley; Planners, Kristi Bascom and
Stephanie Willsey, as well as former Planner, Katrina Rice Schmidt.
Chair Francois commended Director Sharon Fierro for her leadership on the project.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a Special Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, October 30, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First
Street, Campbell, California.
Planning Commission Minings of October 23,2001
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
ncois,/'Chair
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
Page 15