Loading...
PC Min 04/22/1997CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 22, 1997 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1997, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairwoman Keams, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Susan A. Keams Dennis Lowe I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Mel Lindstrom Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: None StaffPresent: Community Development Director: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: City Engineer: Traffic Engineer: Environmental Program Manager: Administrative Services Director: Central Fire: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Tim J. Haley Barbara Ryan William Seligmann Michelle Quinney Peter Eakland Bill Helms Barbara Lee Chris Veargason Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of April 8, 1997, were approved (5-0- 2; Commissioners Lindstrom and Meyer-Kennedy abstained.) Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Planning Commissioners Journal 2. Site and Architectural Review Committee notes from April 10, 1997. 3. Missing pages from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) (Item No. 1) 4. Three letters re Agenda Item No. 7. 5. Outline of ground rules for this evening's hearing. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS The applicant for Agenda Item No. 2 has requested a continuance to the meeting of May 13, 1997, and the applicant for Agenda Item No. 4 has asked that their project be removed from the agenda to a date uncertain. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue Agenda Item No. 2 (S 97-04/UP 97-02 - 2000 S. Bascom Avenue) to the meeting of May 13, 1997 and to continue Agenda Item No 4 (S 97-09 - 525 E. Hamilton Avenue - Breuners) to a date uncertain. (7-0) ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Kearns read the established ground rules for the meeting into the record including the following: · The first four hearings will be completed by 8:30 p.m. However, the hearing for the Winchester Drive-In Site will not begin until 8:30 p.m. Therefore, anyone present who does not wish to sit in on the entire agenda can return at 8:30 p.m. for the hearing on this site. · All persons interested in speaking on this item must fill out a speakers card and turn it in to the Recording Secretary. · All persons are asked to address points not already raised. If the audience wishes to advise the Commission of their agreement with points made, they are invited to raise their hands to have their positions known by the Commission. · All persons are asked to listen respectfully to other speakers. Opposing viewpoints deserve mutual respect. · This evening's hearing will end at 11 p.m. unless it appears the Commission is close to coming to a decision. If it appears the Commission is close to a decision, the meeting may continue to midnight. Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. CIP 1997-2004 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 1997-2004 Capital Improvement Plan. (A Negative Declaration has been prepared.) Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 20, 1997. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: · The CIP is updated annually to reflect seven years of projects that cover a range of issues from safety and maintenance to the acquisition and improvement of parks. · The Planning Commission's role in this process is to advise Council as to whether the proposed CIP is consistent with the General Plan and whether the granting of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. Commissioner Alne asked whether the deferred street maintenance is left over from previous years. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that under the CIP, a signficant portion of the funds will be used to correct deferred street improvements. The City Engineer can address any specifics. Commissioner Alne inquired about Cristich Lane. He wondered if the funding for the Cristich Lane improvements is dependent upon the sale of the Winchester Drive-In site. Stated that the air quality levels at two intersections are already unmitigated. Asked if the development of the site would proceed without the Cristich Lane improvements? Mr. Steve Piasecki added that Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Agency Manager, is also available to address issues. Continued that the development of the Winchester Drive-In site could continue without the Cristich Lane improvements. The site can stand alone without Cristich Lane. Commissioner Alne opined that this project (Cristich Lane improvements) should be moved into the unmitigated category. Continued by asking why the Public Works Department recently stated its lack of interest in turning the private E1 Patio Court into a public street while it is so interested in turning Cristich Lane into a public street? What is the difference? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that E1 Patio is already improved and functioning. Added that the City is not unable nor unwilling to assume public streets if warranted. Chairwoman Kearns opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kevin Creighton, 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell: · Advised that he has owned property on Cristich for 30 years which includes partial ownership of the private street. · Expressed confusion over what the plans for Cristich Lane include. The other property owners on the street share his concerns. · Stated that they are in a "panic" mode about the plans for Cristich. · Improvements on Cristich cause a direct fiscal impact. · Has concerns about safety. · Asked how the $850,000 figure for the land price for the private street was derived. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the charge of the Planning Commission is not to debate the merit of each item in the CIP. People are invited to come to the City Council meeting to raise questions about any specific items included in the CIP. The City Engineer and Redevelopment Manager are available to address what is proposed and how it will be financed. The Planning Commission is to determine if the CIP is consistent with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Gibbons asked what the next step would be in the review of the CIP? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the City Council will review the CIP at its meeting of May 6, 1997. Chairwoman Kearns closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alne stated that is he unable to support the CIP on two grounds. First, the City's General Plan is in dire need of repair. Staff is working on this and the updated General Plan will be available in a few months. Secondly, the adoption of a Negative Declaration is inappropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission voted to find the CIP consistent with the City's General Plan and recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Lowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This matter will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 6, 1997. Agenda Item No. 2 has been continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1997. Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. R 97-02 (UP 95-08) Swart, V. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Vernon Swart, on behalf of Swart Development, for approval of the Reinstatement of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 95-08) to allow the construction of a granny unit on property located at 1605 Van Dusen Lane in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking the Reinstatement of a Conditional Use Permit that was granted in 1995 to build a secondary living unit on a 12,600 square foot residential parcel. · The project is consistent with the R-l-9 Zoning Designation. · There are no changes from the original approval which expired in June, 1996. · Staff is recommending that a Resolution be adopted, incorporating the previous Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of April 10,1997, and is supportive of the Reinstatement subject to the previous Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Gibbons inquired whether the applicant is aware of the difficulties of working with CalTrans as called out under Condition of Approval #4? She asked why this requirement is necessary? Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the right-of-way in front of this property is still under the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Commissioner Lowe asked if the tight-of-way would be transferred to the City in the future. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that was likely. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. There were no parties present wishing to address Agenda Item No. 3. Chairwoman Kearns closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3085 granting the Reinstatement (R 97-02) of a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 95-08) to allow the construction of a granny unit on property located 1605 Van Dusen Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer- Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This decision is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 6 Agenda Item No. 4 has been continued to a date uncertain. Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record. S 96-15 Bell, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Burton Bell for a Site and Architectural Approval (S 96-15) to remodel an existing building to allow the establishment of an automotive repair facility on property located at 161 Curtner Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Ms. Barbara Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · The applicant, Mr. Burt Bell, is seeking a Site approval for 161 Curtner Avenue, also known by the address of 197 Curtner Avenue. · There are two buildings on the site. One constructed of metal, the other constructed of concrete. · Previously a plumbing supply business was located on this site. · Mr. Bell is seeking to remodel the site to meet his needs for his business, Campbell Auto Body. The front 40 feet of the metal building will be removed to allow room for additional parking. The building will be remodeled to meet Fire codes. · The rear building will be faced with ribbed metal to match the front building. The building colors will be white with turquoise trim. Tinted glass will be incorporated to reduce glare and heat buildup. · Four parking spaces will be provided at the front of the site. · A public sidewalk will be provided. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee as follows: · SARC reviewed this project on April 10, 1997, and is supportive. · SARC wishes to remind the applicant that the final building plans must have a wet seal from a civil engineer or structural engineer. The submitted plans do not have this required seal. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. There were no parties wishing to address Agenda Item No. 5. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 5. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Gibbons suggested adding language to Condition of Approval No. 5 as follows: "No outside storage or repair activities". Commissioner Lowe stated that he found this a little severe and difficult, an undue hindrance. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that no outside parking be allowed overnight. Commissioner Lowe stated that during the course of business it would be difficult for Mr. Bell's operation to be limited within the building as they operate in an assembly line fashion. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she is willing to withdraw her suggested language. She asked about Condition of Approval No. 11 which calls for a one-year maintenance security. Ms. Michelle Quinney, City Engineer, advised that the maintenance security is a standard Condition of Approval for every project. This represents a warranty for work that has been done to ensure that it is deficit free. Commissioner Gibbons asked about Conditions 14 and 15 and asked about the fire flow which appears to be less than required. Will the applicant be required to provide one or two hydrants? Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that the applicant will be required to install only one additional hydrant as one is already in front of the site. Additionally, the building will be sprinklered. Commissioner Alne questioned Condition of Approval No. 24 which requires that graffiti be removed within 48 hours. He suggested that the City make it a point to arrest the graffiti vandals within 48 hours. He stated that it is unfair to require this condition on the applicant to address the criminal activity of another party. Chairwoman Kearns advised that it is a standard to have graffiti removed within 24 hours to discourage taggers. Commissioner Lowe asked if this Condition would be imposed on future applications. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this site has been tagged repeatedly in the past. This condition will be imposed on sites where the potential for graffiti is high. Commissioner Gibbons added that she felt 48 hours is an unrealistic expectation for the removal of graffiti by the property owner. She added that it is her understanding that the more quickly graffiti is removed the less likely the site is to be countertagged. It is in the property owner's interest to keep their site free of graffiti. She suggested that the Condition be retained. Commissioner Alne suggested a motion to approve without the Condition of Approval to eliminate graffiti within 48 hours. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 8 Commissioner Lowe asked if this condition has been imposed on anyone else. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that this is the first time this condition has been incorporated into an approval. This site has a history of graffiti problems which are highly visible from the public fight-of-way. He added that some measures that can be taken to discourage graffiti include anti-graffiti paint, increased landscaping and to make access difficult. The Police are doing what they can to discourage graffiti. The City has a volunteer program to help abate graffiti. The applicant understands the problems of graffiti and is agreeable to the condition. Commissioner Lowe advised that the applicant has shown pride in ownership. Asked if the City would endorse the use of barbed wire to keep taggers off the property. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the City would not be supportive of the use of barbed wire. Commissioner Lowe stated that this Condition causes an undue hardship to the applicant although he too hates graffiti. Chairwoman Keams reopened Public Heating No. 5 and called the applicant to the podium to answer whether he supports the Condition to abate graffiti within 48 hours. Mr. Burt Bell advised that steps have been taken to seal the access used by graffiti artists. This action will solve the past problems. Stated that he had no objection to the requirement that he paint over any graffiti on his buildings within 48 hours. Said that he agreed with the wisdom in doing so to prevent additional tagging. Chairwoman Keams again closed Public Hearing No. 5. Commissioner Alne again stated that the applicant should not be obligated to clean up graffiti within 48 hours. He can clean it up as soon as he wants to do so. Stated that he cannot approve the Condition of Approval No. 24 as he finds it damaging to Mr. Bell's civil fights. City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that the law does not recognize a civil fight to keep graffiti unabated. Graffiti is a public nuisance and the City can ask a property owner to remove graffiti. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission voted to approve S 96-15 to allow the remodel of existing structures on property located at 161 Curtner Avenue with the elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 (the requirement to remove graffiti within 48 hours) by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 9 The motion was defeated. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3086 granting a Site Approval (S 96-15) to allow the remodel of two existing buildings on property located at 161 Curtner Avenue subject to all of the Conditions of Approval proposed by staff, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Lowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This decision is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 6 into the record: 6. UP 97-03 Torgerson, M. Public Heating to consider the application of Ms. Midori Torgerson for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-03) to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant use (Midori Sushi) on property located at 100 W. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Ms. Barbara Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking a Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a new sushi restaurant located at Hamilton and Dunster. · The site is a former donut shop with 30 seats. · All City Departments had opportunity to review this project and none came forward with any concerns or conditions. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any separate bar is included in this use. Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that beer and wine service with meals is the only intent. Chairwoman Kearns asked if any site changes were planned. Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that no site changes were required. This is a small use. Adequate parking is available to support this use. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 10 Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. There were no parties present who wished to address Agenda Item No. 6. Chairwoman Kearns closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 6. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3087 approving a Conditional Use Permit to on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a new restaurant (Midori Sushi) to be located at 100 W. Hamilton Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer- Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This decision is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Chairwoman Kearns called for a break at 8:24 p.m. Chairwoman Kearns reconvened the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Commissioner Alne read his letter regarding Agenda Item No. 7 aloud as follows: Madam Chairman: Last Friday night we each received approximately 700 pages of material associated with Agenda Item 7. The Planning Commissioners are asked to issue five resolutions that generate 25 pages of complex findings and conditions of approval and five pages of development policies. We are asked to attest that page after page of statements and staff opinions are true, to certify that literally hundreds of declarations are in compliance with an even larger number of paragraphs from CEQA, the California Code of Regulations, the California Resources Code, Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines, State CEQA Guidelines, the General Plan, BA,4QMD, CMA and on and 01l. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 11 To complicate our problem, the statements that we are to attest to be true are sometimes contradictory or simply opinions. In one case, a condition of approval requires that the applicant implement a TDM/TSM Program Mitigation measure while Exhibit A says that such a program would be infeasible and not required. I'm sure that we all would also agree that it may take some time to validate the opinions that have been expressed. The referenced regulations were not included in the packet that we are to use as a basis for our deliberations so we are unable to compare the statements developed for us with the regulations that require them. Any assertion we make that our statements bring us into compliance with the law would be unfounded and indefensible. (We can't declare that we are in compliance with the code unless we know what the code says; we can only declare that staff says it is so.) In order for use to confirm the validity of the declarations we're being asked to make we will have to conduct an extensive review of the information with many other responsibilities to conduct such a review in the time that has been allocated. For us to proceed without ensuring that we understand fully the issues we are required to address would be irresponsible and exhibit a reckless disregard for the welfare of the City that will be long remembered. To proceed quickly might not be prohibited but it certainly would not be prudent. I urge that you solicit a motion to continue this item until the Commissioners have had time to assess the material that must be reviewed before our resolutions are developed. I. Alne Planning Commissioner Commissioner Alne suggested that a motion be entertained to continue this item. Chairwoman Keams thanked Commisioner Alne for his comments and read Agenda Item No. 7 into the record: GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Ae Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 12 B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Agency Manager: · Advised that development of the Winchester Drive-In site has been underway for the last three years. · Provided an overview of how and why the RDA came to purchase the site. The site was agricultural until the 1960's when a drive-in movie theater was built on the site. The site was annexed to the City of Campbell in 1970. The theater closed in 1982. A 420,000 square foot development was approved for the site but was never built. The project was lost to the bank. A General Plan amendment was made from industrial to commercial to attempt to lure a major box retail business to the site. It was determined that freeway access was unattainable and no major box retail was lined up for the site. The property owners (bank) went out of business and the property went to the RTC. The Agency purchased the site from the RTC. · In the last three years an extensive analysis of possible land uses was conducted through a series of public meetings. In January 1997, the RDA approved an agreement with WTA for the development of a business park on the site. A DDA agreement was entered into based upon the condition that the land use approvals be secured. · The site has been fallow for 15 years. Redevelopment of the site will serve as a major catalyst for improvements to the area. The RDA Project will install Storm Drains in the area and water pressure to the area will be extended which has been a concern of the Fire Department. The private street will receive public street standards. Property values and circulation should improve. It is estimated that approximately 750 new jobs will be created. · The Planning Commission is being asked to review the project based upon the merits of the proposal. The Planning Commission is not bound by the terms and conditions of the DDA. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Site is 23.5 acres in a triangle shape along Highway 17, with a mobile home to the east and percolation ponds to the south. · There are several facets to the application. · One requirement is that the Commission recommend to Council that the SEIR be certified and that a Statement of Overriding Concerns be adopted per the Resolution attached to the staff report. · That the General Plan designation, changed in the 1970's from Industrial to Commerical, needs to be changed back to Industrial. · Development Policies for the Winchester Drive-In Site that address uses and intensities of traffic, access and noise, floor area ratios and buffers. · The proposed project is developed with a .32 Floor Area Ratio. · A substantial buffer is proposed along the mobile home frontage. · Industrial use of this site will encourage other improvements in the area. · A Planned Development Permit is required for this project as the site is zoned PD (Planned Development). · Staff recommends that a Resolution be adopted that includes 60 Conditions of Approval. · The project will consist of five buildings, three are two-story buildings and two are one- story buildings. · The site plan proposes 1,271 parking spaces. · The landscaping proposed is 27% of the site area. · A public street will be constructed along the south side of the property to McGlincey Lane. · Loading areas for the proposed project face the freeway. · A 50-foot landscape buffer will be installed at the eastern property line. · Traffic improvements will be implemented along McGlincey Lane including a signal at McGlincey and Union. · Staff recommends Resolutions to recommend approval of the Planned Development Permit and the Vesting Tentative Map to create five lots for the five buildings. · Additional approvals are required for off-premise signs. · SARC declined to review the project until the consideration of the General Plan element is completed. Therefore, there is no SARC recommendation. · Staff has distributed updated findings. Commissioner Lowe asked why the DDA was mentioned in the staff report but a copy was not provided in the packet. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the DDA is an agreement between the RDA and the Developer (WTA). A review of compliance with the DDA is not required by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 14 Commissioner Lowe stated that since it is mentioned in the report that compliance with the DDA is required, either a copy of the DDA needs to be provided or the DDA should not be mentioned in the report at all. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the DDA is mentioned for informational background information. Commissioner Gibbons asked just exactly what needs to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the Site and Planned Development Permits require a recommendation to Council. The actual decision for approval rests with Council. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the parking deficiency and the fact that shared fights to parking mitigates any deficiencies. If the lot is subdivided into five lots, does this not create five lots with deficient parking? Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that CC&R's would be implemented with provisions for shared parking agreements. He advised that the required parking ratio is one space for every 250 square feet of space while one space for every 260 square feet of space is actually proposed. Commissioner Gibbons commented on the extensive hardscape surfaces and concern for trees proposed to be planted amidst a lot of concrete and asphalt. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that trees are proposed throughout the development. Commissioner Gibbons asked about sidewalks on McGlincey. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that a sidewalk is to be located on the easterly side along the private street. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the site marked "future building". Mr. Tim J. Haley informed that this site will be used for a supportive or associated retail use such as a restaurant for use by people working at and near the research and development park. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the implications if the improvements are not made on Cristich. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and is comfortable with the project access even without Cristich Lane. However, Cristich Lane is desirable. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the fencing separating the business park from the mobile home park. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the fence would be 6 to 8 feet depending upon the need for privacy. Although the Parks and Recreation Commission suggested openings to allow the residents of the mobile home park to access the business park, the owners of the mobile home park do not wish to see any access included through this fencing. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the mobile home park owners have been notified of the potential project. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that they had been notified. Commissioner Gibbons expressed concern that 24-inch box trees are small for the size of this project. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the number of trees called for is large. The 24-inch box is the City's standard requirement for the WELS standards. Commissioner Lowe asked whether graffiti abatement requirements have been added to the Conditions of Approval as had been required for another development approved this evening? Mr. Tim J. Haley pointed out Condition of Approval No. 53. Commissioner Alne expressed concern that the 1992 EIR for the site is a program EIR while the 1996 SEIR for the site is a project EIR. He feels that the current 1996 SEIR is not complete. Asked how it is possible to take a program EIR and turn it into a project EIR? Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that Ms. Valerie Young from C2HM-Hill, the City's consultant who prepared the EIR and SEIR, was available to address specific questions pertaining to the EIR and SEIR. Ms. Valerie Young, Consultant, C2HM Hill: · Advised that CEQA requires a project level EIR when a specific project can be defined. · When the initial EIR was prepared, it was anticipated that a major box retail use would be place on this site. A programmatic evaluation was done. It was written into the Resolution that an SEIR would be required. · Much of the information from the 1992 EIR is still valid in 1996. The 1992 document was used for the 1996 document. The 1996 document referenced sections from the 1992 document. · Aspects of the EIR analysis were reviewed including traffic, air quality and noise. Commissioner Alne stated that since only portions of the program EIR are applicable, could it not be said that some are not applicable. Asked if the SEIR defers to the 1992 EIR? Ms. Valerie Young said that the SEIR does not defer to the 1992 EIR. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 16 Commissioner Alne again asked how a program EIR can become a project EIR? Ms. Valerie Young replied that the information developed at a program level is still valid at a project level. The information is appropriate to be used at this time. Commissioner Alne asked if the new SEIR was developed using portions of the old EIR. Ms. Valerie Young advised that the parts no longer applicable were updated. Commissioner Alne asked how one could tell the applicable parts of the old EIR from the non- applicable parts? Ms. Valerie Young replied by reviewing the 1996 SEIR document. Commissioner Alne stated that these documents are contradictory. Ms. Valerie Young advised that the 1996 SEIR makes clear what is different from the 1992 EIR. Chairwoman Kearns opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 7. Ms. Michelle Dillabough, WTA, Project Applicants: · Stated that WTA has been active in the City of Campbell. They own the Campbell Business Center and the Los Gatos Business Park. They are sensitive to the needs of the City and the area. · They are the builders of high end research and development facilities. · Their tenants are financially stable. · There is little business migration to Campbell. Campbell is ideal for drawing high tech businesses due to its close proximity to residential areas. · Access issues can and will be resolved. · Their development of this research and development park will prove to be the impetus to other property owners in the region to improve their properties. · Suggested that the Commission members visit the Los Gatos Business Park to understand the quality of their developments. · Campbell Technology Park will be good for WTA, for the City of Campbell and for the residents of the City of Campbell. Chairwoman Kearns asked City Engineer Michelle Quinney to discuss public improvements. Ms. Michelle Quinney, City Engineer, advised that the biggest improvement would be the water line along Cristich Lane to serve the development and the addition of storm drains. The developer can address the installation of PG&E improvements. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 17 Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the water improvements will be installed on Cristich even if the rest of the proposed street improvements on Cristich are not developed. Ms. Michelle Quinney advised that the water line will go in no matter what. Mr. Ken Neumeister, WTA, advised that San Jose Water Company already has an easement along Cristich Lane. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the improved Storm Drains would go in without the Cristich Lane improvements? Ms. Michelle Quinney advised that rather than new storm drains along Cristich, the existing Storm Drains for the site would be upgraded in the event that the improvements along Cristich are not installed. Commissioner Gibbons asked about other improvements such as sanitary, gas and electric? Mr. Ken Neumeister, WTA, advised that there is an existing sanitary sewer line to the site that is adequate. There is no requirement to upgrade. However, they are increasing the line size. Additionally, there is also a current easement for PG&E and adequate facilities are in place for gas service to the site. Commissioner Alne asked about documents from Central Fire disapproving the project. Mr. Ken Neumeister advised that without the improvements called out for by Central Fire the would disapprove but with the improvements they support. Mr. Chris Veargason, Central Fire District, stated that Central Fire recommendation for disapproval was based upon fire truck accessibility to the site. The Fire District is satisfied with the proposed accessibility. Commissioner Alne asked if there was any problem with water pressure to the site. Mr. Chris Veargason advised that the water pressure is being tripled as a result of this development. Mr. Peter Uzzi, DiNapoli, Uzzi & Sibley, Attorney for People for Open Space in Campbell: · Advised that his clients, People for Open Space in Campbell, do not challenge the project itself but rather the procedures used to process this project. · They are not challenging what is going on but how. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 18 · Suggested that the Commission defer consideration of this project for several reasons: 1) there is the possibility that one member of the Council has a conflict of interest and 2) the City of Campbell is currently reviewing its General Plan which is legally inadequate as it is not current. It would be prudent for the Commission to defer until resolution of the law suit filed by his clients; until the Fair Political Practices Commission makes a decision as to whether the Councilmember has a conflict of interest in considering this project and/or until the City completes the review and update of its General Plan. · One element of the General Plan that was updated in the early 1990's is the Open Space Element which called out an objective for increased park land. · Additionally, page 55 of the City's currently CIP reads, "Open Space is a top priority." · Stated that the Commission is making land use decisions based upon a 20 year old General Plan that is legally inadequate. The Attorney General and the Office of Planning and Research have both found Campbell's General Plan to be inadequate. · Again asked that consideration of the project be deferred until the General Plan update is completed. · Neither the EIR nor the SEIR discusses the project's consistency with the General Plan. By law this project must be consistent with the City's General Plan. · The objective for four (4) acres of open space for every 1,000 in population called out in the Open Space Element cannot be achieved if this project is approved. This site is a prime resource. · Asked that the project be found inconsistent with the General Plan. CEQA requires the project to be consistent with the General Plan. · Again asked that the project consideration be deferred to allow the Commissioners adequate time to digest all the documentation, the settlement of the lawsuit, the decision of the FPPC and/or completion of the General Plan update. · Deny the application and find that it is not in compliance with CEQA. City Attorney William Seligmann clarified that the opinion that the City's General Plan is inadequate is Mr. Uzzi's opinion. The only body qualified to determine this is the court. No court has determined Campbell's General Plan to be inadequae. Chairwoman Keams asked if the General Plan is actually 20 years old. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that some technical elements are indeed 20 years old. The Housing and Open Space Elements have had more recent updates. Commissioner Lowe asked if the General Plan is under review by any court for adequacy. City Attorney William Seligrnann replied not as far as the City is aware. Campbell is on a list, together with many other cities within California, in the State Attorney General's Office. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 19 Commissioner Alne stated that in order to be reviewed by a court someone must challenge the General Plan's adequacy. The issue has now been taken into court as a result of the lawsuit by the People for Open Space in Campbell. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that this is correct. Commissioner Gibbons asked about an injunction that had been requested to prevent discussion of this item at this evening's meeting. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the court denied the stay. Ms. Sonja Locke, 200 N. Second Street, Campbell: · Advised that she is a resident of Campbell. · Stated that as she sees it, this project does not make sense for the City. · This is land that the City already owns. The City is lacking in open space. · Asked whether increased auto emissions as a result of this proposed use have been studied. · Advised that the streets in this area are not equipped to handle the proposed increase in traffic. The City does not need the added pollution. · The people of Campbell want and desperately needs more open space. · Suggested that additional access to the site be obtained by placing a footbridge to connect the site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. · Asked the Commission to take their time in considering this project. The decision will affect many. The ultimate use of the site can either have a positive impact or a devastating impact. Mr. Randy Sacks, 1603 Walters Avenue, Campbell: · Questioned the wisdom of certifying the EIR. · Stated his belief that there are significant impacts on air quality/noise and congestion as a result of this proposed project. · The reasons for support of the project given by staff include the elimination of blight on the project site, the elimination of blight in the area and economic benefits to the City. Give these issues thought. Ms. Marcie Johnson, 898 S. McGlincey Lane, Campbell: · Stated that due to trucks already parked along McGlincey, access onto the roadway is already impossible. · If the project is built with 1,300 additional cars, there will be no way to move around in the area. · Asked that the Commission not approve this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Mike Kotowski, 571 Harrison Avenue, Campbell: · Said that when the City bought the site, he saw an open space pot of gold. However, there is a concern about the safety of the area for a park use. Is this a good location for a park due to the surrounding industrial uses? · Wondered if the street improvements will be implemented even if the project is not approved or are all of the proposed improvements pending upon this development? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there are no resources for the improvements without the sale of the site. The Cristich Lane improvements would not go forward. Mr. Mike Kotowski continued: · Added that an industrial use of the property is not his first choice. · Expressed concern that there is no source of funds for repaying the RDA for the purchase of this site. · Suggested that the site be partially developed as a park and partially as an industrial use. Mr. Mitch Stermer, 1312 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Expressed concerns about the impacts of a surrounding residential uses. · Advised that he lives adjacent to a R&D site. nuisance. Research and Development project on The City can do nothing to prevent a Stated that "these people have no idea what is being done to them!" PD Zoning is stupid. Trucks can come in at any time. Noise interferes with their lives. Garbage trucks come and go at all hours. Believes this project is a poor idea. City Attorney William Seligrnann stated that the project to which Mr. Stermer is referring was approved a number of years ago. Restrictions have been added to the Conditions of Approval to handle some of the issues Mr. Stermer has raised. Mr. Mitch Stermer advised that once a PD is in place, no changes are possible. City Attorney William Seligmann admitted that this is correct unless the Conditions of Approval are not being met or the applicants want to initiate a change to their site and its uses. Commissioner Lowe asked what site Mr. Stermer has problems with. Mr. Mitch Stermer answered P-Com located on Winchester Boulevard. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the City is not interested in repeating mistakes of the past. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Bob Francis, 701 Parkdale Drive, Campbell: · Advised that there are already problems from the existing industrial uses that concern the residents nearby. · Said that he has complained to the City and Fire about fumes from furniture refinishing businesses located on McGlincey Lane. · Originally, the City had suggested moving its corporation yard to this site which he supports. · Stated that the proposed landscaping of the site with this project is not adequate. Ms. Maureen Rasmussen, Resident, Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park: · Stated that she is the spokesperson for the residents of the adjacent mobile home park. · These residents are supportive of this project and commend staff for their efforts. · Added that she would never advocate sending a child into this industrial area. The area is not a good one for a park. · Advised that they are satisfied with the buffer zone proposed between this project and their mobile home park. · Stated that while they appreciated the chance to incorporate openings in the fencing, openings work both ways so they prefer a solid fence. · The mobile home park consists of 106 spaces with 175 residents. All are seniors who moved there to enjoy peace and quiet. · City staff has been helpful throughout this process. · Asked who would pay for the park? · Stated that she agreed with the need for open space however the money generated from this project can help with improvements to the City's Community Center. · Thanked the Commission for the invitation to speak. Ms. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell: · Stated that the City is deficient in open space by nearly 24 acres. · The highest need in the City is for open space. · Schools are increasing in population and school fields are heavily impacted. The City has lost the Little League field in the Quito area. · The Strategic Plan recognizes the need for more youth programming. · Stated that most popular parks are located in industrial areas including the Los Gatos Creek Park and Los Gatos Creek Trail. · Providing a pedestrian overpass from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the Winchester Drive-In site would provide safe and easy access. · While the Winchester Drive-In site may be too big to be considered a neighborhood park or even a Community Park it is not to large to be considered a Regional Park which draws from a five mile radius. This five mile radius encompasses most of the City of Campbell. What should be included is playing fields. · This site is an ideal location for a park. · The responsible thing to do would be to change the Zoning to Open Space. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Don Hebard: · Questioned the parking provided and number of new jobs predicted. The projection of 750 new jobs would equal 440 square feet of space for every person working on the site. · This would represent a significant number of additional cars which seems impossible from one access. · Stated that the City was "striving for a grade of D" in it's open space goals. The City's goal is four acres per thousand in population while the National average is five. Stated that the City should strive to be above the average. · By developing this last large site, the City loses its ability to be above average. What has been lost can never be made up. · Citizens for Open Space in Campbell is not the enemy of the nor are they trying to hurt the City. They are trying to correct a step in the wrong direction. Only a minority on the Council supports open space. · It is important to spell everything out and to put defined definitions and restrictions. Also the Storm Drain issue needs to be evaluated as the Union Avenue line is already inadequate. Ms. Janet Johnson: · Stated that she is an open space advocate who was raised on a 400 acres ranch. · Expressed confusion about the process. · Asked when the General Plan would be reviewed. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Council would conduct a Study Session in May. A hearing process will occur in the future at a date not yet scheduled. Ms. Janet Johnson: · Asked that a decision on this project be held until the General Plan is updated. · Questioned where the acreage exists in Campbell to build open space if this site is developed. Where is additional space hiding? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised: · That the City needs an additional 23+ acres. Some methods for increasing available open space include joint development with school districts of school sites, the purchase of surplus school sites (under the Naylor Act) including the potential purchase of Dover School. The Open Space Element encourages joint use. Ms. Janet Johnson stated that these sites are already in use. Where is the additional open space to come from? Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Ken Pearsall: · Questioned the accessibility to the site. There are a limited number of lanes accessing the property. · Remembered the long lines that used to block the streets when the drive-in was operating and anticipates gridlock if this project is built. · Even though 51% of the site is planned for parking it is still not enough to serve the site. · What will happen if Cristich Lane is not improved? · Cited traffic concerns, particularly at San Tomas Expressway, Camden and Highway 17. · Stated that problems need to be solved before building this project. Commissioner Alne stated: · That he has spent a lot of time reviewing this project and has been unable to get his arms around all of this. · The Resolution makes 13 "whereas" comments. · Exhibit A is 25 pages of complex information. · The Commission is being asked to tell the Council that all of this information is true and accurate. · Said that he himself does not know that this is all true. · Suggested that this project be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she has no problem continuing to a meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 30th. Commissioner Alne suggested continuing for two weeks. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there is merit in further study. However, she suggested that some action can be taken this evening. Commissioner Lowe disagreed stating that if the Commission votes no on the General Plan Amendment none of the other applications go forward. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that the Commission continue to digest this information and come back on Wednesday, April 30th. Commissioner Lowe asked if the Commission can review other options for the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission can recommend that Council explore other options. He advised that the Council will need Commission recommendations on each aspect of this application. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Commission voted to continue discussion of the Winchester Drive-In Site proposal to a meeting on Wednesday, April 30th. (7-0) Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1997 Page 24 REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with no additions. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. to a special Planning Commission meeting of April 30, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary Susa~ A earns,i Steve Piasecki, S~cretary