PC Min 05/13/1997CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
MAY 13, 1997
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 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:
Susan A. Keams
Dennis Lowe
I. Alne
Brad Jones
Mel Lindstrom
Jane Meyer-Kennedy
Commissioners Absent:
Commissioner:
Elizabeth Gibbons
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Associate Planner:
City Attorney:
Redevelopment Manager:
Environmental Program
Manager:
Reporting Secretary:
Steve Piasecki
Tim J. Haley
William Seligrnann
Kirk Heinrichs
Bill Helms
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner
Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of April 22 and April 30,
1997, were approved with corrections on the vote (Commissioners
Lowe and Alne were listed under the "Absent" column rather than
the "Noes" column) on page 4 and Resolution 3086 and the request
of an exact transcript of the comments made by Ms. Janet Johnson
on page 22 of the April 22nd minutes. (6-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons
was absent.)
(The requested transcript is provided as Attachment A.)
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Conditions of Approval and Resolutions for Agenda Item No. 2.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Steve Piasecki advised that the applicants for Agenda Item No. 1 have requested a continuance
to the May 27th meeting.
Motion:
On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission continued
Agenda Item No. 1 (S 97-04/UP 97-02/SA 97-14 - 2000 S. Bascom
Avenue - Buca di Beppo). (6-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons was
absent.)
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
GP 96-03/PD 96-06/
TS 97-01/S 97-05
Neumeister, K.
Continued Public Heating 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. 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.
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.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 3
Commissioner Alne stated that this item should be postponed since there is a slight change to
the proposed General Plan Amendment which requires renotification to the public.
City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that Commissioner Alne was correct that this aspect
of the application would have to be readvertised before Council could take final action. The
General Plan Amendment would need to be readvertised for a noticed heating before the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Alne stated that he cannot approve a land use issue that is in conflict with the
General Plan. The Commission is bound by law. It would be improper to go forward.
Chairwoman Keams asked if the Commission could go forward with the consideration of this
application.
City Attorney William Seligmann reiterated that any recommendation regarding the
public/semi-public land use would have to be noticed before being considered by Council.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked if it was possible to discuss the project and decide not to
recommend approval of the public/semi-public component of the General Plan Amendment?
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, reminded again that if the
recommendation included industrial/public/semi-public land use, the readvertisement is
necessary. A Site and Architectural Approval will be required for the redesign of the site with
a four acre park.
Chairwoman Keams stated that on April 22, 1997, the heating was started on this project and
public testimony heard. The project was continued to a special meeting on April 30, 1997. At
the April 30, 1997, meeting the item was again continued to the May 13, 1997, meeting.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Clarified a point made about the Dover School site. It has been determined that this school
will not be treated as surplus. Therefore, any possible open space use would be joint
development with the school district.
· At the April 30~h meeting, the Commission provided a diverse recommendation about the
size of desired open space in conjunction with this development.
· Staffhas added a four acre open space component adjacent to the percolation ponds.
· Revised draft resolutions have been distributed.
· As there is a discrepancy in the ratio of parking versus proposed employees on this site, it
is probable that parking can be reduced.
· Advised that this project has been advertised for the Council meeting of May 20, 1997.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if it was possible for this project to go forward to
Council without a Planning Commission recommendation?
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 4
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, offered two options. The first, if no
agreement is reached among the Commission, the project can be forwarded to Council without
a recommendation. Second, this project can be postponed further if the applicant is willing. If
the applicant wants a decision, the Commission can recommend approval or denial of the
project.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that if the project goes to Council, the only reason the
project would come back to the Commission is if the Council approves the open space
element.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, stated that if Council agrees in
concept, the General Plan aspect is readvertised for a Commission meeting. Council can also
approve a land use change for 20 acres and leave four acres without a land use change.
Commissioner Alne:
· Stated that it seems that the City is trying to tailor the General Plan to fit this specific
project.
· Said that he was startled to see that staff had implemented the bottom of the range
provided by the Commission from three to four acres up to the entire site as open space.
Asked why only the smallest open space in the range requested by the Commission? Why
no explanation from staff.
· Questioned whether staff is incompetent? Or simply lacked integrity?
· Suggested that staff is both the applicant and the reviewer of this project which presents a
conflict of interest.
· Stated that "staff can no longer advise me on this issue. Staff works for us. Staff is not
providing the Planning Commission with all the information it needs."
· Suggested supplying staff with specific questions to answer and to provide the answers to
a Committee comprised of Planning Commission members.
· Stated that he has no faith in any of the recommendations from staff.
Chairwoman Keams thanked Commissioner Alne for his opinions.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Reminded the Commission that the recommendations are not staff's but rather came from
the previous Planning Commission meetings.
· The Commission is free to do what it wishes.
· Staff, using the information from the previous meetings, has tried to come up with a
potential layout which the Commission is free to change.
· Staff's recommendation was for approval of the original project application.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 5
Commissioner Alne:
· Asked why only a three to four acre open space when a range of seven to ten acres was
mentioned.
· "The tail is wagging the dog unsuccessfully."
· Stated that the roadway of the proposed open space area eats up one of the four acres.
· Said that this proposal is an unrealistic response to a specific request from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Lindstrom:
· Stated that all of the Commissioners had expressed favor with some portion of the site
being industrial with differences in the amount of open space.
· The Commission asked for modifications which staff has prepared.
· There is no incompetence on staff's part.
· The guidance from the Commission was too wide and too vague.
· Asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the open space, the City or the
developer?
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Advised that it is likely the City would maintain the open space.
· Corrected Commissioner Alne's impression that of the proposed open space, one acre is
used up with the roadway. The net area of the proposed open space is 3.6 acres. It can be
larger.
Commissioner Lindstrom:
· Stated that the implementation of open space reduces the site and income.
· Additionally, it adds an expense to the City for maintenance of the open space.
· This open space use is counterproductive to the site.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy:
· Agreed with Commissioner Lindstrom that the City is not in a position to maintain this
space.
· Said that she does not see this spot as a park at all but rather as a green space in the
industrial area.
· Prefers to see the developer maintain the open space.
Commissioner Jones:
· Stated that the benefits of open space is mostly for the developer and that the developer
should maintain this open space.
· Like the idea proposed for the crescent shaped open space.
· Said the area is not a good one for a park.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 6
Commissioner Lowe:
· Disagreed that the area is not a good one for a park.
· Pointed out the large amount of high density residential in the area.
· Stated that it is very short sighted to allow only four acres as open space.
· Asked the Commission to reconsider.
Mr. Gordon Reynolds, 3293 Valley Square Lane, San Jose:
· Advised that he started coaching eight years ago and this year there is no field available for
him to coach at. There is no place to play so their season is over.
· Questioned anyone who states that playing fields are plentiful.
· Stated that the City of Campbell is the only city in the area without a high school named
for it. The City used to have its own fire department. The City used to have open space.
This is a City of"used to be's".
· This site is within walking distance of the Pruneyard and downtown.
· Questioned how the successful bid for the site was accepted seven months after the close of
the bid process.
· Stated that the staff's work on this project is bad and that he would fire the staff in private
industry.
· When it was suggested that the use of the site be voted upon on the April 94 ballot, then
City Manager Mark Ochenduszko stated that this would established a dangerous precedent.
· They cannot use the Initiative Process since the property is owned by the Redevelopment
Agency.
· They cannot use the Referendum Process.
· Their only action is through the courts.
· A group approached then-Congressman Mineta together with Councilmembers Burr and
Dougherty to seek Federal funding. A Joint Powers Agreement with the Open Space
Authority and the City of San Jose was refused outright by the City of Campbell.
· The community wants to participate. However, Council does not want an advisory vote
because a deal has already been cut.
· Stated that the Planning Commission's decision doesn't really matter as Council has
already made a decision about this site.
· Said that staff has "spoon fed" information. The Commission is being asked to indemnify
what staff has done.
· Staff has a deficient General Plan. Campbell is one of 48 cities in the State of California
operating with a deficient General Plan.
· Although the City has more staff than it had when the original General Plan was drafted,
the City is asking for more money to bring the General Plan current, to hire consultants.
· Stated that the Commission has voted for issues that were illegal.
· The City will use the argument that projects were approved because the Commission made
the recommendation for approval. The Commission will be left holding the bag.
· Once a project is approved by Council, the only thing to do is a Referendum. They have
been ready to do so for the last three years.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 7
· Stated that this proposal is not really for a light industrial project but rather a research and
development park.
· This is a land locked piece of property.
· Once a decision is made to develop the site, it is gone.
· Said that the Planning Commission took an oath to serve the people of Campbell.
· Within the City's General Plan is the call for four acres of open space fore every 1,000 in
population.
· Stated that he finds Jack Fischer Park is not well used as it is only three to four acres.
· On the other hand, Westmont High School has lots of people and organized sports
occurring on site.
· Three and a half acres of open space on the Winchester Drive-In Site will add no value or
quality of life.
· Asked the Commission to meet the General Plan goals or at least wait until the General
Plan update is done. The General Plan is an agreement between the planning office and
public officials.
· Fifty two percent of people in the City live in apartments without anyplace to go.
· Send a message to Council that we want open space.
· Stated that the mobile home park has been "sold down the river." Said that instead of
spending $1.6 million on improvements to Cristich, it would be cheaper to move some of
the mobile homes to allow access directly from Union Avenue.
· The City conducted a survey which showed that 69% of the respondents want more parks
in the City of Campbell.
Mr. Bob Francis, 701 Parkdale Drive, Campbell:
· Re-emphasized Commissioner Lowe's point that there is a lot of high density residences in
the immediate area of this site.
· Kids in this area used to walk to school but now the two local schools are gone.
· This resulted in the loss of the Cambrian Little League field.
Ms. Suzanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Lane:
· Stated that Councilmember Doherty has
distributed a press release in which he
recommends issuance of a $10 million bond to keep this land as a park as well as to
support "a variety of projects and to improve the quality of life in Campbell."
· Said that this press release shows that someone is listening.
· Stated that she is terrified of losing this property.
· Said that they have found people who would maintain the property.
· Using the site for open space could succeed if the bond is passed.
· The City only wants dollars.
Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997
Commissioner Lindstrom:
·
Page 8
Disagreed that the Commission has been force fed anything and stated his resentment of
this implication.
· This project has been before us for a long time.
· Stated that the Commission represents both sides. Its members are individuals who take in
the information provided and make recommendations.
· Expressed his displeasure at the threats made by Mr. Reynolds that the Commission is not
approaching its role properly.
· Stated that he had fought to keep Campbell High School open but is glad he lost now that
the Community Center is so well utilized.
· Disputed Mr. Reynolds contention that Fischer Park is not being used. It is being well
used and he is thrilled by that fact.
· The Winchester Drive In Site is a difficult plot of land.
· Stated that it is in the best interest of the City to develop the site with a small open space.
· The income derived from the sale of the site can be used to save small open spaces at
schools.
· Stated that he is surprised by the comments and threats made by Mr. Reynolds.
· Stated that he would like to see this project forwarded to Council with Planning
Commission recommendations.
City Attorney William Seligmann asked if it was Commissioner Lindstrom's intent to forward
this project to Council without specific recommendations?
Commission Lindstrom advised that he was recommending approval of the General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site and
Architectural Approval.
City Attomey William Seligmann suggested that each item be considered separately.
Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested that the Commission may want to discuss where each member
stands at this time.
Commissioner Lowe asked that each item be voted upon separately.
Commissioner Jones:
· Discussed the trend of taking a piece of land that used to contain one home and to
subdivide it for two to three homes.
· Suggested that this site is not the best for a park. However, it is the last large chunk of land
in the City.
· Stated that he believes the matter should go to a vote as the only logical alternative.
· The site has been vacant for years.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 9
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she is prepared to vote on the project collectively or
item by item.
Commissioner Alne stated:
· That he does not want to vote on all issues together.
· Stated that nothing is defined. Things cannot be substantiated.
· What space is industrial and what space is open space?
· Questioned the need to rush to Council.
Motion:
Commissioner Lindstrom made the motion to recommend that Council
approve GP 96-02, PD 96-06, TS 97-01 and S 97-5 to allow the development
of the Winchester Drive-In Site with a Research & Development Park.
(The motion died for lack of a second.)
Motion:
Upon motion
Commissioner
adoption of a
Amendment to
Commercial to
of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Kearns, the Planning Commission recommended the
resolution recommending approval of a General Plan
change the Land Use Element of the General Plan from
Industrial/Public/Semi-Public on property located at 535
Westchester Drive, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
NOES: Alne, Jones, Lowe
ABSENT: Gibbons
ABSTAIN: None
Chairwoman Keams asked the significance of a tie vote.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a resolution
recommending denial of a General Plan Amendment to change the Land
Use Element of the General Plan from Commercial to
Industrial/Public/Semi-Public on property located at 535 Westchester
Drive, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Alne, Jones, Lowe
Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
Gibbons
None
Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 10
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the
Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a resolution
recommending denial of GP 96-02, PD 96-06, TS 97-01 and S 97-05 as well
as draft resolutions A through E and Planning Commission
recommendations 1 through 4, on property located at 535 Westchester
Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alne, Jones, Lowe
NOES: Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
ABSENT: Gibbons
ABSTAIN: None
Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority.
City Attorney William Seligrnann suggested that the Commission could either make a motion
to send the project to Council without a recommendation or could continue the application to
the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Gibbons would be required to review this
evening's meeting tape in order to be prepared to vote at the next meeting.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission recommended a continuance of this application to
the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Alne, Jones, Lowe
Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
Gibbons
None
Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority.
Commission Alne questioned the purpose of sending to Council when a noticed hearing is still
going to be nedded.
City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the purpose is the furtherance of debate. Only
the General Plan Amendment would need to come back to Council if the open space is
implemented.
Commissioner Alne asked what the rest of the property (proposed open space area) would be
designated.
City Attomey William Seligmann replied that the land use would remain Commercial.
Commissioner Lindstrom stated that the motion is to forward without recommendation.
Nothing is relevant until Council sees the application.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 11
Commissioner Alne questioned the need for defined boundaries.
City Attomey William Seligmann stated that the proposed boundaries are reasonably defined.
It is not a meets and bound description. An engineer would prepare such a description. While
it is preferable to have a precise boundary definition, this is sufficient.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission moved to forward
this application on to Council without a recommendation, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
Alne, Jones, Lowe
Gibbons
None
Chairwoman Keams advised that the motion failed due to a lack of a majority.
Commissioner Lindstrom suggested the reintroduction of the motion for a continuance.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission recommended a continuance of this application to
the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Alne, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy
Kearns
Gibbons
None
Chairperson Keams advised that this item will be continued to May 27,1997.
Commissioner Alne asked if noticing can be accomplished.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that the May 27th meeting
does not allow sufficient time to notice but rather June 10th.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that she will be on vacation.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that noticing requirements depend upon where the Commission
wants to go. It is not necessary to notice something that the Commission clearly will not
support. The purpose of the notice is to define the project to be voted upon.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy reiterated her belief that the project should go to Council
without recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997 Page 12
Commissioner Lindstrom advised that the purpose of the continuance is to allow the full
Commission an opportunity to vote.
Chairwoman Keams reopened the Public Heating.
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with no additions.
Commissioner Alne:
· Brought up the appeal of the Commission's denial for 1180 Latimer Avenue.
· Stated that staff did an admirable job working with the applicant in revising their project.
· Perfect solutions to problems were achieved.
· Stated that he finds it improper for SARC input to go directly to Council rather than to the
Commission and then to Council.
· Suggested that the Chair instruct Council that SARC recommendations should come from
the Planning Commission rather than directly to Council.
· The Commission has never seen the layout that has been developed subsequent to its denial
of this project.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that Council had sought input
on the Site and Architectural aspect of the application. The layout is identical but reversed.
The houses are single-story rather than two-story.
Commissioner Alne stated that the plan is much different from the plan reviewed by the
Commission.
Chairwoman Keams reminded the Commission that typically single-family residences are not
reviewed by Council. This was an appeal.
Commissioner Alne asked if the Commission wanted to instruct Council.
Commissioner Jones stated that it was not necessary.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it is not necessary.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that this is not a usual
occurrence. This is the first time this has occurred in his eight year tenure with the City.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 27, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street,
Campbell, Califomia.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 1997
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Page 13
~-.---~S t eve~'ias ecki, ~ecretary
Ms. Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Attachment A
Hi, everybody. My name is Janet Johnson. I live at 1086 Bucknam
Avenue in Campbell. I'm not a native but I could say that I'm an
open space advocate not because I'm closely aligned with the group
that's been talking a lot but because I grew up a few hours away on a
ranch and I was privileged to grow up on 400 acres. There were six
of us in the family. That was pretty wonderful. And so, just in
general, I love space. I love to be able to look out and see a few
miles away. I basically have one comment and one question.
The comment is I am a little confused about the process because we
remodeled our house once and what we did is we decided in general
what we wanted and then we did the specifics. And it seems to me
that we're doing it backwards here. We're sort of doing a specific
while we're waiting for the General Plan. I don't know how soon,
Steve, the General Plan might be redone. Is it six months, or 12
months or two years out? Do you know?
We hope to bring the initial cut of the Plan to the City Council in a
Study Session probably toward the end of next month. And that will
just be an initial kickoff to get Council direction and than go back
and revise it and come back through the heating process. We expect
that's going to take some time. I don't know how long the process
time will take.
Yea. So, you know, I just might suggest it might make sense to wait
until you get that General Plan before you decide what color of a
dishwasher you want, you know, or what size dishwasher you want
because you better have the General Plans in place. The other thing
is a question, I guess it was a question/comment, but my question is
I've heard a lot about you know the acreage and the people and this
is the last big chunk of land in the City and if it does go to
development I guess I'm getting a little confused. I'm not sure
where you find other acreage in town. I know of a couple of vacant
lots and I don't think the City will be asking you know 100 people to
condemn their houses so they can create a park somewhere. So, if
this goes to something other than open space could someone tell me
a little bit about where some of the other space might be hiding
because I don't know where it is?
We have provided the Planning Commission with what we call
hypothetical open space strategy, it was the same one that Suzanne
Waher referred to, which actually refers to the provision of the 23
plus acres at the time of build out which in the 1990 Open Space
Element projected 38,500 persons, and what that hypothetical
strategy illustrates is that, and first of all I must mention that the
Transcript of comments by Janet Johnson made at 4/22/97 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Open Space Element prioritizes providing open space in the
neighborhoods, and that Open Space strategy basically relies heavily
on joint development of school sites, possibly purchasing any school
sites that are surplused by the school districts in terms of Naylor
rights. That is why, in the Capital Improvement Program that was
the first item on tonight's agenda, you saw the possible purchase of a
portion of the Coventry School site and a then a reference to
purchase of roughly five acres and/or development, I should say, in
the northeast comer of the community. So...
So is that a vacant lot right now?
No that would be, one possibility is the Dover school site, either
through joint development or should the Campbell School District...
I think we were at a meeting a week or two ago and I think the
school board told you that the Dover site was not available in the
near future.
And they also heavily encouraged the concept of joint development,
which is another way of fulfilling the open space strategy. A very
good way to do, from the City's perspective because we don't have
to buy the land.
Right. But you're talking five acres there and how many acres at the
Coventry site?
The breakdown to get to over 24 acres starts with improving .87
acres at the Community Center that we currently own, the Coventry
school site Nayloring three acres and purchasing two acres over the
long term, they were not proposing to surplus all of that site right
away. So that would give us five acres at Coventry over time. At
the Dover school site we're looking at the joint development of six
acres. Hazelwood school, joint development of the fields,
approximately five acres. Capri school, joint development of the
fields, six acres. And then the private parcel on the east side of
town, roughly one and a half acres, to get you to the 24.4 acres. We
had a projected cost of around $8.6 million dollars. We currently
have a projected income of about $3.5 million dollars, leaving
unfunded about $5 million dollars just to accomplish that program.
OK. So mostly you're talking about five acres of Coventry and then
much of the rest is joint use with the local school district and the
City and I think I heard you earlier say that most of that joint use
space is already being used. There's kids on it all the time. So if
you're looking for additional, you know in a sense that's already
Transcript of comments by Janet Johnson made at 4/22/97 Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
being used.
Yes, the Open Space Element highly encourages joint development
anticipating keeping that space available as fields predominantly so
that they can continue to be used for the athletics.
Right, but what I am saying is that there is no additional space there.
It's all being used all the time now. Even if it goes into official joint
use or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that there's no empty
land out them for the others that aren't playing too. I don't know if
you understand what I mean
Yea, I think I do and the program that I've described and provided to
the Planning Commission, does allow additional acreage that is not
going to be jointly developed on those various school sites that I
mentioned. So its not entirely being joint developed and improved
into a more park like fashion. Again the Campbell Union School
District, in the Study Session they had with Council, were
encouraged by the possibility that there will be some joint
development. We want to try to encourage joint development. What
would happen in that case, is that properties would be developed in a
fashion that when the fields need to be utilized by sports and athletic
groups, they could have it available but you would also develop
facilities on those same sites where you might have some picnic
grounds or small children's play areas in the neighborhoods through
that joint development program. So you actually end up getting
more use out of them than you otherwise would under the current
program. To answer your question, is there more than that? Does it
go above and beyond that? It's limited, to be quite honest. The
opportunities for additional acreage beyond joint development and
our Naylorable portions is limited in Campbell. We recognize that
in the Open Space Element. That is why when people refer to this
five acres per thousand, which they call an average you know is
really a standard by the National Park Service. I don't know what
the average provision of open space is nationwide. I'm not sure
anyone knows. That is why we could not in terms of the goals,
strive to try to fulfill the five acres per thousand because we have
such limited space in Campbell.
Right. So we're talking about, if this goes into development,
whatever the development is, we're talking five acres and maybe
little bits and pieces of land here and there across the City. In
addition to those existing joint uses.
Twenty four acres of joint development.
Transcript of comments by Janet Johnson made at 4/22/97 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
Steve Piasecki
Janet Johnson
If we put the joint development aside.
Then we're looking at ....
We're looking at five acres plus little bits and pieces of land here
and there?
The little bits of land we're looking at enhancements possible to the
Los Gatos Creek Trail properties, possibly some joint use
agreements for the percolation ponds at the west end of town if we
can ever get through that process, and that's about 28 acres of perc
pond space that we are not currently using.
OK. Thanks for the information. Thanks.
Transcript of comments by Janet Johnson made at 4/22/97 Planning Commission Meeting Page 4