Loading...
PC Min 10/28/1997CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 28, 1997 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 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: Susan A. Keams Dennis Lowe Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner II: Planner I: City Attorney: Redevelopment Manager: Environmental Manager: Traffic Engineer: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Sharon Fierro Tim J. Haley Gloria Sciara Aki Irani William Seligrnann Kirk Heinrichs Bill Helms Peter Eakland Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of October 14, 1997, were approved. (5-0-1; Commissioner Lindstrom was absent.) COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Memo with revised Conditions of Approval for Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Community Development Director Steve Piasecki recommended that Agenda Items 2, 3 and 4 be heard prior to Agenda Item 1. These are simple applications that can be completed more quickly than Item 1 which has more parties interested in addressing the Commission. Motion: Upon motion made by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to consider Agenda Items 2, 3 and 4 before Item 1. (5-0-1; Commissioner Lindstrom was absent.) ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. M 97-15 Whole Foods Public Heating to consider the application of Whole Foods for approval of a Modification (M 97-15) to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 94-03) to allow the expansion of an existing grocery store on property located at 1690 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · The applicant, Whole Foods, previously known as Bread of Life, is seeking the Modification of a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing grocery store to be expanded by 9,000 square feet by expanding into adjacent retail space as well as a 1,300 square foot expansion to the rear of the building to accommodate warehouse/refrigeration uses. Additionally, the application is proposing a minor facade change by replacing two storefront windows with glass doors. · Staff is supportive of the project as presented. · The proposed use does not represent an intensification so additional parking is not required. · SARC reviewed this project on October 16, 1997. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on October 16, 1997, and was supportive of the project as presented. Commissioner Gibbons asked what was being displaced by the 1,300 square foot addition at the rear of the building. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that nothing will be displaced. At the rear of the building there is an access roadway which will not be obstructed by this addition. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 3 There were no parties present who wished to address this item. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3125 approving a Modification (M 97-15) to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 94-03) to allow the expansion of an existing grocery store on property located at 1690 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record: 3. UP 97-14 Hashimoto, R. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Raymond Hashimoto, on behalf of GTE Mobilnet, for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (LIP 97-14) to allow the placement of a cellular antenna on an existing PG&E transmission tower located on property at Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · The applicant is seeking approval to install four cellular antennas on an existing PG&E substation located at Creekside and Hamilton Avenues. · The site consists of four acres which are surrounded by commercial and office uses as well as Highway 17. · The proposed antennas would reach a total of 93.5 feet from the ground. · A chain link fence with redwood slats would be installed around the equipment cabinets. · Landscaping exists on the site but staff feels that all areas are not properly screened. Therefore, additional landscaping is proposed by staff. · Staff finds that the placement of these antennas can be integrated on this site and that this is an appropriate site for these antennas. · With additional landscaping, staff is supportive. Staff will work with the applicants on the placement of trees. · SARC reviewed this project on October 16, 1997. Commissioner Gibbons asked if this would be the tallest element around. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 4 Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that there are four to five antennas in the area approximately 85 feet high. They are located on the Prometheus site. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met and reviewed this project on October 16, 1997. · SARC has a positive recommendation for approval. · The question had been raised as to whether these antennas would represent a hazard to air traffic. The applicant has shown proof that there is no need for lights on the top of the tower. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto, Applicant, JM Consulting: · Stated that he is in agreement with the staff report. · Advised that the landscaping is difficult as the site has a ground grid which limits somewhat where landscaping can be installed. · There is drip irrigation on site. · Asked if the five-year review condition is a standard. Commissioner Lowe advised that the five year review is a standard requirement for the approval of antennas. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto asked whether the Use Permit terminates or is renewed. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Use Permit terminates and reapplication is required. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto asked when the reapplication must occur. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that there is no lead time called out in the Condition but that this could be added. Commissioner Gibbons explained that the reason for five year review is to reassess whether the technology is still state of the art. If not, then it should be removed. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto admitted that many cities feel this way. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the potential for fire with the landscaping and high tension wire in close proximity requires that the landscaping be placed with care. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto agreed that redwood trees may not be prudent. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Hashimoto whether he was clear that additional landscaping would be required. Mr. Raymond Hashimoto advised that he was clear on that requirement. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 5 Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3126 approving a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-14) to allow the placement of cellular antennas on an existing PG&E transmission tower located on property at Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way with the added Condition of Approval that this approval be renewed after five years with a 90 day lead time for initiating the renewal process by July 28, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowc, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. S 97-21 Shakeri, O. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Omid Shakeri for a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-21) to allow the construction of a 3,002 square foot, two-story, single-family residence on a flag lot located at 1775 W. Hacienda Avenue in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · The applicant is seeking a Site approval to allow the construction of a two-story, single family residence on a newly created rear flag lot located within the San Tomas Area. · The site is located on the north side of W. Hacienda Avenue. · The site has townhouses to the west and south and single-family residences to the east and north. · The Tentative Parcel Map was approved through an administrative heating which created a two-lot subdivision. The rear lot includes 9,955 square feet. · Setbacks include: 30 feet to the rear, 16 to the west side and 12 to the east. These setbacks exceed those required by the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · This project is exempt from CEQA. · This project is consistent with the requirements of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, the Zoning District and the General Plan. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on October 16, 1997, and was supportive of the project as presented. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Stephanie Shemicoff, 1795 Hacienda Avenue: · Advised that she had recently purchased her home adjacent to this site. · The two-story structure will obstruct her views of the sunset. · Stated that homes in this area are single story. · Stated that a 16 foot setback is not that large. Commissioner Gibbons asked which side Ms. Shernicoff's property is relative to the subject property. Ms. Stephanie Shemicoff advised that her home is at the far back of the townhouse project. Mr. Craig Hamman, 1791 W. Hacienda Avenue: · Advised that he has similar concems to Ms. Shemicoff. · Stated that he has lived in his townhouse for three years. · Expressed concern that the trend seems to be very large structures on small lots. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the townhouse buildings were two story. Mr. Craig Hamman replied that their buildings were two story but that only bathroom windows overlook this site. Commissioner Gibbons asked what was on the other side. Ms. Aki Irani replied that there are single family, single story residences on the other side of this site. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there are second story windows facing the single story residences. Ms. Aki Irani answered that the second story bedroom windows face the two story townhome units. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Gibbons had questions regarding landscaping. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that additional trees are required under the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. Chairwoman Keams re-opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Gibbons advised that she believes that the applicant has made a reasonable effort with the larger than required setbacks. She stated that she supports the project, finding it appropriate. She added that additional landscaping could be considered proper. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Stephanie Shemicoff advised that privacy is an issue and that large trees would help. Mr. Craig Hamman added that looking at large trees would be better than looking at a large building. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy suggested that a landscaping plan be sent to SARC for final review. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there was not a protocol in place that restricted items from going back to SARC without coming afterwards to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that there is no such protocol in place. Commissioner Lowe advised that SARC members are not arborists. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that the City has a Landscape Advisor that can assist SARC with the review. Commissioner Lowe opined that the owners of the townhomes also have the option to plant on their property to assist in the screening. Commissioner Gibbons added that landscaping is covered under Condition of Approval No. 10. One tree is required for every 2,000 square foot of property. That requires 5 trees on this site. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that condition of approval that states that evergreen trees be installed. work with the neighbors and the ultimate plan brought to SARC. the Commission can craft a The applicant can be asked to Ms. Aki Irani clarified that there are three existing mature trees so the applicant is only required to add two more. Commissioner Lowe wondered how it could be quantified as to how many trees are needed in order to please the townhouse development residents. He added that even if trees are installed by this applicant, the person who buys the property can subsequently tear those trees out. He suggested that the adjacent property owners will need to plant in their own yards to mitigate this situation. Commissioner Gibbons agreed with Commissioner Lowe that there is no guarantee that the trees installed will stay on site. She suggested adding an additional two new trees to be installed along the property line with the townhouse project. Commissioner Lowe stated that everyone loves trees and to go for it. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3127 granting a Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 8 Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-21) to allow the construction of a 3,002 square foot, two-story, single-family residence on a flag lot located at 1775 W. Hacienda Avenue in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. with the requirement for two additional trees (for a total of four new trees) along the townhouse development property line in consultation with the adjoining neighbors and, if necessary, with SARC, by the following roll call vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy None Lindstrom None Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that this decision is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Commissioner Jones asked for a short break before continuing with Agenda Item No. 1. Chairperson Keams called for a break at 8:10 p.m. Chairperson Keams reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record: GP 96-02/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 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. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan fi.om Destination Commercial to Industrial (+ 19.5 acres) and Public/Semi-Public (4 acres). B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development park and a four acre park. C. A Vested 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. An Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 9 Report, certified by City Council in January 1997, has been prepared analyzing the impact of designating four acres of this site as a public park and reducing the total building square footage fi.om 330,000 square feet to 280,000 square feet. Chairwoman Kearns presented meeting ground rules as follows: · Advised that there are green cards for completion by audience members wishing to address the Commission regarding this project. Reminded that four hearings were held in April and May before the project was sent to Council. · Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission with the requirement for a four acre park component. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the current proposal and provide a recommendation back to Council. Advised that testimony would be limited to three minutes and asked speakers to be brief and to the point. Don't repeat the same message. Provide new information. Advised that she has also asked staff to be brief. Suggested that should the audience wish to concur with a point made, they can raise their hand. The Commission can see the support. Asked that all speakers be treated with respect. Outlined the order of the meeting as follows: with a staff report, applicant statement, audience comments, applicant response to audience questions, the close of the public hearing and the rendering of a decision. The meeting will conclude no later than 11 p.m. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · The Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council last Spring to approve the General Plan Amendment to change the land use of a portion of the property fi.om Destination Commercial to Industrial and the provision of a minimum four acre open space. · The Commission also recommended denial of the Development Applications because they did not incorporate any open space. · On June 17, 1997, the Council considered the project and referred it back to the Planning Commission. · This project was re-advertised to incorporate a four acre park. · The proposed four acre open space is located at the southerly portion of the site. It is crescent shape and is located adjacent to the percolation ponds. · The applicant has eliminated one building, reducing fi.om five to four. The square footage reduced 15% fi.om 330,000 to 280,000. · The proposed parking ratio is 1:261. The required ratio is 1:250. Staff is comfortable with the parking ratio of 1:261, finding it reasonable for a project of this size. · Landscaping provided is 30% where previously it had been 27%. Including the public open space, landscaping represents 43% of the site. This includes hardscape areas. · Staff is recommending that the Commission take the following action: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 10 1. Review the Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental EIR adopted last year and then re-certify the Supplemental EIR and certify the Addendum to the SEIR. 2. Adopt a Resolution recommending the General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02). 3. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Planned Development Permit to allow a 280,000 square foot, Research and Development Park, including the amendments to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in staff's memo distributed at the start of this meeting. 4. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. 5. Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of a Site Application to allow off-site signage at the entrance of this project. Advised that SARC reviewed the project and will provide its report. Advised that other City personnel and consultants are available for questions including: Redevelopment Manger, Kirk Heinrichs; Environmental Manager, Bill Helms; Traffic Engineer, Peter Eakland; Environmental Consultant, Valerie Young; and the project architect and applicant, Ken Neumeister. Commissioner Lowe asked what percentage is represented by the elimination of one building. Mr. Tim J. Haley responded that it represents 50,000 square feet and a 15% reduction. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the public street is counted in the open space. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the public street is totally separate from open space. The landscape figure for the site does not include the park or the public street. Commissioner Gibbons asked how the square footage is still so high with the elimination of four acres from the project as well as two acres for the public roadway. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there is a higher percentage of two story buildings with the reconfigured project. Instead of three of five buildings being two story, now it is three of four. Commissioner Gibbons wondered what the floor area ratio was for this project before. It is now 21%. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that this figure shows up in the staff report. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on October 16, 1997, and found that with the four acre open space area, a reasonable compromise has been reached. · SARC is supportive of the project with refinements of the building elevations. Chairwoman Kearns opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Gordon Reynolds, 3293 Valley Square Lane, San Jose: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 11 · Questioned parking proposed for the site. Read from an article about the proposed addition at Pruneyard which will parking spaces, more than proposed for this larger project. · Asked the Commission to find out the impacts, including traffic and pollution. · Suggested that the Commission sit on this project. include 1,200 Mr. Ken Neumeister, Applicant: · Advised that this project has evolved. The project under consideration this evening is a compromise of all of the different visions. · Stated that he has been working on this project for one year and City staff longer than that, · Advised that he is available to answer any questions. Mr. Jack Petersen, 5084 Tif~on Way, San Jose. · Advised that he has already lost four acres to the percolation ponds. · Stated that while he is in favor of the project, he is not in favor of any easement through his property. · Said that to date no one has contacted him about the easements. · Stated that he pays taxes on Wild Cat Lane which is the easement used to enter the Drive-in site. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that Wild Cat Lane is the access road from McGlincey Lane. An easement is shared among the property owners on this private drive leading to the Drive-In Site. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the easements already exist. Is this to be a new road? Mr. Tim J. Haley answered that the private drive (Wild Cat Lane) will be converted to a public street. Admitted that he was not certain what impact this changeover would have on the other property owners. Mr. Ken Neumeister: · Stated that he has tried 'to contact Mr. Petersen. When the project was delayed in June, this issue got dropped. · Advised that the improvements to the road will not cost the other property owners. The developer of the Winchester Drive-In Site will pay for all of the improvements. · The Developer is willing to contribute to the majority of those costs. · They are foreseeing little if no direct cost of improvements to the owners of the easement. Commissioner Lowe asked if this is reasonable and legal. City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that the process has not come to that issue. Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager: Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 12 Advised that there will be no cost for public street improvements to the owners and there will be no taking of additional property except for the existing private road which will be made into a public street. The Redevelopment Agency and the Developer will pay the costs. Ms. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell: · Showed a San Jose Mercury News Article where it is reported that the Open Space Authority now is able to buy land for open space. · Reported on the Council's Open Space Study Session where the Council admitted to not being comfortable with using the 1990 Open Space Element to make decisions. · As a result of the Study Session, staff was asked to contact schools to determine actual open space available, to determine the impact of year round schooling and to discover how many sports leagues actually play in Campbell. It was determined that school fields are in terrible shape. It was discussed that Bucknall School has been sold and is no longer available as open space. · Quoted from the City's Satisfaction Survey Results which state that 43% of respondents want more athletic fields; 75% are willing to pay for more athletic fields; 76% support a teen center; 65% use John D. Morgan Park; 63% use Campbell Park; 53% use the Community Center, to name a few results. Campbell needs more open space and more playing fields. Asked the Commission to support retaining the Winchester Drive-In Site as open space. One option would be to use the area for a Senior Activity Center. This could be an imaginative use of space and would free space for youth activities at the Community Center. Without land there is no oppommity, no options. Mr. Neal Locke, 200 N. Second Street, Campbell: · Advised that he has participated on the Winchester Drive-In Proceeds Committee which is looking at the best way to spend the money generated from the sale of the land. · It is believed that the funds available will be $2 million. Approximately $1 million is earmarked for small projects including trees, a Bobby Sox snack bar and a restroom at Rosemary. About $500,000 will be available to buy open space. This will not buy a whole lot. · Stated that the land for open space acquisition is not identified at this time. There is no clue as to where the land is for open space. A study is on-going. · The cost for needed open space is $27 million. · Asked the Commission to consider tabling this item until Council can identify where the replacement acreage is locate within the City. · The Country is in a position of unprecedented prosperity. · Suggested that the City consider land banking and to step back and consider. · Allow Council to complete their study. · Asked everyone to work together. Ms. Gametta Annable, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell: · Asked that consideration of this item be continued. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 13 If the project proceeds, consider a longer term view of this site. · Consider the inclusion of an overpass from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to this site. · This will benefit all of Campbell and will allow foot traffic to reach the park. Mr. David Sausjord, 946 Norin Court, Campbell: · Stated that this has been a long process. · Things have changed for him personally including having his children involved in youth sports. He has learned of the difficulty in scheduling playing fields. · This is a wealthy society now with a strong sales tax base. · Union Avenue is already substandard. At the present time, there is no room on Union to install a bus stop. · With the success of Pruneyard and the potential for 1,200 more cars at the Drive-In Site, there will be traffic impacts. · Hamilton and Bascom already have the worse possible levels of service. The freeway is not that good in spite of the recent improvements. · These are additional reasons to reconsider this project. · Neighbors are very interested in open space. A package should be developed to preserve this property. Mr. Tom Quick, 1815 Greencreek Drive, San Jose: · The City has the opportunity to invest in children. · Participation in soccer has increased 42% in one year. · Hundreds of kids have to be driven over to Morgan Hill on Saturdays in order to play soccer. · It would be a mistake to pave over this site. · Cupertino recently converted a former school site, at high cost to the City, to create three soccer fields. · Soccer offers kids an alternative to television and Nitendo. · Sports facilities are good for kids in the community. · This is an opportunity. Don't squander it. Consider tabling this item. Commissioner Gibbons asked the size of a soccer field. Mr. Tom Quick replied that they are 105 yards by 60 yards or a total of two acres. Mr. Arvid Hansen, 14 La Paloma: · Stated that he represents the 170 residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park which is located adjacent to the Winchester Drive-In Site. · Said that this property is not convenient for youth access. · Stated that it is important for the City to recognize its fiscal responsibility including the generation of income to function. · Agrees that there is a need for ball parks but that they should be connected to schools. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Leo Boyd, 945 Torero Plaza: · Said that the economics of the situation need to be assessed. · A study needs to be made on this project to determine the plus and minuses of this project and also to determine for what the money will be used. · Said that money is good but not in and of itself. · Asked if an economic study has been done. Ms. Merline Rasmusson, 9 La Paloma Street, Campbell: · Thanked the Commission for the oppommity to speak. · Asked the Commission to take advantage. · Stated that some of the funds raised should be used for the Campbell Community Center. · Agreed that kids need open space but not in this location. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Gibbons asked, by a show of hands, how many members of the audience were from Paseo de Palomas. Secondly, from Campbell. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that this is a unique situation where the City owns 23 acres. · This is public property now. · Campbell is small and land locked. · When the land is paved over, it is gone forever. · Agreed that this location is not the best for a park but stated that a lack of planning caused the situation where appropriate open space was not kept available. · Suggested that a study still needs to be conducted to identify where open space is now and where the City wants to be as far as open space, 20 years from now. · There is not that much open space. · Questioned whether an industrial park is the best use of this land. · Suggested that actually.more housing is needed as some people already have to commute to jobs in the valley from as far away as Tracy. · Stated that he would feel differently if a private party owned this land but the City already owns it. · Said that the total picture needs to be looked at. There is no reason to rush into selling the property off. · Stated that he is against this application. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy: · Stated that she supports a four acre park and finds that this is a very good compromise. · Said that she likes the layout. Agreed that this is not the best place for open space, using the whole site as a park. · Stated that she is in support of this project. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Lowe: · Stated that he has served on the Commission now for five years. · This is the toughest decision he has had to face to date. · Reminded that he serves on the Commission as a volunteer who is eager to do service for his community. · Agreed that the public needs open space. · Admitted that while the site stood vacant for more that 15 years, nothing was done to turn it into a park. · The applicant was provided with feedback from the Commission, Council and SARC. The applicant subsequently came back in good faith with a compromise proposal. · Stated that he will support the project as it has been modified. Commissioner Gibbons:· Stated that she appreciated staff's efforts in preparing material for this project in advance. · Said that she appreciated the comments of those in attendance. · Stated that the Commission had made recommendations to Council and the Applicant for some open space with this development project. · This proposed use will facilitate and enhance the area. · Said that she will support the land use of industrial with four acres of open space. · Expressed some disappointment with the design and stated that she will be making some recommendations for modifications to the conditions of approval. · Stated that she will support the project. Chairwoman Keams: · Agreed that this is a good compromise. · The developer had gone back to the drawing board. · She supports the revised project, finding it appropriate for the area. · Stated that she is happy with the four acre park. Commissioner Jones reminded the Commission that the request from the Planning Commission was for four to seven acres of open space. He asked who would be responsible for the development and later maintenance of this park. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that a process similar to that used in developing Jack Fischer Park will include Parks and Recreation Commission Hearings. At that time, the development of the type of park and its uses will be determined. The City is most likely to develop and maintain the park. Commissioner Lowe supported the idea to explore public access through a pedestrian bridge over Highway 17 to this new park. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki advised that such a bridge would cost about $1 million. The developer cannot be asked to pay this cost as it cannot be determined that the Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 16 proposed use of this site created the need for this bridge. The right-of-way would have to be obtained and the funding secured. Commissioner Lowe asked if this could be added. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that findings would be required. Commissioner Lowe advised that he is simply seeking an easement to allow the placement of this pedestrian bridge. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki suggested that this requirement be forwarded to Council as a side issue, utilizing minute action. If findings can be developed, this could be included as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that this facility did not generate the need for a park and therefore this cannot be made a condition on the project. Commissioner Lowe admitted that he felt strongly about the condition for an easement to allow the pedestrian bridge in the future. Commissioner Gibbons: · Supported Commissioner Lowe's wish for an easement for the pedestrian bridge. · Provided comments about the landscaping requirements. She wants all removed trees replaced with 36-inch box trees instead of the required 24-inch. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicant is required to replace removed trees with 24-inch box. Forty-four trees will be removed from the site to be replaced with 88 trees. Of these 88 trees, 44 are to be replaced with 24-inch box and the remaining trees are 15-gallon. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she wants 44 trees replaced with 36-inch box and the remaining trees to be one-half 15-gallon and one-half 24-inch box. She also asked that the trees selected for the parking lot provide a 30-foot canopy after approximately eight years. Mr. Tim J. Haley said that this could be taken into consideration with the review of the landscaping plan. Commissioner Gibbons added that she recommends that after every 25 parking stalls along the perimeter a tree and landscaping be installed to break up the hardscape. She asked about the landscaping calculations. What is counted? Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that sidewalks and hardscape plazas are counted but areas such as driveways are not. Commissioner Gibbons suggested reducing the parking ratio to allow a larger percentage of landscape area. She want to see 30% landscaping exclusive of any walkways. Fountains, plazas Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 17 can be counted but not sidewalks. Asked whether the traffic issue can be revisited after Building Three has been constructed but before building permits are issued for Building Four. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that staff has determined that there are no significant impacts envisioned as a result of this project. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she is not comfortable with that assumption and would like to see if additional mitigation measures might be needed. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that he is not certain that this is possible. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Commission would have to be much more specific. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she thought that additional mitigation measures could be imposed if the traffic study does not hold up after the first three buildings are constructed and occupied. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that these measures are addressed in the EIR. Commissioner Lowe stated that the Commission has to trust the Traffic Report. Commissioner Gibbons asked what if the levels of service decrease below what was anticipated. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that to make such a requirement would require a traffic analysis every time the applicant seeks building permits. Commissioner Gibbons proposed a reduction in the parking ratio. Instead of 1:261, she suggested 1:280. This would reduce parking spaces by 100 and allow more landscape area. She also recommended that public parking be allowed during weekends by those using the park. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there will be one lane of parking provided alongside the park. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3128 recommending the Recertification of the Environmental Impact Report, the Certification of the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gibbons, Kearn$, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones Lindstrom None Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 18 ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3129 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) changing the Land Use designation for 19.58 acres from Commercial Destination to Industrial and 4 acres from Commercial Destination to Public/Semi-Public, on property located at 535 Westchester Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3130 recommending approval of a Site and Architectural Application (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3131 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 280,000 square foot research and development park and a four acre park on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane, with the following changes: 1. Adjust parking ratio from 1:261 to 1:280; 2. Increase landscaping to 30%, including the provision of landscaping areas every 25 parking stalls along the perimeter of the parking lot and the selection of trees that will develop a 30-foot wide canopy throughout the parking lot after eight years; 3. Increase replacement tree size to forty-four 36-inch trees, and the remaining trees fifty percent 24-inch box trees and fifty percent 15-gallon trees. 4. Provide an easement to allow the future construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 17 to the site; and Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 19 5. Allow public parking on the private parking lot on weekends for people using the park. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None . City Attorney Seligmann provided the supporting finding for the requirement for an easement as follows, "Absent the easement, the development of the industrial park would impede access to and from the existing and proposed recreation areas in the City of Campbell." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3132 recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots on property located at 535 Westchester Drive and 571 McGlincey Lane with the added requirement for the provision of an easement for the future installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 17 and including the supporting finding for the need for that easement, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Jones ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. · Advised that he has not received any feedback from the Commission regarding a policy for absences from Commission meetings. · Reminded the Commission that SARC will meet on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 5 p.m., with two items for review. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that three consecutive unexcused absences would be cause for dismissal. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 11, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1997 Page 20 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary ~s~ 5' keams' ~ha~, c_..-~Steve ~ . Pmseck~, Secret~