Loading...
PC Min 04/14/1992City of Campbell Planning Commission Minutes 7:30 P.M. City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street APRIL 14, 1992 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson David Fox Vice Chairperson I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Robert Dougherty Commissioner Jay Perrine Commissioner Alana Higgins Commissioner Mark Wilkinson (arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Jane Meyer-Kennedy Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Senior Planner, Randy Tsuda Associate Planner, Tim J. Haley Planner I, Curtis Banks Redevelopment Manager, Marty Woodworth City Attorney, Bill Seligmann City Engineer, Joan Bollier Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, the March 24, 1992, minutes of the Planning Commission, were approved as amended. (5-0-2), Commissioners Meyer-Kennedy and Wilkinson being absent. COMMUNICATIONS Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki, noted three additional items of communications received by the Planning Department that were not included in the Commission Packets, as follows: C> Letter from "a neighbor" opposing the extension request for the property located at 987 and 1113 Crockett Avenue and 1345 Westmont Avenue. Letter from the Cambrian Community Council, requesting that certain items be added to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the McGlincey Lane Expansion to Central Campbell Redevelopment Area. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1992 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GP 92-01/ Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-Initiated ZC 92-01 application to allow an amendment to the Land Use City-Initiated Element of the General Plan, and approving the prezoning of properties located at 271 and 295 North San Tomas Aquino Road to R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential/Low-Density Residential, less than 6 units per gross acre). Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · Parcels currently located in San Jose, and the City is currently processing annexation documents to annex the properties into Campbell. · Communication was received from Mayor Hammer indicating that the City of San Jose is willing to de-annexation the property. · One acre total property size. · Surrounding land uses. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ask the City Council to approve applications GP 92-02 and ZC 92-01. Chairperson Fox opened the public hearing. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Commissioner Alne asked what services would Campbell be providing to the properties after the annexation. Mr. Banks explained that there is an agreement between the cities that first response to fire emergencies would be undertaken by the City of San Jose, all other services would be provided by the City of Campbell. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered that the Public Hearing be closed. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered that Resolution No. 2791, recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, be adopted; and, that Resolution No. 2792, recommending approval of the prezoning to R-1-6, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: discussion.) Perrine, Dougherty, Higgins, Alne, Fox None Meyer-Kennedy Wilkinson (Wno was absent from a portion of the ZC 92-02/ PM 92-01/ PD 92-01 Pak, C. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Chan-Yong Pak, for approval of a Zone Change from R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a new dwelling unit, and the creation of two lots on property located at 346 North Central Avenue in a R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record, noting staff's recommendation to continue the item to May 12, 1992. He opened the public hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Robert Nicholas, Harrison Street Resident, expressed concern that traffic would be impacted by approval of this application, that the development of two or more story buildings would impact his sunlight, air, view, and privacy, and that the proposed project would destroy the single-family character of the neighborhood. Further, Mr. Nicholas asked that the letter he submitted to the Planning Department be submitted to the Commission with the Staff Report for this item on May 12, 1992. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, it was unanimously ordered that the item be continued to May 12, 1992. o R 92-03 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kurt (TS 89-07) Anderson for extension of a Tentative Subdivision Anderson, K. Map approval, to allow 6 single-family lots on properties located at 987 and 1113 Crockett Avenue and 1345 Westmont Avenue, in an R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant's request for a a two-year extension. · Location and surrounding uses. · Staff recommends a one-year extension, since it has been the practice of the decision making body to recommend one-year extensions. Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 3 (:ommission Discussion: Commissioner Perrine requested clarification for staff's recommendation for one year vs. two, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Haley indicated that staff generally recommends extensions on projects for only one year. Commissioner Alne and Mr. Haley discussed a letter received by an anonymous neighbor opposed to the extension. Chairperson Fox opened the public hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Kurt Anderson, Project Architect, 380 Industrial Street, Campbell, presented three reasons for the two-year extension request, as follows: 1) Current economy and current lending practices, 2) Doubt that the project will not be built within a year. The applicant will have to return to the Commission again next year with the same request, 3) Client has already spent a substantial amount of money for this project on street improvements and engineering costs. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Anderson whether it was the funding of the project, or the fact that the applicant was trying to avoid returning to the Commission that prompted a request for two years. Mr. Anderson indicated that the lack of funding could create a need for a similar request next year, and his client would like to avoid returning to the Commission. Mr. Martin Bernal, 1133 Monroe Street, asked that the request for two years be granted, since a delay in construction would defer the relocation of his shop currently located at the site, to a more economically feasible time for him. Commissioner Perrine asked if staff has a problem with a two-year extension. Steve Piasecki, Director of Planning, expressed concern that changes in polices, and fees would occur; and, that the Conditions of Approval may require revision if the project is extended beyond a year. He stated that staff would like the option to make necessary changes and possibly deny the application, if after a year no progress has been made. Commissioner Alne asked if the applicant were to return again next year with the same request, would he again have to pay the filing fee. Mr. Piasecki indicated that he would. Commissioner Atne asked if an escalation clause had been included in the conditions for this application. In response, Mr. Piasecki stated that the Conditions of Approval do not specify fees amounts. Commissioner Alne referred to discussion held at the Planning Commissioners' Institute State Conference, noting that if the city expects the fees to rise in the future, and if the City expects to collect the higher fee from the applicant, then the City should specify its intent to do so. Further, he suggested that the applicant should be required to pay fees applicable at the time permits are pulled. Mr. Anderson expressed a concern that staff had provided the Commission with the impression that no progress had been made since original approval of the application. He noted that he has worked with the Civil Engineering Division of the Public Works Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 4 Department to get the Tentative Map approval, that the County Assessor had reviewed and accepted the conditions of the map and recently the tentative map has been approved and will shortly be recorded. Further, Mr. Anderson addressed the issue of future fee amounts stating that his client is aware that fees will increase and is anticipating paying the higher fee amounts; the difference in cost would be the fee for the extension. Commissioner Dougherty asked for reasons that the final map has not been filed, to date. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the final map is in progress, and noted that the parcel is owned by several individuals, who must read and sign the documents. Mr. Bruce Hodgin, 106 West Campbell Avenue, one of the General Partners, noted that a condition of final map recordation is demolition of existing structures; that currently the structures are occupied. Further, he noted prices for new homes, such as those being proposed, have dropped 20% to 25% since the previous approval. Discussion ensued between the Chair and the Director of Planning relating to building permits and demolition of the site. Commissioner Alne asked about Council's policy relating to extending projects longer than one year. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Council is concerned about the length of extensions, however, extensions of over a year have been granted for larger developments, and not usually for minor developments. Mr. Tim Haley noted an error to the Conditions of Approval which should be made if the Commission accepts the staff recommendation for a one-year extension. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Perrine moved to extend the project for one year, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Higgins. Chairperson Fox stated that since it is unrealistic to assume that the project will be built within one year, that the Commission will most likely see the applicant back to apply for another extension next year, that there were no controversial issues relating to the project, and that he would not support the motion for extension for one year. Commissioner Dougherty pointed out that the request is for two years and that two years should be considered at this time and not pushed back for a decision next year. He would not support the motion. Commissioner Perrine asked for a friendly amendment. Commissioner Dougherty moved to extend the tentative map for two years. Commissioner Higgins agreed that if the project cannot be developed within a year, a Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 5 two year extension would be appropriate. She seconded the motion. AMENDED MOTION: MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, an amendment was made to the motion for approval of the tentative map extension for a two-year period. The following discussion ensued relating to the proposed motion. Commissioner Alne, was not interested in doubling the fees for the applicant's request, however, he was supportive of the applicant's willingness to pay higher fees for permits if the project were extended and the fees increased. Further, he noted that he would like it clearly understood that this does not mean an automatic approval of two years for any developer making the request; and, that exceptions in policy should be made on when there are no controversial issues other than time. Chairperson Fox suggested addition of an escalation clause to cover future fee increases. City Attorney Seligmann expressed that it would be a good idea to include the escalation clause in the Conditions of Approval at this time. Commissioner Alne noted that his rational is that the city could suffer no loss in fees and noted that the applicant was willing to accept the additional costs, should there be any. Commissioner Perrine noted that the area for the project site has been a concern for a long time. He was supportive of sending a message to the lending institutions that the City wants to see more single-family housing built. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, accepted by Commissioner Perrine and Dougherty, the above motions were amended. Resolution No. 2793, was unanimously adopted recommending that City Council extend the Tentative Subdivision Map for a period of two years, incorporating the findings, and amending the Conditions of Approval, adding an escalation clause to cover future fee increases, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Perrine, Dougherty, Higgins, Alne, Fox Meyer-Kennedy, None Wilkinson Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 6 4. S 92-01 McClelland, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. and Mrs. Richard McClelland, for Site and Architectural approval to allow the construction of two single-family homes on properties located at 1260 and 1270 Burrows Road, in an R-l- 10 (Single-Family Residential/Low-Density Residential, less than 3.5 units) Zoning District. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record, noting Staff's recommendation to continue the item to April 28, 1992. He opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, it was unar~trnously ordered that the Public Hearing be continued to April 28, 1992. (6-0-1), Commissioner Wilkinson being absent for the meeting. EIR 91-01 & Redevelopment Plan Amendment City-Initiated Public Hearing to review the Final Environmental Impact Report for the McGlincey Lane Expansion to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan and Planning Commission review of the proposed Amended Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Mr. Randy Tsuda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report noting: · An overhead slide of the proposed area. · Amendments proposed for the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan would include the Winchester Drive-in Site. · Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for recommendation to the City Council at its meeting of May 5, 1992. · Staff recommends adopting a resolution recommending that (1) City Council certify the EIR with the addition of mitigation language suggested within the Staff Report, dated April 14, 1992; and, (2) City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan, and, that the Planning Commission incorporate the appropriate findings to allow these actions. Mr. Marty Woodworth, Redevelopment Manager, presented a brief report relating to the proposed amendments. He noted the following: · Displayed a more detailed overhead depicting the proposed redevelopment area. · Provided a background of Redevelopment Department projects, such as Revitalization of the Downtown, acquisition of the old high school building, relocation of the Ainsley house, destruction and reconstruction of the downtown streets near Railway Avenue, and, downtown parking projects north and south of the downtown. Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 7 Provided insight to the intentions of the Redevelopment Agency's Plan such as expanding the Redevelopment Area by one-hundred acres to include the Winchester Drive-in Site and the McGlincey Lane Area. This would allow revitalization of the area's storm drains, water lines, private and public streets, traffic signals, and perhaps relocate the City's Corporation Yard, and/or develop housing north of the Trammel Crow site. He briefed the Commission concerning availability of funding, and amending fiscal limits in taxes and extending the plan to 35 years. The Redevelopment Agency recommends approval. Further, Mr. Woodworth informed the Commission that numerous Community consolidation meetings including neighborhood organizations and business owners were held; and, that over 600 notices of public review and hearings were distributed to citizens residing within the community surrounding the Redevelopment Project Area. Commission Discussion: In response to Commissioner Alne's question regarding the cost, funding and preparation of the EIR, Mr. Woodworth indicated that the EIR was prepared by CH2M Hill, the City's Environmental Consultant; and, that the cost totalling approximately $125,000 was shared by the Agency and Western Federal Bank, owners of the Winchester Drive-in Site. Assuming the previously submitted box retail center is resubmitted for approval, Commissioner Alne asked if Staffs proposed mitigation measure would require that a new environmental document be prepared. Mr. Tsuda replied that a new document would be required. Mr. Tsuda discussed the EIR process, modifications to the document many of which were prompted by public concerns, and noted that the City Council will review the final document in two upcoming City Council meetings, beginning on May 5, 1992. He asked that the Commission find that the FEIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the General Plan of the City of Campbell; and, find that it reflects the intent of the City. Since the EIR was prepared for a specific use at the drive-in site, community organizations asked that this EIR not be used for future, unknown development projects. Commissioner Dougherty raised the question of benefit vs. cost relative to the added mitigation language. He pointed out that the community's concern about traffic congestion, could have been addressed in the form of a traffic analysis rather than by preparation of another EIR. Further, he suggested the language of the Final EIR should be general enough to cover any project proposed in the future. Mr. Tsuda stated that often times an EIR is written in such a way to encompass various project proposals that may arise, and by making certain assumptions the City could proceed with a project by granting a Negative Declaration; however, in this case the initial study assumed that much of the impact would be created by the proposed use at the Winchester Drive-in Site. The proposed project has now been removed from calendar, and the property owner is exploring other uses for the site. Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 8 Further discussion continued between Staff and the Commissioners relating to the language of the FEIR, as follows: · Commissioner Dougherty expressed concern with the cost associated with the preparation of another EIR. ° Commissioner Alne was not comfortable with non-mitigable impacts to the air quality, and asked if violation of these standards would be considered a breaking of the law. He suggested waiting until the completion of Highway 85 to accept development proposals. · In response to the Commissioners' concerns, Mr. Tsuda made the following comments: 1. A project may not be proposed for one or two years on the Drive-in Site and that the environmental document would require revisions and an update in any case; 2. The Commission could include an alternate mitigation measure that would require that the box retail center open after completion of Highway 85; and, 3. CEQA grants municipalities the authority to approve projects with unmitigable significant impacts by adopting statements of overriding consideration. · Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the asbestos contamination on the Winchester Drive-in Site, and Mr. Tsuda informed him that the asbestos was from the movie screen. Chairperson Fox opened the public hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Lance Levy, 390 McGlincey Lane, addressed the Commission expressing concern regarding contamination of a percolation pond. He asked where the pond was located, if the road to it is private or public, and who was the responsible party. Ms. Joan Bollier, City Engineer, indicated the location of the specified percolation pond, informed Mr. Levy that the property is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Water District, could not respond to whether the road is private or public, and indicated that contaminated water discharging into the percolation pond needs to be addressed. Mr. Levy suggested that the Winchester Drive-in Site would be an appropriate spot to store the school buses. Mr. Steve Ulett, 2640 Curtner Glen Court, President, Cambrian Community Council, offered the following comments: · Commended the Staff and Council for conferring with the Community on development of the area. · Noted that the size of the Drive-in Site is what necessitates that the project to be considered separately under the EIR. · Moving forward with the EIR would allow the Redevelopment Area Plan to move forward. Chairperson Fox suggested that the requests of the Cambrian Community Council appear to be included in the FEIR submitted to the Commission for review. Mr. Tsuda stated that the language was included. Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 9 Commissioner Alne asked if the previously examined box retail use was not the most desirable use for the site and queried over a proper use of the property. In response, Mr. Tsuda noted that the property owner is examining other options since funding for the box retail center appears to be unfeasible at this time. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, it was unanimously ordered that the Public Hearing be closed. Commission Di$ct~s$i0n: Commissioner Dougherty stated that he would support Staff's recommendation since he has no alternatives, however, he would like his objections to mitigation measures noted. Commissioner Alne concurred with Commissioner Dougherty and asked if the air quality issues could be addressed. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, it was unanimously ordered Resolution No. 2794 be adopted, recommending that the Redevelopment Plan be amended to include the Winchester Drive-in Site, that the EIR be certified, and incorporating findings to support the action, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Perrine, Dougherty, Higgins, Wilkinson, Alne, Fox None Meyer-Kennedy REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR The report of the Planning Director was accepted. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn at 8:45 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. APPROVED: ~D~AVID~i~OX~ C~-tAd~I~ERS :tfully Submitted by: / I~epor~ing sebfetary ATTEST: Steve Piasecki SECRETARY Planning Commission Minutes for April 14, 1992 10