Loading...
PC Min 02/27/19907:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF C~liPRmJ., CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 27, 1990 TUESDAY The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL ~t~T.l. Commissioners Present Chairperson Jay Perrine Commissioner Ronald Christ Commissioner David Fox Commissioner Jane Meyer Commissioner Mark Wilkinson Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Bruce Olszewski Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: None Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Senior Planner, Randy Tsuda Principal Planner, Phil Stafford City Engineer, Bill Helms City Attorney, William Seligman Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban APPROVkI, OF THE MINUTES: After discussion of the minutes of the meeting of February 13, 1990, the following comment was heard, relative to TS 89-07: Commissioner Christ requested that discussion regarding Staff direction concerning TS 89-07, specifically, request for Commission review of alternative site plans, be included in the minutes, and that the motion to close the Public Hearing be changed to reflect his intention to vote no. M/S: Alne, Christ Motion to continue the PlarminK Commission minutes of February 13, 1990, to the meeting of March 13, 1990, for revisions was unanimously approved (7-0-0). COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Piasecki informed the Commission that communications were included in the Commission packets and pertain to items listed on the agenda. He noted the following additional communications: - Revised Staff Report SA 90-06 - Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval for V 90-01 - Communication, dated February 13, 1990, from Cindy Johnson requesting that her Application No. ¥ 90-02, be withdrawn from the Commission Agenda Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 27, 1990 Communication from Kurt Anderson, Project Architect, Andarch Associates, dated February 8, 1990, regarding TS 89-07 Communication from Roger and Lorene Hughes, dated February 2, 1990, regarding TS 89-07 qtms s Mr. Heath Wakelee, Resident of 1433 Patio Drive, Civic Improvement Commission member, expressed concern relative to the use of the property located at 347 East Campbell Avenue. He requested that the location be inspected for non-conformance to the Downtown Area Plan. Mr. Piasecki noted that the property was approved for temporary warehouse use and that the property owner has recently notified of the problem at the site. Further, he stated that the property owner has indicated that resolution to the problem and clean up of the site is expected within two weeks. PUBLIC ~ARINGS: TS 89-07 Hodgins, B. Continued Public Hearing to consider the request of Mr. Bruce Hodgins for a Tentative m~division Map to divide two lots into six lots, on property known as 987 and 1113 Crockett Avenue and 1345 Westmont Avenue, in an R-1 (Single-Family) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report indicating the net acreage, location, adjacent properties, density and existing uses in the area. Further, he discussed: Various site options presented to the Site and Architectural Review Committee on February 20, 1990 - The aerial map and architectural renderings displayed - History of the application - Staff recommendation to approve the application - Street right-of-way Commissioner Olszewski asked what assurance the Commission has that the intention of the adjacent property owner is to develop his section of the cul-de-sac and asked about the net acreage of each lot and why alternatives were not presented to the Commission as requested at the February 13, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Piasecki stated that two alternative site plans are included in the Commission packets; that the lots would be slightly greater than 6,000 square feet each; that relative to the intention of the adjacent property owner, the owner is present and is willing to discuss his intentions to the Commission. Commissioner Wilkinson queried regarding the ground contamination. Mr. Piasecki informed Commissioner Wilkinson that an environmental evaluation is part of the review process. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 27, 1990 Mr. Kurt Anderson, Project Architecture, addressed the Commission and discussed the following: - Nine alternatives presented to the Site and Architectural Review Committee - Mr. Hodgin's intention not to develop the site with less than six lots - The current uses on the property - Land use - Marketing strategies and yield - Street trees along the canal and lot adjustments - Similar approved developments and noted the Robnick Court project - On-site parking, and - Requested approval of the project subject to the design specifications returning to the Site and Architectural Review Committee and subject to review by Public Works and the Planning Departments Chairperson Perrine asked Mr. Anderson why the current drawings do not indicate the lot adjustment requested. Mr. Anderson stated the when the application returns for a tentative map approval the adjustment will be noted which will make the lots larger and the streets smaller and he noted that the cost for this adjustment is overwhelming. Further discussion ensued between Commissioners Olszewski, Fox, Alne and Mr. Anderson relative to the following: - Restriction of sidewalk diameter - Concern with the cul-de-sac being "shoved up against the creek" - Suggestion that the cul-de-sac be moved over one lot - Property frontages - Resident visibility - Locations of fences Commissioner Christ expressed that he was appreciative that the Site and Architectural Review Committee received design options, but was concerned since the Commission had requested these options and have not received them. Further, he pointed out that it is the Commission that will make the decision and not the Site Committee. Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions noting the amount of time that the Committee spent on alternative site plan review and that the Committee recommended approval of the plan presented. Commissioner Fox added that brief discussion occurred relative to placement of fences along Westmont Avenue and that various floor plans were discussed. The Public Hearing on TS 89-07 was opened. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Commissioner Olszewski suggested that more creativity is needed to provide the desired results and noted concerns regarding fencing and the creation of a Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 27, 1990 cul-de-sac along a ditch. Further, he suggested that the applicant consider a U-shaped driveway in order to eliminate fences completely. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Commission approve the application subject to site and landscape plans returning for Commission review. Mr. Anderson indicated that the process does not require him to return to the Commission with these plans; that usually the plans return to the Site and Architectural Review Committee only; however, he noted that he is willing to provide these plans to the Commission, as long as it does not impede the project unnecessarily. Commissioner Olszewski reminded Mr. Anderson that delays in time are not the concern of the Commission. Mr. Anderson explained that delays were created by the Public Works Department and not the applicant. Further, he mentioned that this cul-de-sac would be an improvement to the auto repair business currently at the location. Commissioner Alne stated that the idea to clean up the area was initiated the City; that this idea was not initiated by the applicant, but merely a response to the City's request. Further, Mr. Alne noted his attendance at the Site and Architectural Review meeting where he examined several options and stated that he will support approval of this application since it would improvement the area substantially. Commissioner Christ asked if the applicant reviewed an option of eliminating one of the lots. Mr. Anderson stated that that option was not economically feasible since the current use generates income for the applicant and eliminating one lot to address the City's concern could not be economically justified. Commissioner Christ noted that his action would not depend upon financial benefit to the developer nor the City's attempt to eliminate an undesirable use, but rather upon benefits to the community. Commissioner Fox clarified that the developer would not be here at all if the City had not requested that he clean up the site. Commissioner Christ asked for "planning reasons," for their request and in response, Commissioner Fox stated that there were none. Commissioner Christ affirmed his position that he would not support the application because: - Lack of information - Not provided with enough alternative designs - Objection to request from City for a development to alleviate an undesirable use. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 27, 1990 Commissioner Alne discussed the Site and Architectural Review Committee's review of this item and stated that he would support the proposal since he felt it would benefit the City as well as the developer. Commissioner Wilkinson asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the landscape strip abutting the canal. Mr. Helms, City Engineer, indicated that the Public Works Department is not supportive of the landscape strip since no one would maintain it, however, he indicated that Public Works would support a sidewalk and tree wells along the canal, which would be the responsibility of the City. M/S: Meyer, Alne Motion to close the Public Hearing on TS 89-07 carried 5-2-0, Commissioners Christ and Olszewski voting no. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Olszewski noted that he will oppose the motion, based upon the following: - City's maintenance of the tree wells would be minimal - Individual owners would maintain the area to a greater extent - Parking issues, as well as height and bulk of the structures as raised at the prior Planning Commission meeting by local residents, were not addressed Discussion ensued relative to development of a parking district; establishment of a private street which could be narrower and provide more on-site parking; and, a suggestions to request a larger planting strip. M/S: Meyer, Fox Notion to reco~nd that City Council grant a Negative Declaration; adopt Resolution No. 2659, incorporating attached findings, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and, requiring site and landscape plans to return to the Site and Architectural Review~eeting to address building design, street parking, street width, the landscape strip and fence design and placement. Discussion on Motion: Commissioner Christ indicated that he would not support the motion and would prefer to see this developed as a Planned Development. Roll Call Vote on Motion: AY~: Co~nissioners: Fox, Aine, Meyer, Wilkinson, Perrine NO~S: C~issioners: Christ, Olszewski ABS~T: Co~nissioners: None. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 27, 1990 2. PI) 89-24 Borello, L. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Leonard Borello, for a Planned Development Permit to create four lots for construction of four single-family homes, on property known as 1390 and 1398 Harriet Avenue, in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read Application PD 89-24 into the record. Planning Director Piasecki presented a brief overview of the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990, noting the following: - Item was continued from January 23, 1990, Planning Commission agenda to address major issues raised at that meeting, which included: - development of the full cul-de-sac - site layout - building design street improvements - Net acreage - Lot size - Density Surrounding properties He noted, further, that the applicant is amenable to development of the full cul-de-sac which would eliminate the need for Condition No. 11 contained within the February 27th Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Fox mentioned that the front lot, as presented, is substandard in an attempt to match the lot across the street creating a mirror image. Mr. Piasecki noted that the lot under discussion is not part of the PD request. Commission Olszewski expressed concern regarding the size of the neighboring flag lot and requested assurance that both owners of the properties are agreeable to simultaneous development of the cul-de-sac. Director Piasecki pointed out that Condition No. 14 of the Conditions of Approval require the applicant to provide satisfactory assurance to the City Attorney that the southern part of the project will be simultaneously developed prior to issuance of Building Permits. Mr. Leonard Borello addressed the Commission noting several meetings that have occurred between himself, Site and Architectural Review Committee and Staff, and stated that the "other owner" is present to confirm the decision for simultaneous development of the project. Further, Mr. Borello noted: - Demolition has already begun - Development will begin as soon as the permit process allows Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting noting that the plans were scaled down and that the Committee is comfortable with the plans and is recommending approval. Commissioner Christ initiated discussion of streets, curbs and gutters and asked what would be required by Public Works. Mr. Helms stated that stated that it is expected that the streets, curbs and gutters will be developed at the same Planning Con~nission Minutes -7- February 27, 1990 time and suggested the elimination of Condition No. 11 which requires installation of street improvements for the northerly half only. Chairperson Perrine noted confusion relative to Condition No. 14, specifically the statement "prior to occupancy of the residential units," and Commissioner Alne asked for clarification. The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: No one wished to speak on this item. In response to confusion relating to Condition No. 14, City Engineer Helms stated that the standard practice of the process is that street improvements and land dedication are to occur prior to approval of the final map. Mr. Piasecki further clarified the issue by stating that the builders tear up streets during the building process, consequently, street improvements are done after the buildings have been completed. M/S: ~hrist, Wilkinson Wilkinson, Meyer M/S: Motion to close the Public Hearing on PD 89-24 unanimously carried, 7-0-0. Motion to adopted Resolution No. 2660, approving PD 89-24, incorporating the attached findings, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, deleting Condition No. 11, carried by the following roll call vote: AY~S: Conmissioners: NO~: Conmissioners: lBSM~T:Co~nissioners: t2rist, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine None. None. 3. PI) 90-01 Guthridge, D. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Guthridge for approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 21,000 square foot addition to an existing office complex, on property known as 300 Orchard City Drive, in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read Application No. PD 90-01 into the record and introduced the new Senior Planner, Randy Tsuda, to the Commission. Senior Planner Tsuda presented the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990, discussing the Site Plans displayed on the bulletin boards and noted the following: - Location - Replacement of the exising one-story structure with a two-story structure on South First Street - Footprint remaining the same - Parking district and transferability - Zoning and General Plan consistency Planning Commission Minutes 8- February 27, 1990 - Square footage Floor area ratio Mr. Tsuda indicated that Staff is recommending approval and noted the following: - Retention of the current parking ratio of 1:355 - Applicant will restripe the parking district lots with compact spaces to provide 52 additional spaces - Architectural Advisor requested a more dominant central element providing for a more cannery style building design Integration of complementary building materials Commissioner Christ asked if there would be access to the second-story offices from the proposed second-story parking garage. Mr. Tsuda indicated that access would be from the ground level only. Commissioner Olszewski requested information about the south west elevation and commented that the architectural highlights appear to be facing the parking structure. Further, he asked about the parking district and how the amount of available spaces would impact future commercial developments. City Engineer Bill Helms informed the Commission that the parking district was formed in 1915; that the original participants paid for the parking structure; and, only tenants and occupants were allowed to park there. In the future, he stated, that the property owner would bear the burden of restructuring the parking area if necessary. Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Committee meeting and noted that the Committee is recommending approval with modified plans returning to the Committee for minor modifications to the top of the building. Commission Wilkinson asked about the following: - Square footage of the proposed and existing structures - Anticipated use of the complex - Highest compact parking ratio available Mr. Tsuda stated that the highest compact parking ratio desired is 40 percent. Mr. David Guthridge, the applicant, addressed the Commission and discussed the following: - Parking - Anticipated use - Creation of a atrium effect in the front of the building - Matching building materials - Window size on the south-side of the proposed building - Building height Possible purchase of adjacent water district property for the development of a courtyard - Removal of the water tank located at the northwest corner of the Water Tower Plaza and removal of a cement fence - Requested approval of the project Questions to the applicant from Commissioners followed, regarding: - Building entrance - commended Mr. Gutheridge's proposal Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 27, 1990 - Historic designation associated with the building - Mr. Guthridge noted that the building is within an Historical District, that the items has been agendized for the February 28, 1990, Historic Preservation Board meeting - Percentage of the building being changed is 20 percent - Commended artist rendering of "ghost tree" representing existing tree - Proposed future use of the "courtyard" - possibly widening to provide more parking - Retention of the water tower - Mr. Guthridge assured the Commission that "short of an act of God," the water tower would be retained - Palm trees are not part of the exterior landscape plan Chairperson Perrine opened the Public Hearing on PD 90-01, no one wished to speak. M/S: Olszewski, Alne: Motion to close the Public Hearing on PD 90-01 unanimously carried 7-0-0. Commissioner Christ commended the applicant for concealing the air conditioning and other building equipment architecturally. He noted his appreciation of the design presently presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki stated that screening of the mechanical equipment was part of the recommended conditions. Commissioner Olszewski asked about traffic generation and whether an Environmental Impact Report was prepared. The City Engineer, Bill Helms, responded that the traffic impact would be minimal based upon traffic tables, an in-house analysis; and prior studies and evaluations performed for the area. M/S: Olszewski, Alne Motion to reco~d that City Council grant a Negative Declaration, and adopt Resolution No. 2661, approving PD 90-01, incorporating the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, with final site plans returning to the Site and Architectural Review Comnittee, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine NOES: Co~iss ioners: ]/one ABSENT: Commissioners: None The Planning Commission meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m., and reconvened at 9:30 p.m., with all Commissioners present. 4. ¥ 90-01 Public Hearing to consider the application of Amy Schiff, A. Schiff, for approval of a variance to the required sideyard setback, from 5 feet to 4 feet to allow the construction of a residential addition, on property known as 172 Bland Avenue, in a R-l-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Planning Commission Minutes -10 February 27, 1990 Principal Planner Phil Stafford presented the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990, drawing attention to the displayed plans, noting the following: - Setback requirements - Existing wall Unusual circumstances that would allow for a variance - Approval from the Architectural Advisor - Recommendation for approval from the Planning Staff Commissioner Christ and Mr. Stafford discussed past and existing code requirements resulting in this request for a variance. Ms. Amy Schiff, the applicant, addressed the Commission requesting approval of the proposal. Commissioner Meyer presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee recommendation to approve the variance. Chairperson Perrine opened the Public Hearing on ¥ 90-01. No one wished to speak. M/S: Olszewski, Wilkinson M/S: Wilkinson, Meyer AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Co~nissioners: ABSENT: Conmissioners: Motion to close the Public Hearing on V 90-01 unanimously carried, 7-0-0. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2662, incorporating the revised findings and approving the applicant's request, subject to the Conditions of Approval, carried by the following roll call vote: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, 01szewski, Perrine None None 5. ¥ 90-02 Alaimo and Johnson Public Hearing to consider the application of David Alaimo and Cindy Johnson, for approval of a variance to allow a 22 foot garage setback for construction of a new garage structure, on property known as 1410 Bent Drive, in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Further, the Chairperson reviewed a letter, dated February 27, 1990, from Cindy Johnson requesting that the application be withdrawn from the Commission's agenda. M/S: Aine, Meyer Motion to honor the applicant's request and withdraw the application from the Pla-ning Commission agenda, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Co~missioners: ABS]~T: Conmissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine None None. Planning Commission Minutes 11- February 27, 1990 Chairperson Perrine, there being no objection, moved to Item No. SA 90-06 on the Planning Commission agenda. He stated that the applicant for SA 90-06, is present. Further, that Item No. 6, TA 90-01, a City-initiated application, may require lengthy discussion and he would prefer not to hold up the applicant. 7. SA 90-06 Consider the application of Callahan Properties Callahan Properties requesting modernization of an existing free-standing sign, located on property known as 2020 South Bascom Avenue, in an C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Planning Director Piasecki presented the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990, and explained the revised copy distributed at the Commissioner's stations was due to an error in the height which was carried into the square footage calculations. Further, Mr. Piasecki noted that Staff is recommending approval since it is an improvement to the existing sign. Commissioner Meyer reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee was aware of the error in square footage; that due to the particular location and the improvement to the existing sign there, the Committee is recommending approval. Chairperson Perrine asked what circumstances were involved in the location that would warrant approval of this size sign. Commissioner Meyer stated that due to the intersection the existing sign was not visible from the street. Commissioner Christ requested that for public clarification, the height of the structure rather than the height of the sign be noted. Mr. Callahan, the applicant, informed the Commission that the height of the roof is 21 feet. Commissioner 01szewski asked if the materials on the sign would be similar to the materials used on the building and if the landscape design has been submitted. Mr. Callahan noted that the roof elements and the stucco are the same. Further, that it is his intention to have the proposed sign blend into the building design, and that landscape designs have been presented. Discussion ensued between Commission Olszewski and the applicant regarding: o Approval of this sign due to unique circumstances would create a precedent for other business in the area - Suggestion to relocate of the sign rather than request a larger sign - A lease with the bridal shop restricting the property owner's right to request such a change - Traffic light at the location restricting visibility of the sign Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 27, 1990 Commissioner Christ noted his concurance with comments made by Commissioner Olszewski but stated he would offer an exception to this particular request since it is reasonable due to the location; that it would benefit the City and the applicant as well. Discussion ensued between the Applicant and Commissioner Alne regarding the bridal shop's sign; and between Commissioner Christ and the applicant regarding reduction of the sign width. Mr. Callahan explained that the bridal shop has been in the location for approximately 12 years; that due to the lengthy name of one of then tenants (Common Wealth Land and Title), reduction in the width of the sign would not be appropriate; and, that he would like to keep the current sign cabinet. Commissioner Olszewski noted that this appears to be a sign reface rather than a new sign approval, and for that reason he will be supportive of the proposal. M/S: Olszewski, Christ Motion to adopt the attached findings approving the apopliant's request, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as revised, carried unanimously 7-0-0. 6. ~A 90-01 City-initiated Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Text Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the City of Campbell's Municipal code (Planned Development District) establishing threshold levels and an approval procedure wherein Planned Development Permits may be approved by Resolution rather than by ordinance. Chairperson Perrine read the application into the record. Principal Planner Phil Stafford offered a brief overview of the proposed Text Amendment, as outlined in the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990. He noted the current procedure for Planned Development Permits and noted the following changes included in the draft ordinance that would determine thresholds for ordinance procedure: - Projects proposed for development on an area of more than 3 acres (gross area) - Projects that consist of the construction of more than 30,000 square feet of gross floor area - Projects involved in the construction of more than 30 residential units Further, he stated that Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Fox asked why 3, 30,000 and 30 were chosen and stated that he felt that a 30 unit project is quite a large project. Mr. Stafford stated that after review of the ordinance it was felt that a project of more than 30 units would have city-wide concern rather than a neighborhood-wide concern. Further, he stated that it would be up to the Commission to decide on the threshold. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 27, 1990 Commissioner Alne queried relative to what the Commission could legally do and City Attorney Seligman stated that the Commission could establish any threshold that could be justified. Commissioner Olszewski surmised that this proposed Text Amendment would provide the Planning Commission with more authority and reduce the "groundswell" at City Council level. Chairperson Perrine opened the Public Hearing on TA 90-01. No one wished to speak. Commissioner Christ reviewed discussion relative to this amendment that occurred two years ago, and noted a concern that was raised relating to limiting the use of referendums. Further, he suggested setting thresholds at 2 acres, 20,000 square feet and 20 units since projects larger than that do impact more than residents in the project neighborhood. Discussion ensued between Commissioners regarding past history of the Text Amendment. The following topics were discussed: - Retention of the referendum, and - Limiting the referendum relative to the Planning Commission's ability to overturn City Council decisions Regarding the current proposal, the following issues were clarified: - Difference between resolution and ordinance - Cost of public hearings - Passing costs for Public Hearings on to the applicants Commissioners Fox and Alne indicated that they would be supportive of the proposed amendment set at 3 acres, 30,000 square feet and 30 units, if it was changed to the 2 acres, 20,000 square feet and 20 units, as proposed by Commissioner Christ. Fox, Wilkinson Notion to close the Public Hearing unanimously carried 7-0-0. M/S: Christ, Meyer Motion to adopt a resolution, incorporating the attached findings, reco~nding that the City Council adopt the Text A~ndment 90-1, relating to Chapter 21.06, ~odified to incorporate thresholds for projects of less than 2 acres, less than 20,000 square feet in floor area, and of less than 20 units per project, be approved by resolution rather tbmn ordimmnce, carried by the following roll call vote: AY/S: Comissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine NO~S: Co~missioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 27, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski reported on the three-member Landscape Standards Committee stating that three interns from San Jose State University have been introduced to the project and are excited about working it. He stated that they will receive college credit for their efforts, which will include research and reporting their findings to the Committee. He continued that these reports would be presented to the Planning Commission upon completion. Further, he noted that the Committee will develop a work schedule including the scope and parameter of the job required, and estimated that the whole process will take as long as six months. Commissioner Olszewski requested interested Commissioners to attend the meetings. Chairperson Perrine stated that he will report on this Committee at the Mayor's Roundtable. RXPORT OF TME PLANNING DIRECTOR: The Report of the Planning Director is accepted. ADJOURNM]9~T: The Planning Cox~ission meeting of February 27, 1990, adjourned at 10:30 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission to be held in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: Jay R. Perrine Chairperson ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Karon Shaban Recording Secretary