PC Min 05/13/2003CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
MAY 13, 2003
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2003, was called to order at 7:32 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Hemandez and the
following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair:
Vice Chair:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Joseph D. Hernandez
George Doorley
Bob Alderete
Elizabeth Gibbons
Tom Francois
Brad Jones
Michael Rocha
Commissioners Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Senior Planner:
Associate Planner:
Planner I:
Planner I:
Police Captain:
Traffic Engineer:
City Attorney:
Contract City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Sharon Fierro
Geoff I. Bradley
Tim J. Haley
Stephanie Willsey
Melinda Denis
Russ Patterson
Matthew Jue
William Seligmann
Kirsten Powell
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Francois,
the Planning Commission minutes of April 8, 2003, were approved. (7-0)
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS.
1. Two letters for Agenda Item No. 1.
2. One letter for Agenda Item No. 3.
3. Amended Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 5.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no Oral Requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
PLN2002-96 (PD)
PLN2002-116 (TRP)
PLN2002-124 (SA)
Glass, L.
Continued Public Hearing (from the Planning Commission meeting of
January 14, 2003) to consider the application of Ms. Libby Glass, on
behalf of Campbell Suites Group, LLC, for a Planned Development
Permit (PLN2002-96) to allow the construction of a new 95 room
extended stay hotel and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2002-116) to allow
the removal of two trees and a Sign Application (PLN2002-124) for a
freeway-oriented sign on property owned by the John Davis Family Trust
located at 690-700 E. Campbell Avenue in a P-D (Planned
Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Tentative City Council
Meeting Date: June 3, 2003. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate
Planner
City Attorney William Seligmann informed the Commission that he would have to recuse
himself from Item No. 1 because he has a professional conflict and left the Council Chambers.
Consulting City Attorney, Kirsten Powell, Logan & Powell, joined the staff to provide legal
counsel for Agenda Item No. 1.
Director Sharon Fierro presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant seeks approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow a
four-story, 95-room extended stay hotel, a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees and a
Sign Application to allow a freeway-oriented sign.
· Described the property as 1.5 acres gross and 1.42 acres net. The General Plan designation
is Central Commercial and the Zoning designation is P-D (Planned Development). The site
is located on the south side of E. Campbell Avenue, between Los Gatos Creek and
Highway 17. The site is currently developed with a commercial building housing Andy's
BBQ and two single-family residences.
· Said that surrounding uses include the Campbell Inn to the north, Highway 17 to the east,
Los Gatos Creek to the west and Water District property to the south.
· Stated that the site has constraints that make it difficult to develop.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 3
· Added that the applicant has developed a high quality project that addresses the site's
constraints. Constraints include the fact that circulation to and from the site prohibits left
tums. The site is located adjacent to Highway 17 so there is noise affiliated with the
freeway. There are major easements through the property that include a Water District
easement for a significant pipe about five to six feet underground and a PG&E easement
for major power line. These easements represent a "no build" zone with the exception of
parking.
· Advised that the first proposal for development of the site was for an office development.
However, staff was concerned about traffic affiliated with an office during peak travel
times. Consideration of residential development shared the same concerns about peak
travel as well as potential impacts from freeway noise and proximity to power lines.
Mixed-Use development has the same issues of traffic and environmental exposure.
· Said that the site is fairly underdeveloped at this point.
· Advised that an extended stay hotel seems to be a good fit. This idea was brought to the
City by the developer. It is felt that the hotel guests would utilize services at both the
Pruneyard and Downtown Campbell businesses.
· Described the proposed hotel as including 95 suites with small efficiency kitchens. The
typical extended stay runs between three and four weeks.
· Said that parking is proposed at 96 spaces. Staff looked at Larkspur Landing, another
extended stay hotel in Campbell, which has a similar parking ratio, and it appears that the
parking does serve the site adequately.
· Provided the breakdown in proposed site usage as 21 percent building coverage, 19 percent
landscaping and 59 percent paving.
· Described the setbacks as 10 to 20 feet from the western property line, 18 to 23 feet from
the edge of the existing Los Gatos Creek Trail and 34 to 40 feet from the easterly top of the
Los Gatos Creek top of bank.
· Said that the relationship of this new hotel to the Creek would include a pedestrian plaza at
the Creek Trail entrance that includes two benches, landscaping and bike racks. The hotel
will include a spa along the Trial side. Native landscaping will be planted along the Creek
Trail.
· Stated that new sidewalk and streetscape connections will connect with the Creek Trail.
· Said that the applicant has worked hard to make this an attractive project and it is
outstanding architecturally. It has been softened with natural looking architecture that
includes ledge stone, stucco and board and batten siding at the fourth level as well as a hip
roof.
· Advised that the applicant provided two renderings, one without landscaping and the other
with landscaping. Pilasters and a continuous hedge will soften the view and screen
parking. London Plane trees, which are deciduous, will be planted in the streetscape and
evergreen trees will be planted in the parking lot. Significant trees already edge Campbell
Park and the Creek Trail.
· Said that a freeway-oriented sign is proposed.
· Reminded that the Planning Commission held two Study Sessions on this project to review
the architecture and give input to the developer. In addition, the Parks and Recreation
Commission and SARC also held meetings to discuss this proposal. The project was
modified significantly to address issues raised at each of these meetings.
· Said that there are strategies within the City's General Plan that are consistent with this
project, including provision of hotels, requiring that development occurring along the
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 4
Creek provide landscaping, that any development along the Creek Trail integrate with the
Creek, that links be developed to the Los Gatos Creek, which is met through the inclusion
of the enhanced entrance to the Creek Trail. This project is consistent with the General
Plan and its policies.
· Said that the project is consistent with the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning.
· Described the planting materials proposed as including 25 percent 15-gallon, 50 percent
24-inch box and 25 percent 36-inch box.
Said that the hotel would have an on-site manager at all times.
· Stated that the requested freeway-oriented sign would face Highway 17 and be 30 feet high
with a total sign area of 112 square feet. This sign would be similar to Pruneyard Inn's and
Campbell Inn's. In addition, a monument sign would be placed in front of the building to
be visible from Campbell Avenue.
· Added that in the past, such signs have been approved for hotels since they depend upon
travelers.
· Said that the existing Carob and Monterey Pine trees are proposed for removal. The Carob
tree can be messy and the Pine is subject to damage.
· Added that staff has no problem recommending approval of a Tree Removal Permit.
Stated that a Traffic Study was done for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
proposed improvements to the site were acceptable. Said that the proposed use offers the
lowest level traffic generation of the allowable uses.
· Said that there are issues with construction such as noise and air quality but these issues
can be mitigated and mitigation measures are included in the Negative Declaration.
· Recommended approval subject to the Conditions of Approval.
· Advised that the applicant, Libby Glass, and her team are here this evening.
Commissioner Francois asked about the street trees being deciduous.
Director Sharon Fierro said that the approved street tree is the London Plane, which is a
deciduous tree.
Commissioner Alderete questioned the size of tree proposed for between the hotel and western
property line as he recalled former discussions where no trees were permitted for this area.
Director Sharon Fierro explained that no non-native trees can be planted on the Creek Trail but
can be planted on the applicant's property. Those to be planted on the Water District property
must be cultivated from existing trees on the Water District property.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting as
follows:
· Advised that SARC reviewed this project on October 22, 2002, November 12, 2002 and
April 29, 2003.
· Said that there was no consensus reaches as Commissioner Gibbons opposed the project
while he supported it.
Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 5
Mr. Lloyd Taylor, 5011 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose:
· Said he has a good understanding of private property rights.
· Added that despite that, this is the Gateway to Campbell and he felt the need to address this
project.
· Pointed out that a lot of money was recently spent on improvements to Campbell Park.
· Challenged that the drawing (rendering) provided is not accurately demonstrating the
invasion of this proposed building on the Creek Trail.
· Said that a four-story tall building would interfere with people working out at the Creek
Trail and would block their view of the sunrise.
· Said he is distressed that no finding of environmental impacts has been made as a result of
this building.
· Suggested that a frame with orange tape be installed to demonstrate the size of this
proposed building.
· Wished the applicant luck with their project but stated that it should be smaller.
Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Stated her opposition to this project.
· Added that she is not against a hotel there outright but, after having looked at Larkspur
Landing Hotel, she has come to realize just what four stories looks like from close by.
Therefore, she feels this project is too large for this site.
· Pointed out that Hamilton Avenue is a much bigger road than is Campbell Avenue.
· Thanked the architect for the renderings provided.
· Said this project would have a big impact.
Ms. Catherine Hickinbotham, 162 Harrison Avenue, Campbell:
· Described herself as a life-long Campbell resident, bom here in 1966.
· Said that she has seen many changes over the years.
· Stated that she is directly affected by this project as a resident of the Downtown area.
· Advised that she walks to the park to work out and relax.
· Suggested that this site would be best used as an addition to the park.
· Suggested that a working fruit tree grove be planted on this property to allow the younger
generation to understand the importance of fruit orchards for this area.
· Said that she understands the need for revenue and suggested that the vacant lot in the
Downtown, adjacent to the new parking structure, be developed with a hotel.
· Said that she did not know what current occupancy rates were in Campbell.
· Declared that the Gateway to our town needs to be a park.
Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Said that she looked at the plans and that this proposed development for a 95-room hotel is
too large a project for a really small site.
· Suggested that low-income housing would be a more suitable project for this property.
· Pointed out the negative impacts on traffic flow, loss of revenue and the need for low-
income housing.
· Said that if the site is bad for housing due to the electrical line, the site is probably bad for
any construction.
· Urged denial of this project.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 6
Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Questioned where staff would park if 96 places were proposed for a 95-room hotel.
Ms. Barbara Conant, 701 Sweetbriar Drive, Campbell:
· Thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their work on this project.
· Said that lots of time, effort and thought went into it.
· Expressed concern that there are so few citizens in the audience.
Stated that she is passionate about this project and the City, having worked in the City for a
long time during which a vision for the City was developed.
· Said that Campbell is a small town and that when other big projects were proposed the City
stood its ground.
· Added that while a developer builds and then leaves, the residents stay.
· Said that she opposes this proposal.
· Said that she looked at the site and cannot envision a four-story building there overlooking
an open space area that the City takes such pride in.
· Informed that she visited Larkspur Landing and looked up at the building from a distance
of 18 to 23 feet away.
· Reminded that over a million dollars was spent on the park to make it more beautiful and
family friendly.
· Asked what the City's vision is. Is this project the Gateway vision we want?
· Said that she cannot believe the renderings reflect what this building will actually look like
and questioned its compatibility due to the nearness to the park and the fact that this is the
Gateway to the Downtown.
· Mentioned that a few years ago she was on the Council when the Canyon Creek Apartment
Project was approved and pointed out that it has changed the skyline. We don't see the
hills like we once did.
· Assured that this project will adversely impact the skyline.
· Questioned whether this project reflects the intended vision of the Strategic Plan.
· Challenged that a project should be "built our way if you want to build it in our City."
· Suggested that creativity be put to developing a project that reflects who we are.
Mr. Michael Krisman, 905 Sweetbriar Drive, Campbell:
· Stated that he is not anti-growth but does support responsible growth.
·
Said he is opposed to a hotel on this site due to added traffic, impacts on existing
businesses and impacts on Campbell Park.
· Added that there is a loss of open space and that Campbell Park is crowded.
· Reminded that the new housing on Gilman may be impacted by traffic increases.
· Declared that Cities are judged on the services provided and Campbell has embraced these
qualities, which has led to improved quality of live in Campbell.
· Questioned whether the quality of life would be improved with this project.
· Asked that the City not sacrifice the long-term for the short term.
Ms. Sally Howe, Campbell Express:
· Suggested that the Carlyle Hotel be counted in the total number of hotel rooms serving the
immediate area even if located outside of City limits.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 7
Mr. Andrew Schlocker, Owner, Urban Ice Cream:
Identified himself as a new retailer in the Downtown who is pro-growth.
Said he is here to help grow the Downtown, where traffic is currently at a minimum, which
means that retailers are suffering.
· Supported continued growth.
Mr. Rich Gaetano, 400 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell:
· Said he has no problem with the Marriott although the proposed building design looks like
a cruise ship barge.
· Suggested varying roof heights to improve the boxy shape of the building.
Mr. Jeff Hofstrand, 577 Hawthorne Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that he received a flyer in his mailbox regarding this project.
·
·
·
·
Advised that he visited Larkspur Landing.
Said that he lives very close to Campbell Park and uses it every weekend.
Said that a four-story structure on this site is inappropriate.
Compared this proposal with the Campbell Inn, saying that one does not notice the
Campbell Inn because it is tucked in near Highway 17.
Said he likes the idea of a affordable housing project such as Habitat for Humanity but said
he could understand if this is not economically feasible.
Ms. Libby Glass, Applicant and Development Project Manager, Swenson Builders:
· Said that they have partnered with Marriott for this project.
· Thanked the City of Campbell's Planning staff and Planning Commission for their time
spent and said that they have been treated respectfully.
· Added that the comments made by the members of the community this evening have also
been very respectful, something that does not always happen.
· Introduced her consultants including the Project Architect, Traffic Engineer, Landscape
Architect and Civil Engineer.
· Assured that parking for staff is included in the provision of 96 spaces. Over a 24-hour
period there would be six staff members for a total of three to four staff cars at any given
time.
· Added that they are not just the Developer/Builder, they are also a partner with Marriott
and will have a long-term vested interest.
· Stated that she has reviewed the Conditions of Approval in detail, as has Marriott's.
· Informed that they are in agreement with all Conditions but No. 12, which is about the base
treatment of the building, which they prefer not to include.
· Said she is available for questions.
Ms. Dawn Anderson, Project Architect, Swenson Builders:
· Said that City staff asked the design team to depict the building in as accurate a way as
possible.
· Said that they took a digital photograph from the Trail, from the Gateway and from the
Park.
· Added that they used the 89-foot height of the power pole and the 20-foot height for the
Freeway as cues to review the renderings and fit the building (from AutoCAD) onto the
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 8
photographs using a Photoshop type of application. All other improvements were drawn
and are architecturally accurate. The area was marked with GPS systems and with that
information; they were able to match the elevations exactly onto the photograph.
· Said that the use of finish treatments helps address concerns regarding mass.
· Said that they want to develop something that addresses being part of a Gateway.
· Stated that SARC had discussed massing and brought up the color to the first floor and
added board and batten to the fourth floor.
· Displayed the materials board.
· Said that the Condition requiting use of rock at the 30-inch height would make the building
appear to be higher. They are proposing limestone stack limestone in a buff color that is
lighter than the stucco that is above it. A steel trowel finish would be utilized on the lower
level.
· Stated that the landscaping would be a major focus rather than the architecture and it will
be exquisite. Stone would be used at the front of the building at street level
Commissioner Doofley asked Ms. Dawn Anderson to clarify her point on the appearance of
building height.
Ms. Dawn Anderson explained that techniques are used in architecture in order to make a
building look smaller than it is. Such techniques include using larger windows.
Ms. Libby Glass:
· Expressed concern regarding Condition No. 12, which asks them to take the rock treatment
up to 30 inches and have trowel finish above, with stucco and board and batten above that.
· Stated their belief that this would result in a building that is busier than they think it should
be and that they do not like the idea of four different material treatments for one building.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley clarified that Condition No. 12 has three parts and that Ms.
Libby Glass is referring to Subsection C of Condition No. 12.
Chair Hemandez asked staff for their rationale for Condition 12-C.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley said the intent is to deal with how the building is seen from all
four sides utilizing quality materials.
Mr. Dan Takacs, Project Traffic Engineer:
· Described this project as being on the low scale of trip generation as compared to other
commercial uses.
· Said that he does not anticipate significant impacts to Highway 17 from this use.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Asked Mr. Dan Takacs about the issue of U-tums.
· Advised that she had personally attempted to execute a U-turn at the light at the Pruneyard
(Union and E. Campbell Avenue) and caused traffic jam.
· Added that her rather modest sized vehicle could barely negotiate such a turn in this
location.
· Asked for an evaluation for how circulation would work for this site.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 9
Mr. Dan Takacs:
· Agreed that this is not the most convenient location but that most people know the
constraints of the site.
· Added that long-staying guests would adjust their commute paths accordingly to avoid the
need for U-tums.
· Said that he observed an SUV making a U-turn this morning. While it was not easily
accomplished, it was successfully accomplished.
· Said that the trip generation is not significant.
· Added that the hotel can give best routes to their guests.
Mr. Jeff Hofstrand, 577 Hawthorne Avenue, Campbell:
· Pointed out that Page is one of the few streets in the area that allows left hand tums onto E.
Campbell Avenue.
· Expressed concern that new traffic would be routed through his residential neighborhood in
order to turn around.
· Added that this could impact his own ability to leave his neighborhood.
· Stated that despite the architectural tricks to make this building look smaller, it is still a
four story building.
Mr. Michael Krisman, 906 Sweetbriar Drive, Campbell:
· Questioned whether an independent Traffic Engineer evaluated this site.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that Mr. Dan Takacs prepared the Traffic Study and that the
City's Traffic Engineer reviewed it.
Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Said that while he can admire the tricks used to reduce the perception of height, the concept
is great until you stand next to the building and realize the actual height.
· Said that his problem with this site is its proximity to Campbell Park and the fact that this
hotel would make big changes for those people using the Campbell Park and the Los Gatos
Creek Trail.
Mr. Bob Stanton, 191 Marianna Way, Campbell:
· Informed the Commission that he once served on Campbell's Planning Commission.
· Asked if the City has looked at other possibilities for that property.
Director Sharon Fierro reminded Mr. Stanton that staff had already reported that it had
discussed and considered a potential office project for this site.
Mr. Bob Stanton asked if development of the site into a park has been considered.
Director Sharon Fierro said this site is already adjacent to an existing park so it would not be
considered for development as a new park site.
Mr. Bob Stanton:
· Challenged that this project looks like it is already a "done deal."
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 10
Said that the Commission needs to look at quality of life in Campbell and consider what
their grandchildren will inherit.
· Pointed out the high vacancy rates for hotels now.
· Stated that this project would increase traffic on Harrison Avenue.
Chair Hernandez replied that this project is hardly a "done deal."
Ms. Libby Glass:
· Stated that Marriott is very exciting about this project and has done extensive market
analysis and feel that there is a need for additional extended stay hotels.
· Pointed out that the Marriott extended stay hotels located on Saratoga Avenue and at
Redwood Shores are still over 70 percent occupancy during these worse economic times.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Pointed out that the Marriott literature says that their normal formula is 95 rooms within
two three-story buildings on 1.9 acres.
· Questioned how this one four-story building can be considered compatible to that formula
when proposed for a 1.4-acre lot.
Ms. Libby Glass replied that the two-building module was considered but that easements on
the property prevented that module.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Reminded that at the Study Session he had asked why the four-story building was proposed
and that Ms. Glass had replied it was to accommodate the needed 95 rooms.
· Added that at that time, she also had said that they expected an occupancy rate at 85
percent.
· Pointed out that per his research, he discovered that Marriott's latest national occupancy
average is 64 percent.
· Questioned how viable this venture would be.
Ms. Libby Glass pointed out that the Saratoga Hotel has been open for about two and a half
years. Where it had 100 percent occupancy two years ago, today it is at 70 percent occupancy.
Commissioner Alderete said that since the hotel cannot go forward with one fewer floors, how
viable it would be with 15 percent less occupancy that is projected as being the goal.
Ms. Libby Glass said that they do not design their project around worse case scenario. Added
that 95 rooms is the lower end number of rooms for this type of hotel product.
Commissioner Alderete asked if there might be "wiggle room" as far as the necessary number
of rooms.
Ms. Libby Glass replied that if there had been "wiggle room," they would have given in within
the last year and a half that they have been developing this proposal.
Chair Hemandez closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 11
Chair Hernandez:
Explained that part of the responsibility, as a Planning Commission, is to balance growth
with the needs of the community, both now and in the future.
Said that this is a difficult, but not impossible, site to develop and has to be carefully
considered.
· Expressed his compliments to the project architect who has done an excellent job but
advised that he would not be supportive of this project due to its proximity to Campbell
Park.
Stated that having a large building right on top of the Creek Trail and overlooking
Campbell Park is incompatible and that traffic is an issue.
· Declared that this project is not right for this site.
· Added that he does not mean to say that he does not support new hotels in Campbell but
just not at this location.
· Said that long-term vision is important and represents what the City is to be, not just today
but in the future.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Said that it is difficult to disagree with people whose opinions he respects.
· Said that this is a very good project and could be a great asset to the City of Campbell.
· Said that while he would like to pursue using the site as a park, it is not an option, short of
using eminent domain, since this is not City-owned land but rather is privately owned.
· Agreed that parks are critical and impacts on the Creek Trail are very important.
· Pointed out that the Trail goes through Campbell Inn's parking lot and past warehouses so
this is not a rural creek without visible buildings. That fact needs to be taken into account.
· Stated that there are significant site constraints and that the owner has a right to fair use of
his property. The City has designated allowable uses as commercial and this is the least
bothersome commercial use.
· Agreed that the project needs to fit into the character of Campbell and that the need for
hotel space is regional.
· Stated that he is not concerned about occupancy rates and did not think a new hotel would
have a negative impact on existing hotels.
· Said that this is a very positive Gateway/entry feature into the Downtown area.
· Expressed his support.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Said that this is a very tough one for the Planning Commission and the applicant has spent
a great deal of time, as has the Planning Commission.
· Explained that she is an architect and has a tendency to be "nit-picky."
· Said that the General Plan provides the tools by which to evaluate such a project. Things to
consider are how it works with the Creek Trail and what it contributes to the surrounding
area.
· Said that her personal vision for the site would be a restaurant with a plaza while this
proposed hotel has a spa feature that is hidden for privacy and windows with curtains
closing it off from the Park and Creek Trail.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 12
· Said that there is a dynamic relationship between the site and the Creek and this project
does not work for her although there are lots of wonderful features, this is too large a
project for this site.
· Stated that perception of size and space are difficult to envision.
Declared that the Creek Trail is one of the most wonderful assets for the community and
that park use brings more people to the Downtown.
· Pointed out that traffic impacts are an issue.
· Said that while she would like to support the project, she cannot support what is proposed
as being in the best interests of the community.
· Reminded that there are lots of hotels and that another hotel site has a five-year approval in
the City of Campbell.
Commissioner Jones said that, while he has no problem with the idea of a hotel, this building is
too big for its proposed location, it is too tall and he will not support the project.
Commissioner Francois:
· Concurred with the speakers before him, especially Barbara Conant.
· Said that he has evaluated the project and totally agrees with the concerns expressed.
· Suggested a need to soften the massiveness of the proposed building but that it is too big
for this lot.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Said he echoes the comments of Commissioners Gibbons, Francois and Jones.
· Said that the mass of this building is not compatible to this particular location.
· Pointed out that the Campbell Inn is situated against the freeway, with space between the
building and the Trail.
· Said that he has put in a considerable amount of time evaluating this proposal, about 80 to
100 hours. He visited parks in Campbell to see surrounding buildings. He visited Larkspur
Landing. He visited the San Jose location of Townplace Suites. He reviewed the tape from
the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting where this project was discussed. He
reviewed the Council meetings at which this project was discussed. He carefully read the
Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and Strategic Plan and finds this proposal is not consistent
with the vision for Campbell. He reviewed the City's budget. Pointed out that the
occupancy rate in Campbell was at 64 percent per the City Manager. He visited the
Marriott website, the Townplace Suites website and the City's website. He attended two
Study Sessions on this project and read all the SARC information. He read the
development standards for adjacent communities, including San Jose, Santa Clara and Los
Gatos. He had several meetings with Planning staff and has personally put this project
through a microscope.
· Stated that he cannot support the project. He could if it were smaller and not so close to the
Park and Trail.
Commissioner Rocha:
· Joked that, unlike Commissioner Alderete, he has a life and spent probably 20 to 30 hours
reviewing this project.
· Advised that he works in commercial real estate.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 13
· Took issue with the comment of one of the speakers who insinuated that this project was
already a "done deal."
· Stated that he cannot support the project at this time due to its size.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if all parts of the application could be voted upon under one
motion.
Director Sharon Fierro advised that the Acting City Attorney, Kirsten Powell, would have to
draft language for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ms. Kirsten Powell, Acting City Attorney, Logan & Powell, San Jose:
· Said that the findings drafted by staff for the Mitigated Negative Declaration are
appropriate. The Commission should accept and approve the Negative Declaration as a
first step, in accordance with the findings.
Commissioner Gibbons disagreed, saying that that traffic and aesthetic concerns exist that are
counter to the drafted findings. Asked if the Commission can deny the hotel project altogether
under one motion.
Acting City Attorney Kirsten Powell said that the environmental action must take place first.
Director Sharon Fierro suggested that the Commissioners identify the areas of concern.
The Commissioners read the Mitigated Negative Declaration and pointed out items to be
changed.
Acting City Attorney Kirsten Powel:
· Listed Items I-A, i-B, i-C, 15-D and 17B, as mentioned by the Commissioners.
· Advised that the location is not qualified as a scenic vista nor is the site qualified under
CEQA as a scenic resource.
· Suggested that the best thing to do, rather than revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
is to recommend denial of this project to the City Council and then the City Council can
take final action on the Environmental Review.
· Read out loud the revised findings to deny this project.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner
Alderete, the Planning Commission took the following action regarding
property owned by the John Davis Family Trust located at 690-700 E. Campbell
Avenue:
· Adopted Resolution No. 3487, recommending denial of a Planned
Development Permit (PLN2002-96) to allow the construction of a new 95 room
extended stay hotel and
· Recommended that the City Council take appropriate action regarding the
Environmental Determination, Tree Removal Permit and Sign Application,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha
NOES: Doorley
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 14
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hemandez read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
2. PLN2003-06
Smith, K.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Smith, on behalf of
Andy's BBQ, for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2003-06) to allow on-
sale general liquor sales and outdoor seating in conjunction with a
restaurant on property owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows,
Morning Light Lodge No. 42, located at 276 E. Campbell Avenue in the
C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is recommending
that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed
in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey,
Planner I
Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general
liquor sales and outdoor seating within an existing commercial building that was constructed in
1967 and currently serves as the meeting hall for the Odd Fellows.
· Identified the Zoning for the property as C-3-S (Central Business District), which allows this use
with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
· Said that the permit would be for on-site consumption and would be incidental to the restaurant
operation.
· Stated that this proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and would not represent an over-
concentration.
· Described the outdoor seating as consisting of 24 seats with a railing feature defining the outdoor
area. Faqade improvements will be done along E. Campbell Avenue and N. First Street.
· Said that the site has 23 parking spaces currently and under the C-3 Zoning, a restaurant can occupy
this site without requiring additional parking.
· Added that a new trash enclosure would be constructed to match the building and the curb
cut off E. Campbell Avenue would be removed, leaving a two-way driveway off of N. First
Street. New landscape planters would be installed along both street frontages.
· Recommended approval.
Commissioner Rocha asked if the issue of smoke from the barbecue has been addressed.
Planner Stephanie Willsey replied that smoke will be filtered and the smoker would be situated
within the building. The applicant will be required to meet Bay Area Air Quality Management
District standards.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on April 29, 2003, and was supportive with the provision of
decorative landscape at the comer.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 15
Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Chair Hernandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner
Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3488
approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2003-06) to allow on-sale general
liquor sales and outdoor seating in conjunction with a restaurant on
property owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Morning Light
Lodge No. 432, located at 276 E. Campbell and found this project to be
Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and
Rocha
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
Chair Hemandez read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
o
PLN2002-102 (S)
PLN2002-103 (UP)
Yassa, S.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Saher Yassa, on behalf
of Ms. Ferial Hanna, for a Site and Architectural Review Permit
(PLN2002-102) to allow the construction of a new single-family
residence and a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2002-103) to allow a
secondary living unit on property owned by Ms. Ferial Hanna located at
1400 Abbott Avenue in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential, 10,000
square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. Staff is recommending
that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning
Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing
to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey, Planner I
Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit to
allow the construction of a single-family residence and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
new secondary living unit.
· Stated that this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 25,
2003, to allow the applicant to revise plans based upon suggestions from the Planning
Commission, Architectural Advisor and staff.
Informed that the plans have been revised.
· Described the Zoning as R-l-10 and this project is consistent. The project also meets the
requirements of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
· Pointed out that a Condition of Approval exists that requires the applicant to demonstrate
that there are no outstanding easements issues.
· Recommended approval.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 16
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out the letter regarding the easement conflict and asked staff if
the Commission could approve a project when there is an easement issue.
Planner Stephanie Willsey replied yes, the Commission could make the approval. Any
easement issues would have to be resolved prior to issuance of Building permits.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on April 8, 2003, and was supportive with the removal of the
wainscoting at the front elevation and with the added Condition that the easement issue be
resolved.
Chair Hemandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Said she is appearing as the representative of the San Tomas Neighborhood Association.
· Thanked the owner and architect for their great jobs revising the plan to better meet the
STANP.
Mr. Michael Bank, 1418 Abbott Avenue, Campbell:
· Reiterated the points made in his letter regarding easement issues.
Pointed out that an earlier letter also was sent in which he outlines a recorded restriction
prohibiting a second dwelling unit on this property.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if this easement and restriction are defined on title.
Mr. Michael Banks replied that it is not on title but was a recorded covenant.
Chair Hernandez asked Mr. Banks if he has had any discussions with the applicants concerning
the proposed secondary living unit.
Mr. Michael Banks replied yes but that there had been no resolution to the issue.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the covenant is between the parties but does not
prevent the Planning Commission from making a decision based upon zoning regulations.
This is a civil matter that is beyond the prerogative of the Planning Commission.
Chair Hernandez closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission took the following action:
· Adopted Resolution No. 3489 approving a Site and Architectural Review
Permit (PLN2002-102) to allow the construction of a new single-family
residence on property located at 1400 Abbott Avenue,
· Adopted Resolution No. 3490 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2002-
103) to allow a secondary living unit on property owned by Ms. Ferial Hanna
located at 1400 Abbott Avenue and
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 17
· Found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and
Rocha
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hemandez reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record.
4. PLN2003-31
Bardascino, F.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Frank Bardascino for a
Modification (PLN2003o31) to a previously-approved Conditional Use
Permit (UP 95-18) to allow on-site sale of beer and wine, late night
operational hours and live entertainment within an existing coffee shop
(Barda's Coffee & Caf6) on property owned by Kirkorian Development
located at 1820 W. Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be
deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission
decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I
Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to a previously-approved
Conditional Use Permit to allow beer and wine sales, late hours and live entertainment.
· Added that there are no building modifications proposed.
· Described the property as being in the Kirkwood Plaza, adjacent to the animal hospital.
· Pointed out that UP 95-18 was approved by the Commission but never exercised and
therefore it expired.
· Said that the proposed uses are consistent with the Zoning, subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
· Said that the Police Department reviewed this request and had no concerns or objections.
The applicant will be required to obtain a Live Entertainment Permit with the Police
Department to be approved by the City Council.
· Stated that the entertainment would consist of solo artists and two to three-piece bands.
The proposed hours of operation are between 6 a.m. and 12 midnight daily.
· Recommended approval.
Commissioner Gibbons asked when this Use Permit was originally approved and if it was for
Capers. Also whether the Conditions imposed are the same.
Planner Melinda Denis replied that this particular Use Permit was originally approved in 1995.
The Capers permit was approved in 2000 but that she was not certain if the Conditions were
similar.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 18
Chair Hernandez asked if amplification would be allowed.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes.
Chair Hernandez asked staff if they were comfortable that the impacts of noise could be
controlled.
Planner Melinda Denis replied yes.
Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 4.
Commissioner Gibbons read condition7-B into the record regarding Noise Management.
Chair Hernandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Rocha,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3491 approving a
Modification (PLN2003-31) to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (UP
95-18) to allow on-site sale of beer and wine, late night operational hours and live
entertainment within an existing coffee shop (Barda's Coffee & Caf6) on property
owned by Kirkorian Development located at 1820 W. Campbell Avenue and
found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and
Rocha
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record.
5. PLN2002-142
Gaetano, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Mark Gaetano, on
behalf of The Gaslighter Theatre, for a Conditional Use Permit
(PLN2002-142) to allow late night hours and uses (live concerts, dinner
theatre, special events) to the existing vaudeville theatre use of property
owned by Mark and Richard Gaetano located at 400 E. Campbell
Avenue in the C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is
recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under
CEQA. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley,
Associate Planner
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 19
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow live
entertainment in conjunction with a theatre and to extend hours beyond 11 p.m.
· Said that this vaudeville theatre was established about 34 years ago on the south side of E.
Campbell Avenue, between Central and the railroad tracks.
· Informed that the building originally housed a bank and was converted into a movie theatre
in the 1930s.
· Said that the Use Permit is sought to allow a variety of live entertainment.
· Informed the Commission that revised findings have been distributed as a table item.
Described building capacity as 211. The theatre has fixed seats and a open area in front of
the stage for standing room and/or tables to be placed. The range in seating configurations
is from 181 to 211.
· Said that the applicant requests operational hours from 8 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., Monday
through Friday, from 12 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. on Saturday and from 8 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on
Sunday.
· Advised that the live entertainment aspect is subject to a Live Entertainment Permit
processed through the Police Department and approved by City Council.
· Said that security measures would be imposed and food service is required with the ABC
Type 41 liquor license held by the Gaslighter.
· Said that the Zoning and General Plan are Central Commercial and staff finds this proposal
to be consistent. The proposal is also consistent with the Downtown Development Plan,
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
· Recommended adoption of a Resolution to allow live entertainment.
· Said that numerous conditions regarding security, queuing, etc., are contained in the
Conditions of Approval.
· Advised that a representative from the Police Department is present.
Commissioner Doorley asked why this is coming before the Commission since the use has
been here so long.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that the Use Permit is required to allow a broader
spectrum of uses and late operational hours. Any commercial business operating beyond 11
p.m. must come before the Planning Commission to obtain a Use Permit per a new Ordinance
adopted two years ago.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Advised that the Commission will see a number of such applications coming before it. The
Ordinance adopted two years ago gave a two-year grace period to obtain a Use Permit for
late night operations for those businesses that may have been considered grandfathered.
· Pointed out that with the removal of seats to increase capacity this location lost its non-
conforming status. Due to the requirement to legalize the late night operational hours, this
Use Permit is required.
Commissioner Rocha asked if any potential use had been left off since the list is so extensive.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that staff had removed some of the applicant's
proposed uses.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 20
Commissioner Gibbons asked the Police Department representative to explain the requirement
for security.
Captain Russ Patterson, Campbell Police Department:
· Informed that in the past year or so, Police response to this theatre was increased as a result
of the concert events.
· Said that nowadays all venues with live entertainment are required to have uniformed and
trained security guards. It has been determined that for this use, five security people are an
appropriate number.
Commissioner Gibbons asked for the distinction on why such security is required.
Captain Russ Patterson said that it is due to the size and types of events, with up to 211
attendees, where some control is needed.
Commissioner Gibbons asked whether events such as political, fundraising or fashion shows
would trigger the requirement for this level of security.
Captain Russ Patterson replied that the concern of the Police Department are the concerts due
to the number of people, the Downtown area and the outdoor open area (smoking area) at the
back of the building.
Chair Hernandez asked Captain Patterson if the Police Department is comfortable with these
Conditions of Approval.
Captain Russ Patterson replied, comfortable, no. He added that the Department would see how
this goes. Pointed out that at the last Council meeting, another Live Entertainment Permit was
revoked.
Commissioner Alderete advised of an incident that occurred last winter whereas a group of
young people, who had come from the Gaslighter Theatre, climbed over a wall and assaulted a
property owner.
Captain Russ Patterson said he was aware of that incident.
Commissioner Doorley asked if the applicant has its own hired security.
Captain Russ Patterson said that uniformed security would be required by the Police
Department.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that there will be review periods for this use three and
six-months from the Council's approval of a Live Entertainment Permit.
Chair Hernandez asked if the seating capacity for the concerts is 211 and whether the seats
were fixed.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 21
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied the 211-person capacity allows standing group in front
of the stage. The Building Official has found the 211-person capacity to be acceptable.
Director Sharon Fierro advised that the intent to bring this use before the Planning Commission
was decided prior to the fire incidents at clubs in Chicago and Rhode Island. The applicant has
worked closely with the Fire and Building Departments and complied quickly. All involved
believe these Conditions are necessary in order to feel comfortable with this capacity.
Chair Hernandez asked if the restaurant use, selling hotdogs, is consistent with the ABC
requirement that this Type 41 liquor license have a restaurant.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said that ABC requires a bona fide food service for a Type 41
liquor license but that the applicant has a letter from ABC saying their site complies with ABC
requirements.
Commissioner Doorley asked if the theatre plans to operate for the extended hours seven days
a week and whether there has been discussion to reduce the number of days with late
operations.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the theatre has not operated that late seven days a
week to this point. No discussion has occurred about limiting the number of days with
extended hours.
Commissioner Alderete said that per Condition 1-B the proposed types of entertainment seem
broad and questioned if this list is even enforceable. Suggested development of a simpler
prohibited list to include activities such as stage diving, mosh pits, etc.
Director Sharon Fierro said that staff has worked with the Police Department in developing an
acceptable list. If calls for Police services were excessive, this list would come back to the
Planning Commission for review and reconsideration. Reminded that another previously-
approved Live Entertainment Permit was recently revoked for another Campbell business.
Commissioner Jones pointed out that if problems occur, the Police Department could shut it
down.
Director Sharon Fierro warned that it takes time to do so. Staff is relying on the Conditions of
Approval to give the Police Department and the Community Development Department the
tools needed to make this business a good citizen.
Commissioner Jones asked about the Live Entertainment Permit and if it is good for a year.
Captain Russ Patterson said that the Live Entertainment Permit remains valid for the site unless
the ownership changes.
Chair Hernandez asked if the permit is transferable to another owner.
Captain Russ Patterson replied that the new owner would have to reapply.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 22
Commissioner Francois asked if the security requirements include events geared toward
children.
Captain Russ Patterson replied that this issue has to be discussed further within the Police
Department prior to taking the Live Entertainment Permit to Council.
Chair Hemandez opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No 5.
Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Asked why so many uses were taken off the list.
Commissioner Alderete pointed out that beauty and hair shows were removed as acceptable
events.
Mr. John Lazarus, 709 Chopin Drive, Sunnyvale:
· Informed the Commission that he has been promoting and booking shows at the Gaslighter
for two years now with no problems.
· Said that this is a really important place for the community as there are not a lot of places
for kids to go.
· Pointed out that this is one of the cleanest places he has been to, especially when compared
to San Jose's Cactus Club where there are no doors on the bathroom stalls.
· Said that it is refreshing to see a place like the Gaslighter.
Commissioner Francois said it was refreshing to hear from a young person and encourage Mr.
Lazarus to keep it up.
Chair Hernandez asked Mr. Lazarus what days of the week he books his shows.
Mr. John Lazarus replied usually Friday or Saturday but sometimes on Thursday or Sunday,
depending on the availability of the bands.
Chair Hernandez asked Mr. Lazarus for the name of his band.
Mr. John Lazarus replied.
Mr. Michael Riley, 145 S. Fourth Street, San Jose:
· Identified himself as a professional actor and stand up comedian who has been performing
at the Gaslighter Theatre for 8 years.
· Said that Campbell is a very beautiful city.
· Said that Monday night is for stand up comedy and this brings new people to Campbell,
people who patronize the restaurants and other businesses.
· Warned that the theatre cannot make it on just Friday and Saturday night shows and go
dark the rest of the week. Without other activities, the theatre would close.
· Described the kids who patronize the Gaslighter as good kids.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 23
Mr. Doug Hall, 1110 Yarwood Court, Campbell:
Said that he had thought that the Gaslighter was threatened with closure and had come
prepared to plead its case.
Said that he has two kids who go to events at the Gaslighter, which is a safe and quality
environment that also generates business for the Downtown.
· Said that it is important that the Gaslighter be able to provide a safe place for 14 to 16 year
old kids.
· Informed the Commission that he manages the theatre now for evening events.
· Said that they have security watching out for the safety of the young patrons.
Commissioner Doorley asked for information about in and out privileges.
Mr. Doug Hall said that they prohibit younger patrons from in and out privileges to prevent
any dangerous activities from occurring. If a parent accompanies their child to see a concert,
they are permitted in and out privileges out of deference to their hearing and different musical
tastes from their children.
Mr. Rich Gaetano, Owner, Gaslighter Theatre, 400 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that he is one of the owners, on and off, over the last 25 years.
· Thanked his staff for their comments this evening.
· Commended Mr. John Lazarus for being a fine young man, talented promoter and
musician.
· Thanked the Police, Planning, Building and Fire Departments for their assistance.
· Said that his brother, Mark started the theatre in 1971 and he joined in 1974.
· Stated that they are extremely proud of their soon to be 35years in Campbell, come next
Spring. That makes them the longest lasting privately owned theatre in the area. It is
family owned and operated.
· Said that they have no problem with the Conditional Use Permit.
· Added that they have also operated a theatre in Gilroy over the last 12 years.
· Said in October they were made aware of problems with their theatre in Campbell and they
have since revised the situation.
· Distributed his proposed list of revised conditions and uses.
· Said that the use of uniformed security seems to incite their audience. They have their own
security that works effectively.
· Said that when they rent out use of the theatre, they remain on the premises during the
events held there. The promoter keeps the door receipts and they run the bar and manage
on-site security.
· Said that they have ABC compliance since they got their liquor license in 1980.
· Added that their use is unique and does not fit any specific description. ABC had
recommended the Type 41 liquor license as being the most appropriate for them. They
have a letter from ABC that states they are in compliance.
· Said he has added some additional proposed uses.
· Questioned the Conditions regarding queuing, arguing that a line is a good thing.
· Said that holding them responsible for the activities of their patrons within 150 feet of their
front door is not fair but suggested rather 35 feet.
· Said that security people would supervise the smoking area in the back at all times.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 24
· Reminded that their clients are primarily 14 to 18 years old.
Commissioner Doorley pointed out that perhaps such a well designated smoking area is ill
advised with such a young clientele, most of whom are too young to legally smoke.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied that he agreed but that smoking cannot occur in front so a
designated area is necessary. Added that their security people do not permit underage
smoking.
Commissioner Rocha asked what time the concerts begin.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied approximately 7:30 p.m. Right now they close up at midnight.
Commissioner Rocha asked about noise mitigations.
Mr. Richard Gaetano said that they make less noise than Katie Blooms when the doors are
closed.
Commissioner Francois asked about the food preparation facilities required for a Type 41 ABC
license and pointed out that a Condition is requiring that the applicant shall establish a bona
fide restaurant. Offered that this seems unreasonable.
Mr. Richard Gaetano said that they are primarily a theatre. However, to have children in the
theatre with this type of ABC license, they are required to have a hot meal available. Per ABC,
hot dogs, pizza, salad and a small dessert are required to be offered.
Commissioner Francois asked if this is enough for compliance.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied yes.
Chair Hernandez stated that it appears excessive to have hours of operation to 1:30 a.m. for
seven days a week.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied that the concerts occur on Thursday and Sunday and the
vaudeville shows occur on Friday and Saturday.
Chair Hemandez asked if they could scale back perhaps to midnight from Monday through
Wednesday.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied yes but with the exception of New Year's Eve on those years
when that holiday would fall on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that in the past with other uses, there has been trouble
between what is closing time and when activity is concluded.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 25
Director Sharon Fierro clarified that the limitation on hours includes all activities including
building maintenance and cleaning. The premises must be complete vacated at the established
closing times.
Commissioner Francois reminded that the current Conditions of Approval (No. 8) requiring the
preparation of building plans for a kitchen that is compliant with ABC requirements. Pointed
out that it appears the Gaslighter has satisfied ABC's requirements already.
Director Sharon Fierro said that staff is not sure and just wants it to be determined by ABC that
the kitchen facilities satisfy their requirements. This is up to ABC.
Commissioner Francois asked if the Health Department checks their facility.
Mr. Richard Gaetano replied every three months.
Commissioner Alderete pointed out that Mr. Gaetano objects to being responsible for the
activities of his patrons within 150 feet of their front door. Asked about what liability they
might have if their patrons are standing directly in the street, blocking traffic, as he has
observed on occasion.
Mr. Richard Gaetano assured that this does not happen now but rather did under the previous
management before they resumed ownership of the theatre after a couple of years away.
Reminded that there will be no in and out privileges and that their smoking area will be located
at the rear of the building.
Director Sharon Fierro reminded that the Use Permit would run with the land and not with the
owner. This is why the Conditions are being carefully imposed.
Commissioner Alderete asked staff how it arrived at the distance of 150 feet.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that the applicant is asked to control his business's patrons.
There have been problems in the past with vandalism, broken bottles, etc. Added that 50 feet
is barely one shop over.
Chair Hemandez questioned why wedding ceremonies would not be permitted as well as
movie premieres.
Director Sharon Fierro pointed out that the revised conditions do include weddings.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested more general categories of activities including civic
ceremonies, live and recorded music, rehearsals and recitals and community events.
Commissioner Rocha cautioned that this list would be like issuing a blank check. The City
needs to have grounds for exercising authority over the activities that occur to prevent
problems.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested perhaps listing those activities that would be deemed not
acceptable instead.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 26
City Attorney William Seligmann agreed that this could be considered.
Director Sharon Fierro suggested that Captain Russ Patterson should be included in this dialog.
Chair Hernandez suggested that if any activities were not on the prohibited list, the Gaslighter
would think they could do all other activities.
City Attorney William Seligmann added that the same tactic as is utilized in the Zoning Code
could be considered. Any use not specifically permitted is prohibited.
Mr. Richard Gaetano pointed out that the Gaslighter has had a family-oriented reputation for
the last 34 years. Nothing lewd, immoral or unacceptable is presented.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Said that despite that history, the Use Permit will outlast the current ownership and future
owners may not adhere to the same standards. These conditions will follow through to
future owners.
· Suggested that church-related uses and/or activities be permitted since small churches do
not have the resources to purchase their own buildings when they start out.
· Said he is fine with the requirements for food preparation to support the Type 41 ABC
license.
· Added that he also thinks the Gaslighter should be held responsible for the actions of its
patrons within the 150-foot distance proposed by staff.
Commissioner Jones proposed a time limitation (specific number of years) for the duration of
this Use Permit.
Director Sharon Fierro said that this could be done. At the present time there are three and six-
month review periods conditioned. A report would be brought back to the Commission as a
staff report unless severe issues have come up whereby a Public Hearing would be scheduled.
Commissioner Jones suggested a length of time for the Use Permit, after which it would
expire.
Commissioner Alderete pointed out that the list of activities includes both vaudeville and
vaudeville shows. Said that there are all kinds of wonderful activities that would be wonderful
to have here and questioned how best to handle this list to give the City the ability to enforce
but perhaps not so restrictive.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that the Gaslighter provided the list. Said that she would prefer
a general theatre use and warned that staff would not be aware of what goes on unless there is a
problem.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested adding text reading, "or additional activities as approved by
the Community Development Director."
City Attorney William Seligmann said that fairly objective criteria are necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 27
Chair Hernandez pointed out that the applicant can modify the list at a later date if the need
arises.
Ms. Susan Gaetano, Owner, The Gaslighter Theatre:
· Said she wanted to clarify their list.
Pointed out that they are most well known as a vaudeville and melodrama theatre.
· Advised that this list they have developed represents some of the things that have occurred
at the theatre over the last 34 years.
· Said that they had not wanted to have a potential activity come up and not be able to do it
without obtaining a special permit.
· Assured that there is no dancing and that the smoking area is really just a "fresh air" area.
· Added that most events are done by midnight.
Commissioner Francois asked Ms. Susan Gaetano how she feels about the language of
Condition No. 8.
Ms. Susan Gaetano said that they have been to ABC and that the Health Department comes
every three months. ABC seems to be fine with their operation. Said that putting a full kitchen
would not be possible as they do not have available space to accommodate one.
Director Sharon Fierro reiterated that a full kitchen would only be required if ABC deems it to
be necessary to meet the requirements of their Type 41 liquor license.
Chair Hemandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Commissioner Gibbons said that it has been clarified that the kitchen requirement is only if
ABC requires it. Asked the Commissioners if there are any other issues requiring clarification.
Commissioner Jones asked about security requirements for every event.
Captain Russ Patterson said that the security requirement ratios are based on the applicants
plan. Added that the Police Department has not yet determined specific requirements between
the concerts and other types of activities.
City Attorney William Seligmann pointed out that the Condition clearly states a minimum of
two security staff with one more for every 50 attendees thereafter.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that the Security Condition be eliminated since it would be
dealt with by the Police Department while processing the necessary Live Entertainment Permit.
Another option is to simplify the Condition to read "Security is to consistent with the
Conditions of the Police Department's Live Entertainment Permit."
City Attorney William Seligmann suggested the language, "The Gaslighter Theatre shall
provide security and staffing consistent with their Live Entertainment Permit."
Commissioner Jones restated his desire for a end date for the Use Permit either three to five
years from adoption.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 28
Commissioner Gibbons said she would have no problems with a five year approval.
Chair Hemandez asked if any of the Commissioners have a problem with the hours of
operation being to 1:30 a.m. each day of the week.
Commissioner Rocha replied not as defined by staff as meaning completely shut down. Added
that when he did a site visit he also spoke with four retailers in the immediate area. They had
no issues with the operations of the Gaslighter Theatre.
Chair Hernandez reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Mr. Richard Gaetano expressed concern about the five-year approval, as it would result in their
having to pay new fees of nearly $1,800.
Commissioner Gibbons reminded that there is still the concern over the turnover of the Theatre
to future owners.
Chair Hernandez reclosed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 5.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Rocha,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3492 approving a
Conditional Use Permit (PLN2002-142) to allow late night hours and uses (live
concerts, dinner theatre, special events) to the existing vaudeville theatre use of
property owned by Mark and Richard Gaetano located at 400 E. Campbell
Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA,
with the following added or revised Conditions:
Adding a five-year review by the Planning Commission and a 10-year
expiration date for this Use Permit.
Add language to Condition No. 8, "if required by ABC."
· Include as allowable activities: Meetings of non-profit organizations.
· Edit the Condition No. 16: "The Gaslighter Theatre shall provide
security and staffing consistent with their Live Entertainment Permit."
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and
Rocha
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 6 into the record.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 29
6. PLN2003-29
Castro, D.
Continued Hearing (from April 8, 2003) to consider the application of
Mr. Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-
inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high
interior side yard fence and 76-inch high street sideyard fence on property
owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-l-6
(Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning
District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically
Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final in 10
calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project
Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I
Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Fence Exception for 1058 Lenor Way, a
standard comer lot.
Described the fence sections as Fence A, Fence B and Fence C.
· Stated that required letters of consent were not obtained from all adjacent property owners.
Informed that the applicant will be required to remove the gate and hardware from Fence C
and install a post. This fence will be required to have a consistent design.
· Said that Condition 1-C should be amended to read "within 30 days of approval, subject to
review and approval by the Community Development Director."
Commissioner Alderete pointed out that this fence is already installed and asked how long it
has been in place.
Planner Melinda Denis replied since early March. The Fence Exception request was filed on
March 14th.
Commissioner Alderete questioned whether the applicant had discussed his fencing plans with
his neighbors before building this fence.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on April 29, 2003, and was supportive with the
recommendation that the streetside fence design be continued when the existing gate is
removed.
Chair Hemandez opened the Heating for Agenda Item No 6.
Ms. Carol Osbum, 1019 Lenor Way, Campbell:
· Said that she is a 27 year resident of Lenor Way and that Dustin Castro moved in last fall.
· Stated that Mr. Castro has worked hard on his home improvement projects and has
constructed a beautiful fence that has cost lots of money to build.
· Added that she wished she had a fence as lovely as this one is.
· Said that she also understands the need for such a high fence since both her home and Mr.
Castro's has a pool in the rear yard. They need to ensure that no one enters their yards and
drowns in their pools resulting in a lawsuit.
· Said that Mr. Castro should be able to keep his fence as long as it complies with City
codes.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 30
Mr. Dustin Castro, 1058 Lenor Way, Campbell:
Said that he has a couple of issues, including the requirement that the fence design stay the
same all the way down.
· Advised that he has plans to plant along the fence.
· Pointed out that he added lattice for decorative purposes since a six-foot good neighbor
fence is rather boring looking.
· Agreed that the fence is taller than it is supposed to be but argued that the fence would not
look as good as it does without this lattice.
· Said he has no problem with the requirement to remove the gate hardware.
· Said he is available to answer any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Doofley pointed out that the reason to recommend installation of the kickboard
is to assure that the use of the gate is permanently prevented. Said that the fence will still jog
out but will have the same material appearance.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Castro if he was aware of the fencing regulations prior to
constructing his fence.
Mr. Dustin Castro said he knew what he wanted to do. Reiterated that a regular six-foot fence
does not look appealing without the lattice.
Commissioner Rocha agreed that this fence is nice but that it is a tall fence.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out the site complexities with the two driveways and two
garages. Said that SARC discussed this issue and did not want to allow a dangerous situation
with the gates swinging outward directly onto the sidewalk.
Mr. Dustin Castro said that he does not plan to park vehicles in the garage on the side as it is
full including his pool table. Pointed out that one neighbor willing to support his application
had attended this evening but had to leave at 11:30 p.m.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Castro if he also built his neighbor's fence.
Mr. Dustin Castro replied that they split the cost together but had a company install it.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio, Owner, 1021 Lenor Way, Campbell:
· Said that he has safety concerns with the potential of the gate being used again in the
future.
· Reminded that the gate opens directly onto the sidewalk.
· Asked that anything possible be done to make this fencing uniform.
· Said that it would be nice to put "teeth" into this approval.
· Asked what the repercussions would be if the gate hardware is returned to make the gate
functioning again.
City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the primary recourse is to revoke the approval of
the Fence Exception and the matter becomes a Code Enforcement action.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 31
Director Sharon Fierro cautioned that Code Enforcement takes time to resolve.
Commissioner Doofley pointed out that the gate would no longer be functional with the
changes required under the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Jones asked why the gate is considered dangerous.
Director Sharon Fierro replied it is dangerous because it opens onto the sidewalk and there is
no way to see if people are on the sidewalk when opening this gate.
Mr. Dustin Castro:
· Said he agrees to the changes requested to make the gate into a fence with a post being cut
into the concrete.
· Added that he wants a four-foot wide gate. Such a gate is not big enough for a car.
· Added that Mr. Porrovecchio's tenants are okay with his fence.
Planner Melinda Denis said that staff is supportive of one four-foot wide gate.
Commissioner Rocha asked if this gate would open onto the property rather than out into the
sidewalk.
Planner Melinda Denis replied yes.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio pointed out that weeks prior to this fence installation, Mr. Castro was
well aware of the fencing requirements.
Commissioner Alderete asked if Mr. Porrovecchio is saying that Mr. Castro was aware before
he began construction.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio said that when it became obvious what was being constructed, his
tenant made him (Mr. Porrovecchio) aware of the situation. His tenant was worried about the
safety of his two young children. Said that he had wamed Mr. Castro that he would never be
supportive of more than a six-foot high fence.
Planner Melinda Denis agreed that staff had spoken with Mr. Porrovecchio after the fence was
constructed and that he was supportive of up to a six-foot fence with four-inch decorative caps
but that he would have problems with more than six-feet in height.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Expressed concern that the Commission is once again considering a Fence Exception after
the fact, once the fence has already been installed.
· Questioned how often this is truly done as an unwitting mistake.
· Said that this fence is quite a bit over the allowable fence height and he believes Mr. Castro
was aware of that fact.
· Cautioned that approving such drastic exceptions offers incentives to people to go outside
of approved Ordinances.
· Asked when is it time to say no.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 32
· Said that people should not just build what they want, how they want it.
Commissioner Rocha agreed. Said he would like to see such issues handled by staff.
Commissioner Alderete clarified that such an exception must come before the Planning
Commission when an adjacent neighbor does not agree to the expanded height.
Commissioner Rocha expressed concern about having to "play Solomon."
Commissioner Francois said that what SARC is asking for is not unreasonable. Said he does
not condone going over the Ordinance allowances but questioned if it is reasonable to require
Mr. Castro to take his fence down. This is a dilemma.
Commissioner Doorley pointed out that it appears clear that no one is eager to make the motion
to approve this.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Asked at what point does the Commission need to say no. Should the Commission wait
until a fence is three feet higher than allowed.
· Said that this installation seems to be over the line, especially if the applicant knew, prior to
construction of the fence, that he was constructing something against Ordinance.
· Cautioned that there will be more of these types of situations.
Commissioner Francois asked staff what the applicant would have to do if this request is
denied.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Said the applicant could appeal to Council or remove the extra height of fence. If the
Council upholds the denial, the applicant's only choice is to remove it. Staff is
recommending a compromise to reduce the fence on the east and south sides of the
property to six-feet and to permanently close the gate and make it into a fence.
· Said that a seven foot height is appropriate where the neighbors agree and six feet in height
is appropriate where the neighbors do not agree to go higher.
Commissioner Alderete asked what occurs if neighbors agree to a fence height and how a
property owner should proceed with plans for new fencing.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Said that a property owner should inform his neighbors that he intends to build a fence.
· Added that if the shared property owner agrees to sign off on the proposed fence, approvals
can be made at staff level. This occurs most of the time.
· Stated that in the case that a neighbor does not agree to extended heights, the fence must be
constructed to Code or a Fence Exception must be processed and brought to Heating before
the Planning Commission prior to construction of the fence. Again, few such Exceptions
typically reach that level, as most neighbors are able to come to an agreement.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 33
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification that the applicant has agreed to remove the lattice
and keep the decorative caps.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley pointed out the letter from Mr. Castro dated April 14th.
Commissioner Alderete asked if this could be approve administratively if all neighbors agreed
to the fence height.
Director Sharon Fierro said not the gate issue. As Director, she has the ability to require that
this issue go to the Planning Commission for consideration, as there is a sight line visibility
issue.
Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the issues are both fence height and outswing of the gate
onto the public sidewalk.
Commissioner Alderete asked if seven-foot height is an issue.
Director Sharon Fierro said not if all involved neighbors agree.
Planner Melinda Denis advised that the City's Traffic Engineer has deemed the gate a
pedestrian safety issue.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that the sideyard fence be brought into compliance to the
six-foot height with the four-inch decorative posts.
Commissioner Jones said that the applicant, per his letter, has agreed to remove the lattice and
make the gate into a permanent fence section.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Jones,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3493 approving a Fence
Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front
yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence and 72-inch high street
sideyard fence with four-inch decorative posts (for a total height of 76-inches)
with one four-foot wide gate, on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at
1058 Lenor Way and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under
CEQA, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Hernandez and Jones
NOES: Gibbons and Rocha
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2003 Page 34
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions:
· Advised that Council authorize the call for bids for street improvement projects on Midway
and Westmont and approved in concept the Expressway Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:27 a.m. to the next Regular Public Hearing
on May 27, 2003, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California.
SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Rec6?~ Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Joseph ~
Hernandez, Chair
~etarY~