Loading...
PC Min 04/09/1985PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES APRIL 9, 1985 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks; Planning Director A. A. Ree, Principal Planner P. J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Toshach, Christ - None. That the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1985 be approved, with the following amendment: Page. 4 - Motion adopting Resolution No. 2325 approving UP 85-02 - strike the words "in their room's". ' Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Dickson abstaining due to absence from that meeting. Chairman Fairbanks announced that she would be abstaining on Item No. 17, a request from EIKON Group, due to a possible conflict of interest. M/S: Christ, Dickson - That Commissioner Kasolas be Acting '' Vice-Chairman until the Commission deals with^its policy on rotation. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ,. ,. Chairman Fairbanks noted that Commissioner Dickson has offered to work with the Planning Director to come up with guidelines for the rotation of Chairman. -2- COMMUNICATIONS -- Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 85-OS Application of Mr. Darrell Berg for Berg, D. approval of plans and elevations to allow construction of an office addition on property known as 1262 & 1276 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee.- The Committee is recommending approval with the addition of Condition No. 16, and with the condition that the street numbers be added to the existing sign. Mr. Kee indicated that Staff is also recommending approval. M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission approve ° S 85-05, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet with the addition of Condition No. 16 to read: Applicant to submit a letter indicating that the maintenance of the wood fencing along the perimeter of this project is his, or subsequent owners, responsibility. The existing fence must be in good condition as approved by the Planning Director.; and, subject to the addition of the street numbers being added to the existing sign. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ..: ,. S 85-06 Application of Mr. J. C. LaGuisa for LaGuisa, J. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an 11-unit apartment complex on property known as 3645 S. Bascom Ave. in an R-3-S (Multiple Family ResidentiaY)~'Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a ~_ continuance in order that revised plans may be submitted. -3- M/S: Perrine, Christ - That S 85-06 be continued to the " Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1985 in order that revised plans may be submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). • ,r MM 85-07 Application of Mr. Kenneth Sternberg for Sternberg, K. a modification to approved plans to allow an addition to an existing restaurant (Remington's) on property known as 1730 W. Campbell Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. In that the drawings were incomplete, the applicant is requesting a continuance in order to submit more accurate and detailed drawings. The Committee is recommending a continuance to May 14, 1985. - ------------ M/S: Christ, Perrine - That MM 85-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . It was the consensus of the Commission that several of the items under the "Miscellaneous" section of this evening's agenda be considered at this time. Residential Addition Residential Addition in Interim Zone - Mr. Tom Taylor - 580 Emory Ave. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending approval on this addition as presented. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the residential addition at 580 Emory Ave. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). -4- Residential Addition Residential Addition in Interim Zone - Mr. Paul Zenti - 963 Old Orchard Rd. ~~ Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending approval on this addition as presented. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the residential addition at 963 Old Orchard Rd. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). MM 85-10 Application for consideration of the SA 85-15 Chamber of Commerce and the Game Table Chamber of Commerce for approval of elevations to allow a refacing of an existing building located on property known as 326 & 328 E. Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he would be abstaining from the discussion on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance in order that revised plans might be submitted. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That MM 85-10/SA 85-15 be continued to `~ the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985 in order that revised plans might be submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Kasolas abstaining. SA 85-17 Continued sign application - Citti ' Florist - 990 E. Hamilton Ave. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That SA 85-17 be denied without ` prejudice,`'at the applicant's request, in order that it be removed from the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). * : It was the consensus of the Commission to discussion Item Nos. 14, 17, and 18 later in the meeting. * # -5- SA 84-19 Sign application - Tire Market, Inc. - 960 Dell Ave. ' Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next regular meeting. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - UP 83-06 That SA 84-19 be continued at the request of"the applicant to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). t * : One year review - 570 E. Hamilton Ave. Mr. Kee reported that the current use has been on this site for one year now, consequently this review. The Police Department has indicated that there have been no problems reported with the sale of beer and wine at this location; therefore, Staff recommends that this report be noted and filed. Commissioner Christ noted that the approval did not limit the hours that beer and wine could be sold. Mr. Kee indicated that the hours of sale for this site would fall under the State law. M/S: Christ, Kasolas - That this one year review be noted and filed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ,r ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 85-02 Continued public hearing to consider the Navai; K, application of Mr. Kamil Navai for a Planned Development Permit and approval ~~ plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of two townhomes on property known as 96 S. Third St. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff has received a communication from the applicant requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item, noting that it would be continued. -6- M/S: Toshach, Christ - That PD 85-02 be continued to the ~' Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). * * w IIP 85-03 Public hearing to consider the applica- Lee, M. tion of Ms. Myunk Sik Lee for a use permit to allow the establishment of an oriental-style billiards room on property"known as 2079 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Ree reviewed this application, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the use as proposed should not create a disturbance or be detrimental to persons working or residing in the area. With the conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Kasolas asked about Condition No. 2, noting that he would----~------- assume that a change to American style billiards would require a separate and new use permit. Mr. Kee responded that this is the intent. Commissioner Dickson asked about Condition No. 8, asked if there is an environment present with this use that lends itself to restricting the age group. Commissioner Dickson added that he has a problem with this condition in that he is sorry to see a restriction on the age for this use. Mr. Kee indicated that this condition has its origin from the applicant's statement, also attached to the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Christ asked about the hours of operation, noting that the applicant has requested to stay open until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Kee responded that Staff is recommending the operation stay open no later than 12:00 midnight, thereby restricting the number of vehicles around the project in the early morning hours. Mrs. Anne Casey, property owner on Michael Drive, spoke against this use, noting that the proposed billiard center is only a few feet from her back yard, with bedroom windows facing the proposed use. She felt that there would be a noise problem. Mr. Ferrari, owner of 960 & 962 Michael Drive, also spoke against this use, citing the same potential problems as Mrs. Casey. Mrs. Myunk Sik Lee, applicant, responded to questions and concerns, noting that you could not see into the bedrooms of the apartments from the -~- commercial building; there will be no beer and wine, therefore no drunks; the use is located in the center of the building and is over 50 feet from the nearest building; the age is restricted to those over 18 because people under that age do not know how to play the oriental-style billiards. ' M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the public hearing on UP 85-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). M/S: Kasolas, Toshach - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2326 approving UP 85-03, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: None. EIR 84-04 Continued public hearing to consider Prometheus Dev. Co. the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for an office hotel complex which is proposed to be located at 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Mr. Kee indicated that responses to questions from the last hearing are included in the Commission's packet, and representatives from Ruth & Going and Barton-Aschmann are present to answer questions. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry DeYoung, representing Ruth & Going, noted that he would respond to specific questions as necessary throughout the discussion. In response to a question from Commissioner Toshach, Mr. Kee indicated that the responses available this evening would be added to the original EIR document, making it one document under consideration. Mr. Ray Clarke, 325 April Way, asked that the effect of this project on the residents of the mobilehome park be kept in mind in the decision-making process. Additionally, Mr. Clarke commented on the Cal-Trans action on the off-ramp alignment; the bridge across Los Gatos -8- Creek to Campisi Way; and the office structures and the hotel complex. He recommended that the office structures be limited to four stories with a total of 250,000 sq.ft.; and, that the hotel structure be reduced to 175 rooms. (A copy of Mr. Clarke's comments are attached hereto.) Ms. Laura Rollin, 131 Circle Dr., stated that people should not be moved out of the mobilehome park until the Cal-Trans issue is settled; the EIR did not address the newly-constructed office building across the street from this project (old Martin Oil property) from a traffic standpoint; and the land stability relating to earthquakes. Mr. Jeff Damon, Barton-Aschmann, noted that the project across the street from the site was specifically included in the report, as well as a 1.5$ ,w growth factor. Mr. DeYoung indicated that Cal-Trans generally looks at proposals but doesn't respond until it is clear on the City's reaction to the proposal. Usually a developer has a qualified traffic engineer who indicates to him whether or not a proposal is feasible. Mr. DeYoung noted that Cal-Trans approval is a condition of approval. Regarding the geology of the'°site, prior to issuance of a building permit, soils reports and specific site reports will be required by the Building Official. Generally, every building is subject to shaking during an earthquake; and, unless they are incorrectly designed, the chances of them falling down are minimal. This issue is mitigated under the Uniform Building Code. No one from the audience wished to speak further. M/S: Christ, Dickson - AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: That the public hearing on EIR 84-04 be closed. Motion carried with the `° following roll call vote: Rasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks None None. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt « Resolution No. 2327 recommending that the City Council certify the Draft EIR 84-04 as complete, pursuant to Section 15085 (G) of the State EIR Guidelines; and that comments from this meeting be made a part of that report. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -9- PD 84-06 Continued public hearing to consider Prometheus Dev. Co, the application of Mr. Thomas Fleischli, on behalf of "900 E. Hamilton Ave., A General Partnership", for approval of a Planned Development Permit, approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of two 6-story office buildings, and a 250-room hotel complex on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that it was the consensus of the Site and Architectural Review Committee that this item should come before the Commission without a recommendation. Recommendations from the Architectural Advisor are included in the Staff Comment Sheet. A presentation of the project will be made by the architectural firm of Heller & Leake. Commissioner Dickson asked why this project is different from the previous project which was the subject of a referendum last year. Mr. Kee indicated that from Staff's point of view, this project is essentially different for the following reasons: access is different; the use is different in that it is a mixed use; height and the on-site circulation is different. ' Mr. Seligmann noted that essentially from a legal point of view, determining the difference is left up to the City agency. About the only delineating cases which determine that it is not a different project are those which have an addition on top of the original project. Commissioner Dickson stated that the issues raised in the referendum were traffic and density. He felt that this project may be a higher density and that there is not much difference in the traffic situation. Commissioner Dickson stated that he was quite concerned that this was not a new project.. Mr. Seligmann added that the law is very clear that each project must be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that it is up to the Commission to determine if a project is essentially different from a previous proposal. There was brief discussion on the differences between PD 84-06 and the previous project on this site; phasing; and the legal aspects of determining if this is a different project. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission find that the. project before use, PD 84-06, is substantially and factually different than the proposal defeated on the referendum. -10- K Discussion of Motion Chainaan Fairbanks felt that Staff would not have accepted the application if it was not different from the previous proposal. Commissioner Dickson indicated that if the Commission is uncomfortable with the issue of whether or not this is a different project, perhaps the item could be continued in order to ask the City Council for a ruling. Commissioner Dickson felt that the motion was out of order without some findings, and he was opposed to the motion in that he did not see any clear evidence before the Commission that illustrates that this is a substantially different project. Mr. Seligmann indicated that Commissioner Dickson is correct--that there will have to be findings in order to validate the motion. Withdrawal of Motion Commissioner Perrine withdrew his second of the motion; and, Commissioner Kasolas withdrew his motion. Discussion Responding to a question from Commissioner Toshach regarding appropriate action should the Commission not find this project different from the previous project, Mr. Seligmann indicated that the Commission would have to recommend that the item be removed from the agenda. However, there would also have to be factual basis for this recommendation. Motion M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission find that PD 84-06, based on prima facie facts, namely essentially different roadway/access, essentially different use, essentially different height, - essentially different traffic, and essentially different density, is a different project than the previous proposal and wishes to move forward. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Dickson felt that it has not been demonstrated that this project is essentially different from the previous proposal; and, that the density is heavier. The traffic is a toss-up, with only a little help being provided with some of the mitigations. Commissioner Toshach felt that it was not essentially different. He continued that he thought the whole point of the referendum was a determination of adverse impact as seen by the citizenry. Commissioner -__ -11- Toshach continued that he believed that this project, as proposed, would have essentially an identical impact on the community. In fact, it may be ~_._ somewhat worse. The essential element is adverse impact on the community, and that is the reason why it is the same project. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she would be speaking in favor of the motion in that she felt the City would not have accepted the application if it were not essentially different. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Toshach, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Commissioners Dickson and Toshach stated, for the record, that they received telephone calls from Mr. Fleischli asking their opinion of the project. Commissioner Dickson noted that he responded with what things he would be generally looking at on the project. Commissioner Toshach indicated he essentially responded the same. Commissioner Kasolas indicated that he also received a telephone call, however, he did not return it. Commissioners Perrine and Christ indicated they did not receive calls. Mr. Tom Fleischli introduced the project, noting that there is a new project team, a new designer, and a new traffic engineer; and community input has been received in the design of the project. The use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning of the City. There are extraordinary costs involved with this project--site specific, traffic improvements, and relocation. The design has a"lower profile with underground parking. Since it does not abut a residential area, it would seem that a marginally higher density should be allowable. The mixed use also provides some benefits in utilizing the site--providing shared parking which allows for a greenbelt area (available to the community), and needed conference and restaurant facilities which will also be available to the community. The Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Jeffery Heller, Heller & Leake Architects, spoke at length regarding the project design; the mixed use and its relation to the traffic situation; the visible skyline of the development; the access to the site; the building materials, and the phasing. More specifically, Mr. Heller reported that studies show this type of mixed use will probably end up -12- with approximately 1300 cars at build-out, and they will not all be coming and going at peak commute hours. The hotel structure will .only be 50' in height. The project will no longer have a substantial visible skyline. This presented scheme has a major roadway with an interspaced greenbelt. The glass being used has a relatively small percentage of reflectivity, thereby eliminating most of the glare on the surrounding environment. Regarding the phasing of the project, Mr. Heller explained that if Phase II were not to be built, the result would be a lot of green space. Phase II is the hotel and this type of use is very complimentary to the office uses. Parking for Phase II is all to code, with a whole parking level under Phase I building. Also, the parking can be adjusted according to demand once determined during Phase II. Commissioner Toshach asked about the possibility of glare on traffic on Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Heller indicated that there conceivably might be one week a year when the sun will hit the northeast face of the building in the very early morning. . Mr. Fleischli noted that the traffic improvements have been reviewed for the uses proposed, and they are expected to work. He continued that the density of the project is critical because of the extraordinary factors indicated earlier. The benefits of this project would be jobs, needs for goods and services, and tax increments for the redevelopment area. Mr. Fleischli conveyed that Prometheus remains steadfast in its committment to bring a quality project to the City of Campbell. Commissioner Christ reported that when this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee, the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed location of the bus drop-off, the location of the handicapped parking, parking ratios, open space and its access, underground parking and the location of the handicapped spaces in the underground parking. The Committee is in favor of the building design, and is recommending approval. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the project phasing, and time frames. Mr. Kee indicated-that the entire project is before the Commission at this time. The development schedule indicates that construction will begin June-December 1985, and completion is anticipated June-December 1989. Responding to a question from Commissioner Toshach regarding pedestrian walkway on Hamilton Avenue from Salmar to Bascom, Commissioner Christ indicated that the walkway will basically remain the same. Mr. Helms noted that the design has not been done yet. However, it is anticipated that there will be free-flowing right turns in the area; and, if this is the case, there would be porkchop islands provided for pedestrians. -13- Commissioner Kasolas noted that with the development schedule as indicated, the Commission would be approving something for more than one ___ year. He asked if the existing landscaping along Hamilton Avenue will remain, or be torn out. If it is torn-out, will mature landscaping replace it. What affect the removal of the large trees for the street will have on the shading and glare of the building. Mr. Kee responded that since this application is a PD (Planned Development) the development schedule is approved by the Council as part of the application. The conditions of approval require that the landscaping come back to the Commission. Mr. Fleischli noted that some of the large trees will have to be removed to install the new street; however, if the Commission wishes, these trees can be replaced with relatively mature trees. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the width of the proposed street between Campisi and the Los Gatos Creek. Mr. Helms indicated that it is anticipated that this street will accommodate one lane each way, perhaps with a turning lane. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it did not make good sense to go from a major arterial down to a residential width street. Additionally, he asked about the parking ratio--why 1,500 spaces when it has been stated by the architect that there wild only be about 1300 cars. --- Mr. Heller responded that it was Staff's request that the development be provided with .parking according to code, in case the 1,300 cars goes upward. The plan provides for flexibility, with the test actually made once the buildings are in place. Commissioner Dickson asked about the percentage of landscaping being provided. Mr. Kee indicated the following percentages for site coverage: Office footprint: 63,394 sq.ft.(9.9$); hotel footprint: 36,015 , sq.ft.(5.5$); PG&E storage: 32,220 sq.ft.(5.1$); parking & access road: 254,240 sq.ft(39.8$); landscaping-252,720 sq.ft.(39.6$). Chairman Fairbanks expressed a concern about the parking structure elevations. Mr. Fleischli explained that the parking structure will be constructed of pre-cast concrete next to the hotel with a "deck" look. The structure in the'center of the development will also be of pre-cast concrete and will be consistent with the design of the office buildings and the hotel. Deck height is 10-12 feet. -14- Mr. Kee noted that parking structure elevations, and parking ratios are addressed in conditions of approval nos. 1 & 22. Chairman Fairbanks asked about the concern expressed by the Architectural Advisor regarding the color of the executive suites and the roofing materials. Mr. Heller responded that it was agreed that the color and the design of the roof is open for discussion. In that people will be looking down from the hotel onto these roofs, it is felt that they should be attractive. The suites are situated to provide a border and screen the PG&E station. Commissioner Christ indicated that it was his understanding that the _~ Architectural Advisor questioned the incompleteness of two of the presented drawings as they pertain to the executive suites, and the explanation was because of the flexibility of the parking garage. Mr. Heller presented samples of the building materials, noting that it is the intention to bring a granite element into the design to break up the panel effect. Commissioner Christ asked for comment from the Public Works Department on the traffic flow. Mr. Helms noted that this project has a different circulation pattern than the previous project. The previous project included a tunnel under Hamilton and a cloverleaf provided access to Hamilton, which prevented conflicting movements on Hamilton Avenue. This is not the case with the present proposal, thereby providing an addition to the congestion of the intersection. The key is really signalization, rather than a tunnel. The linked signal system should provide some benefit to the system because of the overall interconnect. The type of information available doesn't really accurately reflect interconnections, so it is difficult to quantify. Also, additional left turn lanes should help the interconnect system work more smoothly. Commissioner Rasolas asked what the average number of vehicles per living unit is, and if the number of trips at the mobilehome park was included in the traffic studies. Mr. Helms indicated that generally for single family housing there are 7-10 trips per day. Studies done some time ago for the mobilehome park indicated an extremely low trip generation. Mr. Damon stated that the trip generations from the mobilehome park were counted about a year ago, the result being about 25 trips per day. This is included in the traffic calculations in the EIR; however, it doesn't make much difference in the total picture. Chairman Fairbanks asked about the greenbelt area; and, if the plans will _i_ be reviewed by the Los Gatos Creekside Committee. -15- Mr. Fleischli noted that plans are to take maximum advantage of the area along the creek by providing a rest area, bicycles racks, and lunch area to be used by the community and the people working in the development. Mr. Kee indicated that Condition No. 21 provides for plan review by affected jurisdictions, including the Creekside Committee. Mr. Chuck Williamson, Chairman of Hamilton Mobile Homeowner's Association, stated that this project has 25 conditions of approval, none of which deal with the relocation of the residents of the park. He continued that it is important that the use permit be conditioned on the satisfactory relocation because the mobilehome residency law permits the owner of a piece of property to evict residents six months after a permit is issued. The park residents propose that Condition No. 1 be split to include a Condition No. lb requiring that all relocation mandated by the process be completed prior to the application for a building permit.. Mr. Kee stated that this point is well-taken, and it would be a matter of including such a statement in the condition. Commissioner Kasolas thought that there is a City Council policy that ahl------ items be considered as one item--one contingent on another and all tied together. "" Mr. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Ave., spoke regarding the Cal-Trans condition and the off-ramp treatment, noting that the traffic pattern in the project seems to have changed for the better which makes the off-ramp treatment a key attraction to this new project. He continued that it seems critical that before this project begins, that the Cal-Trans approval be concluded--and, if it isn't, a lot of time anc~ effort has been wasted--it would jeopardize the entire project. Mr. Hebard added that if this off-ramp treatment were not approved, one could be reasonably assured that this project would be challenged as not being essentially different. Mr. Hebard continued that he is in agreement with Mr. Williamson regarding Condition No. 1, and that the wording should include the Site and Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council--particularly if it's going to include relocation. As a member of the Los Gatos Creekside Committee, Mr. Hebard commented that it is nice to see things start to happen, and he would like assurances from the Public Works Department that a bicycle and hiking path is staked out in their designs. Additionally, it is hoped that the bridge crossing the creek will be designed wide enough to accommodate future traffic so that the bicycle lane is not used up at a later date for ~- traffic. Mr. Helms responded that it is Staff's intent that this section of the bicycle path be constructed to the balance of the pathway along the creek _. and consistent with the State of California standards for bike paths. -16- Mrs. Garnetta Annabelle, representing Cambrian Village Homeowner's Association, stated again that they do not see this project as being any different from the last project, and requested that the Commission deny the application. She noted that the Association recognizes the enhancements to the City, but there are concerns about the traffic. Mrs. Annabelle felt that putting a two-lane street across the bridge would not help matters any. ±~ Ms. Denise Rollin, 131 Circle Dr., asked if the indicated development schedule would mean that there would be construction vehicles in the area for four years. Mr. Fleischli responded that one advantage of having such a large site would be that they will be able to store construction vehicles and materials on.;.the.site, minimizing the impact on the community. Mrs. Esther Arnold stated that she would like to know what is going to happen to her--and she would like to know now. Mrs. Arnold noted that the park residents'ahave been worrying about this situation for four years now. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, asked if the presented buiding profile included the equipment on the top of the buildings. Mr. Heller responded that there will be a minimal amount of roof structures, approximately 15 feet. Mr. Reid felt that 15 feet more on top of the building would be a lot. Mr. Fleischli spoke regarding the conditions of approval as follows: Condition No. 1 - he agreed with Mr. Williamson. Condition Nos. 17 & 18 - he was uncertain as to vertical clearance for driveway and underground parking structure, and would ask that they have a chance to work with the Fire Dept. to determine appropriate height. Also, they have found that sprinklering subterranean parking structures can be a problem, particularly with the mixture of water and gasoline, and would like the opportunity to talk with the Fire Dept. and the Building Dept. regarding this condition. Condition No. 19 - he believed it has been determined by the Building Department that this 'should be a Type II fire rating. Condition No. 25 (C) - it is his understanding that the EIR essentially says that this is not a necessary improvement and, given the volumes and configurations, that a signal at that intersection is not appropriate. Condition No. 25 (F) - not sure that is a necessary improvement--the EIR only goes to Salmar.' " Condition No. 25 (G) - concerned about the impact of this project on that intersection. The projected flows in the EIR talk about 34 cars traveling eastbound at the p.m. peak, and 107 westbound--given that relatively small contribution to the volumes, should that improvement be a condition of approval. -17- Condition No. 25 (I) - again, as the volumes read in the EIR, the proposed volumes of this project would be 21 cars, or l+t. Is it appropriate that we provide an additional lane for 21 cars. Commissioners Kasola stated an assumption that the response package was available to the applicant earlier; and, he found it unusual to be going back to the conditions when other departments are not in attendance. He suggested that the matter be continued if conditions are being questioned. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he did not feel comfortable making a decision with these questions unanswered. He wanted some information from the various departments, in that he felt there were some legitimate questions that needed answering. Mr. Ree stated that Staff's recommendations are based upon the presented conditions of approval; and, as far as making changes to those conditions at this point, Staff will not be doing so. Mr. Helms explained that regarding Condition No. 25(c), it is Staff's position that this is warranted by the City's guidelines and would be appropriate. Regarding the interconnect system along Hamilton, Staff feels there are advantages to extending the interconnect to Winchester Blvd. Regarding Condition No. 25(G), Staff is of the opinion that this will provide additional efficiency at Hamilton/Winchester, and should be provided. Regarding limited impact on intersection, the EIR states that the impact exceeds the minimal guidelines established by the City. The same guidelines extend to Hamilton/Leigh and mitigation would be required. --- Mr. Fleischli stated that he thought the conditions could be worked out in informal discussion and he did not feel that they were critical as to the merits of the discussion. He continued that he would like to see the application move on, and would be willing to proceed with the conditions with an opportunity to discuss them informally and to have an opportunity through the planning process to review them. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the public hearing on PD 84-06 be ~" closed. Motion carried with the` following roll call vote: AYES:' -Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Commissioner Perrine noted that he would like to have some clearer information regarding the Cal-Trans issue; language regarding the greenbelt area; and, the addition of a condition addressing the relocation issue. -18- Mr. Helms spoke regarding Condition No. 24, noting that it would be necessary to obtain approval from Cal-Trans and Southern Pacific and the Public Utilities Commission for the realignment of the off-ramp and the new intersection prior to the time that the development would receive an occupancy permit for Phase I. Staff's recommendation is that all other conditions of Public Works be required prior to occupancy. Staff would have no problem with holding issuing of the building permit until this .issue was taken care of. Mr. Kee indicated that the greenbelt area is addressed under Condition Nos. 3 & 21. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt a '~ resolution recommending that the City Council approve PD 84-06, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet; redlining of plans; the approval of Cal-Trans prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase I (Condition No. 24) ; and the addition of- ~---- "---- Condition No. 1(A) to read as follows: All relocation conditions as may be required by the City Council shall be met prior to application of a building _ permit. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Kasolas asked if this project could possibly get all built out without approval of the Cal-Trans item. Mr. Helms stated that it would seem unlikely. To address this concern, Staff has no problem with the approval of Cal-Trans being required prior to issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he has difficulty with the project. He felt that all the questions were not answered in the EIR. What assurances ~. do we have that all phases will be built? He sees problems with Campisi Way. Commissioner Kasolas asked. the Commission for discussion as to why they felt the project should be approved. Commissioner Christ stated that he has strong concerns about the traffic, even though the reports indicate there is really only one intersection -19- - which will be losing ground. There is no way to mitigate Hamilton/Bascom. He felt that the traffic is not from this City but rather from a ____ living/working condition in the County; and, those things will be changing. Commissioner Christ continued that he felt the project design really adds a lot to the City that the last project didn't; and, the - financial rewards are secondary. He felt that in the long run, the development leans towards the positive in benefits to the City with its design and uses. Commissioner Perrine agreed that trade-offs have been made, and this has been done through a community negotiation process. He felt that the emotional well-being of the mobilehome residents needs to be taken care of. Commissioner Perrine added that the road improvements surrounding the project will be of benefit to the City. Commissioner Dickson felt that the traffic situation is not noticeably improved. There has been an improvement in the silhouette; however, the density has not been improved. There are parking structures all over the project, and too much loaded onto the site. He felt that the project should be lightened up and there should be fewer parking structures. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Toshach, Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: None. The Commission recessed at 11:40 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 11:50 p.m. Chairman Fairbanks asked for discussion from the Commission on concerns about this project that might be able to be solved so that the project could be forwarded to Council with a recommendation. '~ Commissioner Dickson wondered if there is any way the developer could lighten up the project by perhaps removing a couple of stories. This would also help traffic. Commissioner Toshach stated that there were a number of issues raised and ample opportunity, in terms of time and study, to address those issues. And, as far as Commissioner Toshach is concerned, the issues that were raised were, in some cases, touched on very superficially, leaving him in a position of not knowing what the impact of the project will be. Commissioner Toshach cited the issue of glare/reflectivity, noting that the report spoke to a degree of reflectivity; however, there was no way of knowing what that meant. It could have been addressed, but was not. This evening the architect was able to demonstrate that the glass was no problem at all. -20- Commissioner Toshach continued that the comments given about assumptions were what he considers a complete "wave-off". A simple request of what are the assumptions that the study made; and what was the basis for these assumptions, was not answered. The assumptions were not identified, leaving him in a position of not understanding the impact of how this project affects the community. He concluded that if the answers were of such a fashion that they could provide meaningful information for making a knowledgeable decision, and if the answers were favorable to the project with respect to the community, that would sway him. Commissioner Kasolas thought that the project, as presented, is exciting. His concerns, basically, are the phasing--will they be built? He expressed concern about the off-ramp, where people coming off the freeway have to go into a secondary street before they can get to an arterial (ie. San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek). Additionally, he is concerned about making Campisi Way a by-pass. Commissioner Kasolas continued that everyone is aware of the responsibility to the tenants of the park, but there is also a responsibility to the community. He stated that he would like to see the matter forwarded to the Council so that the final decision could be made there. He has no problems with the footprint of the building, or the design--but is concerned with the off-ramp. He felt that the off-ramp would not work. He is pleased with the mixed use, and pleased`with the reduction in traffic--however, there is still more congestion at Hamilton/Bascom. ' Commissioner Christ disagreed with sending the matter to Council, noting that if it is not ready to be passed by the Planning Commission, then it is not ready for the City Council. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he is also concerned with addressing the conditions, and perhaps the public. hearing should be re-opened, with the consent of the applicant. Commissioner Toshach added that, with respect to the appearance of the project, he felt the design was an exciting prospect. It's the matter of not having the necessary information in the form that it's needed that is his only concern. Chairman Fairbanks stated that she would like to the see Commission work with these concerns, and felt it would be appropriate to re-open the public hearing. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the public hearing on PD 84-06 be re-opened in order that issues raised might be discussed. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -21- M/S: Christ, Perrine - That PD 84-06 be continued to the ` Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985, with the consent of the applicant. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Conversion Impact Report Continued public hearing to consider a report on the conversion impact and relocation assistance upon displaced residents of mobilehome park located at 920 E. Hamilton Ave. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing on this issue, noting that because of the connection to PD 84-06, it would be continued. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the public hearing on the Conversion Impact Report be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. MISCELLANEODS SA 85-13 Continued sign application - Apple Computer - 600 E. Hamilton Ave. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. With the changes as discussed, the Site Committee is recommending approval as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Christ explained that the majority of the signage is directional and necessary for the truck traffic to the site. It was felt that the Apple logos on all the signs were, in fact, advertising, which is why they were reduced in size to 4 inches. The Committee is also of the opinion that it is improper to have the logo. on the interior site signs. -22- Commissioner Perrine noted that if the logo was not on the signs, this would greatly reduce the number of signs before us, in that they would be considered directional signs and not require approval. Commissioner Christ further explained that the Committee discussed at length the importance of directing deliveries to the right docks, in that a mistake could mean the trucks would have to go around the block again, thereby impacting the Hamilton/Salmar area. Commissioner Kasolas questioned the necessity of the logo on all the signage, noting that he fails to see why so much signage is needed for a warehouse. Commissioner Dickson indicated that he had never seen so many signs on a site,. including a painted wall which is a sign. He felt that the entire sign program for this site should be reviewed, that there were too many signs. Mr. Mark Pettibone, Street Graphics, reported that there is about 130 sq.ft. of total sign area; and, the Apple logo is the only identifying sign on the buildings. The signs are primarily identification signs, and used to get trucks in and out of the site. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission approve sign #1 and #5, as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried with a vote of 5-1-0, with Commissioner Christ voting "no": Commissioner Christ noted again that because of traffic concerns, he felt it was important to have the Apple logo on signs indicating ingress/egress. Commissioner Kasolas stated that if a problem is created, there is nothing to stop the applicant from coming back to the Commission. * * • Request Request of Mr. Jack Hokanson, EIKON Group - intended use - 1885 S. Winchester Blvd. M/S: Dickson, Christ That due to the lateness of the hour, this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . ~ a -23- Staff Report M/S: Dickson, Christ - M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - Staff report on building heights. That due to the lateness of the hour, this report be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary COtdDITIO*:S OF APPP.OVAL: S 85-05 APPLICANT: Berg, D. SITE ADDP,ESS: 1262 & 1276 E. Hamilton Ave. P.C. PSTG. April 9, 1985 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to application for a building permit. 3. Masonry wall plan indicating location and design details of wall to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $1,000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, .and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 5. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 6. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: 7.655 sq.ft. of office use. 7. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 8. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 9. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 10. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. S 85-05 1262 & 1276 E. Hamilton Ave. Page 2. ITEM N0. 1 R E V I S E D 11. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial,. business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 12. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 13. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORMS DEPARTMENT 14. File and process a parcel map to combine the two lots. 15. Parking space No. 33 is not permitted in street right-of -way. BUILDItdG DEPARTb1Et~T No comment . FIRE DEPARTP2Et7T No comment . PLAtndING DEPARTMENT 16. Applicant to submit a letter indicating that the maintenance of the wood Q~(i~ fencing along the perimeter of this project is his, or subsequent owners, ~Q responsibility. The existing fence must be in good condition as approved by the Planning Director. A~~.~ ~ ~ l~ i ~~t ~' , J ., C. ,~ b ~ ti ~..~o~r'o!~~,;~)ANII.TQN ~r°'~rrrre~nor~~{v ~.. 4 c~ a ~.r ~.~ ~ :. . .. ~_- ~. ;., * w _.~~~'_ M~ I f~ ____ ~, ~ Y •_ • ol~ • ~~s -~ r R ~4 ~ / I t ~ ,~ P ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I S S ! _ W '~ f R ~ R J f ~r t' ' j ' r ~ .®~ ~ ~ ~~R- r -- ,.~.. s 1 ~_ : .~ ..a i T R ~'t ; i r i T R _ , t i6 ~ q~i ~~ r~ i.~unoc~ ~ RAYMOND CLARK 325 APRIL WAY CAMPBELL. CA 95008 April 9, 1985 e COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CALTRANS ACTION ON THE OFF-RAMP REALIGNMENT. - In as much as the analysis, planning and scheduling of this item is essential before issuance of final approval of the project, would it not be appropriate for this part of the project be completed and made part of the approved EIR? (Questions 5 and 11) (R&G and B-AAssoc) Response to Comments. • COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE BRIDGE ACROSS LOS GATOS CREEK TO CAMPISI WAY. It appears that analysis, planning and scheduling is essential before issuance of final approval of the project. Would it not be appropriate for this item to be completed as part of the approved EIR? It seems to me that the type, length, capacity, abutment to abutment identification and the like should be determined and approved as part of the EIR. RAYMOND CLARK 325 APR1l WAY CAMPBELL, CA 95008 April 9, 1985 . COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE OFFICE STRUCTURES AND THE HOTEL COMPLEX - PROMETHEUS PROJECT During June of last year, the community went through a referendum. One of the objections that caused that referendum was the high rise and density of the development. The total square footage of that proposal was 485,000. Naturally, we do not want to participate in another referendum.. The-new Prometheus proposal contains 350,000 square feet of office structures, up to six stories each, in two story increments. The proposed hotel structure contains five stories, in two story increments. It is planned to accommodate 232 rooms, 9600 square feet of restaurant and a conference room for 150 people. There is no indication in the DEIR about the total .square footage for the hotel structure. Using a rough estimate of 500 square feet per room times the 232 rooms we come up with a rough estimate of about 116,000 square feet for the hotel structure. To the hotel complex we add 18 or more executive suites, three level structures. Additionally, it is planned to construct a parking garage (2 levels above grade) Once again, we have office structures with 350,000 square feet and the hotel structure with 116,000 square feet which total approximately to 466,000 square feet; plus the square footage for the 18 (or more) executive suites and the parking garage (2 levels above grade:'). THIS APPEARS TO ME TO AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 14 PLUS ACRES. It is respectfully recommended that The office structures, with the two story increments, be built to four stories. They should be limited to 125,000 square feet each with a total of 250,000 square feet for both structures. The hotel structure should be reduced from 232 rooms to 175 rooms. At the estimated 500 square feet per room the hotel structure would -- be reduced to about 90,000 square feet.