Loading...
PC Min 04/27/1982PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES APRIL 27, 1982 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Fairbanks, Campos, Meyer; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster (8:10), Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Kotowski APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 13, 1982 Commissioner Howard moved, and Commissioner Campos seconded, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1982 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Meyer announced to the audience that there would be a change in the order of items on the agenda, with Items 1 through 4 on the Consent Calendar taken first, followed by Items 7, 8, and 9 in the Public Hearings portion, followed by Items 5 and 6, then 10 and 11. CONSENT CALENDAR S 80-17 Request of Mr. Karl Kamber for a reinstatement of Kamber, K, previously approved plans and elevations to construct an industrial building on property known as 800 Cam- den Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial/Industrial) Zoning District. S 77-14 Continued request of Dr. Mark S. Madden, DVM, for a Madden, M. reinstatement of previously approved plans to allow the construction of an addition to the Bascom Ani- mal Hospital which is located on property known as 2175 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. PD 81-03 Request of Mr. R. M. Kadjevich for a reinstatement of Kadjevich, R. previously approved plans to allow the construction of a 10-unit townhome project on property known as 115 & 139 Dot Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. -2- ZC 80-15 Request of Mr. Jere LaGuisa, on behalf of Mr. LaGuisa, J. Stephen D'Arrigo III, for a reinstatement of previously approved plans and development schedule allowing the construction of 12 condominium units on property known as 950 & 962 Apricot Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ High Density Residential) Zoning District. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Consent Calendar be approved as per Staff recommendations on each item. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 82-05 Continued public hearing to consider the application Brown, uJ. of Mr. Warren Brown for a use permit to allow a 400 square foot living unit in a building approved for industrial use on property known as 1075 Florence 4Jay in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Chairman P~eyer declared the public hearing open, and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak at this time, Commissioner Fairbanks moved, and Commissioner Kasolas seconded, that UP 82-05 be continued to the meeting of Play 11, 1982 as per the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). *** UP 82-06 Continued public hearing to consider the application Greenfelder, J. of Mr. J. D. Greenfelder on behalf of Atlantic Rich- field Company for a use permit to allow the conver- sion of the service bays of a gasoline station to a 24-hour mini-market while retaining the service islands for gasoline sales and to allow off-sale beer and wine sales on property known as 2015 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-3-S (Central Business District/Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman ~~eyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak, Commissioner Kasolas moved, and Commissioner Dickson seconded, that UP 82-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1982, as per the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). *** UP 82-04 Continued public hearing to consider the application Russo, J. of Per. Joseph Russo fora use permit to allow the establishment of a private club and the construction of an accessory building on property known as 175 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. -3- Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that UP 82-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1982 in order that the applicant may submit revised plans. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~** EIR 81-2 Public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Prometheus Development Impact Report which has been prepared for the pro- ject known as Hamilton Avenue Office Complex located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue (southeast corner of High- way 17 and Hamilton Avenue). Mr. Kee reviewed this item for the Commission reporting that the applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with approximately 460,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project consists of 3 six-story office towers and a parking structure. Areas of surface parking lots and landscaping are also proposed. Once the application for this project was filed, an initial study was completed to determine the potential impact that this development could have on the environment. Based on the initial study, the applicant was advised that an EIR would be required by the City of Campbell. Pursuant to the City's adopted guidelines for preparing EIR's, the Staff selected the firm of Earth Metrics, Inc. to prepare the Draft EIR. The applicant and the consultant were advised by Staff that the EIR should focus attention on the pro- ject's impact in relation to: (1) On-and-off-site traffic circulation; (2) Housing in the area; and (3) The job/housing balance in Campbell. In addition, several other areas of lesser concern were identified in order that they could also be covered in the EIR. At this point, Engineering Manager Helms presented an extensive report regarding traffic problems for this particular site. This report is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Kee noted that another area of significant potential impact that would result if this development were built is housing. The existing 136 mobile home spaces would be eliminated. Due to the very limited number of vacant mobile home spaces in the area, the residents of the park would either have to move to a park out of the area or move into another type of housing, such as an apartment or condominium/ townhouse unit. In addition, the age of most of the coaches in the Hamilton Avenue Mobile Home Park would preclude their relocation to most newer parks in the area. The State of California Government Code (Section 65863.7) requires that the person proposing the change of use shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be con- verted. After reviewing the report, the City may require, as a condition of such change, that the applicant take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate space in another mobile home park. It is the Staff's opinion that the applicant has indicated general areas where mobile homes spaces may be found, but has not indicated any proposal to miti- gate the adverse impact of the conversion on the residents. -4- It should be noted that a condition has been recommended as part of the project which would require approval of a relocation plan by the legislative body as provided for in Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code. The Draft EIR indicates that there could be 2,300 additional jobs created by this development. This figure does not include other jobs which may be gener- ated in the area as a result of this development. If a balance between jobs and housing is to be maintained in Campbell, there may be pressure to develop additional housing over and above that anticipated in the current General Plan of the City of Campbell. In summary, Mr. Kee stated that it is the Staff's opinion that the Draft EIR provides sufficient information to determine that the adverse effects of the project, as currently proposed, cannot be mitigated satisfactorily. As indicated in the traffic section of the Staff report, substantial revisions to the access to the project would be required for any mitigation effect to occur. With regard to housing, the EIR does indicate other general areas where mobile home spaces may exist, but specific mitigation measures to minimize the adverse impact on the residents are lacking. With regard to the jobs/housing balance, this project may cause additional pressures for additional housing in Campbell beyond the capacity called for in the current General Plan. Mr. Kee added that the Planning Department had received approximately 50 letters from concerned area residents speaking against the project. Some of these letters had been attached to the Staff Comment Sheet, and the remainder had been placed at each Commissioner's station this evening. These letters have been made a part of the file. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that it was her unstanding that part of her job this evening was to go over this EIR report and make a decision as to the report's completeness to the best of her knowledge. She asked Mr. Kee if this report is considered a "focused" report. Mr. Kee stated that it was Staff's opinion that the information received in the report was sufficient to come to a recommendation on the project as it is presented--not the way it may be changed or amended. On the basis of this information, Staff feels a recommendation of denial, is justifiable. Commissioner Campos noted that he wanted to make sure he understood that the consideration of the EIR is based on the project as it is presented at this time. Mr. Kee stated that this is the case. Commissioner Dickson noted for the record that he had been sent some infor- mational materials regarding this proposed project by the developers, prior to the public hearing being set. City Attorney Dempster entered the Council Chambers at 8:10 p.m. Chairman ~1eyer noted that it would be appropriate at this time for the Commission to determine a time frame in which to hear both sides, relating to this EIR. It was the consensus of the Commission that one-half hour would be allowed for each side on this item, and the same time frame would apply -5- when the Planned Development item was presented for public hearing. Chairman Meyer then asked the audience to select a representative speaker for each side, to limit points to those not already covered by another speaker, and to try to be brief. She then noted to the Planning Commission that they should consider this item strictly from a planning standpoint". Chairman P~leyer then declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Robert Wagner, Vice-President of Prometheus Development, appeared before the Commission to state that, based on the information gained at this morning's Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting, they will be presenting revised plans. These revised plans will mainly address the traffic problems and the access problems of the site. He noted that he would like the Commission to accept the EIR as complete; however, with the revisions planned, there may be changes to the EIR also. Mr. Wagner added that he will be requesting a con- tinuance of PD 81-13 which is to be considered later in tonight's meeting. Dr. Jerry Houseman, 33 Circle Drive, spoke against this item, stating that the mobilehome seller was not considered under the mitigating factors re- garding providing homes for the residents; and that the traffic analysis should have been started by at least 11:00 a.m. Mr. Charles Williamson, speaking on behalf of his mother who resides at 8 Circle Drive, noted several areas of the EIR that he felt were inadequate. Mr. Williamson referred to his letter of April 24, 1982 (attached hereto and made a part of these minutes). Mr. Rex Burke, representing his mother who resides at 54 Circle Drive, stated he felt that the EIR was biased toward the developer, in that there were very few points brought out indicating the costs for the residents if they are displaced. Mrs. Joanne Auerbach, 1992 Montemar lJay, San Jose, stated that it was her feeling that the EIR was lacking in the area of alternatives, as well as being weak in mitigating factors concerning the displacement of the residents of the park, and in the traffic impact. She noted that a consideration might be a mixed use project, possibly making one of the proposed towers residential. Mr. Timothy Lundell, attorney for the residents of the mobilehome park, stated that the section of the EIR relatin to housing is inadequate,citing the letter received from the City of San Jose attached hereto and made a part of these minutes). He noted that there are very few parks interested in taking older mobile homes, and that there are very few spaces available in the bay area. Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Kee if it is Staff's opinion that the EIn presented is adequate and provides the information needed for the project, containing all the information as requested by the Planning Staff. P~1r. Kee responded that Staff did not have a problem with the amount of infor- mation in the document. Mr. Wagner stated that he would like to request a continuance on the EIR, thereby allowing the applicant to revise the portions of the Draft EIR that may be affected by revised plans. These revisions will be presented when the revised plans are brought back to the Commission. -6- Mr. Kee stated that Staff would recommend a continuance of this Draft EIR under the circumstances, noting that if there are to be revised plans, the - Commission should have the opportunity to review the EIR pertinent to the revised plans. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he was in concurrence with the applicant. Mr. Michael Hogan, Earth Metrics, Inc., spoke in defense of the Draft EIR. He felt that the housing section referred to by Dr. Houseman and Mr. Williamson, was taken out of context--in the summary it clearly that the applicant should be involved in the mitigating plan .for relocation. A supplementary report was prepared in response to the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) stating that the mitigation section does speak to a detailed plan needed for relocation. Mr. Hogan noted that there is no requirement that the EIR address anything but the proposed project-- that it has been determined that to set up alternatives is premature. He added that the Commission has the option to accept the Draft EIR and require revisions in any necessary areas, or the Commission may require that the entire document be re-written. Mr. Jeff Heller, architect for the project, spoke in favor of the Commission accepting the Draft EIR and requiring addendum, stating that it would be helpful to get the input from those in attendance this evening, in order that these problems can be addressed in the revisions that are being proposed. Mr. Charles 4lilliamson stated that he would like the opinion of the City Attorney regarding California Government Code Section 65863.7 - Mobilehome Park Conversions. He stated that he felt that the preparers of the Draft EIR took the code section out of context, using only one part of it. P1r. Dempster stated that he did not believe that this section, as cited by Mr. 4lilliamson, has to be addressed in the Draft EIR. He stated that he did not feel that this is the way the code is interpreted; that it was strictly Mr. Williamson's judgment that it should be addressed in the Draft EIR. Mr. Timothy Lundell stated that the applicant has distributed a letter to the park residents stating that the hearing would be to consider the EIR and attached a copy of the government code referred to this evening. The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Dempster stated to the Commission that he had discussed the referenced code section with the applicant and the property owners, and it is his opinion that the Draft EIR does not have to address Section 65863.7 and that the Draft EIR can be accepted without fully addressing this code section; however, this code section will have to be addressed fully at some time and will have to be attached to the project. It doesn't make sense to discuss a relocation pro- posal until a project is approved. Mr. Dempster further stated that it was his feeling that the legislative body of this City would not approve a project such as the one proposed without attaching a condition that this section be ____ satisfied to their satisfaction. Mr. Lundell stated that it was essential that the Commission was aware of all mitigating options, and these were not addressed in this Draft EIR. -7- Per. Andrew Faber, attorney for Prometheus Development, stated that this code section is not part of CEQA, which serves the purpose of an informational document. He spoke in favor of certifying the Draft EIR so that a data base would be available and the developers could continue from that point. Chairman Meyer then asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Dickson noted that it was his position that the "Noise" section of the document should have additional input regarding the noise levels from different elevations. He added that wherever the Draft EIR referred to "City of Campbell" was really the opinion of the preparers of the document only. Commissioner Howard addressed the general audience and commented that the document presented this evening is only a draft. If it is accepted, it goes on to the City Council with recommendations; then it will be sent back to the Planning Commission for a revised draft or go through as a final Draft EIR to be accepted. The Commission, this evening, is working towards getting the Draft EIR going so that the problems can be addressed. Commissioner Campos questioned Mr. Kee as to the pressures referred to relating to the Jobs/Housing Balance section of the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Kee responded that basically there would be pressures for additional housing and higher densities with the influx of jobs in the area. These housing needs would be over and above what the current General Plan calls for in the area. Commissioner Howard moved, and Commissioner Dickson seconded, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). RESOLUTION N0. 2107 Commissioner Howard moved, and Commissioner Campos seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2107: (1) Accepting the Draft EIR as complete for the project as proposed; and (2) That the Commission require amend- ments to the Draft EIR to address revised plans as required by the Planning Department. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would be voting in favor of the motion; it was her feeling that the Draft EIR contained enough information for the Commission to make a recommendation on the project as proposed. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: Kotowski *** -8- PD 81-13 Public hearing to consider the application of Musgrave, D. Mr. David Musgrave on behalf of "900 E. HAMILTON Prometheus Development AVENUE--A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP" for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, ele- vations and development schedule to allow the construction of three office buildings and related parking structures on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue (Hamilton Avenue Mobilehome Park) in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Campos reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee reviewed the Staff recommendations, which are: 1. That the Planning Commission make a determination that the EIR, which was prepared for this project,provides sufficient information on which to base a recommendation. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending denial of this application as presented. 3. If this application is continued in order that revised plans may be considered, that the applicant submit, for the City's approval, a specific mitigation plan to minimize the impact of this conversion on the mobile home park residents, as provided for in Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code. Commissioner Campos further noted that the main reasons for these recommendations are as follows: 1. Increased traffic volume and resulting deterioration of levels of service at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue. 2. Ingress and egress for the site is indicated as Hamilton Avenue. The restriction on turning movements to right-turn-in and right-turn-out for a potential of 6,800 trip ends per day is, in Staff's opinion, not desirable. 3. Approximately 45% of the proposed on-site parking is indicated as compact. Campbell's ordinance provides for a maximum of 30% compact stalls. 4. The parking ratio is indicated as 1:230, based on the gross floor area, and Campbell requires 1:200. 5. There is insufficient back-up distance indicated for some areas of proposed parking south of the third office tower. 6. The project will be built in three phases. Parking for the first two phases will be on the surface. When phase three is constructed ,the proposed parking structure will be built. During construction of phase three, parking provided for the first two phases will be disrupted by the construction of the six-story parking structure and third office tower. -9- 7. The parking layout is not completely indicated for levels 2-6 of the proposed parking structure. Commissioner Campos added that there had been discussion this morning about the possibility of constructing a bridge over the Los Gatos Creek, therefore taking traffic off Hamilton Avenue. The Committee felt that the presentation of the project should be heard by the entire Commission. If the Commission voted for a continuance of this item, the Committee would like to see the following issues addressed: 1. Alternate site plans. Perhaps less buildings, more open space. The Committee felt the buildings were too close to the property line. 2. A definite plan on traffic mitigation (i.e. feasibility of building a bridge over the Los Gatos Creek or Hamilton Avenue). 3. A review of parking ratios. 4. A specific relocation plan for the residents of the mobilehome park. In the Committee's opinion, relocating the mobilehome units to another park in the area is not a feasible solution. Mr. Kee stated that Staff's recommendations are as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, and as reported by Commissioner Campos. Chairman Meyer reviewed the previously concurred-upon time frames of one-half hour per side. She then declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Robert Wagner, Vice-President of Prometheus Development, distributed an outline of the company's approach to the project and a review of the team they have assembled, to the Commission for review. He commented that he would like to identify the problem areas and address them as soon as possible. Mr. Wagner introduced f~1r. Chuck Toeniskaetter of Carl N. Swenson Company. Mr. Toesniskoetter of Carl N. Swenson Company, builders of the proposed office complex, showed a slide presentation reviewing a number of the projects his company has built in the area. He added that it is projected that this project should generate approximately $300,000 yearly in tax base and retail sales in the Campbell area. Mr. Fred Rubbio, Marketing Specialist of Kushman-Wakefield, spoke for the project, noting that his figures indicate a healthy flow of new office requirements. He stated that for Campbell to be a part of the vibrant growth in the area, they will need additional office space. This project would be a substantial landmark in the area. The Commission took a break at 10:20 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m. -10- Mr. John Tupper, 44 Circle Drive, spoke against the project stating that it eliminated an existing community. He added that he is opening a business in the area and cannot relocate to another area. Mrs. Bonnie Beaman, Mobile Homeowner Protection Association, 1212 Old Oakland Road, San Jose, spoke against the project,stating that she felt it was terrible to relocate these elderly people. She felt that the City had a moral obliga- tion to help these people. Mr. James Crain, 95 "C" Street, read a letter from Bank of the West which stated that the Bank was taking an interest in the situation because of their position with various residents of the park who were their customers. Mr. Vaughn Wolff, 24 S. Seventh St., San Jose, speaking for his mother who resides in Space 55 at the park, asked who would be paying for the possible revised traffic patterns. Mr. Charles Williamson, 8 Circle Drive, spoke against the project, stating that there were four sides to be dealt. with: developers, property owners, residents, and general welfare of Campbell. He added that while the developers deal with a profit standpoint, they do not deal with the welfare of the community. The impact of this project on the residents of Campbell will be extensive. There will be a loss of 15% of the City's low-income housing if this project is approved. Mr. Williamson continued that the project is inconsistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. He urged the Commission to reject this particular project-- that its negative impact far outreached its tax revenues. Mrs. Esther Arnold, 35 Circle Drive, spoke against the project and asked the Commission what was going to be done in order that she would have a home and could be close to her doctors. Mrs. James Crain, 95 "C" Street, spoke against the project, adding that the stress that the residents have been put under has caused many health problems. Mr. Glenn Miller, 31 Circle Drive, spoke against the project. Ms. Antonia Paige, 88 Timber Cove Drive, spoke against the project, noting that the residents of the Timber Cove Mobile Home Park are in sympathy with the residents of the Hamilton Avenue Park. Ms. Patricia Gentile, 1163 Springfield Dr., spoke against the project, citing traffic as a major factor. Mr. George Fusco, 111 "C" Street, spoke against the project. Mr. Andy Gueria, 129 Circle Drive, spoke against the project. He related his ordeals in trying to find another location for his mobilehome, reporting that there are no parks in the Bay Area that will take his home. He stated that the residents have approached the property owner about the possibility of the residents buying the park, but they were refused. He noted that the property owner had recently increased the rents by 20%, and that parking had been eliminated on the site for vehicles. Ms. Raye Roy, 86 Circle Drive, spoke against the project, adding that the stress under which the residents have been living is terrible. -11- Mr. Robert Wagner, Prometheus Development, noted that his company has been try- ing to communicat e with the residents since last August and they have made some attempts to find alternate places for them to live, but that they have not been successful. He added that he has documents he would like to submit for the file showing these attempts. Mr. Wagner 'then requested a continuance of th i s item. Chairman Meyer stated that the time limit was expended for both sides, and asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Howard stated to the audience that the Commission is not trying to relocate the residents or take away their homes. The Commission is aware of the stressful situation; however, this item is going to take a long time to solve. He continued that the Commission must look at what will suit the people of Campbell best. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that PD 81-13 be continued to the meeting of May 25, 1982, in order that the applicant might address traffic concerns and relocation plans. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kasolas requested that any substantial revisions in the plan be accompanied by amendments in the Draft EIR addressing these revisions. He also requested Staff to set up a line of communication with the park residents in order that they will be notified of all hearings. Mr. Kee indicated that this will be done. MISCELLANEOUS S 80-19 Continued application of Mr. Larry Cockrell for Cockrell, L. a minor modification to the originally approved plans for 3 condominium units on property known as 1408 W. Latimer Avenue in an R-2-S (Multiple Family/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. fir. Stafford reviewed this application for the Commission stating that the applicant at this time is requesting approval of revised plans which indicate the provision of four condominium units on this property. This proposal in- cludes the following changes: 1. Division of an existing 2,250 square foot upstairs into two separate condominiums. 2. Provision of two additional parking spaces. 3. Reduction in landscaping areas by approximately 264 square feet. 4. Relocation of trash enclosure area. 5. Modification to the landscaping materials installed in the areas surrounding the living units. Staff is of the opinion that the provision of additional parking spaces and the subsequent reduction in landscaping areas is not a desirable change to the approved plans. Consequently, Staff is recommending denial of this proposal. -12- Commissioner Campos reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, noting that the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed by Staff. The Committee is split in their recommendation. Commissioner Kasolas spoke in favor of approving this application. Commissioner Dickson felt that the parking requirements were justified, and the policies had been approved by the Commission after lengthy research. Mr. Kee indicated that by bringing the number of parking spaces up to code, this would reduce the amount of landscaping. Commissioner Howard questioned the location of the proposed trash enclosure in reference to the parking area, landscaping, and visibjity for traffic. Mr. Kee stated that the location had been approved by the Fire Department. It is to be located in a current landscaped area, but is not near a driveway. The visibility should not be impaired. Mr. Larry Cockrell, applicant, appeared before the Commission to request an approval. He stated that the proposed trash enclosure location will be in an area where there is an existing 6 foot fence. He is planning to have 2-1/2 parking spaces per unit, which is the required parking for a condo- minium development. Regarding the reduction of landscaping, he noted that he is proposing to eliminate about 260 feet of non-functioning landscaping (ground cover, etc.) replacing it with lawn area that can be used by the residents. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that this application be denied. Motion failed with a vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Kotowsl;i being absent). Commissioner Kasolas commented that the applicant is attempting to correct someone else's problems, and this request should be granted. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that this situation seemed very similar to others that have come to light recently, wherein approved plans have not been adhered to, and now modifications are being requested. She felt that the Commission should be very careful with these issues. Mr. Kee suggested that the Commission may wish to continue this item to the next meeting when a full Commission is present. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that S 80-19 be continued to the meeting of May 11, 1982 in order that this item may be reviewed by a full Commission. Motion carried unanimously. SA 82-13 Continued appeal of the Planning Director's Campbell Veterinary decision denying a 32-foot sign on the rear Clinic of a building located at 1575-B S. t~linchester Blvd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. -13- Commissioner Campos reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee's recommenda- tion was to uphold the decision of the Planning Director for denial. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that SA 82-13 be denied, upholding the decision of the Planning Director. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary