PC Min 02/15/1977PLANNItdG COtti•-1ISSION
CITY OF CAt•1Pi~ELL, CEILIFORNIA
TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1977
The Planniny 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 Pdorth Central Avenue, Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL Commissioners: {le bard, Campos, Vierhus, Pack,
Present Samuelson, Lubeckis, Chairman Dickson; Secretary
Artf}ur A. Kee; Senior Flanner Philip J. Stafford;
City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Engineering Planager
Bill Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker.
Absent None.
APPRC)'~AL OF t~IPJUTES Commissioner Campos corrected the minutes of
February 1, 1977, sixth paragraph, motion by Commissioner
Campos, seconded by Comr:rissioner Hebard to delete 1i~e
walku!ay from the application of the Lands of Locurto.
Commissioner Pack moved that the February 1, 1977, minutes be approved as
corrected, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
COh1f~1UNICATICidS i'1r. Kee reported that the communications which have
been received relate to specific items on the agenda.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
"S" 77-1 Continued a~ ~lication of P1r. Robert Carl Firato for
Firato, R. C. approval o:~ r~lans to convert two retail shops into a
disco for young adults on property kno>rm as 47G East
Campbell Avenue-in a C-2-S (General Corrunercial) Zoning
District.
14 r. Kee stated that the applicant was in the audience, and it was his understanding
that a continuance was to be requested.
Chairman Dickson asked if the applicant wished to be heard.
h1r. Robert Galucci, Attorney, 1845 The Alameda, stated that he was representing
Mr. Firato. They have a problem that had not been anticipated with regard to
the p~rrking spaces. They are going to have to renegotiate with the landlord
and obtain the added parking or revise the site plan, therefore, h~ requested
that ttl~' application be continued for two or three weeks.
Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 77-1 be continued to the March 1, 1977, meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Commissioner Vierhus stated that due to a possible conflict of interest, he would
abstain from voting.
Motion adopted by a 6-0-0-1 vote.
"S" 77-2 Application of Per. Richard P,lexander fnr approval of
Alexander, R. plans to construct atwo-story, three-unit structure on
property known as 1535 Van Dusen Avenue in a P.-M
(Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Site Review Cornrnittee met with the applicant
and reviewed the plans. Tt7e committee recommends approval subject to the
conditions recommended by staff. She stated that condition "F" as listed should
be strici:en as it does not apply to this application.
Mr. Kee reported that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions attached
to the staff report. .
Commissioner Hebard stated -that the land next to this property is owned by the
State of California and he asked if this property is in tFre blest Valley Corridor.
Mr. Kee stated that the State rsas indicated that there is no interest in purchas-
ing the property, which they vrould have to do. The State owns about 70 percent
of the right of avay for the best Valley Corridor and this project would be 'in
the right of way of the Corridor, haarever, there is correspondence from the
State to the effect that tl~e applicant ca.n go ahead with the project.
Commissioner Hebard stated his concern v,as that the Commission anent on record a
month or so ago to tf-e Counr.il and the Council took the Commission's recommenda-
tion supporting the transit district plan.
Mr. f.ee stated that the Stai:e is aware of this proiiosal.
t~1r. lleb«rd stated that might be so, but ha:v about tf+e transit district.
Mr. Kee stated t17at the liroje+~t has not been referred to the Transit District
and the staff would see rzo problem in referring tfre application t~~ the district.
There is no policy from the dista••ict that they have funds to purc,rase the
property. The staff would sup~~ort a tti:o-week continuance• in order to communicate
with the transit district and c:o-rre back to the Commission with their response.
COnIm1SS10nEr' Hebard -nove~{ that "S" 77-~ be continued tv the fylarch f , 1977, meeting
and that staff rti~fer tf"i3s application to the transit district for comment.
Motion seconded by rr:are~ni 5sioner Pack:,
Motion to continue trdopted btir a 6-i-£1 vote -Commissioner Vierhus voting "no".
At this point tfr~~ :~r;pl i c~ar-rt, 1it~•, Ri.~h ~Ai e>.ander, came forward and requested that
the application be approved ar-d that he not be Feld up on the project for two weeks.
After some discussiorr, City Atfiorney Den4pster ad~~isecl that the Commission could
rescind the motion and take other action.
Commissioner Vierhus moved that the motion be rescinded, seconded by Commissioner
Samuelson. P1otion failed by a 4-3 vote.
Motion stands for continuance of "S" 77-2 to the first meeting in March.
_2_
"S" 76-23 Application of Mr. F. James Miller, on behalf of the
Biller, F. J. U-Save Rockery, for approval of plans to change the
U-Save Rockery location of landscaping for a rockery-nursery to be
- located on property f:nown as 500 Railway Avenue in a
M-2-5 (Heavy Industrial) 7_oning District.
Br. Kee advised tha t this application has been referred to the Santa Clara Valley
4Jater District and at this time staff has not received their comments and would
recoinnend a continu ance to the first meeting in March.
Cor~nissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-23 be continued to the first meeting in
h1arch, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus and unanimously adopted.
PU[~LIC HEARIPIGS
PD 7G-5 This is the time and place for continued public hearing
Campbell Building on the application of Campbell Building and Investment
and Investment Co. Company, Inc. for approval of plans, elevations, and
development schedule to allow construction of an office
building on property known as 54 North Central Avenue
in a P-D (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District.
Chairman Dickson asked P1r. Kee for his comments.
P1r. Kee advised drat staff recommends continuance to the second meeting in March
inasmuch as the public hearings for the parking district have not been completed.
Commissioner Pac{: n;oved that PD 7E-5 be continued to the second meeting in March.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard.
There being no one present wishing to speak, Cornrnissioner Samuelson seconded the
motion ar,d it -vas unanimously adopted.
ZC 77-' This is the time and place fo•r publir_. hearing to consider
PD 77 -~ the application of f~1r. James f~1. Thorne and Cabal: Associates,
Cabal: Associates for a change of zoning from C-2-S (General Commercial)-and
Thorne, J. R-1 (Single Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Develop-
. ment/Corrunercial) and approval of plans, elevations, and
development schedule to allow construction of a commercial
building on property known as 1820 S. Bascom Avenue.
Commissioner Vierhus stated that he or~lns property 100 feet fra» the suLiject
property and he asked the City Attorney if, according to the Conflict of Interest
Law, he should disqualify himself on this application.
City A~~torney advised the Convnission to go ahead with the application ancf he
would respond to Commissioner Vierhus.
Chairman Dickson asked Convnissioner Pack for the report of the Architectural
Review Committee.
Corrunissioner Pack advised that the committee met with the applicant. and recommends
approval subject to conditions outlined in the staff report and with the added
condition No. 9 to read: 9. East elevation of the building shall be modified
architecturally to the satisfaction'of the Planning Director and Architectural
Advisor.
-3-
Commissioner Pack advised that trees will be put~in some of the wells in the
parking area. Onc driveway has been closed off and the driveway along Qascom
Avenue is going to be 4videned to accommodate the ingress and egress.
City Attorney Dempster advised Commissioner Vierhus that he could see no reason
why he would have a conflict on interest regarding this application.
fir. Kee briefly described the proposal and reviewed the site plan with the
Commission. The-°e will be a masonry wall between the residential development
to the east and there will be five (5) tree wells for landscaping on the north
side of the wall.
Commissioner Vierhus asked how high the masonry wa11 will be. '
Mr. Kee replied that it would be six feet in height, and this is a standard
procedure wf-ere commercial development. is adjacent to residential development.
The building would sit back 70 feet from t3ascom Avenue.
Cor~nissioner Vierhus asked how deep the building will be.
Mr. Kee replied that it vflll be 84 feet in depth a.nd there will be 5 feet of
landscaping between the building and Ridgeley Drive.
Chairman Dickson d^~la-°ed the public hearing o~~Pn and asked if anyone in the
audience wished i..c~ speak for or against the application.
Mr. Levris Marcus, San €~1~~teo, stated that he is one of the developers and that
they are happy to r°eceive tE;F, approval recarnrrrendation of staff and the
Architectural Rev-;ek•;• Crr~„~ittee, Tt~Qy vra 11 accept the recommendations and conform
to all the rerli~ir~~~j~~rits, including thy- added condition No. 9.
Commissioner Paci: asi~eef 61r . Marcus to describe the type of tenants that wi 11
occupy the buildings..
Mr. Marcus stated th:~t. tF;e~~ nave negoti a t.ed wi th a sav i ngs and 1 oan company,
a clothing sto-•e,. ar,d a wallpaper store.
There being no one e1_°~. vistrir~g I;o be ircard, Con>tnissioner Flebard moved that
the public he~~rinc,~ ~e cl~~sed, seconded kiy Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTIOfd N0. 1&~7~ Cc?t,~;,issior?er Carr;,~os moved That: Resolution No. 1579 be
ac~z~~,t.s~d r~ecornri-cnding that the City Council adopt an
ordir,ar~ce ap~iroving LC 77-2, application of Mr. James M.
~'krorrie, ar-rd Cubak ~~sscc-iates, for a change of zoning from
C-2-S and R-1 to P-Don property known as 1520 S. Qascom
avenue, seccrr-ded by Conynissioner Hebard and adopted by
tfre following roll call vote:
AYES: Conuirissioners: Hebard, Can~pos, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Lubeckis,
and Dickson.
NOES: Commissioners: None.
ABSEN~f: Commissioners: None.
-~-
RFSO!_UTIOfJ fd0. 1580 Commissioner Carnpos moved that the Conrmission adopt
Resolution fro. 1580 recommending that the City Council
adopt an ordinance approving PD 77-1 subject to the
conditions outlined in the staff report and with the
addition of Condition No. 9, based on the findings that
the proposed development vdill not be detrimental to
'the health, safety, peace, or general v~relfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of said proposed
use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or to the general
vrelfare of the City. f~lotion seconded by Commissioner
Elebard and adopted by the following roll ca11 vote:
R'lES: Comrnissioncrs: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Lubeckis,
and Dickson.
PlOES: Co;nmissiorrc~rs: None.
~PBSLNT: Commissioners: None.
Chairman Dicf%son declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. Prieeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
ZC 77-1 This is the time and place for continued public hearing
Mapes, W. J. to consider the application of Mr. Warren J. Mapes for
a change of zoning from CP1:B-80 (Controlled Manufacturing -
80,000 square foot minimum lot size) to CM:B-2.0 (Controlled
Manufacturing -- 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) for
property known as 581, 583, and 585 Division Street.
Chairmarr Dickson asked staff for comments regarding the application.
t~rK. Staf for°d presented a map sho~,ri ng the subject properties and stated that the
applic~.nt is proposing a zone change from Ch1:B-80 to Cf41:B-20. The applicant
has indicated his intention to subdivide a parcel of land which has a net area
of 80,851 square feet into three parcels. Proposed Parcel Cis presently vacant.
The prc.7osed zone charrge would not alter the future development of the property
but wor,;id only facilitate the potential separate ownership of the three proposed
~~a.rcel s. This item ,,ras continued frorn the meeting of February 1 , 1977, i n order
that it could be considered at the same time as the parcel map, which is also
can this agenda.
Commissioner Elebard revievred the history of this area when the CP1 zoning was
placed crn it and stated that if it ha`d been planned for Cf~1:B-20 originally, there
would have been a street through the property, similar to the developments on
Van Dell. E1is concern was that they would be allowing a lesser size lot without
a street.
h1r. Stafford pointed out the surrounding properties which have zoning ranging
from CM:B-80 to CM:B-40. He advised that there is an easement over the thr°ee
parcels.
Commissioner Elebard asked if there was any agreement as to the maintenance of
that easement as there are five pieces of property using it.
_5_
Mr. fic7rrrs advised that they have information indicating that there are several
easements barder,i ng the property. There i s an ingress and egress casement
10 feet tide along tf~e easterly harder of the three parcels and immediately
east of tl~e property another 10 foot easement. The t~iesterly 10 foot easement
that runs do~•rn the easterly line of parcels I?, D, and Cis in favor of those
three parcels, the Lrown properly and the f-losmer property. The one to the
east is for just the three parcels.
1.1r. Y.ee advised that ovhat i s before the Conrni ssi on i s an application for
rezoning and the parcel map is the next itch: on the agenda. If the zoning is
approved, it would indicate an intent to consider the parcel map. This is the
only area in the City uJhere an easement exists ip the CP1 zoning district.
Chair~rnan'Dickson eras of the opinion that it should be knot~rn ~vho is going to
maintain the easement.
Cornm"ission:r, >_ubeckis stated that the two parcels are already developed and
the third pa•rc~.l ><•~oulun' ~(: be affected by the easement as there is access from
Division Str~r.c~i~~.
Chairman ~~icfson stated this is a contir~ued pctblic }rearing to consider a zone
change and he as(ced if anyone ~~ished to spea(< far or against the project.
(~9r. hlarrerr f~~apes, ZOoe~l ~lma~ien Ftoad, awt~er of the subject property, stated
that t~-i the a~ey~r rr to the pa sen~ent, there i s a pub? i c uti 1-i ty easement and the.
server lint. ~~a°s put. in under "the supervision of Disi;rict No. 4. There is a
joint a,rF~7;~vrll k~ett~ae~:r; f~'lr. Bro;vn and himself on the 70 faot easement on
Mr. E3ro~~:r;>'s ~-~r~aporTty and his. l"here has boon an agrcern-ant in existence for
the pass. ~r,c,;~~;.e=:~ ,,f,r.a.,-s ;~or Lflr~ u•,,e of tfi-is f~a~,sement by t•1r. f7osmer, Mr. Brown,
and himse~~.
Chairmar~ L~c%scat~ as(~;r_~.i if it staj.es ~.vha rrlu"tni:alrrs the easement.
f~1r. hlapes s'at_ed that there is a faint aq_reernent betr~reen hirTrself and h1r. t3ro>,•rn
for mair~t~~r~,~i=~oE^. Tt;is sub:livision is to coir;cide ti~rith the tax assessor's maps.
Commissiat-r -,iFti,ard asr:ed if (7~~ uncle stood correctly that Mr. Elosmer has a
20 foot ease;r~~at.
t~tr. P1apc~s ;•~~r~~ id prat he. did because (sir. l;rawn and he agreed many years ago
that singe i4 k•.:~a a t;~.zb",ic {~~as•;~rn~~nt, they gave permanent easement for use by
t~lr. Hosmx~r,. ..
Cammissiorrer tfeb=ax,d ~>tz:ted that if there is an agreement, the Public lA!orks
Department. did rxt-t find it in the record; and he asf:ed if it would be passible
that the a:cro=~,~er,t i:hey provided h1r. 1-losmer could be Tirade a matter of retard.
h1r. Mapes stated t-hat i t ~vou"f d be possible.
There be"i ncl no orrti~ else wishing t:o s,~eak, Commissioner Pack moved that the publ "i c
hearing be closed, seionded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted.
- 6-
RESOLUTION N0. 1581 Comnissiorter Hebard moved that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 1581 recommending tha±. the City
Council adopt an ordinance approving ZC 77-1, applica-
tion of Warren J. Mapes, from CP1:8-80 to C; h1: E3-20,
seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Contrnissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Lubeckis,
and Dickson.
NOES: Commissioners: None.
AQSENT: Commissioners: None.
P.h1. 76-21 Parcel Map for the Lands of Mapes.
Lands of Mapes A.P.N.: 4~2~-33-67, 87, 88.
Chairman Dickson asked Pcir. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee advised that the staff has recommended approval of the parcel map
subject to three conditions:
1. Approval of a zone change to CM:6-20.
2. Final map thereof shall be filed with the City Engineer for
examination, approval, and recordation in accordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
3. The property is t~rithin the boundaries of Local Improvement District
Pdo. 17. The o:,mers are required to file an application with the
Superintendent of Streets to segregate the assessments levied
pursuant to said Districts pursuant to the provisions of the
Streets and HighUrays Cade. The fee for segregation of :he
assessments of $150.00.
As a result of discussions during the zone change hearing, they rr,~y wish to
add a condition No. 4 to involve the property o~vner to the north .n the
easement. The property to the north has a 10 foot easement, hoi~:ver, as
stated, there is an agreement that he has a 20 foot easement and this should
be a matter of the approval.
Commissioner Pack stated that condition No. 4 should read:- A written agreement.
providing for a 20 foot ingress and `egress easement front flosnter Property to
Division Street shall be provided, and such easement to include rr,aintenance
agreement for the right;-of-way.
Contntissioner• Pack moved that P.M. 76-21 , Lands of Plapes, be approved subject
to the four conditions, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus and adopted by t{te
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Lubeckis,
and Dickson.
NOES: Commissioners: Norre.
A[3SENT: Commissioners: None.
-7-
Mr. K.ee reviewed the past General P1 an hearings 'in this area. At that time
objections were made to high density residential and the Comrniss~ion and
Council changed the area back to commercial. Tfie proposal for this property
is a cornrnercial. center of 14,000 square feet.
Mr. Dempster stated that what is before the Con;rn~ission is an application for
commercial in accordance with the General Plan. The General Pian is the
Counr.il's policy for development and it would be very difficult for the
staff to do anything but compare what the applicant is applying for versus
what the City Council has told the staff what they want to go on that corner.
Mr. Kee st:ai;;~d that the State requires that a city develop a land use element
of the Ueneral Plan. The land use pi an is the policy of the City for -land use.
If some people object to the land use, the time to object is when the land
use is established.
Mr. Hebard stated that the Planning Commission and City Council, at the time
of the he2.rings, sho~,ved a commercial land use 4vlth a PD zoning. There are
all sorts ~f commercial deve1oprnents and maybe this type of development was
what the Comxrriss~iorr and Council were trying to avoid when they established
PD to give more c~~ntrols to the City over the type of commercial use.
Mr. Kee aaa~~~i serf that tl~i s ~i s not a publ i c hearing -the public hearing has
been held be€ore the Commission and has gone to the City Council. The Council
has refs=rr°od the c;rai;ter bacS: to the Commission for clarification of the
section oi~ the PD ordinance outlined in the staff report.
Commissiti~ne'~° ~ubL~ck~is r~aas o-F the opinion that a 14,000 square foot development
would not affec=. t~:~° area to a great degree. The area is less than two (2)
acres anci fie t.hc;rf{i~t that avith adequate parking it vrould not be detrimental
to the fze~=th, sai'r:~;y, and tv~~l-fare of the people in the neighborhood. He
could srs~ ~o alternative but to approve the application.
Commissioner `~~,i~,«relson stated that during the public hearing, the major concerns
were the traffic i:f~at v~rould be created by the convenience center and the hours
of ope~ati~_~. These item, were looked at quite closely when the Commission
apprc4..,d it #~efvr.=. T3~e fact tf~at the street is not widened lies with other
agencies ar~~~ the Cornrni ss ion does not have any control over i t.
Chairman D~ickso.r¢ asked if anyone in the audience r~~ished to be heard.
Mr. E3erg, owner of property on Hacienda, Steinway, and Adrlen Drive, spoke in
opposi~ivr> to the development and cited the increase in traffic and the
convenience store th~~.t will be located there. He stated that he would be in
favor of a aredical building or iavr offices where the traffic is much less.
Mr. Leonard Dietricf., one of the owners of the property, reviewed the history
of the area. H~ stated that he had talked to many people in the area, including
the apar~tnrent managers and tenants, and there are 275 apartment units in the
immediate area, In 19£3 units there are approximately 25 children, of which
more than hall= are pre-school. That leaves about 10 or or so children of
school aye out of 275 residential units. He stated that he had talked to the
people down the street and they were in favor of a neighborhood commercial
center in the ar~ea as they could walk to the stores. He was in agreement
that Hacienda should be widened. Flowever, they tivould provide additional
sidewalk area. He stated that the lot has been vacant and people have been
-9-
dumping trash l:here. He has spent many hundreds of dollars trying to beep
it clean and finally built: a berm around the perimeter to keep the trucks
out of it. He stated that broken bottles and chunks of concrete and trash .
can affect the health, safety, and welfare of t}-e neig}~rborhood.
He stated that the argument that it is going to increase the traffic is
nebulous. It isn't going to bring more traffic to Hacienda Avenue - it
will be strictly a neighborhood center.
Chairman Dickson asked if he had talked to people on the south side of the
street.
Mr. Dietrich stated that there are older homes on the south sid° and he
vrould assume that there are not a lot of children living there.
P9r. Yee stated that the Planned Development Ordinance should not be used
to circumvent the ordinance and allow uses that would not be allowed in
other commercial zones. If the area avere zoned C-l, a convenince center
would be alloyed and that is why the staff has made the recommendation of
approval.
A1r. John Semple, 586 Hacienda Avenue, spoke in opposition to the development.
fie cited the prior commerr.~ial use that was in the area for many years and
the fact that there are many children who ride their bikes in the area to
go to th° County park to fish. He was of the opinion that the convenience
canter tivould bring mordewoul-debeodetrimental toctheehealth,ssafetys a~d the
most desirable use an
welfare of the people in the area.
Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Semple if he owned the property, what kind of use
would he like to have there?
Mr. Semple stated that he would like to see doctor and dentist offices,
bar•L}er shop, and real estate offices.
Chairman Dickson asked h1r. Semple if he attended the General Plan public
hearings.
Mr. Semple stated that he was no~L living in the area at that time.
P1rs. Nancy Murdick, 1214 Theresa, spoke in opposition to the project. Shy
stated there are no problems with ,the children living in 't he apartments,
but there are many children in the neighborhood - Theresa and thegchilcirenn~~,
She stated that if there is a convenience market in the area,
vaill be going back and forth constantly and the street is not adequately
marked now.
Chairman Dickson asked Mrs. Murdicl; what she would like to have at that
location.
~1rs. Murdick stated that she would lov~~ to have a park.
Chairman Dickson asked Mrs. Murdick if she atterded the General Plan hearirti.
-10-
Pairs. f%lurdick stated tfrat she was living in the City at the time; huf: did not know
aborrt them. She stated that if' the City rezoned the' property once, they could
do it again.
Pars. Helen bJeckler, 1232 Theresa Avenue, also spoke in opposition. She stated
that there are many children who go along that street and she cited the heavy
traffic. She stated tlnt she is not objecting to a conrnercial type development,
but the kinds they are suggesting is not what they need. They already have
stores within walking distance and she thought there should be a better use for
tl~e property. She stated that she was also against high density.
Chairman Dickson asked P•1rs. ldeckler vdhat she aJOUId like to see on that property.
I`1rs. 4Jeckler replied ~,he would like to have doctor offices, lawyer offices, etc.
Chairman Dickson stated tPrat. just recently another item 4das before the Comm-fission
to increase the density in that area and he slid not see any of the people in the
audience at that meeting, That use ~-~ould also increase the traffic on Flacienda.
P•-firs. Jessie P:elso, 6~;0 Hacienda Aver}ue, spol<e in opposition to the development.
Sere cited traffic, the hazard to children, and trash being dumped onto they lot.
Chairman Dickson stated that fire alternative is to find the best use to put
in that area, and in his opinion he thought they had an excellent plan before
therm. He stated that t{^is is a high density area and he thought that a small.
conul~ercial developrner~t will be the Hest use for the property. The problems
that have been discussed are ones that cannot be solved at this meeting. l~Jith
regard to the two lame 4>treet, he stated that a four lane street ti~;ould carry
r~urre traffic than is r~c~~rv tfi?ere, and irr t~is opinion Campbell is a safer
City than most cities. Ple stated that Trost of the problems that have been
brought up are probler,~s that: already exist. This center is not going to cause
these problems and it might help t:o get rid of some of them, such as dumping
of trash.
Commissioner Pack stated that sere was in agreement with Chairman Dickson's conuTrents.
Chairman Dickson statr~d that tl,e Comr;~ission should make a specific finding and
forward i t back to the C;ourrc-i 1 .
Commissioner Pack rrrovec that tine Corilrnlssion follow Section 21.06.100 (a) and (b);
the Conunission find; t:~tat tise proposed development is not detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, or general welfare of persons residing or ~~~c~rkiny in the
neighborhood of said proposed arse, or` be detr~irnental or injurious to property
and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
Cornrnissioner~ Campos asked what is considered to be detrimental in the absence of
hard facts - there are two conflicting opir~ions. Traffic versus possible unsafe
conditions and the applicant has made a survey of the neighborhood and determined
that is not the case.
City Attorney Dempster stated that the Commission must rely nn the staff of the
various de;~artnrents -they are the professionals. They must listen to the
audience; nothing is absolute. Tfrey must ~•reigh. the information given them by
the professiona~! staff, the audience, and applicants and make a decision. He
stated many of the conditions have existed in the area for the past ten years,
-11-
and they should ask, "Is this application going to do somethir;g that is going
to affr~ct existing conditions, or will it be detrimental to the people's safei.y,
aaelfare, health, etc?" There are a1 ready detrimental conditions existing.
h1r. f;ee stated ti~!at there has to be a deterrni nation i n relation to other possi bl e
uses and the land rase that has been adoF7ted as a policy guideline, This shopping
center is a permitted use in the PD Zono. t~lhether or not it t-.~ould be detrimental
in relation to the land use or other land uses is a decision to be made. fle
stated that any use is going to change the nature of the area.
Con~nissioner Campas stated t{rat they must base their decision on other factors
than opinions of people facing the podium and he asked h1r. Kee if he felt that
it would be detrimental.
Mr. K,c~e stated that it is the staff's opinion, subject to the conditions recommended,
that it would not he detrimental. It would be in accard with the land use shown
on the General Plan.
Con~rrissioner fiebard stated that he was speaking against the motion because he
did eat feel that: with the PD Zoning Ordinance they had sufficient
control aver the uses that can be put in the area. It isn't restricted to C-1
uses. Any commercial use is permitted under the General Plan. He stated that
in t{re past fer-a years, convenience stores have become a target for crime. He
seal:e~i tl-,at he could eat support this application adithout having more control
a~•,~er thr~ uses permitted.
tllr. k.ee advised tfrat (c) of Section 21.06.100 states: "The Planning Commission
tray r~ccrr,r,~end suc}; conditions in connection r~~ith the planned community district
~,s it d~c:;~a necessary to secure the purpose of this title." If the .Commission
feels there should be r~estric.tions placed on uses, that should be done.
C^r~a=n.is~: inner' Nr~ba.rd stated that t!e could not vote on the motion until they had •
resoluc~d (c).
Corr~rissioner pack moved that the motion be tabled. until (c) was considered,
seconde' by Co;,~missioner Samuelson and unanimously adapted.
City Attorney k)er!rps'cer suggested that k~r. Kee review the allo~~aed uses in the
C--i gone.
t;r. K¢~e read the allotived uses in the C-1 zoning district.
A
Conrrrrissioner Lubeckis asked kroa~a do thtey separate a convenience store from a
di.l ~icar.;rssen.
Commissianer Vierhus stated that. based on the reading of the PD Ordinance, he
woErld suggest t}rat under (c} that tf~~e Commission restrict the uses to neighborhood
can>rrrerc:ial and sa moved.
Chaimn~n Dickson asked the applicant if he would be in agreement with those
restrictions.
Dlr. Dietrich reviewed the uses and agreed.
-12-
Thc~ motion was seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopl;ed by the follow~iny
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos; Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, t_ubeckis,
and Di c {CSUn .
NOES: Commissioners: None.
AQSEPdT: Commissioners: None.
Conunissioner~ Flebard stated tt-rat the Conunission has made a. step in the right
direction under "c", but tie did not feel that in a neighborhood such as this
that tfley.had gone far enor.rgh in the restrictions. Neighborhood uses would
perurit some of i;f1e uses tl-rat are drawing an element that does not speak to
the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. He opposed the motion
regarding (a) and (b).
Commissioner Vierhr.:s stated that the Commission -is restricted in its action.
They cannot dra4i up ~. new ordinance tonight -they must be guided by their own
guidelines.
Chairman DicFaon stated that they must make a determination on what they have
heard tonight and rvhaL ini'or,irration they have received.
Cornm-issiorler C:r~r,~r>os state~:a thai; he v,+as guing to oppose the motion for the same
reason. He stated ttrat the traffic is a problem and until the street is
improved to rireoL the needs crf the neigilbcrhood, he was of the opinion that the
use vaould be d«trir,~:ent~.l t.o ttre health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.
Commissioner p~~c%. st~>';ed that. ir1 her neighborhood she has a liquor store, a "/-11
store, and a p~.rk. and tare park is far more hazardous than the 7-11 store. The
park is a constant source of action - drug selling, police activity, etc.
Commissioner Car:rpos staffed drat for the record, he would be against a park.
Conrmissionc~r- r'~:~i~.;•d stated that he w~ s not voting for the park.
Com1111SSlOnf'r' Ciibcckis s,tai;f~d ~;hat in iii s. opinion a. 14,000 square foot sflopping
center would e;~:t lre detrimental to the neighborhood. They approved it before
and sent it ~~n to t.i~~e Cei,rrcil and for some reason, they decided that it should
be the Conulrissi;rr~`s decision. E!e supported tflc motion.
Vote on file r..i+tion:
AYES: Coin;.?issloners: Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Lubeckis, and Dickson
NOES: Cor~rrnissioners: flebard, Campos.
A6SEN1~: Cor±rinissioners: None.
pp 7C,-4 Bequest of the Pl~~nnincl Director for a determination of
T.S. 76-5 "minor modification" fora request of Mr. Timothy I~~1. Quinn,
and G.~or~ge S. Nolte and Associates, Co delete the emergency
access ramp shown on the development plan and tentative
subdivision Rrap for a terl-unit single family development
-13-
to be located on prol?erty lcrrotvn as 709--~~ub East llam~iltan
Avenue in a P-D (Plan red L'eveloprr~ent/Lour-[tedium D~rrsity
Residential) 7_oning District.
Chairman Dicksan asked hir•. Kee for his comments.
hlr. Kee advised that the applicant is reo,uesting deletion of t(?~ emergency access
route from Hamilton Avenue to the subject developn~~~nt. The access route ti-ras
shown on the original PD and can be removed at staff level if a determination is
made that i t -i s a mi nor change. As far as staff can determine, tl-,i s eras not a
requ-iremer~t of our Police ar Fire Depai,tments and the developer. is of tl?~~ opinion
that it shoo-Id t;~. excluded from the plan. The question is !•rhether the a{rplic~tion
should go•bac(; through the public hearing process, or is it a minor modif`~ication?
The staff is reco;??rner?dinq that the Planning Commission make a determination that
i:he req~.rested deletion of the emergency access be determined to be a minor modification.
Commissioner I(~~ard stated ti?at this access was discussed at the time the plans
were ap(~roved because this portion of the development i s i n Campbel 1 . I(otvever, the
prapE~r~~ty is scf?eduled to t}e annexed to the City of San Jose.
Co,rn?issioner Hebard moved tl-rai, the Plr~nninq Commission ri?ake a determination that
the deletion of the emergency access route from Hamilton Avenue to the suL,ject
development is a rnir~or modification, based on the comments from the Fire Department.
l~lotiar~ seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unarr-irnously adopted.
STA(~F (:SPORT Possible revision to the PD (Planned Development)
section of the 7_oning Ordinance.
f~lr . Y.ee reported t(?at the staff recommends that this i teni be included -i n t:he
lists of tap~ics to be discussed at a Planning Commission study session.. The
Corru7ission agreed to include this for discussion at t:he study sesc,ion.
ST~1D1' SESSIO;1 Chairman Dicksan asked the Commission to suggest a date
fora study session with staff.
Commissioner Hebard maved ti?at a study session be set for Tuesday, March 29, 1977,
seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
ADJO:iRNhlEtrT Commissioner Pack moved that the meeting be adjourned,
sec:anded by Commissioner Sarr;uolson and unanimously adopted.
The meeting ~,~~s adjourned at 11:15 P.m.
~; .
APPROVED: ~~/~!y+..~~~/i .~i ~ ,'.'J'.~':"r~-
_`
Dul•layne Dic son, Chairman
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee, Secretary
,_
f - ~ , /': .
RECOE:DED: shy ~ s 0. Acker
Recorder
-l~t-