PC Min 12/09/1976
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CA,MPi3ELL, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES DECEh1BER 9, 1976
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in adjourned
session at the employees' lounge of the Campbell City Hall, 75 North Central
Avenue.
ROIL CP,LL Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Dickson,
Present Samuelson, Pack, Secretary Artf~ur A. Kee, Senior
Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Planager Bill
Helms
Absent Chairman Lubeckis, City Attorney Dempster
COf~1MUNICF,TIONS Mr. Kee reported that there wer°e no communications relating
to the item on tonigf~t's agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Light Rail Feasibility Study Continued public hearing to consider the Ligh-~
Rail Feasibility Study as referred to the City
of Campbell by the Santa Clara County Transit
District and as referred to the Transit Sub-
committee of the Planning Conunission by the
City Council.
Vice Chairman Dickson indicated that the Transit Subcommittee held a meeting the
afternoon of December 9, 1976, and that it had prepared a brief report which presented
suggested recommendations regarding this referral. Mr. Dickson suggested that with
the concurrence of the full Commission, these recommendations may serve as a starting
point for this evening's discussion.
Vice Chairman Dickson asked P1r. Kee for any comments he had pertaining to the study.
A1r. Kee stated that the staff had no comments beyond what had previously been stated
to the Cor~nission. Mr. Kee then intr~cduced tW0 members of the audience; Mr. Fred
Cron representing the Transit District's Public Relations Office, and P1r. Ted Rogers,
representing the Campbell Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Dickson asked if the Commission had any questions ur comments to ask prior to
hearing from -che public.
Commissioner Pack asked if anyone had had the opportunity to review the Draft E.I.R,
which has been prepared.
Mr. Kee stated that he had reviewed the E.I.R. document and that the Commission may
be interested in the financing alternatives which were mentioned in the report.
-1-
Vice Chairman Dickson then asked if anyone wished to be heard.
i~1r. Ted Rogers, executive vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, presented the
Coi]~nission with copies of a resolution that the Chamber had adopted pertaining to
Light frail. h1r. P,ogers indicated that the sentence, "Further, that the City
- Council recommend that the Vasona Corridor be first priority" should be added to the
resolution.
There being no one else a~ishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved to close the
public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
Corrunissioner Dickson reviewed the five transit alternatives discussed in the report:
baseline bus, expanded local bus, bus`preferentia1 treatment, bus~~~ays, and light
rail. He then indicated that the Transit Subcommittee had considered all of the
alternatives taken it considered its draft of the policy recommendations which was
presented earlier.
Each of t!]e six policy issues vaere discussed, and the final reccn~u]]endations are as
follow=;:
1. For tyre policy issue, "Which transit alternative should receive top priority
for con~me.ncernent. -i n concert t-ai th the 57 o Bus p1 an?" , Commissioner Vierhus rnoved
that tl]c: fo l 1 owl ng recamr]eruiati on be fot~warded to the City Counci 1
A, The "light rail" alternative is reco~]imended due to the fact that, overall,
it -is thc~ most economical as presented by thL consultants, and it is
environmentally superior.
Seconded by Con]n~issioner Pacl: and unanimously adopted.
2. t~~ith ragard to the second policy issue, "l~here should the first useable segment
of any approved ~;,ransit alternative be located?", Commissioner Hebard stated
that -the Transit SUbCUiI]n17 ttC'e did not feel that i t tuns able to recommend one
corridor over anothLr.
After some discussion err this issue, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the follow-
ing reco;nnrerrdation be forwarded to the City Council.
A. The first usable segment of any approved transit alternative should be
located in the area where it can best meet the criteria of usage and
cost as determined by the Transit District.
$. If ti-re Vasona corridor n]eets this criteria or can be made to meet this
cr-i teri a, ti~en the would welcome and en-thu si asti cal 7y support i t.
Seca~ded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
3. For the policy issue, "YJhat is the role of light rail transit in Santa Clara
County in solving transportation needs now and in the foreseeable future?"
Corrnnissioner Vierhus rnoved that the fol-lowing recommendation be forwarded to
the City Council.
A. The role is to help meet i;he goal of reeving people and services economically
and efficiently throughout the County with the minimum adverse environmental
impact.
Seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
4. In response to the policy issue, "?s there a willingness to consider
modifications to current general plans and zoning laws which a:ould
reinforce transit in selected and mutually agreed upon areas?"
Commissioner Pack moved that the following recommendation be forwarded
to the City Council:
A. Yes. The Planning Commission recognizes the necessity of such
studies, and with the declared intentions of the Transit District
and with tf~+e Council's concurrence, is ready to i;ake action.
Seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
5. For the policy issue, "Should innovative financing mechanisms, such as
value capture, tax increment, or other techniques, be pursued so that
nQw property values, at selected locations, can be paritally assigned
to help pay for the local share of the system?
Commissioner Vierhus moved that the following .recommendation be fort~rarded
to the City Council:
A. Although this is not usually in tf~e domain of the Planning func~iton,
any feasible financial methods that show a return on this investment
should be pursued.
Seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
6. With regard to the policy issue, "Sfrould the West Valley and Guadalupe
Transportation Corridors be preserved far future transporation options?",
Commissioner Vierhus moved that the following recommendation be i=or°warded
to i.he City Council:
A. Absolutely. The undeveloped portions of the corridors must be
preserved for future transportation options.
Seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Hebard moved that all of the foregoing recommendation regarding the
light rail study be forwarded to the Council for consideration at their meeting of
December 13, 1976, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Campos moved that the meeting be adjourned,seconded by Commissioner
Pact: and unanimously adcp±ed.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
APPROVED' _ ~rl~ :~.s ~,( ~_/ -.1
J DuWayne Dickson, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee, Secretary
j
,,
RECORDED: ~ _ , ~:~ . ,;~- ~~
Philip J.~:Stafford, Recorder
C,' ]
F~I
t~s
fl
Ra
v
cs~
C~
c~
C?
C)
Csj
F:~
~~
G
t:.)
cr;
t
~•
::j
.=~
ca
~a
((1
t~~
~~~
c. ~
~~
,=~
t;"y9
C
~c~
t~
;:~
d•~
r•;
Cr,
(~-c
~d
N
r; ~~
i,
CT~J
a;
~~
Q
F~?
N+
E+
~j
C~
?i
f ~] ~--~
a C~~
F1~ ~>>
E i cYl
rr i
U \;)
1-1 rd
~r~ u
3
ri
f~)
i
C:)
t;
~t
J
ri
~~
H
~,
u
fx
.,.~
Q~
al +n
~ ;~.,
;~
~,
~
ti ~ ~, ~ ~
r ~
H
Qi
~ ~ ~.l •P@'~
t~V
1 .1
4.1
Y
'M T~ Iw`I
~•.~~`n1
a~ qq~~
W ~ `
~
~ ~~ ,
}O
~
~ `
~
•
V 4~
~ ~ ~F
C~
C~ hp
c~3 ,t C>
l~l ~ t r
-~
t~•D F, CG
O 7 ~
ai '
~ ~ : a ~ t~l
.~ + ~ i
~° ~
tr5 C~ ..
~~ rn ~
f a ~ •` r~ e ~
E=-3
~i
N ~
~
~ ~
CL t
a c)
a~ e~
l r-~
ra ~
"' ~s
,-,
•
~~
~~
'~'~
/
r
2'~ ~-t
~y
F-i C) ~
C) ud
(~
F-i ~
~ ~
Q ~ 4i C3 til N ~ C- ~~
(~~ C)
`1' i CJ~
~
i
~ .
' ~ ,
C9
~ m a~
v~ Ca
~ ~'+
fx7 .}.~
c~ -N O
c .
e-1 ~t ~ ~ ~ ~~ U H ~• ~~
~~ ~
~~ `~
;- ^ ±a
v ~ k, ~ M ~~ ~ ~
~
~
11 ~ ' a
l
O fl M ~C4 cj C-i ~ -N
-i- ~ CTa C!~
~ s:; ~ O
~ • ~ r > E r
r
`r's C1 O H ~ ~ N ~ 3
W
~~
i ~
~ '~
4 ~
° ~ Q~ ~ U U~O .~~ W
~ i S
.
eS
~' q
H xi
~ ~~
C ] ~ [-~
~ O
~~-+
--~ •~ O ~ O ~ c
3 ~ a ~ H
~ a)
Ci 'T. C!2 1
~
f~ tl~
i^i 3
a £:
~
c~
[=7 C1 {
1 •
)
~ c•
H
(~
e) ~ ~ r•
;~ ~ s Cr Q)
~ >w 1~
ai
`~s
t!}
f.9
:t3 R
•
1
t;t .i~
3 t
w-a
~
U
E-i
~ ~ ~~~
~a
~ ~ ~ ~~
i
to ~
(~ ~ ~n
ti 3
Qa <- r ~S u ~ C=l al
., . ~ ~ ~ O fay c2
e.
t~ ,,~, F=+
t7 Q)
.~; C)
e> t~ Fj G~`f
r-7 W -i~
c+5 cQ Csi
~
~ cr) ~°~
~w d
~; }+ r-i
r-i -F' ~
C~ C7
r- f-1 F-: ~?) C=K ~, ~) _
J
' ~
C•1 ~z
P ~ C) ~
in as ra t'1 F~ c1 ,
r
~ CJ c~ a
a F
~ ~ ;> O
~ l
~--i t7
cj F !~
- q~i .-d r>
;
:~
C.7 ~ 3 ~ Q3 ~ n O r--1 i
~ E
s
~ ~" ;
L~
t
; c O
~
O ~7
r G)
) O trT e-1
~ ~ 0~ ni
C) ~~{
~ fs+
3 •
~ t
~ HQ 1 x n yu e, d cn
~ •~
~ • hl to U]
e
CV e
M o
~'
t!1
~p
r-1
O
r~-1
n
L~
U
•ri iy
(-~ `i
.:i
~1 ~,1
•fi•1
~!:
ca c=~