PC Min 02/19/1976PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, 7:30 P. M. MIIJUTES FEBRUARY 19, 1976
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.
RCLL CALL Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Pack,
Present Chairman Lubeckis; Secretary Arthur A. Kee;
Senior Planner Bruce Powell; Senior Planner
Philip J. Stafford, Acting City Attorney.
Don Haile; Engineering Manager Bill Helms;
Recorder Phyllis Acker.
Absent Commissioners: Stewart, Samuelson
MINUTES Commissioner Hebard moved that the minutes of
the January 22, 1976 meeting be approved as
received, seconded by Commissioner Pack and
unanimously adopted.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that the only communications
received relate to specific items on the
agenda.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
''S" 73-53 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural
W. F. Batton and Review Committee and staff recommends approval of
Company, Inc. the request of W. F. Batton and Company, Inc. for
a six-month extension of time for plans to con-
struct an industrial building (Auto Services
Garage) and a speculative building to be located
at 1360 White Oaks Road in an M-1-S (Light Indus-
trial Zoning District subject to conditions
previously approved.
The applicant is in agreement with the recommendation.
Commissioner Hebard moved that the six-month extension of time of "S" 73-53
be approved as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously
adopted.
"S" 75-32 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural
Beckenhauer, D. Review Committee concurs with staff and recommends
denial without prejudice of "S" 75-32, application
of Donald K. Beckenhauer on behalf of Rinconada
Hills Christian Church, for approval of plans to
allow construction of a housing and recreational
center for senior citizens on property known as
1871 and 1961 Pollard Road in a P-D, Planned
Development, Zoning District.
Mr. Kee advised that the City Council directed that the previously approved
plans for a convenience shopping center be scheduled for consideration of
reinstatement. This action was in response to a request by the church.
It was represented to the Council that certain problems had occurred regard-
ing transfer of title to the property.
The public hearing to consider the previously approved plans are scheduled
before the Planning Commission under public hearings, PD 69-1.
r
Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 75-32 be denied without prejudice,
seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
"S" 76-1 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural
Stark, R. F. Review Committee recommends approval of the
application of Royaden F. Stark for approval of
plans to construct an auto service center on
property known as 2525 South Winchester Boulevard
in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District
subject to the conditions outlined in the staff
report and the added condition No. 6 to read:
"Applicant to submit a letter satisfactory to the City Attorney agreeing to
exclude auto body shops from this site."
Commissioner Pack stated that the committee felt that it would be detrimental
to the looks of the area and also create too much noise for the apartment
development at the rear of the property.
The building will be built to the rear property line and the parking will
be placed between the building and the street.
Commissioner Campos asked if the applicant was in agreement with this condition
Commissioner Pack stated that he was.
Mr. Kee stated that the C-2-S ordinance would specifically allow a body shop
to operate in the C-2-S zone. Ne questioned the appropriateness of having
the condition in the approval and possibly the applicant's recognition of
the recommendation would be sufficient.
Acting City Attorney Haile stated that he would have to agree.
The condition would be unenforceable. The Commission would, in effect, be
amending the zoning ordinance. In his opinion, it could be included in the
approval, but it would be unenforceable.
Commissioner Campos stated that, in his opinion, as long as the Commission
recognizes that it is not an enforceable condition, and that the body shop
operation may be a detriment to the surrounding development, that it should
be left in as a reminder.
Chairman Lubeckis stated that it would seem to him that the applicant is
voluntarily offering to accept the condition.
- 2 -
Commissioner Pack advised that the other change is to reduce the number of
parking spaces. The traffic engineer has recommended the removal of one
driveway and this would remove four parking spaces.
The plan would show the deletion of the second driveway to the north and the
elimination of four spaces.
Commissioner Hebard asked if the applicant was in agreement with the change
and Commissioner Pack replied that he was. ..
Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-1 be approved subject to the conditions
recommended by staff and the additional conditions of the Architectural
Review Committee, seconded by Commissioner Campos and .unanimously adopted.
"S" 76-2- Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural
Schmidt, D.K. Review Committee recommends approval of the appli-
Tonko Corporation cation of Dieter K. Schmidt on behalf of Tonko
Corporation for approval of plans to construct a
temporary roof and fence on property known as
1111 Dell Avenue in a M-1-S Zone subject to the
applicant submitting an agreement, satisfactory
to the City Attorney, that the fence will be
removed within one year or sooner if the
Planning Commission determines that there is
not enough on-site parking for the site.
Commissioner Samuelson arrived and was seated at 8 p.m.
Mr. Kee reported that the staff recommends approval subject to the condi-
tion outlined in the report.
Commissioner Pack moved that "S" 76-2 be approved as recommended, seconded
by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted.
"S" 76-3 Commissioner Pack reported. that the Architectural
Anthony Andrich Review Committee recommends approval of the
Bank of America application of Anthony Andrich, on behalf of
Bank of America for approval of plans to con-
struct an additional drive-up window with
canopy on property known as 1875 South Bascom
Avenue x#200, in a C-2-S Zoning District.
There was discussion at the meeting regarding the traffic flow and the
committee was in agreement with staff for approval of the project.
Commissioner Hebard asked if this application had the approval of the
Prune Yard owners inasmuch as it relates to the overall circulation
pattern.
Mr. Kee advised that it was his understanding that it does have the approval
of the Prune Yard.
Mr. Helms, Traffic Engineer, stated that he had made an inspection of the
circulation pattern at the Prune Yard and he did not believe that this
additional drive-up window would cause any problems. In fact, it should
cause an improvement in the overall circulation.
- 3 -
Commissioner Hebard stated that the Commission should be cautious in
reviewing individual applications in the Prune Yard to be sure that they
are compatible with the overall development.
Commissioner Campos moved that "S" 76-3 be approved as submitted, seconded
by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted.
"S" 76-4 Commissioner Pack reported that the
Errico, William Architectural Review Committee
recommends approval of the application
of William Errico for approval of plans _
to construct a 27-unit apartment complex
on property known as T64 Union Avenue in
a R-3-S zoning district subject to the --
conditions recommended by staff.
The applicant is in agreement with the conditions.
Mr. Kee pointed out that the ingress and egress for the development will be
on Michael Drive, rather than on Union. The Architectural Advisor has
also recommended approval.
Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-4 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Landscape plan indicating type of plant material, location of hose bibs
or sprinkler system and type of fencing to be submitted for approval of
the Planning Director at time of application for building permit.
2. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape
plan.
3. Faithful performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to be posted to insure
landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area within three (3) months
of completion of construction, or applicant may file written agreement to
complete landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area prior to final
building department clearance.
4. All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved
by the Planning Director.
The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to
meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of
Campbell.
A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with
Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to
be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070
of the Campbell Municipal Code.
C. Plans submitted to the building department for plan check shall indi-
cate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities
including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc.
-4-
D. Sign application to be~submitted in accordance with provisions of the
sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until applica-
tion is approved and permit issued by the building department.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. Applicant shall meet all State requirements for the handicapped.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Process and file parcel map.
I. Dedication to 60' right of way on Union Avenue.
J. Bond and agreement for street improvements.
K. Sign petition for .L. I.D. for Union Avenue.
L. Storm drainage area fee based on $765 per acre.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
M. Provide "ZABC" fire extinguishers.
N. Access to complex to be provided on west side and south east side.
This will be in the form of three foot wide gate in fence. All gates
to remain unlocked at all times.
The applicant is notified that he shall comply with all applicable Codes or
0 rdinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are
not herein specified.
Motion seconded by Cornmissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted.
S.A. 75'88 Continued appeal by Mr. Vernon Burgess,
Whiskey Creek Liquors on behalf of Whiskey Creek Liquors, of
a decision of the Planning Director which
gave conditional approval to a sign
application for signs to be located on
property known as 2075 South Winchester
Boulevard in a C-3-S Zoning District.
-5-
Commissioner Pack reported that at the request of the applicant, Mr.
Rominger, the Architectural Review Committee would recommend that the
item be placed at the end of the agenda,.
The applicant indicated that he couid,be in attendance between 10 arid
10:30 p.m.
Chairman Lubeckis stated that S. A. 75-88 would be taken up as Item 14-A
on the agenda.
S.A. 76-6 Commissioner Pack reported that the
Insta-Tune Architectural Review Committee recommends
approval of the application of A. Newman
fora 15 foot pole sign to identify
Insta-Tune at 368 East Campbell Avenue
in a PD Zoning District subject to the
two conditions recommended by staff:
1. Applicant to secure a building permit prior to placement of the sign.
2. Applicant and property owner to submit an agreement, satisfactory to
the City Attorney, that said sign will be removed when the utility
poles are removed from the downtown area..
Commissioner Dickson repcrted that there was a letter on:~file from the
applicant agreeing~to condition No. 2.
Commissioner Dickson moved that S.A. 76-6 be approved as recommended,
seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 75-4 This is the time and place for continued
Campbell Building public hearing on the application of
and Investment Co. Campbell Building and Investment Company
for approval of plans, elevations and
development schedule to allow construction
of an office building to be located on
property known as 54 North Central Avenue
in a P-D Zoning District.
Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends continuance of this item to the
first meeting in May and that the traffic engineer make comments regarding
the status of the downtown parking district. The applicant is in agreement
with the continuance.
Mr. Helms, traffic engineer, reported that the City Council has retained
a consulting firm to prepare the design for the downtown parking district.
This should come before the City Council in May. This application is for
an area included in the proposed parking district.
Commissioner Hebard moved that PD 75-4 be continued to the first meeting
in May, 1976, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
PD 75-$ This is the time and place for continued
Smith, V. Rev. public hearing on the application of
Calvary Temple Church Rev. Vernon Smith, on behalf of the
Calvary Temple Church, for approval of
- 6 -
plans to construct an addition to
the front of the church auditorium, and
to construct a multi-purpose/nursery school
building on property known as 202 Railway
Avenue in a PD Zoning District.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee recommends
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
r
The landscaping plan has been improved and tree wells will be put in to
allow for the proper growth of the trees.
Mr. Kee reported that the staff recommends approval subject to the conditions
outlined.
Chairman Lubeckis stated this was a public hearing and he asked if anyone
wished to be heard for or against the application..
There being no one, Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be -
closed, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTION N0. 1496 Commissioner Dickson moved that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 1496 recommending that the City
Council approve PD 75-8, application
of Rev. Vernon Smith subject to the
conditions recommended by staff.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack,
Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
PD 75-9 This is the time and place for continued
Ferrante, Russell public hearing on the application of
Russell Ferrante for approval of plans
and development schedule to allow con-
struction of a 130 unit housing development
for the elderly to be located on property
known as 601 E1 Patio Drive in a P-D
Zoning District.
Commissioner Pack stated that she would abstain from voting on this appli-
cation. Commissioner Pack left the Council Chambers.
Commissioner Dickson reported that the Architectural Review Committee
reviewed the plans with'-the applicant. One concern the committee had
related to the parking. Revised plans have been submitted showing additional
parking.
-7-
The Noise Impact Report has been submitted on the project and the applicant
has reviewed it. The Architectural Review Committee recommends approval of
the project.
11r. Kee advised that the previous plan indicated 44 parking spaces, which,
in the opinion of the Architectural Review Committee and the staff, was not
adequate.
The revised plans indicate 60 parking spaces and an additional 14 spaces
can be added if the Planning Commission feels there is a need for them in
the future. That area is now shown as landscaping on the plans.
Chairman Lubeckis asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or
against the application.
Mr. Irving Castor, project designer, spoke in favor of the application.
He reviewed the parking layout, the elevations, and the interior design
of the buildings. He stated that the project has been designed in accordance
with F.H.A. and H.U.D. standards for this type of project. He stated that
the applicant is in agreement with the conditions recommended by staff.
Chairman Lubeckis asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Mrs. Edith Morley, 649 E1 Patio Drive, stated that the residents in the
immediate area had the following questions they would like answered:
1. Is this still a Bethel Church project?
2. Is there going to be an agreement between the City and the owners
of the development that it will remain a senior citizens' project?
3. Is the project to be serviced by San Jose or Campbell Water Company?
4. How soon is the development to be started and how soon will it be
finished?
Commissioner Hebard asked Mrs. Morley if the residents in the area had had
an opportunity to review the traffic and noise report.
Mrs. Morely stated that they had not.
Commissioner Hebard stated that one of the reasons the traffic and noise
reported was requested was because of the concern the Commission had for
the people in the neighborhood.
Mr. Castor replied to Mrs. Morley's questions. He advised that the project
is not a Bethel Church development and that it is being designed as a senior
citizens' development.
Mr. Kee advised that the project under consideration by the Commission is
for a 130 unit senior citizens' development and before it could be used for
any other use, there gould have to be a public hearing before the Commission
and Council to change the use from a senior citizens' project.
- $ -
Mr. Castor stated that they are working on the final drawings and estimated
that it would take six to eight weeks to complete them. They could be
applying for a building permit within six to eight weeks.
Mr. Kee advised that the development schedule submitted with the application
states that construction will start within one year of final approval and
completion within 2~ years.
Mr. Helms advised that the project would be supplied by the Campbell Water
Company.
Mr. Joseph Milmoe, representing the owner, stated they are anticipating
that a new water main will be installed by the Campbell Water Company to
service the project.
Mr. Homer Hyde, Campbell Water Company, stated that the existing facilities
would not service the project and arrangements will have to be made to
adequately service the entire area. The system will be upgraded to take
care of the needs.
Mr. Harry Webber asked about the transportation for the residents of the
complex.
Mr. Castor advised that they will have two mini buses to transport the
residents to the doctor, church, store, etc.
There being no one wishing to speak further, Commissioner Dickson moved
that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and
unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission accept the Traffic
and Noise Report submitted for PD 75-9, seconded by Commissioner Dickson
and adopted by the following roll call vote: _
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Lubeckis
NOES: Commi ss i oners:- None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Pack
RESOLUTION N0. 1497
Commissioner Hebard moved that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 1497 recommending to the City
Council the approval of PD 75-9
(application of Russell Ferrante)
subject to the conditions recommended
by staff and the Architectural Review
Committee, seconded by Commissioner
Samuelson and adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Pack
- 9 -
Commissioner Dickson asked the attorney for clarification as to the proce-
dure to be followed when items come up on the agenda which might create a
conflict of interest.
Mr. Haile advised that it would be proper to declare the reason for
abstaining. It is the duty of a Commissioner to vote on an item and if
he does not do so, he should declare why he is abstaining.
~~'~' Commissioner Pack stated the reason she abstained from voting on PD 75-9
' dd was that her husband's firm prepared the Noise and Traffic Study.
UP 76-1 This is the time and place for public
Los Gatos-Saratoga hearing to consider the application of
Gymnastics Club Robert C. Bischoff for a use permit to
Bischoff, R. C. operate the Los Gatos-Saratoga Gymnas-
tics Club on property known as 504-E
Vandell Way in a CM:B-40 Zoning
District.
Chairman Lubeckis asked t1r. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee advised that the applicant is requesting to use approximately
5,700 square feet of a 21,000 square foot industrial building for
gymnastics purposes. The use is predominately during the off hours of
the industrial area and the type of buildings seem to be most compatible
with a gymnastic use. Staff is recommending approval subject to the
occupancy conditions of the Fire and Building Departments and the condi-
tions outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Campos asked if the program included soccer, or if it was
strictly gymnastics.
Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
Mr. Robert Bischoff, applicant, stated that the use would be for gymnas-
tics only. The soccer is no longer part of the program. The program is
designed for girls between the ages of 5 to 17.
There being no one wishing to be heard, Commissioner Hebard moved that the
public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner-Pack and unanimously
adopted.
RESOLUTION N0. 1498 Commissioner Samuelson moved that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 1498 approving a use permit to operate
the Los Gatos-Saratoga Gymnastics Club on
property known as 504-E Vandell Way in a
CM:B-40 Zoning District subject to the
conditions recommended by staff.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Campos and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
- 10 -
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack,
Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSEIJT: Commissioners: Stewart
PD 69-1 Referral from the City Council to
Chez, Fred consider reinstatement of commercial
PD 69-1 on property known as 1871 and
1961 Pollard Road in a P-D Zoning
District.
Mr. Kee advised that this is a referral from the City Council for consider-
ation of-the reinstatement of plans and development schedule for. the sub-
-- ject property. The proposed church project has not materialized and the
church requested the reinstatement of the original Planned Development as it
was prior to their submission fora residential use on the property. The
staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
recommending approval of an ordinance reinstating the plans and development
schedule of PD 6g-1 subject to the original conditions and the three addition-
al conditions as approved by the City Council on October 28, 1975.
Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
There being no one present wishing-to speak for or against the referral
from the City Council to consider reinstatement of commercial PD 69-1,
Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by
Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Dickson asked if there was anything that the Commission could
do to request some kind of maintenance on the existing partial structure.
Mr. Kee advised that one of the three added conditions approved by the
Council on October 28, 1975, was that the owner remove all combustible
material from the building and secure all openings so unauthorized persons .
could not enter. If the PD is reinstated, this condition would apply.
RESOLUTION N0. 1499 Commissioner Dickson moved that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.
1499 recommending that the City Council
reinstate the commercial PD 6g-1 on
property known as 1871 and 1861 Pollard
Road in a PD Zoning District ,subject to
the original conditions anal the three
additional conditions as approved by the
City Council on October 28, 1975,
seconded by Commissioner Campos and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack,
Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
Chairman Lubeckis declared a recess at 9 p.m. Meeting reconvened at
9:10 p.m:
G.P. 76-2-C This~is the time and place for continued
West Valley College public hearing to consider future use of
the West Valley College Site.
Mr. Kee stated that on January 22, 1976, the Planning Commission Chairman
appointed Commissioners fiebard and Samuelson to a committee to work with
the staff in developing a time schedule for future meetings regarding the
West Va lley College Site.
The staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to the second -~;
Planning Commission meeting in March and that the Planning Commission endorse ,
the schedule that has been worked out by the committee and staff. The
proposed schedule is as follows:
1. February 19, 1976
2. February 27, 1976
10:30 A.M.
Planning Commission continues the public
hearing to March 18,-1976.
Walk through the campus with Planning
Commissioners, Chamber of Commerce,
Press, Planning Staff, etc.
3. March 18, 1976 Planning Commission reviews the informa-
tion provided to it by Chamber of
Commerce, School District, Council,
tec. Hearing continued to first meeting
in May.
4. Subcommittee of the Planning Commission meets with Staff to schedule
study session(s). Date(s) to be determined.
5. First meeting in May Recommendations to Planning Commission
and forwarded to City Council.
Commissioner Pack advised that one subcommittee of the Goals Committee is
also taking this item as its first priority of study.
Commissioner Hebard was of the opinion that if the
studying this site, and the Planning Commission is
holding public hearings, they should be so advised
may conduct may be integrated with the Planning
purpose of the public hearings is to get all the i
the record.
Goals Committee is
in the process of
so whatever studies they
Commission studies. The
put from all sources into
Commissioner pack stated that she was a member of the Goals Committee and
would relay the information to that committee.
Commissioner Dickson stated that this subject came up for discussion at the
Candidates' Forum meeting, and it might be proper to get an item in the
Campbell Press regarding the Planning Commission's action.
Commissioner Hebard stated that the message should be gotten out to the
public and they should be made aware that the Planning Commission does not
expect to dispose of the matter in one meeting of public hearings.
- 12 -
Chairman Lubeckis directed the .staff to get the pertinent information to
the Campbell Press to inform the public as much as possible as to the
schedule that will be followed in the public hearings.
Commissioner Hebard moved that G.P. 76-2-C (West Valley College Site) be
continued to the second meeting in March, 1976, seconded by Commissioner
Pack and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission endorse the schedule
outlined by staff and the subcommittee, seconded by Commissioner Pack and
unanimously adopted.
Social Services This is the time and place for public
Element hearing to consider amending the General
Plan of the City of Campbell to include
a Social Services Element.
Chairman Lubeckis advised that several meetings have been held to discuss
a possible Social Services Element to the General Plan. Commissioners
Hebard and Pack have served as a committee to work with staff in develop-
ing a Social Services Element to the General Plan.
Chairman Lubeckis relinquished the chair to Commissioner Hebard and
requested that he conduct the public hearing.
Commissioner Hebard asked Mr. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee reviewed the background of what an element of the General Plan is
and the purpose of an element. There are nine mandatory elements of the
General Plan required by the State law. The Social Services Element is a
suggested element--not a mandatory one. The purpose of any element of the
General Plan is to formulate long-range policies, which, when adopted by the
local legislative body, comprise the official statement of policies regarding
a particular planning area.
Mr. Kee advised that as a result of the guidelines adopted by the City
Council in study sessions that have been held, the committee appointed by
the Chairman of the Planning Commission developed the draft Social Services
Element which is presented for public hearing. P1 r. Kee advised that the
committee has revised Goal ado. 1 and the last paragraph of the proposed
element dealing with "Implementation" and he passed out this information.
Commissioner Hebard advised that the draft before the Commission is intended
to be a description of the attitude of the City toward social services. It
is intended to be a vehicle by which the City government may possibly deal
with whatever action plans are presented to it. The last paragraph of the
revised draft reads: "The City Council may, with the assistance of the
appropriate City Commissions, public and private agencies, and the general
public, establish objectives and adopt action plans for implementation of
the Social Services Element."
Commissioner Hebard advised that everything in the draft Social Services
Element has been extracted from the report prepared by the Social Services
Study Committee in order to put forth a general policy statement of the
City without endorsing or denying the recommendations made in that report.
- 13 -
The Action Plan Report is not a subject of this hearing--it is only the
long range goals and general policy statement of the City.
This element is for the purpose of giving a policy statement that tells
the people of Campbell and the people outside of Campbell what might be ex-:
petted of our City government when a subject of social services is brought
before thern.
Commissioner Hebard stated that some of the people who worked j.n developing
the report may feel that this is not as positive a statement as they might
want to see, however, in a general policy statement there has to be flexi-
bility. The Council has to have the flexibility to deal with situations.
The question to be asked is, "does this statement--the Social Services
Element--reflect the attitude of the City of Campbell and, if it does,
should it be made an element of the General Plan?"
Commissioner Hebard asked if members of the Commission had any questions.
Commissioner Campos stated that the last paragraph of the revised goals is
quite different than the one in the package, and he asked what the reason
was for the rewriting of this last paragraph dealing with implementation.
He was satisfied with the way the original draft read, and it did not seem
to say the same in the revised paragraph. He was of the opinion that they
must address themselves as to who is responsible for the Social Services
Element, and he stated that, in his opinion, the revised element does not
say this.
Mr. Kee advised that the committee revised this last paragraph which speaks
to the implementation. The first draft calls for the City Council to have
the responsibility, and that is all it says. It does not say how it is going
to be done. As a planner, Mr. Kee stated that, in his opinion, there should
be an implementation section. The revised last paragraph says that: "The
City Council may, with the assistance of the appropriate City Commissions,
public and private agencies, and the general public, establish objectives,
and adopt action plans for implementation of the Social Services Element."
Commissioner Pack stated that the committee reviewed the draft and it was
felt that it did not spell out clearly just how the element would be im-
plemented.
Commissioner Campos stated that the key word in the revised paragraph is
"may." The Council "may" or "may not", so it really isn't a plan for
implementation. He further stated that he would like a more positive
approach.
Commissioner Hebard advised that ordinarily the implementation of elements
of the General Plan comes through the Planning Commission. This last
statement gives the implementation to the City Council. It gives the City
Council the freedom to consult with whatever commission they wish for
recommendations on the establishment of objectives or action plans.
Commissioner Pack suggested that Commissioner Campos offer some different
terminology.
- 14 -
Commissioner Campos was of the opinion that the last paragraph should begin
with: "The implementation of the Social Services Element of the General
Plan is the responsibility of the City Council." He stated that a more
positive approach is needed.
Commissioner Dickson stated that, after reviewing the draft element and
the goals, he felt that the committee had done a fine job in combining the
goals into cohesive goals that can be used in an element.
r
Commissioner Hebard declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone
in the audience wished to be heard.
Mrs. Anita Campos, 819 Chapman Drive, member of the Civic Improvement
Commission and Chairperson of the Social Services Study Committee, stated
that the committee studied the critical needs in the City and cited some
of the social problems. She stated that they can no longer ignore the
social needs in a changing society. The Social Services_Study Committee,
through the technical assistance of E.S.O., prepared the report--the
document is explicit and it requires action. It requires positive action,
and this can only come about when the City establishes meaningful goals.
She requested that the Commission make this report a part of the Social
Services Element of the General Plan so it will have the same status as
other elements such as Housing, Conservation, Noise, Seismic, etc. She
requested that the Planning Commission make this recommendation in a
positive vote to the City Council.
Mrs. Campos stated that she was quite satisfied with the draft, but did
feel that a more positive approach should be taken.
Virginia Ryan, speaking for Barbara Allen, I & R Specialist, read a letter
from Ms. Allen recommending that a Social Services Element be included in
the General Plan. (Letter on file).
Myron Alexander, 294 California Street, requested that the Commission accept
the staff recommendation and recommend to the City Council the adoption of
the Social Services Element of the General Plan. He stated that the
committee appointed to prepare the report represented a good cross section
of the community. Quite frequently, they did not agree, but logical
conclusions were reached and he strongly recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the element.
Mr. Means, member of the Social Services Study Committee, requested that the
Commission recommend approval of the Social Services Element to the General
Plan. He stated that a lot of hard work went into the preparation of the
report and he would like to see something positive and that there should be
some form of implementation. He was of the opinion that the City Council
will do a good job with it.
Commissioner Dickson moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by
Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Hebard turned the meeting back to Chairman Lubeckis.
- 15 -
Chairman Lubeckis asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Pack asked
that the last paragraph, as it is going to be incorporated into the element,
be read. There was considerable discussion on the word "may" and Commissioner
Dickson was of the opinion that the second paragraph of the draft element
involves the City Council and he believed that the word "may" would do the
job.
He was in agreement that there should be a positive approach, and he was of
the opinion that this element does have that.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that, in his opinion, the City of Campbell
will be involved in social services and he commended the committee for an
excellent job in pointing out the areas of concern. He was of the opinion
that a Social Services Element is not needed in the General Plan. He
believed that social services will be accomplished without an element due
to the attitude of the people of Campbell. He recommended that the Council
accept the report and use it for determining those social services that they
should look into and take action on.
After some discussion, Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission
accept the Social Services Element draft as modified by the changes in Goal 1
and the last paragraph to read: "Implementation of the Social Services
Element of the General Plan is the responsibility of the City Council. The
City Council may, with the assistance of the appropriate City Commissions,
public and private agencies, and the general public, establish objectives
and adopt action plans for implementation of the Social Services Element.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Commissioner Campos stated that he would vote for the motion but would
take exception to the word "may". Too many things in the word "may" are
subject to interpretation.
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack,
Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
RESOLUTION N0. 1500
Commissioner Hebard moved that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 1500 recommending that the City
Council adopt the Draft Social Services
Element as revised as an Element of the
General Plan, seconded by Commissioner
Campos and adopted by the following
rol 1 ca 1 1 vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Pack, Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: Samuelson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
- 16 -
Chairman Lubeckis declared a recess at 10:30 p.m. Meeting reconvened at
10:40 p.m.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
S.A. 75-88 Continued appeal by T1r. Vernon Burgess
on behalf of Whiskey Creek Liquors of
a decision of the Planning Director
which gave conditional approval to a
-sign application for signs tQ be
located on property known as.2075
South Winchester Boulevard in a C-3-S
(Downtown Commercial) Zoning District.
Chairman Lubeckis asked for staff comments.
Commissioner Dickson stated that he would like to reply to the letter
received from Mr. Rominger prior to the meeting. He requested that
the letter be read into the record. (Letter on file in S.A. 75-88).
Commissioner Dickson stated that he serves on the Sign Review Committee
and the Architectural Review Committee which are advisory committees to
the Planning Commission and they do not have approval or rejection authority.
That is the authority of the Commission, therefore, he did not feel that he
has voted on the application until it comes before the Commission.
He stated that the applicant has fairly well mentioned his beliefs. However,
two or three liquor store applications have come before the Commission in the
past and the. signs received a favorable vote from him. He stated that he
does have a concern about alcohol and although this is not the time to raise
the issue, it was raised in the applicant's letter.- He stated that he has not
swayed the Commission in previous votes and he was of the opinion that he
could vote on this application without any conflict of interest in the matter.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that the question has come up before regarding
someone serving on the two committees prior to coming to the Planning Commission
and the applicants have indicated that they feel that they have been before one
group and not received favorable consideration and they have to come before the
same person the third time. He was of the opinion that this problem should be
considered further in the future.
Chairman Lubeckis stated that the Sign Review Committee has nothing to do
with the vote_ It is an advisory committee to the Commission and they have
guidelines to follow when they consider an application.
Chairman Lubeckis stated that he could not ask Commissioner Dickson to
abstain as requested by the applicant.
Acting City Attorney Haile stated that the Chairman or anyone else would not
have the power to ask any Commissioner to abstain. Only that Commissioner
can know his own mental process and thoughts. Only he knows if he has a
conflict of interest. He advised that the letter from the applicant be
filed and that Commissioner Dickson make his own decision as to whether
he has an open mind.
Mr. Kee read a letter which had been received from Mr. William Hedley
addressed to the Sign Review Committee in which he stated that, in his
opinion,'the"change in the sign would be an improvement.
- 17 -
Mr. Kee presented sketches showing the original application and the one
that is being appealed. He advised that the Sign Advisor was present at
the Architectural Review Committee meeting and possible solutions were
discussed.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee recommends
two alternatives. The committee was in full agreement with the sign in front
of the building to be 18" high letters and that there be no signs on the side
of the building. The other alternative, and the committee split on the
recommendation, is that the lettering on the front of the building be smaller
than 18"--possibly 12" letters with the signs on the sides of the building
also being 12" high. She asked if either of these alternatives were agree-
able to the applicant.
Mr. Ken Rominger, applicant, stated that they were not. He stated that
the Sign Advisor, in a written review of the application, had felt that
18" high letters were a minimum and he had no objection to the end signs.
The second application indicates 18" letters on the sides and 20" letters
on the front.
He stated that it was his understanding that they came to agreement of 20"
to 18" letters on the front, but no decision on the side signs. According
to the sign advisor's report, it was his opinion that if 12" letters were
used, he might as well have no letters.
The written report from the Sign Advisor was reviewed by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Dickson stated that at the Architectural Review Committee
meeting, the Sign Advisor felt that the letters would have to be at least
18" high to be seen by approaching traffic. He was of the opinion that
there should be no more signs than necessary to identify the business and
that there should be no signs on the ends of the building. He requested
that the record show that the committee spent at least 45 minutes with the
applicant discussing this matter, and as a result of the lengthy discussion,
several applicants were kept waiting.
Commissioner Hebard stated that the Sign Advisor speaks to the second appli-
cation and is of the opinion that it falls within the limits of the ordinance.
Mr. Kee read the comments from the Sign Advisor on the first application
and the comments on the second application.
Mr. Rominger stated that the Sign Advisor had no objections to side signs.
He stated that he was appealing the second application and he would be
agreeable to reducing the letters to 18".
Mr. Kee stated that this would be within the limits of the Sign Advisor's
comments approving 18" letters. Mr. I<owtowski did not specify that the
18" letters would be only at the front.
Mr. Rominger stated that he had driven up and down Winchester Boulevard
and there are a lot of businesses on Winchester that have end signs
and there are also a lot of new signs that are perpendicular to the
street and free-standing. He was of the opinion that his application is
consistent within the sign ordinance and prior approvals of the Planning
Commission.
- 18 -
Commissioner ilebard moved to uphold the appeal of the applicant as respects
the second application with the change of the signs on the front from 20"
to 18" letters, granting the application as applied for, including the side
signs of 18" letters. Motion seconded by Commissioner Samuelson.
Commissioner Dickson stated that, in speaking to the motion, he .believed
that the sign ordinance says that there should be no more signs than necessary
to adequately identify the business and wherever possible the signs should be
oriented parallel to the street. ..
Vote on the motion:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis
NOES: Commissioners: Dickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart
ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hebard moved that the
meeting be adjourned, seconded by
Commissioner Pack and unanimously
adopted. The meeting was adjourned
at 11:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Secretary
/j . -
RECORDED: ~~~ ~~, - ~.~
Phyllis Acker
Recorde r
_ 19 _