Loading...
Proposed Master Plan - 1985 lhe PruneYard fI!I '1V\f- November 6, 1985 \ J Mr. Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Mr. Joseph Elliott Public Works Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 1, 1985 and its contents. We, of course, have no interest in appealing your collective decision to the Planning Commission nor would we ever. I will spend some time considering the concept of intensity within the next week or two and perhaps get back to you with some suggested changes. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in considering our request. ~~ ];j¿. ~:ed Sahadi FS:as Telex No. 346463 1901 S. Bascom Avenue Suite 900 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone (408) 371-0811 Cable Address "Samar" _'~"m -_. .. .~....- .. C-_____H_- - CITY OF CAMPBELL '----- --... ._~. - . .--.-- "" 1 I 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 Department: Planning Public Works November 1,1985 Hr. Fred Sahadi 1901 S. Bascom Ave., Suite 900 Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Sahadi: This letter is in response to your letter of October 21,1985, wherein you requested that the criteria for the EIR and traffic studies for your proposed development of the PTlIDeyard be considered. Your request has been referred to the Public Works Department for review, since that department is responsible for detennining the content of an EIR as related to traffic. The Public Works Director has responded by saying that, in his opinion, the traffic criteria developed for this project is reasonable and appropriate considering the magnitude of the traffic generating features this project presents. It is also my opinion as Planning Director that the other elements of the EIR, as stated to you in our letter of May 22,1985, are minimlDll requirements, based on our tID.derstanding of the scope of the project. As stated in our May 22, 1985 letter, the Planning Connnission and/or City Council could require additional analysis of impacts not identified by Staff. On the other hand, if the application for redevelopment of your shopping center is of a different nature and less intense than what has been discussed to date, the impacts could be less and, therefore, not as much environmental analysis would be required. While it is our opinion that the criteria for the EIR and the related traffic studies is appropriate, you should be aware of the fact that you may appeal our decision to the Planning Connnission. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call. ~incerel Y. ' jJLA -V:'þ ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR 4¿/~ :1ÔSEPH ELLIOTT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECI'OR ld cc: Kevin Duggan, City Manager / October 21, 1985 Mr. Art Kee City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Art: I would like to ask that the criteria for the EIR and the traffic status for The Prune Yard redevelopment be reconsidered. It's my feeling, particularly with respect to the traffic studies, that the criteria are too harsh and as a result the studies from the consultants that were selected are unreasonably expensive in my opinion. I talked with Kevin last week with respect to some of the downtown redevelopment, which has been the basis for our delay on the commencement of The PruneYard redevelopment program. I had hoped that something of some major consequence could or would be done in the downtown area so that the whole central Campbell area could come along together. That apparently is not possible and/or not on a realistic schedule. Thanks for your help and reconsideration in this area. À;;¡ JaM. Fred Sahadi FS:as cc: Mr. Kevin Duggan, City Manager City of Campbell fB) œ ~ œ.J~Œ fQì" IJ\\ OCT 2~ 1985 U}) CITY OF" CAMP8ELL PL:ANN I NGDEPARTMEN:t Telex No. 346463 1901 S. Bascom Avenue Suite 900 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone (408) 371-0811 Cable Address "Samar" r- ----,-, , ---'\ CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 Department: Planning May 22, 1985 Mr. Fred Sahadi pruneyard Towers 1901 S. Bascom Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 RE: pruneyard Master Plan EIR Environmental Impact Planning Corp. proposal dated April 18, 1985 DKS Associates Proposal dated April 19, 1985 Dear Mr. Sahadi: This office is in receipt of proposals by Environmental Impact Planning Corporation and DKS Associates to prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Traffic Study for the redevelopment of the pruneyard Shopping Center. These proposals have been submitted in response to a schematic layout prepared by Maxwell Starkman Associates dated February 28, 1985 which indicates the construction of two 20-story office buildings, having a combined total of 800,000 square feet of floor area, and a 350-room hotel. A copy of the two proposals, including the scope of work and the cost involved, is enclosed for your records. The City Staff is satisfied that the scope of work indicated in the proposals is sufficient to adequately address the environmental impacts of such a project, based on the information submitted to the City as of this date. If you agree with these proposals and would like the City to authorize the consultants to proceed, it will be necessary for you to file an application for the development with the Planning Department. In addition, it will also be necessary for you to deposit with the City the sum of $68,230 to cover the costs of preparing the EIR and Traffic Study as described in the respective proposals. The City will then disburse the funds to the consultants as stated in the proposals. You will receive an accounting of the actual disbursement of the funds upon completion of the EIR. Please take note of the fact that the Planning Commission and/or the City Council may require additional analysis of the project's impact that is not included in the scope of work indicated in the attached proposals. Should this occur, there may be a significant increase in the dollar amount necessary to pay for the preparation of this EIR. If additional funds are required, you will be requested to deposit the necessary amount with the City, before the consultants are authorized to proceed further. Mr. Fred Sahadi May 22, 1985 Page Two. Lastly, the City Staff reserves the opportunity to modify the scope of work for the EIR, pending the submission of a specific project application. The scope of work in the two attached proposals is based solely on the conceptual plans mentioned above that were prepared by Maxwell Starkman Associates. A detailed site plan and elevations of proposed buildings, as required for submittal of a development application, may indicate a need for additional areas of environmental review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Department at 866-2140. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIREC~OR . ~~ß- PH~ ~AFFO' PRINCIPAL PLANNE Id cc: City Manager City Attorney Public Works Director EIP Corporation DKS Associates Maxwell Starkman Associates 1 , í CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 Department: Planning May 2, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Mïller Executive Vice President Maxwell Starkman Associates 9420 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 RE: Pruneyard EIR Campbell, California Dear Mr. Mïller: Pursuant to your request of May 1,1985, please find a copy of the letter outlining areas of potential environmental impact for the proposed Pruneyard redevelopment. ) If you, or a traffic consultant, have any questions related to the traffic section of the EIR, please feel free to con- tact Mr. Bill Helms or Mr. Keith Manley in the Public Works Department directly. If I may be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, ARIHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR ~rJ PHILIP ::J. STÁFFORDÌ ' PRINCIPAL PLANNER PJS:lj ... associates Traffic. Transportation. Engineering Principals: April 19, 1985 Charles E. De Leuw. Jr. PE. William H. Dietrich. PF Larry R. Grove, PE, Michael A Kennedy, Pf, Hans W Karve, PF Richard T. Sauve. Pf, Daniel T. Smith, Jr. PE. Mr. Arthur Kee Director of Planning City of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Subject: Proposal for Pruneyard Master Plan Traffic Study A85-0 I 06/53 Dear Mr. Kee: As you requested, DKS is pleased to submit this proposal for performing a traffic engineering study in support of the Pruneyard Master Plan Development in Campbell, California. We understand that the traffic report is to be incorporated into an EIR being prepared by others. The proposed project consists of the addition of two 400,000 square foot office towers plus a hotel, all to be located on the existing Pruneyard Shopping Center site. The new developments are to replace an existing supermarket and a bank. The total site acreage is to remain the same. The site is located adjacent to an arterial road network that has suffered heavy congestion during the peak hour for the last 10-15 years. It is also adjacent to a proposed development that is currently undergoing public hearings. We are proposing the following work scope to address the concerns raised at the meetings with you Joe Elliott, Keith Manley, and Phil Stafford and in the letter dated March 26th, 1985. Task I - Establish Data Base Review existing documentation within the traffic shed of this project. Collect all available traffic counts and approved "new" trips (San Jose only) from Campbell, San Jose and Caltrans. Inventory existing circulation network and review all proposed improvement plans to the circulation system in the vicinity of the project site, including proposals for interchange modifications for the Route 17 Freeway. For all 26 intersections shown in Exhibit I obtain available signal timing and phasing. These intersections were selected by the Campbell and San Jose traffic departments. This list may need to be expanded if the traffic analysis performed in Task 4 reveals that additional intersections fall under the 1.5 percent level of service (LOS) and I percent LOS E rule established by Campbell. Task 2 - Conduct Traffic Counts and Review Existing Surveys Review available employee/customer surveys conducted at the Pruneyard to determine where people are coming from to go to the project site. This data (apparently broken down by ZIP code) will help to determine the directional distribution of existing and future traffic and wi II be used in the trip assignment phase of this study for the project. 1419 Broadway, Suite 700, Oakland, California 94612-2069 . 415/763-2061 Mr. Arthur Kee City of Campbell April 19, 1985 Page 2 Conduct AM and PM peak hour manual turn counts at 9 intersections in Campbell shown on Exhibit I, to update existing data base. Conduct 24-hour machine counts at the 14 locations shown in Exhibit 2. Task 3 - Trip Generation Based on directional distribution information from the 900 Hamilton EIR and from available survey data from the Pruneyard determine, in concert with the City, the appropriate trip distribution for the new project traffic. Trip generation rates for the project are to be based on ITE trip generation rates. These new trips would then be distributed to the street network per the agreed upon distribution. This step would be undertaken for Phase I and Phase II of the project. For each of the analysis years we would estimate background traffic growth. Background traffic consists of two variables: traffic related to general traffic growth unrelated to any specific project, and traffic related to approved projects which are anticipated to effect the key intersections listed in Exhibit I. The former wi II be estimated wtih an annual growth factor. The latter will be determined from a list of approved projects that will be supplied by Campbell and San Jose. Task 4 - Computer Model We propose to code the circulation network within the study are using a computer model called TRACS. The model performs automatic level of service calculations for each intersection in the network (TRB Circular 212 - Planning Method and City of San Jose (CSJ) Method). The model runs on IBM PC's. A brochure more fully describing TRACs is attached as Exhibit 3. Task 5 - Traffic Impact Analysis Conduct an AM and PM peak hour traffic impact analysis for the selected analysis years for the intersections shown in Exhibit I. The capacity analysis will be done using both the Circular 212 method and the City of San Jose method. We would also look at each arterial as a "system" to analyze traffic impacts. In addition, potential traffic impacts upon neighborhoods adjacent to the project site would be identified. Specific neighborhoods to be considered include the area east of Bascom, the area west of Route 17, and the residential area south of Campbell Avenue along Union Avenue. We understand that the Council has a policy of discouraging additional traffic along Union Avenue. The primary focus will be to identify any impacts of potential thru traffic into residential neighborhoods. The traffic impact analysis on the intersections and arterials would focus on capacity, basic traffic flow, and impact on signalization. This analysis may show that additional intersections may need to be included in the analysis to meet the LOS policy of the City of Campbell. Additional intersections would be considered an extra and are not included in this fee estimate. The analysis will examine traffic impacts for the development scenarios listed on Exhibit 4. Task 6 - Mitigation Measures Based on results of traffic impact analysis, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and tested for each of the traffic analysis years. These measures could Mr. Arthur Kee City of Campbell April 19,1985 Page 3 include things like additional turn lanes, improved channelization, new traffic signals, new streets, interchange modifications and a new interchange. Traffic impact analysis would be conducted of each of these mitigation measures to measure their effects on traffic service. Task 7 - Parking We will determine what the parking needs of the project will be, taking into consideration the types of uses proposed, the possibi lity for shared parking usage due to a mixture of land uses on the site and the potential effects of TSM measures such as carpooling. These will be compared to the amount of parking proposed in the development plan and to the amount of parking required by City Code. Task 8 - Site Plan Review We will review the adequacy of the site plan to handle the access and circulation needs of the master plan proposal. Attention will be focused on the capacity of the access points, the circulation and capacity needs of the internal roadway system of the project, the layout of the proposed parking facilities and general circulation and pedestrian flow pattern. We will identify conflicts between auto and pedestrian flow patterns and the need for signalization of any of the project access points. Task 9 - Documentation The results of the traffic analysis will be documented in a preliminary draft report that will be submitted to the EIR consultant and to the public works department of the City for preliminary review. The report will be prepared in a format such that it can be included as an appendix in the Draft EIR. We will also prepare the relevant sections on traffic and transportation in the body of the Draft EIR document. This would be done in close coordination with the environmental consultant. After receipt of City staff comments will revise the report to reflect their concerns and resubmit the report to the EIR consultant. As requested by Public Works, we will turn over the TRACS model and the runs prepared for this project to the City together with the internal documentation supporting the model. We would be available to spend up to 2 days training a staff member on the use of the model. Schedu I e and Fee We estimate that it would take approximately two months to collect traffic data and another six weeks to prepare the draft traffic report. Then it would take about two weeks to revise the document after the initial City review. We estimate that a fee of $49,900 would be required to complete this work effort. This includes attendance at 2 public hearings on the DEIR but does not include attendance at planning commission or council study sessions, preparation and response to comments on the draft EIR by the public, nor any additional studies that may have to be done based upon that review. Mr. Arthur Kee City of Campbell April 19, 1985 Page 4 This fee estimate also assumes that only the intersections shown on Exhibit I are to be analyzed, that new turn counts are required only for the Campbell intersection and that the machine counts are confined to the locations shown on Exhibit 2. Furthermore, it is assumed that the City wi II conduct the machine count at a minimum of 10 locations and that the remainder (4) of the counts will be performed by OKS. The fee estimate by task is shown on Exhibit 5. We suggest that a contingency of $15,000 be set aside for meetings and response to comments. The exact fee and scope would be negotiated after all the comments have been received and reviewed. The fee estimate also assumes only those intersections shown on Exhibit I wi II be analyzed. The fee would be increased by $600 for each additional intersection to be analyzed, and by $200 if a new turn count is also required. Each additional machine count by $150. The fee estimate does not include engineering studies of proposed mitigations such as additional interchange ramps etc. This analysis will only include sketch as of such improvements. We propose to conduct this study on a time and materials basis up to a maximum of $49,900. We will bill you only for actual hours expended plus expenses at cost plus 10 percent. We will bill you every thirty days per our standard billing rates with payment due within 30 days of the date of the invoice. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Campbell and look forward to working with you on this challenging project. Sincerely, OKS ASSOCIATES ~ t..J. þ~- ,- Hans W. Korve President HWK:ljb Attachment (Exhibits) cc: Linda Peirce - EIP a::: w l- V) W ::I: U ::z: <{. <y'l C;,^' J.<V v! § C;, Ç) :3 HAM I L TON AVE. ::z: 0 V) CAMPBELL AVE. () INTERSECTIONS SELECTED BY CITY OF SAN JOSE 6 I NTERSECTI ONS SELECTED BY CITY OF CAMPBELL * TWO INTERSECTIONS * EXHIBIT 1 Intersections To Be Analyzed ~ w > <! w > <! ::z: <! 0 ::I: (! a::: w ¿ W -I .3^'tJ N'tJIGI'tl3W ~ CÝ.t -J ..( ~.>. ~'.ý '</) O~ '3^'tJ H~131 'tl31S3HJNIM ~ > « :z 0 r- ...J lJ..J > « ::t: « ::I: ...J ...J lJ..J en a.. ::t: 5 SAt~ +' C ::s 0 N 0 en ... CD 6 - c,- rn ,- +' - .eca :J: (,) (,) >< cao w :::i:..J EXHIBIT 3 ..."---- ..,..."'" ,~... associates Traffic. Transportation. Engineering Tracs Model TRACS (TRaffic Analysis Computer Software) is a microcomputer program developed by DKS Associates for forecasting traffic volumes and evaluating volume-capacity relation- ships at crucial street intersections. TRACS is particularly useful for identifying, tracing and evaluating the impacts of numerous alternatives, and has been utilized to assess the impacts of individual site developments, the cumulative effects of multiple developments, and the impacts of street and freeway improvements. TRACS is a highly responsive, human oriented traffic forecasting program designed for use with today's microcomputers. It has been utilized in practical analytic applications for over four years. TRACS models are functional in a dozen cities and have been applied in impact assessments for over 50 projects. TRACS MODEL OVERVIEW Unlike conventional traffic forecasting models, TRACS starts with existing base traffic volumes and allows the user to directly input information on the trip generation, distribu- tion, and paths of new trips. The TRACS program adds the new traffic to the base traffic following the precise instructions of the engineer or planner. The TRACS program has three basic components: zones, gateways and intersections. Zones are the location of the proposed new developments. Gateways are the locations on a cordon around the study area to which trips are destined. Intersections are included in the program at any location where volume/capacity information is desired. TRACS uses data on Intersection geometrics, existing traffic volumes, traffic generation for proposed developments, and traffic distribution from each zone to each gateway. TRACS assigns the new traffic to each intersection, adds it to the existing volume, and computes the resultant volume/capacity ratio. The volume/capacity calculation in TRACS is based on the critical lane technique used in TRB Circular 212 "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity". The program considers the type of signal phasing (2 phase, 3 phase with left turns, approach phasing) and deter- mines the combination of opposing movements (left vs. through) which combine to be the critical approach movements. The volume per lane of each critical movement is divided by the input lane capacity to determine volume/capacity ratio. TRACS is easy to set up. The program is currently running on the IBM PC, CDC, and a 68000 based UNIX system. It is written in Standard FORTRAN and can be readily con- verted to run on computers of almost any size. FOR MORE INFORMATION If you are interested in learning more about TRACS or in seeing it in operation, give Rich Sauve, Steve Lowens or Rick Dowling a call at 415-763-2061. We will be glad to answer your questions, arrange a demonstration, or provide a written proposal. 1419 Broadway, Suite 700, Oakland. California 94612-2069 . 415/763,2061 Traffic. Transportation. Engineering associates ADV ANT AGES OF TRACS TRACS has many advantages over conventional traffic forecasting models for applications to area-wide and project level impact analyses. I. LOW COST TRACS avoids the cost and time consuming tasks associated with initial development of conventional traffic forecast models. Some of the unfortunate attributes of conventional traffic models eliminated by TRACS include amassing detailed population and employment data, coding and tuning a computer representation of the street network and "calibrating" a theoretical reproduction of existing traffic to "verify" the forecasting capabilities of the model. TRACS avoids these tasks by accepting existing traffic counts as a base background volume rather than trying to theoretically "reforecast" existing traffic within the model. TRACS concerns itself only with forecasting the increments to existinq traffic which result from new developments or facilities changes. 2. CREDIBILITY TRACS produces credible and reliable traffic assignments. Outputs of conventional traffic models often exhibit awkwardly imbalanced loadings on parallel streets. These result from imperceptibly small and meaningless travel time differentials taking on absolute importance in the "all-or-nothing" logic of other models' path-building algorithms. TRACS avoids this problem by using rational human logic to define the most reasonable path for each traffic movement. In fact, in complex situations, TRACS can be encoded to account for multiple path choices between origin and destination, which corresponds with actual driver behavior. 3. TRACEABILITY OF IMPACTS TRACS provides direct traceability between land development (whether a specific project or general growth in a neighborhood or sub-area of the city or county) and the traffic improvement needs it generates. This capability is crucial where a project impacts facilities remote from the project site and is particularly useful in apportioning responsibility and cost for an improvement where several developments jointly impact a facility. This traceability feature is also an important attribute of TRACS cases where the user desires to implement a transportation development fee structure and must demonstrate the equitability thereof. TRACS enables the government entity to demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the "services rendered", tracing the users of improved transportation facilities (i.e., the services rendered) which provides the basis for validity of the fee under state law. 4. FLEXIBILITY When new development proposals surface which were not envisioned at the time of the user's overall forecast, it is simple and cost-effective to execute a TRACS run to update the forecast. DKS will remain on-call to provide update runs on the model. .¡Jr. associates Traffic. Transportation. Engineering AN EXAMPLE OF TRACS DKS Associates has used TRACS to analyze the cumulative and individual traffic impacts of office buildings, shopping centers, sports stadiums, residential complexes, convention centers, freeway extensions, new streets, major freeway interchange modifications, and a freeway tear down. Cities where DKS Associates has TRACS networks already coded include San Francisco, Oakland, San Mateo, Anaheim, Sacramento, Hayward, San r~afael, Santa Barbara, Napa, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Walnut Creek. The following example illustrates the application of TRACS in the Core Area Traffic Study for the City of Walnut Creek. The study area consisted of the entire two square mile downtown area of Walnut Creek. The TRACS model was used to estimate the ANI and PM peak hour impacts of individual projects as well as cumulative development. A total of 38 development zones, and 38 critical intersections were identified in the study area (see Figure I). The base data (turning movement counts) was obtained from city files and supple- mented by DKS field counts. Trip generation rates and development sizes were input to TRACS to obtain a trip generation report. The distribution of trips for each zone was estimated based on an employee survey performed by OKS and information from the regional transportation planning agency. (DKS Associates also has the capability to estimate trip distribution from traffic counts and other data.) The paths between each zone and gateway were identified based on travel time runs made in the area by DKS Associates. 6 The TRACS model outputs several tables showing the base traffic volumes, the added volumes, the total volumes with development and the level of service. Figure 2 (on next page) shows the last of these tables giving forecasted total turning movements, volume/capacity ratios, and level of service. Details of the capacity calculations for selected intersections can also be obtained from TRACS as shown in Figure 3. ax. Associates Figure 1. DEVELOPMENT ZONES , --~----,---^_.._,-- .JR. associates Traffic. Transportation. Engineering "", AS;;OC I A"', 1 "AUGB3 10' 10 "0'1 WAI NU r CF"n [(I[e Af<EA "rUI>Y CUHUI ," Jve f'EVUIWHENT PH ¡'EAK HOU" WI I H BROADW," EXTENSION 1[1 fAL VOL UHE" ANl1 vmuHt/C'" ACI" FeA IIO A I "fUDY A"CA INru",ECIIU"" INILRSETIION SU,V N[IFn H"DUNI> WES "'DUNI> SOUTHBOUND EAST BClUNI> VIC I ellEL I LFf nmu F<IGH f Lur I HFeu fdGH[ LEF [ rHI'" "IGHf LU[ [HI'" "IGHT 1 N(I MAIN . ,IAN LUL . '06 (A) : 3013 '70'1 0 0 0 0 '039 270 149 0 76 .. NO HAIN . N£1600 OF ,71 (CJ 0 871 0 128 0 266 1722 0 0 0 (I 3 l'ARKSInE + NO HATN 1. 01 (F) '00 20:>7 "" '/5 16'0 ID l:'7fJ 177 676 272 31 4 F'AF'..SI!>' + JONES .58 1M : 164 156 108 J1 757 100 100 103 '"0 50 749 71 " FAR"S]!" . NO CIVIC' . 57 (A) : :'93 B,16 0 0 0 0 0 28B 251 457 0 326 6 NO MAIN + NO CALIF ,8'/ (f') : 0 1207 120 16 0 0 621 593 1228 27 136 rRINIH r + NO CALIF .78 (C> : 201 10'" 92 152 '00 137 203 940 70 ",4 1 09 170 8 PRINGLE + NO HAIN ,56 (A) : 1()8 1161 0 0 0 0 0 869 ~~ 146 0 296 9 YON!:O VL + SB6BO ON 1.08 (C) : 0 0 () 20ll 31'> 600 0 0 0 ." 171 1.32 10 ,GNCa VL + NB680 OC 1. 39 (f) 160 0 1099 0 :'832 0 () 0 0 0 171 0 11 fDNCO ')L + OAKLAN" 1.31 (F) 228 110 :'6:, 20'0 2216 299 230 90 388 51 1175 114 12 'ONCO VL + NO CALIF 1,24 (f) : ',1 1002 .",1 US 1310 64 162 733 811 305 1325 120 13 YGNCO ')L + NO HAIN ,'17 (u : 152 1262 "",:) "d 835 168 521 58.1 202 126 1'010 92 14 YGNCO VI. + NO HfW"' ,84 1[1) : 169 418 2" n 14)5 120 149 3:'5 227 214 18:,8 104 15 YONCO VL + CIVIC "R . 9', (u : 70 61 B lOIB 6:"0 15) 7 '041 '060 3:") 90 230 2069 50 16 CIVIC DF; + NO CALIF . B8 (f11 : 1':>1 ',14 340 10.\ 20 50 951 20 30 75 60 17 CIVIC !>R + LOCUST ,'rl (A) 30 20 I :'OJ "" '0'" ,,0 20 16< 20 20 409 40 18 CIVIC DR + NO HAIN .80 ",) 30 "" 232 132 422 90 50 490 87 123 569 50 19 CIVIC DR + NO BR[1", ,139 (f,) 1)0 '<68 76/ 494 ',6J 29 10 oc,:, 171 80 761 70 20 LINCOLN + NO B"D"' ,66 ",> : 2') 1065 30 40 20 100 ',0 3D 30 40 21 BONANZA . NO CALIf ,91 ([) : 75 1232 60 30 96 10 50 87'/ 493 335 69 " HT "'ABI. + "H 24 ON ,78 (C) : 60 20 470 390 948 120 180 10 1 (1 ) 0 1098 60 23 H1 [1IABL + OAKLAN!> .76 (0) : 0 0 0 10IY 121 "0 0 .149 'oDD 10'0" 0 24 H1 !>IAHL + HONANZA ,67 "n : a 0 0 0 860 50 40 () 364 :'26 856 0 25 HI DIABl + NO CALIf ,87 ([11 : 30'0 990 '/'l 124 518 121 1'/,\ 1.3:, 83 230 616 "00 26 H1 !>IABI. + LOCUS [ ,77 IC> : 0 0 0 0 903 111 '"5 0 152 159 884 0 n HI 1'IA"1 + NO HAIN ./,J IC> 160 "," 277 119 ,,9,\ 7'0 1136 31:,' 81 192 637 200 :'8 H f DIA!>I. + SO Bfi""' . 9' Of '93 619 177 151 326 131 2:'9 831 103 ê27 623 210 29 OLYHF'Ie + Nil CALI F .131 ",) : 17') 6'o:~ 101 ) '70 19J 100 70 ')01 3113 331 171 271 30 NE"EI.I. + ClB680 Of .70 (C) : v 0 0 0 ,;51 0 734 0 200 0 270 0 31 NF"FU + NB680 ON .52 lA) : 0 ü 0 0 ".1 776 0 0 0 90 1034 0 " NE"EL!, . NO CALIF ,84 ([1) 80 110 40 20 526 319 ',41 20 521 234 590 10 33 NEWEl L + SO HAIN .69 (B) : ,\3:, 2013 130 106 no 130 290 692 1(,0 150 500 '.31 :\4 NE"ELL + "" """"' . 83 ",> : ) 80 /,29 50 50 ;90 160 2)0 696 1 "6 500 800 :,'80 3<> 'If AC + SO H,'JN .63 (B1 : I"~ 763 10 1 0 10 20 '00 1:"':' 110 1 00 20 70 36 CRKSIDE + SO HAIN ,60 ([0 : 0 576 100 70 0 170 417 '183 0 0 0 0 '<7 F<Ul'OEAR + SB6"0 ON . 94 (E) : 0 0 0 1066 2<0 0 0 0 0 0 490 140 38 ',"!>GEAR + Nt'b80 (If' .89 (f\) : e') 11'1 80 0 .'50 50 60 0 966 90 480 0 39 [1UHHY + ,00 (A) : !o'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 40 aLYMf'IC + N"680 . 26 IA) : 0 0 0 689 0 0 0 0 0 778 0 41 OLYHPIC + SB6"0 . :,'6 (0) : 0 0 0 68'1 0 0 0 0 0 778 0 Figure 2. TOTAL VOLUMES REPORT ¡:¡I !>I'" AS'iOerAfES "ALNUI [f,U' COFiE AFŒA "'UD' CUHUI.ATIVE 1" '.'tUWMEN I "H F' ,,^ HOUf. WIT H BfWAI'W," EX [ENSION OKS OSSOCIAIES INIFf,;;LCIION E""ACT" CAlClItAl!aN laC,"ION fARKSI"E 0 .ION[S "'REC 1 ION VOl. IIHl', I,EFT 141'" F<IiiH [ LANES lU'[ rHI'" SIGNAl rUGHT mE "ARKS¡¡" NaRTHBOUN" JONES "[CTT""UN" PA"KS I '" SOU THBaUND j(!NE'T EAS [t'OUND 1M 71 100 so "" 757 ) O,J /49 10fJ 100 ",0 !1 CRIlICAl MOVEHENTS DIRECTION ŒI I ICAL "OI.UHE cr<I I ICAL CAr','C It' VOl /CM' f'Af<KSIDE NOI,fH"OUN" TH"ClUGH JONE', ""', I BOUN" 'EFI F'A"'S Ir" SOU [H!>OUN!> LEFT JONCS EASTHaUN" ]lIr"!!"'H 264 71 100 F"'" ) 500 1(,00 1 500 . 10 , 0", , 07 . :'9 l,OSS !>UE TO AI""" ',IONAl fHA',L', .00 VOL UHF I U: VEL OF Ii "AII0 , 58 TA) Figure 3. DETAILED CAPACITY REPORT Exhibit 4 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS I. 2. Existing Existing and Approved (excluding 900 Hamilton) 3. 4. Existing and Approved plus 900 Hamilton Existing and Approved plus 900 Hamilton plus Phase I Project( I) Existing and Approved plus 900 Hamilton plus Phase 11 Project(1) 5. 6. Existing and Approved plus Phase I Project Existing and Approved plus Phase 11 Project 7. 8. 9. Item 4 with mitigation Item 5 with mitigation 10. II. Item 6 with mitigation Item 7 with mitigation (I) Assumes extension of Campisi Way into Pruneyard. A85-0 106-2/53 Exibit 5 BUDGET ESTIMATE Subtotal T ask Number Grade Person Hours Rate Salary Expense 4 40 $47 ~ I ,880 7 4 61 244 $2,496 9 4 93 372 2 I 120 28 3,360 4 60 47 2,820 6,668 7 8 61 488 Field Crew: Cj Intersections x 2 x $160/lntersection 2,900 8 Machine Counts x $110 d80 3 4 40 47 1,88U 7 4 61 244 2,124 4 3 80 41 3,220 4 120 47 5,640 9,347 7 8 61 488 Computer: 80 hours x $1 O.OO/hour 800 5 4 50 47 2,350 7 8 61 488 2,838 Computer: 30 hours x $1 O.OO/hour 300 6 3 20 41 820 4 50 47 2,350 4,710 7 10 61 610 9 10 93 930 Computer: 40 hours x $1 O.OO/hour 4Uù 7 4 40 47 1,880 7 4 61 244 2,496 8 4 30 47 1,410 7 5 61 305 2,087 9 4 93 372 9 3 16 41 656 4 16 41 656 7 40 61 2,440 9,648 9 4 93 372 C 40 38 1,520 D 40 46 1,840 TRACS FEE 1,000 Misc. Expenses (Reproduction, travel, etc.) 500 ~ Plus 10 percent for handling 678 Total Expenses 7,458 Total Salaries 42,415 TOTAL FEE $49,900 A85-0 106-2/53 eip Aprill8, 1985 Mr. Art Kee Director of Planning City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 ~ ŒA~R~!~ ~ CITY OF" CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Subject: Pruneyard Master Plan EIR - Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate Dear Mr. Kee: We are pleased to present our proposed scope of work for the Prune yard Master Plan environmental impact report. In preparing for this submittal we have visited the project site, discussed the issues with Phil Stafford and yourself, attended a meeting with the applicant and his architect and reviewed the proposed plan and relevant City documents. Based on our understanding of the issues we have prepared the following work scope, cost estimate and schedule. Scope of Services EIP will prepare a "focused" Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), state guidelines and the environmental review guidelines of the City of Campbell. The report will address environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence, focusing on specific concerns identified in the City's Initial Study. The Initial Study, which determines our actual scope of study and initiates the environmental review process, will be prepared by the City upon receipt of a formal application by the project sponsor. It is important to note that agency responses to the Notice of Preparation could require a modification to the scope of services outlined below. Our scope of services addresses the proposed Pruneyard Office Complex and Hotel as depicted on the schematic layout prepared by Maxwell Starkman Associates dated 28 February 1985. The EIR will evaluate a building program which consists of two office buildings at 400,000 square feet each and a 280,000 square foot hotel. Based on our current understanding of City concerns the EIR will address the following key issues: 1. Traffic and Circulation: The work program outlined by DKS Associates (attached) will be incorporated into the EIR document as a discrete section. 2. Aesthetics/Visual Quality: The visual quality section of the report will first discuss the visual character of the existing buildings on the site. The visual character of surrounding commercial, office and residential uses will also be described and illustrated with photographs. This discussion will establish a framework for assessing the visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. Environmental Impact Planning Corporation 319 Eleventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 415864-2311 Offices in Oakland and Sacramento Environmental Studies land Use and Community Planning Wind Tunnel Analysis (Zip The impact analysis will address the effect of the proposed project on views from adjacent areas including residential areas to the north, west and south, and motorists traveling on Highway 17. The visual analysis will also address the visibility of the proposed 20-story office buildings from more distant areas and their relationship to the overall scale and pattern of development in the City. The analysis of views will be illustrated with a photomontage of the project. A photomontge will require the EIR consultant to photograph a model of the project, if such a model is available. If a model is not available, we would use a graphically depicted outline of the height and bulk of the project. The visual impact analysis will address the size, shape and placement of the proposed buildings and their impact on the character of existing and proposed adjacent development. The location and design of plaza and entry areas and proposed building materials will also be adåressed. The analysis will åiscuss the project's consistency with any visual quality goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Appropriate visual mitigation measures will be developed as a result of the impact analysis described above. The mitigation section will carefully analyze, as necessary, , methods to improve the project's visual characteristics and its compatibility with existing and proposed nearby development. 3. Land Use and Relationship to Plans: The proposed project represents a significant intensification of commercial uses on the 34-acre Pruneyard site, which is currently developed with a shopping center and two office buildings. EIP will prepare a detailed description of land uses in the vicinity of the project site and note the general character of the site itself to provide a setting for the analysis. Land use trends in the area will be described and General Plan land use designations of the site and adjacent areas will be discussed. The EIR will analyze the conformance of the proposed project with all elements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, but a number of additional land use policies and zoning districts exist and must be discussed in the EIR. The land use analysis will include a discussion of the Overlay District and the City Council's recent policy (1-15-85) limiting development in commercial areas to 6 stories and 75 feet in height. Any conflicts between the project and these planning policies will be identified and mitigations proposed where possible. The site analysis will discuss both the internal compatibility of the proposed on-site uses and the relationship of the proposed uses to adjacent land uses. The phasing of the project will be discusssed in light of other development proposed for the a:-ea. 4:. Jobs/Housing/Relocation: The increased employment opportunities pr'esented by the projects' one million square feet of ofÎice and hotel development may have an im¡,1act on the jobs/housing balance in Campbell. The EIR will include a discussion of the increased demand for housing generated by the additional employment associated 85035 ~ (Zip with the hotel and office development, and the impact of that increased demand upon Campbell's existing housing supply. Access to the project site from the north will require condemnation or purchase and removal of an existing apartment structure. In this event a relocation plan must be prepared by the applicant and/or the City. The ElR will discuss the relocation plan and recommend any mitigations necessary to ensure compliance with State regulations. 5. Community Services; ElP will conduct a baseline analysis of community service provisions in the project area. Representatives of existing service purveyors will be contacted to determine capacities and policy considerations as they would be affected by the proposed development. The adequacy of water supply, sewer' and storm water systems will be investigated and discussed. The cumulative effects of development on the existing sewage treatment plant capacity will be assessed. The Fire and Police Department have expressed specific concerns regarding impacts on the operatons of their respective organizations. These issues will be addressed in the mitigations discussion in the EIR. 6, Air Quality: The air quality section of the ElR will describe the existing atmospheric environment of the project site and address the air quality impacts of construction, building operation and project-generated traffic. Predicted air quality will be compared with state and federal air quality standards and any violations will be noted. Air quality impacts at sensitive receptors will be assessed. The compliance of the proposed project with the Bay Area Air Quality Plan will be determined. Microscale carbon monoxide impacts will be calculated by the CALINE3 model of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), using emission factors from the state's EMFAC6C computer program. Worst-case meteorological conditions will be estimated using the procedures recommended for the Bay Area by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Background values will be estimated from available data based on BAAQMD procedures. Regional air quality im9a~ts. principally due to elevated concentrations of ozone, would be evaluated based on a subregional analysis of total emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts would be recommended. Priority would be given to these measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Plan and by CARB and BAAQMD staff. ... . Geology: ElP will work with the City and use existing geotechnical reports and data to identify known or suspected geotechnical hazards and to establish mitigations consistent with anticipated levels of risk. Minimum standards for on-site investigation should lead directly to recommendations of excavation. foundation ar.d construction techniques that would reduce, eliminate or avoid such hazards as groundshaking, lateral spreading, lurching and settlement (total and differentiai). It is ElP's intention to make maximum use of available literature, ineluding General Plan Elements; previous geotechnical studies; and reports from the U.S. Soil 85035 3 (Zip Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and California DivisioI'. of Mines and Geology. No drilling, trenching or similar site-disturbing activities will be undertaken. 8. Alternatives: CEQA is designed to ensure that a choice of options on a single site is examined to permit a fuller understanding of the alternatives for development, partial development or no development. The alternatives will indicate what options are available given the constraints of the project site. CEQA specifies a discussion of an "environmentally superior" alternative land use on the site. The No-Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, will assess the impact of maintaining the status quo and will s~rve as a base for comparison with other alternatives. ElP will refine an alternative scenario in consultation with City staff. Alternatives could include a reduced density project with a smaller building mass ir: keeping with the character of the area, or an alternative site with a maximum building height of 75 feet in keeping with recent City policy decisions, located closer to the urbanized area. 9. Statutory Sections: EIP staff will prepare the requisite sections required by the CEQA guidelines, including the summary, growth-inducing impacts evaluation, unavoidable adverse effects, and cumulative impacts. Of these, perhaps the most significant is the evaluation of cumulative impacts, which will include the 900 East Hamilton Avenue project. Cost ElP's cost to prepare the Pruneyard Master Plan ErR through the Draft is $18,330. This cost includes attendance by the project manager at two public hearings, and printing of the Administrative Draft ErR and Draft EIR. Factors that would increase the scope of work and estimated cost outlined in this proposal include: attendance at additional public meetings; printing of aèditionel coÇ?ies of maps or reports; analysis of key issues in addition to those identified in this proposal; changes in the project requiring reanalysis or rewriting of report sections; and comments on the Adminsitrative Draft ErR requiring more time than budgeted. We would propose to renegotiate these items, if required, or charge on a time-and-materials basis. The following cost estimate is based on our standard hourly rates. 85035 4 eip A. Administrative Draft EIR Task Summary Project Description Traffic Aesthetics Land Use/Relation to Plans J obs/Housing/Reloca t ion Community Services Air Quality Geology Al terna tives Statutory Sections Graphics Word Processing Editing Production Project Management Subtotal Administrative Draft EIR B. Draft EIR Prepare Draft EIR Public Hearings (2) Subtotal Draft EIR c. Direct Expenses Printing Administrative Draft EIR (5 copies) Draft EIR (75 copies) Travel Expenses Subtotal Direct Expenses Subtotal Draft EIR D. Hours - Cost 8 400 8 400 (see DKS Work Program) 40 2,000 24 1,200 32 1,600 12 600 15 1,050 16 800 24 1,200 10 500 24 960 40 1,600 12 480 8 320 24 1,920 $15,030 1,200 800 $ 2,000 50 900 200 150 $ 1,300 $18,330 Final EIR The Final EIR typically consists of two additional hearings and preparation of a response to written comments and verbal testimony on the Draft EIR. The cost is often approximately 10-15% of the preceding Draft EIR cost, unless the project is particularly controversial, in which case the Final EIR could aèd u? to 25% of the Draft cost. Because of the difficulty of accurately estimating Final EIR costs now, 85035 ;) (Zip we propose to prepare a detailed work scope and negotiate a Final EIR at the close of the public review period on the DEIR. We anticipate three tasks to be required in preparing the Final EIR: (1) attendance at two public hearings; (2) preparation of responses to comments on the Draft EIR; and (3) printing the required copies of the Final EIR/Response to Comments. Schedule As shown on the preliminary Environmental Review Schedule, we anticipate that the Administrative Draft EIR can be submitted to the City of Campbell within eight weeks of authorization to begin work. We are" prepared to start work on the EIR immediately upon signing of the contract. We understand that time is of the essence and have developed this schedule to achieve an optimum balance between timeliness and the need for a thorough, comprehensive analysis. We have attached a copy of our standard contract for your review and co_nsideration. If the terms of the contract, our work scope, and cost are satisfactory to the City of Campbell we will draw up a final contract for signature. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or com ments regarding the material discussed above. EIP is prepared to begin work on the Pruneyard Master Plan EIR immediately upon the City's authorization to proceed. We look forward to working with the City to ensure a timely and successful completion of the EIR. very. truly 11urs, ~-f.iV,~ Linda Peirce Principal and Project Manager 85035 G ENVIR 0 NMENT AL REVIEW SCHED ULE Pruneyard Master. Plan EIR City of Campbell eip TASKS WEE KS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '-_u--l...-I..--IJ.---..- ...- ..-- -.- ...- .....- ,-'...- f-_.._- --..,.. -,.... -".. _.. ,-, '--" ..- .- 1. Prepare Administrative -..-,.. -_..... -...... --.. ,- ,-, --.. .._-, --.., .._-, ,- --, ,_.. -, ..._- .....-, ..m- ,-,.- _...- -,- _.... --.., --'.. _- Draft EIR -.-,", ,-_..... --"- --, --.. ,--, -.. ,- ,..-. ,-.- ,..- ...,-- -,--- ,-..- ---..-.. -..-,-. ,--...... -""" --,...... ,_....., -"-' -'- --.., -".... -----, ,..-- ,.....- ..._,- ....-- -..--. -...'- -..- '..--- '..,-- ...- ..,..,- -.....-. -..--, -...- -....., ,_..' , --.. '-'" -, ,- -,- ,-- ....- 2. City Review of ADEIR ,-.. -.., ._- ,-, ..- ..-, .- .._, -_.. -....1:'-= ,- --- "- ..-- "--,- -..-- 1-",,- ,-..-, -...., -.., _.... --.. -. -,-'" -.--- 3. Revise and Print ..,-, --,..-" -......,. --,- --- -...., --.- -"- -...... -'-"-- f-m_.., -...,.. --,- --.., , --...... --' '-" --.., ..-- ,--, ..,- ..-..- ..,..-- ,......- Draft EIR ...- -..., _.. - ,-, -, ,--, -_.. ..,..-- ....- -,-.. ,.- ..- ,- .._, ,...- ....- .._, '------ ,-...... ---..,.., -~..' --..... -.., -, .-.. ,-- --- .._- _.. ,-_. ..-. --, ,-.. ,_... ,- .._, "'--- ._-- --...- ......_.. ....._-- -,...- -"- --"- -,....- ---..- -..... 4. Public Review of -.....-, -......, -'-"" -.., ..,..-,..., -..- --.. -,..... f--.., -,_. ,-..-.. --.. f--m --.. -'-' ,--, .-.., '..,- ..-' .._- ,..- .....- .-....- -....- Draft EIR (45 days -...-.. _..,-- u,....- _..,- _...- -..- ..,.._, ,-,-.- --- ,u,.._- _u,-, 'u'- ..._u,- -,...., -,.., -..., -'" ,-_. .-., ,-, ,..- ..- ...- .--, required by CEOA) ,_. ..-.., ,-.. --- ,--, ..__ ..- -_ .- ,....- ..,-- ...- '..,- --,- ..,-,-- -....- -"-- "-"" _.... _.... -... -.., ,--.. --. ,_.... - -, _.. --, .-. ,- --- -.. --.. ,-' ..-- ,-- -- ..--.- ,..- ..,-- ,-..,-, ...--- ...---- -._- -..-- --.. ,_..,.. 5. Prepare Response to --"'- --, f--u -'" ,-..,- _..- c--'" -.., --... _.... -,-,. _..-.. -.... -. ,-.., -, .._-, --_ ..- ,--, ..._ ...- ,..- .._..- Comments/final EIR ' ....'-- _"m"'" ----- ._-.. -_...- -.-- -"'-- '-"" --,.." -,-- --,.... -"" -..- -"" -.... -- ,_.., -" -.., --. ,- ,_ ..- .-,- -, ..,- ...- ..-- .--, ,..-- ..,- ,..- ..,- "'..- "-- ..-. .....- ,...,- -,..--.. -...-, ~ --"- *- ~'.. ~ -.., Þk ,_. 6. Public Hearings '"-,-- -...- __m -, _.. ,--- _H. -.., -, r--" --- ,-.. -..., _.. -, -.. ,-- .- --. ,-- ..- ..- --- ,-,- ....-- -...- ..-- '.._,-, ---,- ---.. ,_... --.. _... _.... -..., --.. -,-- -..- -.., _m.. f--. ,--" .._, ,- ,-. "-' --, ..._, ...- '..,- -, ' , (' CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 Department: Planning Ma rch 26, 1985 Mr. Kenneth Reaves Director of Urban Design Maxwell Starkman Associates 9420 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90212 RE: Areas of Potential Environmental Impact. Pruneyard Redevelopment Dear Mr. Reaves: The purpose of this letter is to outline for you some of the areas of potential environmental impact that may result from a redevelopment of the Pruneyard Shopping Center. The comments discussed in this letter are in response to your letter to Mr. Arthur Kee dated February 28,1985, and to a schematic layout for the Pruneyard site which was prepared by your office on the same date. As envisioned at this time, the site redevelopment will consist of two new 20 story office towers each having a gross floor area of 400,000 square feet, a 350 room hotel building that will be 12 stories high, and related parking facilities. As indicated in the schematic layout, the existing 18 story and 10 story office towers will be retained and the existing shopping center area will be modified to accommodate the new structures. The schematic layout for the site has been referred to the various City Depart- ments that will review and comment on the plans once an application is filed. Preliminary comments from the Police and Fire Department are attached. The preliminary environmental concerns of the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments are outlined for you as follows: 1. TRAFFIC - complete analysis of the impact of the projected increased traffic volumes and movements as a result of the proposed development on the public streets and highways system, including: A. An analysis of all intersections affected by this project that currently operate at a Level of Service D that will have a degradation in the level of service of 1.5% or more. B. An analysis of all intersections affected by this project that currently operate at a Level of Service E that will have a degradation in the level of service of 1.0% or more. CITY OF CAMPBEll Mr. Kenneth Reaves Page 2 Ma rch 26, 1985 Copies of the complete and unabridged traffic engineer's report must be made available to the Public Works Department prior to or at the same time the Draft EIR is submitted to the City. II III. IV. V. VI. VII. Aesthetics - an analysis of the aesthetics and visual impact of the develop- ment on the surrounding area. Jobs/Housing - an analysis of the proposed project's impact on the Jobs/ Housing Balance in Campbell. Infrastructure - an analysis of the proposed project's impact on storm and sanitary sewer systems, water supply system, and utilities. Geology - an analysis of the proposed project's ability to withstand geologic hazards such as earthquakes. Air - an analysis of the proposed project's impact on the quality of air. Relocation - an analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the existing apartment complex to the north of the project site (Aloha Apart- ments) . The foregoing main areas of concern, including those raised by the Police and Fire Departments, are intended to serve as an approximation of the scope of work that will be required for inclusion in a project of the nature being proposed. It should be noted, however, that no specific site plans, elevations, or an application have been filed with the City for this project as of this date. With this in mind it is quite possible that additional areas of concern or expansion of some of the areas already outlined may be necessary once the application is filed. The guide used by the City of Campbell in assessing a project's environmental impact is identical to the one generated by the State of California in the CEQA Guidelines. If there are any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Arthur A. Kee Æ2~ Phi~ Sta ord Principal Planner PS:dc Enclosure ~ ',' . "I' ",. , 1 ,,), :;", ,', , ,,':' c. :, ,1 .. L',' J " , :, .' ", ,:' ,'" , "I ,,' " ,: ¡]' " , " . "f : ':' "',', ,', ^,'Í ., .. ,,', ,', n .. :i::!': " "\-:":,,C<:~¡"./:\,,. .. , ;'1,,' . , , , ,.': i 1 ,:', ' "1",,,:, ,> 'i',:; ,>, ,..: J' ;-,' .. :', ',' ,', , , ,'Ie C.: " , '. , " ,.. '.: ';' . , "; . r ", 1 '_J"! ", ,'"" ',¡ , , , ' " ..,' ...,-, - - - --, .. ,i '.'; , ::: ,I,' ',: ',' " " I,',- 1,:, " l' ' ~ '" ~] i ". , ;"" , :1 , , ,.. , ",. ì t: ~ "f'.:~' c' c'c .,,-,,1;:::'/:\""(: r'c':" r F',"'" ;' ':-J " 'J ¡ '.. '~.,: ;, ,c¡ t .' "- ,c¡ ~ ,j ¡ , , """ í ',,'" .. " , ':] -;" j> '< " 1 ,." ::' '-c "~ .,,: ¡ t, ; ., , " " , ",; .. ,¡ ,':.- r, ',:: .~,<; )' " ,,' r I ,," : ! J 1, '~." , ',: "¡('i','jl : H' '1,i ,"," r. :1:: ,.: ,,1 ", f' ,[ ,', ,; ..' ,[ .' '1:'¡,j - 1 ,..j' .'; , , ,'": ~ '.' ':' ,1" \1 in ':": ' ,,', !" , .. '.' L 1 '." ",:, ; ,-,I I" ¡ "¡"co. T ~ ':, f " /, : j /' ~,¡ ! " f ", '-"., '.. 4L~ --'" r-\ \ : l"':) ¡ i" \ lJ \~ ¡'] ',' n ,-'~ i: u CiTY c::- CArli P fJ [:LL :) :nl ~, f"U.r..; ¡--: I 1\::::, O:::PARn,~=r~T. ~, " ¡ (- [, ¡' 1 i..' 1-; '.' ',( ,,' ' ,,' c', ~ ,;1 ':,' , j,' . ': ' , :" é -:; 1 ,':'> '( ¡ ,;1 I," ,1 , , ,.' :. " ,", , , " :r 'co=..' ~ ',: ':, , " ~' : ¡',' " " ," !-';',',' , ,;: ",', ",' : '. ':'- : ,.; ,'" .-,t: - , ':, i , , .~:: ; :: ',,:, .,'.' c i( , ; "; " " ¡ : '-' , i, ", , , '.i '1 t' '" :; 'j L " , i' >',.. '."1,, " ..) '.- : , ", 'J' : i '".. ,~' :', 'j , , ;, ! ,'i ., ,":n, "jj ':; - ',":',) ,1 ,~:. .' ¡ , '," " " ,:, ; ;'1 1 ' , " fj , ',,~, " , :1' ' -"'," '/, ,--, \/ "'< '",:,j ,,' ,- ,c, L ,.1 , ,", ¡;"',;'! " ,i ('¡f'!...:]' "- ,"è':' ",,"'" ';. "" ' , f:,,',,', " " '/ ,-, j ',' ~ ,," '::. " , , , ., , ,", , t c, n' ,",- ,:' ,1'1 ":1, ,J, .,' ,1 '!, , , +, ,,',,'0, . . j, :' ",' :[>.,': /... ¡~, :!' '" ¡ n} "vi 'j,:" ,",\1,,-:, +: h ; ':,' ¡!' ,,', , :,' ¡ '; ,:3 " .. f, :í: : pi ," ", ,,'j ) '. I 'J Of '" , , F,: 'c' j, , ,"., ,~ ' . J' ",' "'I,'f', /<'" " ,"",' , " '" l I',:' ": :;, L U ':" L '- u n',3, , j' und::,:, Ul:1,l,:~i':::'n": ,'1 :, ',:' è:,"'- - "'U,:':f,L.::'C'~1+:, r, :" , I,.,. .. , C..-.- ,I ,,',?on::;,'}" C< "; r' .1. :t ,"I ¡ , :' '=- ;:".11, .,'. ~', t' 1 ,'ii,,: ','::' '~1 '; ",1' u ,1 ¡', : I':' "',j,' , ': "", r. '! 1 T p,": ,c'"l ¡ ':1' (]! JiG ,'; n'~ L', ",,¡ ! ¡ :I'i' " ,.',r -- [, ,'~ ",;:, ~,'; L C, : ,; ,', l "," ' 'I ('.' ç L:-'., '" ,:' ::' , .,,' f' " '"..Ie- rIC':::', ,[ ;',",', ,'¡,C¡nt.¡,-,;¡ ':. t ", .,1 J ., ,- ,', , '1' ' ' ',c'::' '," 1 ,j c' ¡ " ,. : c, n n" '" - ~: i ' "J¡.", ,j','1 f (¡?f ¡<lr,T,;,:::[' \v 1 t ~I ",' ". n' ,', 'It!ii' "~! I Y ,j ,1 ' :' E- _In C', "1 r :':(.(, ,1.,:1": ,'" :. , ;:', '1 l ',,",: 't' ,ì C': " : ¡ ',:- :','" '.. ';;' p ',: d i,:. j ,Pc r' ,J: ,', .,'LI ',,-l¡~' . ,'-' "'" t"" 1 : ,:,," ,"Ini) ,:':""r,"'11",neni: 1:>;: ¡, r' '-, l' -- ' .(', "-,,, f;' {"Tn ,: ' 1',,' , ,-. ,:,r '"a':, ; ':0: ','1.,:...-'-, ;~ :,v:>, ,t .:.;: :,ó ::, C ,n ¡', ' {1 ,::,p, t, " ,] - !. I l'¡, 3 ..' '." ~ ,'! " t ;, ,-, ',' .- " ~, ,', " '-: .." :' .'" II , , " . ',;i; ,'." r ,:, ¡' -', - ,-,h , -' '; 'i 'j n,--I".' , !' {~/4.d.L 4ic... ~ CITY OF CAMPBELL MEMORANDUM From: Arthur Kee Planning Director Donald R. Burr Chief of Police Date: March 18, 1985 To: II,t~ Ir", ',\ " , Uu " , "' ;; Subject: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AT PRUNEYARD ...; i ¡-Y r', ". p "-" c' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _..:... '=.Alib.tl/>.i'- Õ- - -'--;z:...¡-1/-- --:; L ::;:PtJ,a-" ,"'-.... , "i"~::::l\ir We have reviewed the available information on the proposed changes at the Pruneyard. The following is a list of the potential problems as we see them. 1. Securi ty in the garages 2. Security connected with the Hotel 3. Traffic 4. Density 5. Parking availabil ity ~~~~ Donald R. Burr, Clef of Police /hr To: Kevin Duggan, Ci ty Manager Donald Burr, Police Chief James ~fullen, Fire Chief Joseph Elliott, Director of Public Works Wallace Byron, Building Official CITY OF CAMPBELL MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 1985 From: Arthur A. Kee Planning Director Subject: Proposed expansion of the Pruneyard office/retail complex (Pruneyard Diagrammatic Master Plan) --------------------------------,-------------------------- The Planning Department has received a diagrammatic master plan to expand the Pruneyard. The submitted site plan indicates the construction of two twenty-story office buildings, each have 400,000 square feet and a five level subterranean parking garage, and the construction of a twelve-story (350 room) hotel complex with a three level subterranean parking garage. A copy of submitted site plan is attached for your infonnation. The applicant has requested that the City prepare a list of concerns which might be discussed or addressed in an Environmental Impact Report of such a proposed expansion of the Pruneyard. Your review of this preliminary proposal and a list of your concerns would be appreciated by the Planning Department, so that a letter responding to this request may be prepared. A meeting to discuss this proposal has been scheduled for Monday, March 18, 1985, at 10 :00 a.m. in the Manager's conference room. Your attendance or a representative from your department would be appreciated at this meeting. Please do not hesitate to call the Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this meeting. lj ~). MAXWELL STARKMAN ASSOCIATES Architecture. Planning' Urban Design 9420 Wilshire Boulevard' Beverly Hills, California 90212 . (213) 278-6400 u\~ " ì ,: " t UJ L;::;.../ February 28,1985 GITY OF ~H¡vÚ..JbEL.L PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Mr. Arthur Kee Planning Director City Planning Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, California 95008 Re: Pruneyard Diagrammatic Master Plan Dear Mr. Kee: At the request of our client, Mr. Fred Sahadi, we are delivering to you the program for the two phase development of the Pruneyard and a dia- grammatic master plan showing the total development for the site, at Bascom Avenue, Campbell Avenue and the Route 5 Freeway. We understand that your review of this product will be used to create a list of concerns that will become the body of the environmental impact report. In order that we may move ahead with the master planning of this project, we would anticipate receiving this list from you within the next few weeks. From the consultant list that you provided to us, we have contacted two EIR firms and two traffic consultants that are under consideration by our client. They will be in contact with your office to further clarify the necessary elements of the EIR. We look forward to working with you on the development of this project and its mutual benefit for our client and the City of Campbell. KR/l m cc: Fred Sahadi, Pruneyard Larry A. Patterson, OKS Donna Sidel, ESA Linda Pierce, EIP Chris Kinzel, TJKM Steve Miller PRUNEYARD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MSA JOB NO. 84156PR FEBRUARY 28,1985 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RETAIL.........................280,000 s.f. OFFICE BUILDING.................................206,000 s.f. EXISTING PARKING......(1760) PARKING TO REMAIN..... 1548 PHASE I HOTEL.. (350 rooms)......................................... 280,000 s.f. PARKING............ 525 OFFICE..........................................400,000 s.f. PARKING............ 1000 PHASE II OFFICE..........................................400,000 s.f. PARKING............ 1000 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL................ 280,000 s.f. 1,006,000 s.f. 280,000 s.f. PHASE I & II DEVELOPMENT TOTAL............................... 1,566,000 s.f. PHASE I & II TOTAL PARKING.............4073 ~....II. DIVB.- TOTALa '~It. '.-'-....It.. ¡ , ,.... I / i I IIT8 TOTAL '.....- ....... / ~.,H 0 0 U,OOD.\ l I ;::::~:.=._:......._._-_. I ; I ¡ . I I I I I ! 20,000 SO. FT. ! !i OFFICE i .: 20 FLOORS I i --_.._~-~~ I ~ ~ ~ I 0 c:; - i \ \0 c r- -"-----""'-3------'-:1'1' "\ ~[ i PARKItG ARA;¡ I, 0 I . . ,I : i // /' !. ! // / : I / ~¿' ROOM , Dr- , '110m. I L- Y----- " ...-. ) 0 v ' r - -----=-- :? n [. ~ 'I PfIOGRAM ,~jf '1 ï - at ) -.- ""11.: 'OÕÕ -- -- 110,- ....It. ... ,- ....It., 4011 -- II . 'AM'" TOTAL MASTER PLAN. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT PRUNEYARD OFFICE COMPLEX AND HOTEl CAMPBEll; CALIFORNIA DEVELOPER FRED SAHADI CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA ' ARCHITECT MAXWELL STARKMAN ASSOCIATES