Loading...
EIR-1981 '1 CITY OF CA1\tIJßEll 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Pl anni ng February 2, 1983 Mr. Gary Schoennauer Planning Director City of San Jose 801 N. First St. San Jose, CA 95110 iK,'\ 82-08 920 E. Hamilton Ave., Dear ~~:Hlut:r: ""'" RE:~ Campbell As you are aware, the City of Campbell has been considering the application of the Prometheus Development Company for approval of a 485,000 sq.ft. office complex for the referenced property. The Draft EIR which was prepared for the project was referred to the City of San Jose for review and comment. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Campbell City Council has taken action regarding this application. At its meeting of February 1,1983 the Council took action by a 4-0 vote to certify the Draft EIR as complete. In a separate action, the Council denied the project application with a 4-0 vote. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts in reviewing this application and in providing comments on the EIR. It is through such cooperative efforts between Campbell and San Jose that any major developments in the vicinity of Hamilton and Bascom Avenues can be monitored to help prevent adverse impacts upon either jurisdictions. Again, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, A~ KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR ld CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1983 /' -ý .-, INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES This is the time and place for public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Hamilton Avenue Office Complex located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Principal Planner Philip Stafford - Report dated February 1, 1983. Mr. Stafford introduced Dr. Michael Hogan, Earth Metrics, who reviewed the amended Draft EIR for the proposed development. There was considerable discussion on the level of service at the intersection of Hamilton and Bascom Avenues and the agreement between the City of Campbell and the City of San Jose as to the level of service to be maintained at that intersection. Dr. Hogan stated that in the future the level of service at that intersection is going to be "F", with or without this project. Public Works Director Elliott responded to questions from the Mayor. He stated that with all the mitigating measures proposed as part of the development the inter- section will show a slight improvement, even with a level of service "F". - 3 - .- ~. ~1/~3 j./ r n There was discussion on the agreement between Campbell and San Jose and the city Attorney advised that the agreement does not say that Level "E" will be maintained. The agreement states that if the level of service deteriorates below Level "E", then both cities_will work together in an attempt to mitigate those problems created by any project. Mayor podgorsek declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mr. Thomas Fleischli, representing Prometheus Development Company, spoke in favor of the City Council adopting the Planning Commission recommendation that the Draft EIR be certified as complete. He stated, that in his opinion, the amended document contains sufficient information to make a decision on the application. Councilman Chamberlin asked the applicant if they were ready to accept all the recommendations and how they felt about them actually being done. Mr. Fleischli stated that they have incorporated the mitigating measures, the tunnel bridge, etc., in their application and they do not have a problem with them. They will comply with the Council's findings. In response to a question from Councilmember Doetsch, regarding flood control measures along the creek, staff advised that they do have a letter from the Santa Clara County Flood Control District stating that this is a feasible project. The District has not indicated that there should be a condition on the approval of the project that the creek bank be repaired. Councilmember Paul stated that at previous hearings the concerns of the Dover area residents were that the level of service at the intersection of Bascom and Hamilton not go below what it is now, Level E. The EIR projects a level of Service F in 1986. Mitigating measures were taken by the developers of the Ainsley property which will not allow the level of service to fall below E and now the City is considering a develop- ment which will put the level of service at F. A development in the center of the area will only compound the traffic congestion. In response to Councilman Paul's concerns, Mr. Fleischli advised that a significant portion of the traffic generated by the project will avoid the intersection of Hamilton and Bascom because of the proximity of Highway 17. Most of the users of the project will be coming from Highway l7 and they will leave the project , via the tunnel to get back to the freeway. In his opinion, the project is not complicating the situation; in fact, the improvements proposed will improve the situation. - 4- ...- Mayor podgorsek expressed concern about the intensity and density of the three buildings. rJ{" g? "v ¿r f1 Mr. Charles williamson, Chairperson Hamilton Mobile Home Park Association, spoke to a point of information re the Draft EIR and the Planning commission's recommendation for approval of the plans with attached conditions. Mr. Joe Moerenhout, 1493 Camino Cerrado, San Jose, spoke regarding the traffic that will be generated by the project. He opposed the development. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1518 Via Can cion, San Jose, spoke in opposition and requested that the Council not approve the EIR. Mr. JohrP~YfJ98 Ramita Court, San Jose, representing the people in the area, spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Olga McKay, 336 Richlee Drive, expressed concern about the added traffic and the air pollution in the area. Mr. John Ashworth, 230 Calado, Campbell, asked that the Council make a determination as to whether the project is in the best interest of the City. In his opinjon, the answer is "No". Mr. Rex Burke, San Jose, stated that everything has been directed towards the traffic and he expressed concern about the citizens in the area and the mobile home park residents. Dr. Hogan stated that the Draft EIR does address the qualitative aspect of the project and goes into detail as to the visual impacts to the neighborhoods. Dr. Hogan responded to questions asked re air pollution, traffic studies and noise. Mr. Crane, 920 Hamilton Avenue, stated that the peak hours are all day long on Hamilton and Bascom Avenues ând it is not going to be better in 1986. Mr. Ronald Christ, 1110 Shadle Drive, spoke regarding improvements to alleviate the traffic conditions. He stated that the City might have to make some changes such as widening the west bound traffic lanes on Hamilton regardless of whether this project is developed. Mrs. Bowen, 96 C Street, Campbell, questioned who was going to give permission for construction of the tunnel and how it was going to be paid for. Mr. Andy Guerin, 129 E. Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the traffic in the area. - 5 - "-- ~vß!> ~ (1 Mr. John McKay, 336 Richlee Drive, requested to know the qualifications of Dr. Hogan. Mayor Podgorsek declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Council Dr. Hogan, for the record, listed his qualif~cations and background, and responded to questions raised by members of the audience. Mr. Tony Gschwend, Brian-KAngas-Foulk and Associates, responded to questions regarding Cal Trans comments and traffic levels in the area. J. DuWayne Dickson, 925 Bucknam Avenue, spoke regarding the traffic congestion at the intersection of Winchester and Hamilton Avenue, which will go to Level F because of the project. There being no one else wishing to be heard, M/S: Paul, Doetsch - to close the public hearing. Motion adopted unanimously. M/S: Doetsch, Paul - that the Council accept the EIR as presented. Motion adopted unanimously. Pc- IL .1<- EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex Public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for the proposed Hamilton Avenue Office Complex located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue, in a PO (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council certify this Draft EIR as complete, pursuant to Section 15085(G) of the State EIR Guidelines. DISCUSSION I. BACKGROUND In April, 1982, the Planning Commission considered the draft EIR for a proposed 460,000 square foot office complex to be located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue. At that time the project consisted of three six-story office buildings plus related parking and landscaping facilities. The draft EIR focused primarily on: l. 2. 3. On- and off-site traffic circulation. Housing in the area. The job/housing balance in Campbell. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from the April 27,1982, meeting is attached. II. CURRENT PROPOSAL At this time the applicant has revised the application to include three buildings of 6,11 and 15 stories, to be constructed in two phases. Phase I would include the 6 and 15 story buildings, plus a bridge across Los Gatos Creek to Campisi Way, and a tunnel to provide traffic access between Campisi Way and Hamilton Avenue. Phase II would include the ll-story building, plus a two-story parking structure. The overall office space is now proposed to be approximately 485,000 gross square feet. The draft EIR before the Council at this time is an amended draft to that which was previously prepared. The Council may recall that the first draft EIR was accepted by the Planning Commission with the provision that revised plans be submitted which addressed the negative aspects of the first sub- mittal, and that the EIR be amended to address these revisions. In addition, the Planning Commission directed that the EIR address the visual impact that the project would have on the area. , PREPARED BY Planning Department AGENDA February 1,1983 .- EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex -2- City Council Meeting February 1,1983 The revised draft has been referred to the State for review. Comments from State agencies are attached. The draft was also sent to local agencies for their review. Responses to these comments, as prepared by Staff are also attached. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. Traffic In analyzing the traffic impact report prepared by Brian-Kangas-Foulk Associates for the proposed office complex located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue, the City of Campbell Public Works staff generally concurs with the numbers and conclusions submitted. It is the recommendation of the staff that all of the public improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic impact of this development be provided prior to occupancy of any portion of the proposed development. The following table summarizes the information given in Table 5 of the draft EIR, describing a worst case, peak hour levels of service at intersections significantly affected by the proposed element: SUMMARY OY TA8LE S IN E.I.R. WORST CASE ~EAK HOUR LEVELS OY SERVICE AT ~ROJECT AREA INTERSECTIONS LOCATION un UII UII EXISTING WITNOUT wiTH L~~~I~~ "OIO~CCT U5.000 10' ..T. "OIO~"CT C_NGE IN INTE".EcTION LEVEL 0.. .E"VICE WITH ..-~ECT I. HAMILTON/WINOESTER A.M.P'EAI< B C C DCIIIN S.. Z. HAMIL TON/WINCHE:S'n:R ~.M.P'EAI< E E Y DCIIIN Z" Z. HAMILTON/CEN'nIAL A.M.- A A A DCIIIN Z" .. HAMILTON/CEPnRAL A.". P'EAI< C C D DOWN ... S. HAM I I. TON / SALMAI'I A.M. PEAK A . C DDWN S.. S. HAMILTON/SALMAR ~.M.- E .. Y I MPROI/E . .. 7. HAMIL'ION/BASCOM ~.M. - E Y Y IMPROI/E ... s. HAMILTON/LEIGH ~.M. ~AK C E E DCIIIN Z" .. 8ASCCM/CAMJI'IS' ~.M.- C C Þ DOlIN ".. 10. 8A5CDM/CAMJOKLL P.M. - D IE Þ - ,.. Supporting dOCllllentation for this Table is to be found in the Draft E. J.R. which was prepared for the proposed Prometheus project. þ- EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 3 City Council Meeting February 1,1983 The concept of "level of service" is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. With regard to traffic signal controlled intersections, the levels of service are defined as follows: Level A, Free Flow: No significant congestions at any time. all approaches clear on each phase. Level B, Free Flow: Very little congestion occurs at any time; all ap- proaches cleared on each phase. Level C, Stable Flow: Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one signal phase; most drivers feel somewhat restricted but not ob- jectionably so. Level D, Approaching Unstable Flow: Approaching vehicles may be substan- tially delayed during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles occur with lower demand to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive queues. ~- Level E, Unstable Flow: There may be long queues of vehicles and delays may be great. Level F, Saturation: periods. As indicated by the data shown in the above summary, there is a significant im- provement in the critical intersection locations of Hamilton and Salmar and Hamilton and Bascom. These intersections would function with less congestion if the project is developed than they would in 1986 as a target date without any additional construction on the property. These intersections ar~in the staff's opinion, the most critical traffic congestion points at this time. The other intersections described in the above table would experience some de- creased level of service in the future, whether or not the project is completed. Although some additional decrease in level of service would occur as a result of the proposed development, it is the staff's opinion that the improved level of service at the critical locations, as previously described, hould provide sufficient overall benefits to override the negative effects in the balance of the intersections. Extreme congestion, substantial delays during peak In order to achieve the mitigating effects described above, the staff has recommended to the Commission and the City Council that the following public facilities be provided as a minimum requirement prior to the occupancy of an~ portion of the proposed development: 1. Provide additional westbound lane on Hamilton Avenue across State Highway 17. ,'- EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 4 City Council Meeting February 1, 1983 2. Construct a two-way public street traversing the development from Campisi Way across a new bridge structure over Los Gatos Creek connecting to Hamilton Avenue with an underpass. 3. Provide an actuated traffic signal contro~ing internal movements within the development capable of metering traffic entering Hamilton Avenue based on traffic volumes on northbound Highway 17 on-ramp. 4. Construct an actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Campisi Way and the new public street. 5. Modify traffic signal installations at the intersections of Bascom Avenue and Campisi Way and Bascom Avenue and Campbell Avenue to pro- vide two northbound left-turn lanes while maintaining three north- bound through lanes at each intersection. 6. Install median islands on Hamilton Avenue 'between Los Gatos Creek and Highway 17 northbound off-ramp. 7. Construct a bus pull-out lane and shelter on Hamilton Avenue frontage of development. 8. Construct an elevated ingress-egress connection from proposed parking structure extending easterly across the onsite public roadway. This condition to be effective at the time of construction of this struc- ture. 9. Provide pedestrian-bicycle pathway along westerly bank of Los Gatos Creek and across new bridge to easterly creek bank. 10. Modify proposed parking lot access openings from onsite public street in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer. Provide grade separated pedestrian crossing of onsite public street connecting building plaza area to easterly parking area. 11. Several comments were received from the State Department of Transportation Environmental Planning branch regarding the amended draft EIR that was sub- mitted for their review: Comr:ïent 1. Project generated traffic will have a significant adverse impact on the PM peak hour operation of the Route 17 southbound off-ramp/Salmar Avenue/ Hamilton Avenue intersection. Off-ramp back-ups probably will extend onto the outside freeway lane. The proposed mitigation--the additional westbound lane on the overcrossing, shown on Dwg. No. C-8l208--is not enough. Page A-2 says (last paragraph) that it will "result in an im- provement in Level of Service." However, the "improvement" is only from 109% E to 105% E; we would still have Level of Service F. An additional eastbound lane on the overcrossing should be investigated. EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 5 City Council Meeting February 1,1983 STAFF RESPONSE Discussions with the Caltrans staff indicate a misinterpretation of the data submitted as a part of the amended EIR. Specifically, the intersection of Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 southbound off-ramp will have a level of service after the installation of the mitigating measures required for this project that would be improved over the conditions that would result through normal traffic growth if the development and those improvements were not constructed. Comment 2. ~ 17 - Table 1. - (each direction) should be (both directions) STAFF RESPONSE We concur. This apparently was a typographical error. Comment 3. P. A-3 - last paragraph - says demand is 1675 VPH and ramp capacity is 1500 VPH so there could be queues for brief periods of time. This ignores the problem of whether there is room, on northbound Route 17 to accept 1500 VPH. If the freeway is congested, a maximum of only about 900 VPH (one-half the outside lane's capacity) can get on the freeway. The ramp metering may reduce the flow rate to even less than 900 VPH. Under those conditions, there probably will be long delays and queues on Hamilton Avenue leading to the on-ramp. STAFF RESPONSE The staff concurs that in the event of freeway congestion it would be likely that long delays and queues would occur on Hamilton Avenue leading to the on- ramp. We believe that this statement would be true whether or not the proposed development would occur. One of the recommended conditions of approval of the proposed development that would tend to reduce the likelihood of that congestion is a requirement that an onsite traffic signal be installed on the north-south public street that provides a metered device regulating the northbound volumes entering fueHamilton Avenue underpass as northbound Highway 17 ramp volumes in- crease. Comment 4. P. B-1 July 21 is not a typical weekday. This is during the summer, when - volumes may be 10-15% below non-summer, due to vacations. STAFF RESPONSE The City of Campbell's traffic volume data base does not indicate significant decreases in average daily traffic volumes during the summer months. Comment 5. Widening of the Hamilton Avenue overcrossing shall be designed by the State. The overcrossing shall be widened on the north side. The median shall be moved to the north to provide two westbound lanes and four east- bound lanes. The eastbound traffic is about twice as much as the west- bound traffic. Comment 1. Corrment 2. EIR-8l-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 6 City Council Meeting February 1 ~ 1983 STAFF RESPONSE The staff concurs that the Hamilton Avenue overcrossing widening should be designed under the direction of Caltrans, and that the overcrossing should be widened on the northerly side. The formal level of service calculation sub- mitted as a part of the amended EIR indicates that the critical movement at this location is westbound rather than eastbound. Comments were received from the City of San Jose in April, 1982, regarding the traffic analysis as submitted by Brian-Kangas-Foulk as a part of the original draft. San Jose comments: The draft EIR assumes that the Ainsley property is so inappropriately zoned that it will probably not develop. It also states that the City of San Jose is "unlikely" to rezone the property. If these assumptions are part of the basic trafficanalysis, that analysis is inaccurate and should not be used in any decision-making process. Neither assumption reflects the pol icies or opinion of the City of San Jose, whoever the "land use experts" referred to may be. STAFF RESPONSE The amended draft EIR recognizes full development of the Ainsley- property as currently approved by the City of San Jose. The traffic impact of the currently approved Ainsley development has to have been taken into con- sideration by the traffic consultant in the preparation of the amended draft of the EIR. It should be noted that the trip generation rates used are lower than those used by the City of San Jose (149 trip ends per 10,000 sq. ft. compared to 202 trip ends). The traffic report in the EIR Appendix confirms our analysis of the area1s traffic problems. The statement on page 21 that congestion occurs only during the evening peak hour is not confirmed or in any way addressed by the traffic report. The p.m. peak hour is undoubtedly the worst case, but San Jose's experience has been that such extreme levels of conges- tion as indicated will cause the "peak hour" to lengthen and extend itself. In part because the peak is so very bad, our Public Works Department believes that congestion occurs in this area at other than evening peak hour. The draft EIR text concludes that congestion would only ba a peak hour phenomenon. STAFF RESPONSE The staff feels that the generation and peak hour figures utilized within the amended EIR are appropriate for the development. The range of trip generation factors are consistent with the criteria utilized by San Jose staff in their analysis of the development approved for the Ainsley site. In response to inter-staff discussion regarding these criteria, it was indicated that San Jose's report was based on - EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 7 City Council Meeting February 1, 1983 extensive evaluation of local conditions and achieved a high deg~ee of cor- relation with the Institute of Transportation Engineers' standard practice. Staff concurs that significant congestion may occur at times other than peak hours. It is felt, however, that the peak hours conditions represent the worst conditionsand are therefore thecontrol1in.Qanalysis utilized in the level of service calculations. B. Housing Another area of significant potential impact that would result if this develop- ment were built is housing. The existing 136 mobile home spaces would be eliminated. Due to the very limited number of vacant mobile home spaces in the area, the residents of the park would either have to move to a park out of the area or move into another type of housing, such as an apartment or condominium/ townhouse unit. In addition, the age of most of the coaches in the Hamilton Avenue Mobile Home Park would preclude their relocation to most newer parks in the area. Since the first draft of the EIR was considered by the Planning Commission, the applicant and home owners group have agreed to a plan calling for the relocation of the mobile home park at the Hamilton School site. A copy of this agreement is attached. Since the ownership of this school site is still being litigated, other potential sites are being investigated. The following relocation require- ments shall be followed: The applicant shall provide a detailed relocation plan acceptable to the City Council describing how each tenant will be relocated prior to issuance of a building permit. The relocation plan shall be prepared in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. The applicant is obligated to either relocate the tenant and their mobilehome to another mobilehome park satisfactory to the tenant, or to purchase the mobilehome for its appraised value without a site, and to pay to relocate the tenant into comparable(l} housing Campbell or vicinity. A relocation in this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, moving the mobilehome and/or its contents, and temporary living expenses necessitated by the move. The financial plan will provide for the guarantee of funds sufficient to pay all of the following costs. 2-. (A) Purchasing the mobilehomes at their appraised value without a site and relocating the tenants to comparable housing in the Campbell area. In these instances, the developer will pay a flat amount equal to the difference between the Hamilton Mobile (1) comparable housing--as defined in Section 6008 of Title 25, Chapter 6, California Administrative Code - EIR-81-2 Hamilton Avenue Office Complex 8 City Council Meeting February 1, 1983 Home Park gross(2) space rent and the comparable housing unit gross rent calculated over a four-year period. In no instance - shall the developer be required to pay more than $10,000 for the lump sum rental subsidy (not counting trailer purchase). (8) Moving the mobile home unit to another mobilehome park acceptable to the tenant and paying in a lump sum the difference between the Hamilton Mobile Home Park gross rent and the new mobilehome park gross rent calculated over a four-year period. In no instance shall the developer be required to pay more than $4,000 for this lump sum rental subsidy. 3. The financial plan shall indicate how the funds necessary to accomplish this above-stated requirement will be made available and how disbursement of the funds will be made. ~. Arbitration. This clause to be provided by City Attorney. C. Jobs/Housing Balance The draft EIR indicates that there could be 2,300 additional jobs created by this development. This figure does not include other jobs which may be generated in the area as a result of this development. If a balance between jobs and housing is to be maintained in Campbell, there may be pressure to develop additional housing over and above that anticipated in the current General Plan of the City of Campbell. -- (2) gross rent--space rent and utilities - / . /-(" /¿t-C ~--' Jé. .uary 21, 1983 ~ Campbell City Council 75 N. Central Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 CITY OF" CAI',¡P8ELL PLANNING Dt:""PARTM Honorable Members of the City Counci!: ENT ~ W- ~ Ï? n \,," I~ qy JAN 26 - '983 Uj) R ~ ~~ r,~ p, H JAN 2 C DB3 Gift Clf.l(K'~ OffiCE We the residents of Hamilton Mobilehome Park hereby request Council support in our efforts to find an equitable solution to our housing problems. The proposed commercial development of Hamilton Mobilehome Park by Prometheus Development Company will displace approximately 138 people, the majority of whom are low income. As you are well aware, there are very few vacant mobilehome spaces in Santa Clara County. The few available spaces are not open to coaches as old as ours. Other affordable housing is extremely scarce. In conjunction with Campbell City staff and a Prometheus representative, members of Hamilton Park Mobilehome Owners' Association have invested many hours in developing a relocation plan for the park residents. Our proposal is to form a limited equity mobilehome cooperative on a site yet to be identified and to sell shares to residents of the current park. A joint application for Community Development Block Grant funds has been submitted to Santa Clara County by the City of Campbell and Community Housing Developers on our behalf. The CDBG funds and the funds generated by the park residents through the sale of co-op shares will be used towards the purchase of the site. We anticipate that the City will participate also, through its Redevelopment Agency. Tax increments generated by the Prometheus project will be used by the Agency to amortize the loan on the new mobilehome park property. Proposed participation by the developer will include construction of the new park and relocation of the residents. The Hamilton Park Mobilehome Owners' Association requests that the City Council pass a resolution supporting the concept of the limited equity mobilehome co-op as a solution to the displacement of the park residents and pledging Council assistance in achieving that goal. We further request that the Council convey the resolution of support to Santa Clara County's Housing and Community Development Program staff, the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee and County Council Committee. Sincerely, r-- ~oJt~A~ Charles A. Williamson, Chairperson Hamilton Park Mobilehome Owners' Association ~u-I ~~:tc -4k- PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 10060 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, SUITE 201 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA 915014-215715 (406) _6-0157 January 21, 1983 Mr. Kevin Duggan Assistant City Manager City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 RE: U-Save Rockery Dear Kevin, Enclosed is a preliminary site plan for a mobile home park on the referenced property prepared by Vaughn Shahinian. Please note Vaughn used an average lot size of 35' x 75' which will accommodate approximately 102 units of average mix from Hamilton Park. At such time as this site is determined to be the more feasible alter- native, I would suggest a more refined study at a larger scale, (I" = 40') using an up-to-date topographic map to more accurately determine the number of spaces possible. At this point, however, this schematic should be sufficient for purposes of evaluating the feasibility of this site. I have been unsuccessful in reaching Jim Silva and as a result have no indication of the owner's interest in changing the use of this property. As soon as I make contact I will give you a call. In the meantime, should you have any questions regarding the enclosed, feel free to call me. ~ I - ! y~~~ ¡t~ y1 Thomas'¿ F leischli Project Manager TEF:cam cc: Robert Wagner E9Wárd Schilling L.fi'rthur Kee Enclosure ~' /Ç, (f),r, .n. r;-',. n,I '~\'- I~ :-'1,' -'¡ , U l!:)!l.n¡L~II\ ,,1'1" I i j JAN 2 '5 1'983 ~ CITY OF CAMPEJELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT r CITY OF CAMPBEll 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378'.8141 Department: City Clerk January 12, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m., or soon thereafter, on Tuesday, February 1, 1983 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California, as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for a proposed professional office project to be located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue~ Campbell, California. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for review at the City Clerk's office, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. Interested persons may appear and be heard at said hearing. ~~ 0. £ ~., ¡HYfLI~ o. ACKER, CITY CLERK CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA , , RESOLUTION NO. 2164 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AS COMPLETE THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15085(G) OF THE STATE E.I.R. GUIDE- LINES, FOR A PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 EAST HAMILTON AVENUE (APPLICATION OF PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT, EIR 82-02). A Draft Environmental Impact Report for a professional office project proposed for property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District has been presented for approval by Prometheus Development Company. After notification and public hearing as specified by law on said report as filed in the Office of the Planning Department on March 16,1981 and as amended on October 6,1982, and after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission recommends as follows: That the City Council certify as complete the Draft Environmental Impact Report as submitted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January, 1983 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer, Fairbanks, Campos, Dickson, Kotowski NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None APPROVED: Michael F. Kotowski Chai rman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary PLANNING Cm~mSSIOI. ,EETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 11,1983 -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS EI R 82-02 Prometheus Development Continued public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been pre- pared for a proposed professional office project to be located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Stafford presented background in this E.I.R., noting that since the last meeting (December 14,1982) additional information has been obtained regarding fire protection, the status of the Ainsley property, the developer's report regarding the impact of the development on the mobilehome park, responses to traffic questions raised by the City of San Jose, and a letter from the attorney representing the mobilehomeowner's association. At this point, Staff is re- commending that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify this Draft E.I.R. as complete, pursuant to Section 15086(G) of the State E.I.R. Guidelines. Commissioner Fairbanks questioned the proposed phasing of the project in relation to the landscaping. Mr. Stafford noted that Phase I does provide for landscaping; however, Phase II provides for substantially more landscaping upon completion of the parking structure. Commissioner Kasolas asked for comments on the following concerns: 0 What impact on the total community services is projected for this project. 0 The impact on traffic in the immediate area (i.e. Campbell Avenue) . 0 The development schedule with regard to construction. 0 Off-site and on-site improvements. 0 Whether or not a project of this magnitude will have any effect on the community as to the amount of public or private services to be used (sewer, power, fire, etc.) Mr. Stafford noted that the development schedule is indicated as October 1983 for beginning of construction, with approximate completion date of April 1987. Phase I is scheduled to begin in October 1983, and Phase II in November 1985. Regarding public services, plans for this project, and the E.I.R., have been reviewed by Sanitation District 4, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other affected agencies. In each instance, they have in- dicated they do not foresee any problems. Comments from the State agencies have centered primarily on the traffic impact, with primary concern relating to flow across Highway 17 on Hamilton Avenue. They have recommended that a westbound lane on Hamilton Avenue be added. Mr. Helms stated that Staff's feeling is that the discernable impact of traffic has been identified within the E.I.R. and Staff does not feel it necessary to extend the study beyond that already addressed. Commissioner Kasolas asked what impact the construction is going to have on the community, pertaining to traffic, and what mitigating measures will be taken. JANUARY 11,1983 -4- Mr. Helms noted that there is some discussion pertainino to these' mitigation measures on page 23 of the amended Draft E.I.R. Commissioner Howard stated that he foresaw major traffic problems, parti- cularly during the construction process. He stated he was also concerned about fire safety, and asked if some type of roof escape should be pro- vided for, noting that it was his understanding that the current roof design would not facilitate rescue by helicopter, etc. Commissioner Campos questioned the validity of the relocation plan in- cluded in the staff report. Mr. Kee noted that Staff recommended in the original study that the applicant come back with a relocation plan and a financial plan to be approved by the City Council once they received conceptual approval. This is addressed under Condition No. 41 in the Staff Comment Sheet. Staff is recommending that further information addressing relocation be brought before the Council prior to approval by the Council. Staff is of the opinion that the presented relocation plan is acceptable, but does not contain adequate detail--we are recommending that more complete plans be presented to the Council. Commissioner Campos asked if the adoption of the E.I.R. would affect the project approval. Mr. Kee stated that it should not affect the project approval. Commissioner Dickson stated that with regard to traffic, the statements in the Staff Comment Sheet indicate a very definite traffic problem on Hamilton Avenue at this point. He felt that something should be done to alleviate this problem before allowing any additional construction. Mr. Helms noted his concurrence with Commissioner Dickson, and indicated that Staff has been concerned with this problem for some time; however the opportunities for mitigating the problems were few--until the idea of ex- tending Campisi Way over the creek was presented. Commissioner Dickson felt that perhaps an area-wide study should be made to see if the situation might be improved. Mr. Helms noted that, as the Commission may recall, when the Ainsley property was considered for development, several consultants looked at this very problem, as well as Staff from Campbell and San Jose. This study resulted in additional lanes on Hamilton Avenue. Further improvement would require additional roadways in the entire area, such as Route 85 and the GuadelupeCorridor. The substantial traffic impacts of this proposed development can be mitigated by the recommended improvements. Chairman Kotowski asked if Staff was saying that without this development there would be no relief of the traffic situation on Hamilton Avenue. Commissioner Kasolas asked if Staff was saying that the only way the situation is going to improve is with this specific plan and this specific project. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she was concerned with the traffic also. She stated she would prefer to have one more independent traffic study of this area, addressing the E.I.R. and looking at the surrounding area, because of the tremendous impact on the entire area. ,- -5- JANUARY 11, 1983 Commissioner Campos requested clarification of the Summary of Table 5 in the E.I.R. which indicated the worst case peak hour levels of service at project area in- tersection, contained in the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Helms responded that as indicated by the data shown in the summary (attached), there is a significant improvement in the critical intersection locations of Hamilton and Salmar and Hamilton and Bascom, in that these intersections would function with less congestion if the project is developed than they would in 1986 (target date) without any additional construction on the property. The rationale for this is that the project would provide for improvements that would not be provided for in the event the subject property is not developed. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Tom Fleischli, applicant, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. He noted that the records of the past meetings indicated it was generally agreed that the E.I.R. not necessarily address the relocation problem until the pro- ject was approved. However, since he felt that the Commission would like as much information as possible, he provided a report addressing some of these concerns with the agenda packet. He also noted that it is his understanding that information contained in the amended draft E.I.R. supercedes the original draft E. I. R. Mr. Michael Hogan, Earthmetrics, noted that the amended draft E.I.R. which is before the Commission this evening does supercede the original document.:, Mr. Hogan stated that it is his belief that the traffic information that is con- tained in the amended document has been reviewed by several different entities and has been found satisfactory and complete, and he felt that any further study would result in the same information. He concurred with Staff's statement that the impact area has been adequately identified. He pointed out that while the construction impact analysis is relatively brief, he felt the level of service from construction will not be severely impacted. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1518 Via Cancion, San Jose, spoke against the E.I.R., noting that he felt additional traffic studies must be done, the mitigation measures listed were inadequate, failure to mention the visual impact and noise impact, and that the E.I.R. did not mention what effect the additional traffic would have on the hospital facilities in the area. Mr. Joe Moerenhout, 1493 Camino Cerrado, San Jose, spoke against the EiI.R., stating he was concerned with the fire protection, and the addition of lanes on Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Don Garrison, 2283 Renway, Campbell, spoke against this item noting that the traffic in the area is already at its peak, and that all the tall buildings should not be congregated in the same area of the city. Mr. Tom Fleischli stated that he felt the mitigating measures expressed in the E.I.R. were reasonable pertaining to flex-time, car -pooling, etc. He stated that the buildings have large floor areas on each level which will be conducive to large organizations leasing them. Larger companies can organize car-pooling. Mr. Fleischli pointed out that the General Plan for this property is Commercial, and the proposed application is in conformance with the current General Plan and zoning for the property. ~ JANUARY 11.1983 -6- Mr. Michael Hogan stated that the mitigation measures listed in the E.I.R. make no assumptions as to the applicability of public transit. These suggested measures are never intended to completely turn-around the situation-- only to make a small dent. The economics of the buildings dictate larger tenants, rather than small businesses. There is ample room on-site for the martialling of construction traffic. The visual impact of the project is one of the major sections addressed in the amended E.I.R. The noise impact of the construction was not a point of instruction for the E.I.R.; however Earthmetrics has confirmed the City's study. Regarding the ability to improve traffic without construction of the project--the bare economics dictate that the public agencies are unable to absorb the total costs of these improvements. By certifying the E.I.R., the Council is only saying they have adequate data with which to move forward on--they are not committing to anything. Mr. Gary Smith, Fire Department, addressed the Commission1s earlier question regarding roof-top rescue. He noted that rescue by helicopter is a very limited procedure, subject to air drafts, and not usually able to be used at night. It is usually one of the last methods of evacuation. There are several other more successful methods of evacuation provided for in the construction of high-rises. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unani- mously (7-0-0). It was moved by Commissioner Meyer that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify this Draft E.I.R. as complete. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that he believed the Draft E.I.R. has not done a good job, and he would discuss this under the project item which is next on the agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 2164 It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2164 recommending that the City Council certify as complete the Draft E.I.R., pur- suant to Section 15085(G) of the State E.I.R. Guide- lines. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Kotowski NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None * * * Howard, Meyer, Fairbanks, Campos, Dickson, The Commission took a break at 9:10 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. * * * ~ .- ~ ITEM NO.3 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11,1983 EIR 81-2 Prometheus Development Continued public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been pre- pared for a proposed professional office project to be located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify this Draft EIR as complete, pursuant to Section 15085 (G) of the State EIR Guidelines. STAFF DISCUSSION This item was continued from the meeting of December 14,1983 at the request of the applicant. Reference is made to the attached December 14 Staff Comment Sheet and recommendation which remains unchanged. However, since that time additional information has been obtained regarding the following: 1) Memo from the Fire Chief regarding fire protection. 2) Letter from Prometheus regarding the status of the Ainsley property. Staff has been in contact with the City of San Jose and confirmed the status of the Ainsley property. Report from the developer regarding impact of the proposed development on the mobilehome park. 4) Report from the Traffic Consultant in response to traffic questions reaised by the City of San Jose. 3) 5) Letter from the attorney representing the mobilehome association. ITEr~ NO.4 PD 82-08 ~- RICHARD M. PITAGOI'IA TIMOT,HY A. LUND!:LL MATTH!:W A.CI'IOSI!IY, A PROF"ESSIONAL LAW CORP. PITAGORA, LUNDELL & CROSBY ATTORNEYS AT LAW BASCOM FINANCIAL CENTER, SUITE 211 1725 SOUTH BASCOM AVEN UE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 915008 TELEPHONE (408) 377-7802 January 6, 1983 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0\ l~':: lID]) JAN 0.6 J983 . Planning Commission City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 CITY OF CAf'.~PBEbb PLANNING C~P"'RTM~Nf EIR-8l-2 and PD82-08, Public Hearing To Be Held January 11, 1983 To the Planning Commission: Re: This letter is written on behalf the Hamilton Park Mobilehome Owners' Associ.ation with regard to the above- referenced items scheduled for public hearing on the agenda of the Planning Commission for January 11,1983. - Having reviewed the Planning Commission Staff Reports on these items, originally prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on December 14,1982, the Association offers the following comments: ~- 1. As the Planning Commission members and staff are no doubt aware, considerable effort has been expended by the developer, representatives of the Homeowners' Association and various agency staff members in the investigation of creation of a new mobilehome park within the City of Campbell for the relocation of displaced mobilehome park residents. The Staff Reports briefly mention these efforts, and include a copy of the Reclocation Plan Agreement entered into between the developer and the Homeowner6' Association. However, the relocation requirements suggested by staff as a condition of project approval take an entirely different approach, apparently adopting the minimum housing relocation assistance requirements mandated by State law for redevelopment projects (Health & Safety Code Sections 33410, et. seq; Title 25, California Administrative Code; Government Code Sections. 7260, et seq.). Realizing that the imposition of this condition of approval does not prohibit the developer and/or a governmental agency from provid- ing improved relocation assistance,' as a proposed minimal require- ment for relocation assistance the recommended condition is not acceptable to the Homeowners' Association. with due consideration to the nature of housing being eliminated (primarily senior citizen and low income) as well as the scope and nature of the project ,- Planning Commission January 6, 1983 Page 2 displacing the housing, the Association submits that an appropriate guideline for relocation assistance is to provide comparable housing at a comparable cost to the residents. It-rs not now, nor has it ever been, the intent of the Association or its members to derive net profits from relocation assistance. Economic reality dictates, however, that the purchase of mobilehomes at off-site value, together with limited rent subsidy, will in no way afford comparable housing at a comparable cost to the Hamilton Park residents. Further, the recommended relocation assistance requirement will do nothing to mitigate the substantial reduction in Campbell's housing stock, while at the same time increasing the burden on remaining housing by requiring replacement rental units for the displaced Hamilton Park residents. Further, the relocation cash benefits, once dissipated, make no contribution whatsoever to the future housing problems of the individual residents or of the community. Finally, the staff-recommended condition fails even to meet the definition of comparable replacement housing (see 25 Admin. Code Section 6008, attached) given the limitations on rental subsidiaries. ---- The creation of a new mobilehome park, on the other hand, creates a substantial asset to serve the needs both of the Hamilton Park residents and of the community and, even under the limited- equity cooperative concept (limiting the financial benefit to relocated residents) much better serves the needs of the displaced residents than does the staff-recommended relocation assistance plan. The Homeowners' Association is aware of the pending feasibility study with regard to possible mobilehome park ,sites in the City of Campbell, and that further time will be necessary to investigate the respective costs and shortcomings of implementation at any given site. However, it is urged that the Planning Commission either approve the project on condition that the replacement park concept be implemented at anyone of the sites under consideration, or- defer that project approval until the feasibility/cost study has been completed. 2. It has previously been suggested by the City Attorney that the public hearing requirement of Government Code Section 65863.7 (regarding housing impact of mobilehome park conversion to another use) may be satisfied by noticing and conducting such hearing either concurrently with or after public agency approval of a mobilehome park conversion project. Although the developer has distributed to the Park residents a notice that such public hearing is to be held on January 11, 1983, which notice is required by statute, it is the position of the Homeowners' Association that neither of these Planning Commission January 6, 1983 Page 3 Planning Commission agenda items notices a public hearing on housing impact. The Homeowners' Association therefore reserves the right to require, at some future time, a public hearing on the housing impact of conversion of Hamilton Park Mobilehome Park. Thank you for your kind consideration. Very truly yours, TIMOTHY A. LUNDELL TAL:js M/2l-23 ,- t. , TITLE IS I'ELOCATJON AssiSTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUlSmON CUIDWNES ."..'.'.' ,., fie. ........". 635 (1) For th~ purchase. sale. lease. or rental of personal and relil property. and for the manufacture, processing. or marketing of prooucts. commodities. or any other personal property; (2) For the sale of services to the publici (3) By a nonprofit organization; or (4) SoI~I)' (or the purpose of a moving expense payment (see sec- tion 6090). for assisting in the purchase. sale. resale. manufacture, processing. or marketing of prõducts. commodities. pe,rsonal prop- erty. or services by the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising display. whether or not such display is located on the premises on which any of the above activities are conducted. (é) Comj)arable Replacement Dwellinc. A dwetling which lItis. fies each of the (ollowing standards: (1) Decent. safe and sanitary (as defined in subsection 6008 (d) ), and comparable to the acquireCl dwelling with respect to number of rooms, habitable living space and type and quality of construction. but not lesser in rooms or living space than necessary to accommo- date the displaced person. (2) In an area not subjected to unreasonable adverse environmen. taJ conditions from either natural or manmade sources. and not Ken. erall)' less desirable than the acquired dwelling with re~ct to public utilitie=s, public and commerciã1 (acilities and neiJbbõrhood condi- tions, including schools and municipal services. and reasonably acees. sible to the displaced person's present or potential place of employment; provided that a potential place of employment may not be used to satisfy the accessibility requirement if the displaced penon ob~cts. The Act and Guidelines do not require that the replacement dwell. ing be genera1J)' as desirable as the acquired dwelling with respect to environmental characteristics. Though a displaced ~rson does not have to accept a dwelling subject to unreasonable adverse environ. mental conditions, neither is a public entity required to duplicate environmental characteristics. such as scenic vistas or proximity to the ocean, Jakes. rivers. forests or other natural phenomena. If th~ displaced pe,rson so wishes, every reasonable effort .hall be . made to relocate such person within or near to his existing neighbor. hood. Whenever practicable the replacement dwelling shall tie rea. sonabl)' close to relatives. friends. services or organizations with whom there is an existing dependency relationship. (3) Available on the private market to the displaced person and available to a11 persons regardless of race. color. sex, marital status~ religion. or national origin in a manner consistent with Title VIII 01 the Civil Rights Act of 1~. . (4) To the extent practicable and where consistent with para- graph (c) (1) of this section. functionally equivalent and substantially tbe same as the acquired dweUing, but not excluding newly ~n. structed hbusinl. , . .636 HOUSINC AND CoMMUNm DEVElDPMENT TITLE IS "',,"'er .. file. --....". (5) Within the Financial Means or the Displaced Person. Are. placement dwelling is within the financial means of a displaced per. son if the monthlyhowing cost (including payments (or mortgage, . insurance and property taxes) or rental cost (including utilities and other reasonable recurring expenses) minw any replacement hous- ing pa)1l\ent available to the penon (as provided in sections 6102 and 6104) does not exceed twenty-five percent (25'0) o( the person's average monthly income (as defined in subsection 6008(1». A re- placement dwelling is within the financial means of a displaced per. son also i( the purchase price o( the dwelling including related increased interest costs and other reasonable ex~nses (as described in section 6102) does not exceed the total o( the amount of just com~nsation provided (or th~ dwelling acquired and the replace- ment housing payment available to the person (as provided in section 6102). If a dwelling which satisfies these standards is not available the public eutity may consider a dwelling which exceeds them. (d) Decent, Safe and Sanitary. (1) Housing in sound, clean and weather tight condition, in goOd repair and adequately maintained, in conformance with the applicable state and local building, piUrM- ing. electrical, housing and occupancy codes or similar ordinances or regulations and which meets the (ollowing minimum standards: (A) Each housekeeping unit shall indude a kitchen with a funy usable sink, a stove or connection (or a stove, a separate and com- plete bathroom, hot and cold running water in both bathroom and kitchen, an adequate and safe wiring system (or lighting and other electrical services and heating as required by cllinatic conditions and local codes. (B) Each nonhousekeeping unit shall be in coni'onnance with state and local code standards for boarding houses. hotels and other dwellings (or congregate living. (2) When the term decent, safe and sanitary is interpreted. under local, state or (ederallaw, as establishing a higher standard. the ele- ments or that higher standard. which exceed the provision of para. graph (1) of this subsection. are incorporated herein. (e) Department. Department of Housing and Community De. velopment. (f) Displaced Penon. Any penon who moves from real prop- erty, or who moves his personal propt}rty from real property, eitl\er u a result or the acquisition of sucti real property. in wnore or in part. by a public entity or by any person having an agreement with or actinK on behalr of a public entity, or as the result of a written order from a public entity to vacate the real property for public: use. This definition shall be construed so that persons displaced as a result o~ public action receive relocation benefits in cases where they are ~Isplaced as a result of an owner participation agreement or an acquisi- tion carried ou, b)' a private person (or or in connection with a public use where the public entity is otherwise empowered to acquire the property to carry out the public use. . BRIAN. KANGAS. FOULK & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS. SURVEYORS 595 Price Avenue. Redwood City. CA 94083 . Tel. (415) 385-0412 January 5,1983 Job No. 81208-0 ~ ~ ~~' I' 1'983 ~,' Mr. Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell. 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 CITY OF Cß~~,.r;:';':":LL PLANNII\:3 C!::P':"í1TFV:E~~T Re: PD 82-08; 900 East Hamilton Avenue Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Kee: We have reviewed the comments prepared by the City of San Jose relative to the traffic impacts associated with the above referenced document in submittals dated Aprill2, 1982, September 10,1982 and December 9,1982. Comments noted in the City of San Jose's AprillZ, 1982 letter have been responded to in the City of Campbell's staff comment sheet dated December 14,1982 on pages 6 and 7. In terms of the City of San Jose's September 10,1982 letter we offer the following: Comment 1. Response Comment 2. Response Comment 3. Response Estimated trip generation rates of 120 trip ends per 10,000 square feet of floor space are too low and are not supported by studies which should be referenced in the document. See City of Campbell's staff comment sheet dated December 14,1982 pages 6 and 7 (staff response to Comment 2 contained therein). Traffic projected for other approved developments which will be constructed within the City of San Jose were not included in the analysis. We have included traffic projections contained in the Ainsley ErR ànd have indexed existing traffic volumes upward by 1.5% per year to provide a reasonable estimate of general growth in the surround- ing area. The City of San Jose has not enumerated any other specific developments which they wanted considered in the analysis. Updated traffic volumes at the intersections were not used in the Level of Service calculations for intersections located within the City of San Jose. 1981 traffic volume counts were utilized in preparing the base traffic analysis which was completed in December 1981. Thus, the base information used was deemed to be appropriate for the traffic report. Contd. . . REDWOOD CITY. PLEASANT HILL Mr. Arthur A. Kee City of Campbell January 5,1983 Page 2 ----- Comment 4. Response Comment 5. Rèsponse Comment 6. Response Comment 7. Response Use of incorrect timing for signal controllers within the City of San Jose. Timing for signal controllers was current at the time the report was prepared. Diversion of traffic from the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue through the project's 25' parking aisle will not occur as indicated. A two-way public street will traverse the development from Campisi'Way across a new bridge structure over Los Gatos Creek connecting to Hamilton Avenue with an underpass. The street will be 30' wide on the bridge and at the underpass and will widen to 40' at the on-site intersection to permit construction of left turn pockets for northbound and southbound traffic. An actuated traffic signal will control internal movements within the development and an actuated traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Campisi Way and the new public street. In addition to the above intersection analysis, we proje¿t severe traffic congestion for the project access to westbound Hamilton Avenue due to project traffic exceeding rated capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour for the northbound Highway 17 on-ramp. See City of Campbell's staff comment sheet dated December 14.1982 page 5 (staff response to comment 3 contained therein). Also. it is unknown whether the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 over- crossing can be widened as proposed due to structural limitations of the existing bridge. Comments received from the State Department of Transportation (November 14,1982) indicated that the widening of t~e namilton Avenue overcrossing shall be designed by the State and that the overcrossing shall be widened on the north side. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the City of San Jose's comments. AJG:pms CITY OF CAMPBELL MEMORANDUM TII E. G. Schilling, City Mònager Date: Décel,Der 29, 1982 From James F. McMullen, Fir'e Chief SlItJ ect: LETTERS DATED DECE~ER 9,1982, to ART KEE FROM GARY S. SCHOENNAUER, AND APRIL 12, - - - J28..2...1Q -'íQU_ŒQt'L ER8fiClS- EO~~- . ~- ... - - - - - - - - - -----_. The two letters in question both reference the proposed Pron~theus develop- ment located at 900-920 East Hamilton Avenue. In those letters certain statements are made that I would like to clarify regarding fire protection of the above facilities. Mr, Schoennauer states that unless we intend to increase our fire protection capability, their city will bear the greater share of responsibility for pro- tecting this project. This statement is completely erroneous. I will enu- merate on this in response to Francis Fox's letter. - Mr. Fox states that Campbell and San Jose have a mutual response agreement, and this has been important in the past due to Campbell's inabil~ty to pro- vide protection to high-rise buildings. By virtue of the st~tement, mutual response, it connotes that both communities mutuall~.a~sist ~ne another. To that end Campbell responds on approximately 10-15 ~l~rms into San Jose for each response we receive in return. Mr. Fox's statement regarding our in- ability to handle high-rise buildings references our lack of a ladder truck. Al though I in no way want to jeopardize the existing auto-aid agreement with San Jose, because it is a valuable resource for the City of Campbell, I must state categorally that we, in turn, provide a valuable resource to San Jose. In addition to San Jose assistance for ladder service, the City of Campbell participates in automatic aid with the Central Protection Fire District, which includes a ladder truck from Los Gatos. Also, through the County Mutual-Aid System, Campbell can call for ladder truck service from several other cities in Santa Clara County. Mr. .Fox speaks to the fire-flow requirement of the proposed development. We are in agreement with his probable estimate under the California Administrative Code, Title 19, and the Uniform Fire Code, the building would be required to be sprinklered; therefore, the lower estimation of fire flow is the most pro- bable. Mr. Fox states that in the event of a major structure fire in this complex, the City of San Jose would need to provide several fire companies ~ under the auto-aid program. Although the automatic-aid system that Mr. Fox." speaks to does provide that Campbell can call for fire companies beyond the initial requested response of one engine company and one truck company, the City of Campbell Fire Department does not intend to exercise this option. The reason is because of a fee attachment of approximately $3,00O/engine/hour, and adequate resources are available from other jurisdictions. Our Fire Department has the built-in capability of going to a fifth alarm assignment which would provide five engines from the Campbell Fire Department, - - To: Subj: E. G. Schilling, City Manager - 2 LETTERS DATED DECEMBER 9, 1982, TO ART KEE FROI'; GARY S. SCHOENNAUER, AND APRIL 12, 1982, TO YOU FROM FRANCIS FOX December 29, 1982 a truck company, an engine from San Jose Fire Department (under the initial auto-aid plan), four,engine companies from the Central Fire District, and one engine company each from Saratoga, Santa Clara and Milpitas Fire Depart- ments. This fifth-alarm assignment includes recalling the off-duty Campbell firefighters, activation of our automatic-aid agreement and Plan III of our Santa Clara Mutual-Aid Plan. In addition, Campbell can call for a Plan IV which includes additional equipment, unspecified by the plan, but available from various fire departments in the county excluding San Jose. San Jose is the only city in the county that is not signatory to the Santa Clara Mutual- Aid Plan. . - Beyond this plan, Campbell, as well as any city in the State of California, that is signatory to the State Fire Mutual-Aid Plan, can call for all the re- sources available through the State Office of Emergency Services, which would include, if necessary, hundreds of pieces of firefighting'equipment. The Campbell Fire Department has exercised its multiple-alarm assignments effectively on fires and drills. Through the combined cooperative efforts of cities helping one another, a small city is able to operate effectively by combining resources. Mr. Fox also states that.a minimum of one San Jose engine company would respond on all structural fires in the area of the proposed Prometheus development. This is inaccurate. The automatic-aid agreement with the City of San Jose spe- cifies that Campbell will respond into several areas of the City of San Jose upon initial receipt of alarm by San Jose; whereas, San Jose will respond with one engine company and one truck company into Campbell upon a request for assist- ance, and only after Campbell has recalled its off-duty personnel. The end re- sult is that Campbell provides automatic aid to San Jose, whereas San Jose provides mutual-aid to Campbell. Additionally, Campbell responds 10 to 15 times into San Jose for each requested response in return. Those areas of San Jose that Campbell y'esponds into are areas wherein our engine companies can arrive faster than San Jose companies. Mr. Fox goes on to state that, ". . .the proposed building could involve equipment and men from the City of San Jose at a time when a demand for them could arise in San Jose. . ." However, the automatic-aid agree- ment between Campbell and San Jose provi des an "escape clause" wherei n a juri s- diction with its equipment committed does not mandatorily have to provide assist- ance to the jurisdiction requesting it. In my opinion, San Jose Fire Department will be minimally impacted by the develop- ment that is proposed for the City of Campbell. The initial response by the Campbell Fire Department to this development would be with Campbell equipment, and only after arrival and determination of the existence of a need would San Jose be requested to assist. ~ )J7 ~ Ink. ß2- AMES F. McMULLEN, Fire Chief JFMcM/cb PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 10080 NORTH WOI..F"E ROAD. SUITE 201 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA 9!5014-2!57!5 (408) 446-0157 December 28, 1982 ~1r. Arthur Kee Director of Planning City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue C3mpbell, CA 95008 i~ Œ (G ~ Ú \' ~: rÒ 1 U ;JfC 30 1992 l!J) RE: 900 East Ha~ilton Avenue P:)B2-08 CITY o!=" CA~.1P8~~!.. PLANNil'\:J Of:~ARTMENT Dear Art, At the Planning Commission hearing of Decernber 14 to consider the referenced application, Commissioner Kasolas raised a question reçarding a potential change in use of the Ainsley property. Mr. Kasolas suggested that a revi~w of the underlying tr.:~ffic assumptions incorporated within the DEIR may be appropriate if San Jose had changed the current zoning for said property. ,- I reviewed the zoning status of the Ainsley property with Mr. Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner for the City of San Jose (408-277-5175). According to Mr. Ketchum, Mr. John Sobrato recently submitted an application to develop an industrial park on approximately 22 acres currently z(~ned residential. The City Council held preliminary public hearings to consider his request to amend the Gener.'ll Plan. However, prior to completion of the Council's revie~, Mr. Sobrato withdrew his request; the Council then su3pended further consideration of the General Plan. I might add that, according to Mr. Sobrato, the traffic impact of his proposed industrial development was comparable to that anticipated from the residential use currently appraved. At this point, Ainsley property is seems inappropriate as to the projected incorporated within mation be forwarded consideration prior a change in the General Plan of the merely conjecture. As a result, it to revise the underlying assumptions traffic impact of the Ainsley property the DEIR. I request that this infor- to the Planning Commissioners for their to our public hearing of January 11, 1983. On December 14, Mr. Kasolas also raised a question regarding the City of Campbell's ability to respond to a fire at our proposed project. In previous discussions with Fire Chief McMullan, he indicated the City, through it's Mr. Arthur Kee City of Campbell December 28, 1982 Page T\o¡O mutual aid pact with the County of Santa Clara, has more than adequate capacity to respond to tDe most severe fire even with- out assistance from the City of San Jose. In anticipation Commissioner Kasolas will raise this question on January 11, I request that Chief McMullan be present to review the fire fight- ing resources currently available to the City of Campbell and specifically their adequacy for our project. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Please feel free to call if you have ~uestions. vep:,rãf\Y urs, '/.~ß~ '---- ',---- Thomas A. Fleischli Project Manager TEF:cam cc: Robert Nagner Chief McMullan ,~- ,. December 23, 1982 Mobile Home Park Tenant Hamilton Park 920 East Hamilton Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 RE: Supplemental Report Dear Tenant, Enclosed herewith please find a supplemental report prepared in connection with the proposed change in use of Hamilton Mobile Home Park (application PD82-08) for pur- poses of developing a commercial office project. Said report is required pursuant to the provisions of Govern- ment Code Section 65863.7. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on January 11, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers at 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California before the City of Campbell Planning Commission on the attached report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of Hamilton Park. Sincerely, 900 EAST H õi a general r 1 -TEF:cam cc: Sanford Diller Robert Wagner Arthur Kee (w/encl.) Edward LaCroix Jr. (w/encl.) Robert L. Keesling (w/encl.) Walter R. Keesling (w/enel.) -- REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN USE UPON THE TENANTS OF HAMILTON PARK ,-- Prepared for City of Campbell December 23, 1982 --