EIR-1984
--
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120
(41S) 923-4«4
WIMBE¡;lY
/
.J' HANDLING
~~"~~"""
h" " .
. ' .
HELMS ID ~ RETI.iRN TO-
V AlKEN~ DISCARD
May 5, 1987
DiAl
MANlEY
fiLE
/"
PENOYER
Mr. Donald Wimberley
Director/City Engineer
C1ty of Campbell
70 North First street
Campbell, CA 95008
CASE
Attention:
Mr. Bill Helms
Dear Mr. Helms:
The Project Report concerning the realignment of the Route 17
northbound off-ramp to Hamilton Avenue was approved on April 18,
1987.
The proposal, as outlined in the Project Report, is to realign the
northbound off-ramp at Hami~ton Avenue. The realigned off-ramp
will connect to a new public street at a signalized T intersection
approximately 180 feet south of the existing location of the off-
ramp/Hamilton Avenue intersection. The new ramp intersection will
be a three-legged intersection and no other connections to this
intersection will be allowed. The new intersection at Hamilton
Avenue will be signalized and interconnected to the signal system
at the off-ramp and new public street intersection.
The off-ramp will be widened to three lanes with two left-turn
lanes and one right-turn lane to provide for additional storage on
the off-ramp. Queue detectors will be installed on the off-ramp.
At the Hamilton Avenue/new public street intersection there will
be three left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. Only two of the
left-turn lanes will be used until westbound Hamilton Avenue is re-
striped for a third through lane between the new intersection and
the overcrossing. This portion of Hamilton Avenue will be re-
striped as part of the Hamilton Overcrossing widening project.
One of the attachments to the project report was the site plan sub-
mittal by Prometheus. Further review of this site plan resulted
in these additional comments and recommendations:
1.
The channelized islands for right turns at the intersections
should be eliminated and the crosswalk pulled back even with
the curb. This would prevent pedestrians from being stranded
on these islands with traffic all around them.
e
. .
t.,./
L-
Mr. D. Wimberley
Page 2
Ma y 5, 1 9 8 7
2.
The Route 17/Hamilton Avenue interchange is currently land-
scaped. Realignment of the off-ramp will result in the re-
moval of existing landscaping. Replacement planting should
be provided for these areas. Also, the State will be gaining
more right-of-way at the new ramp intersection which should
be landscaped as part of this project. This work should be
included in the final plans and should be paid for by the
City/Developer.
3.
The structural section thickness for the ramp should be ap-
proved by Caltrans prior to the completion of the final plans.
Any additional right-of-way requirements, including utility
relocation, will be the responsibility of the City of Campbell.
4.
Please forward the above comments and recommendations to Prometheus.
10 order for Caltrans to proceed with the processing of the Cooper-
ative Agreement and the Freeway Agreement for this project. The
following items are required:
1.
Two copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report certified
by the City of Campbell.
2.
One copy of the document approving the FEIR and one copy of the
Notice of Determination filed with the State Office of Planning
& Research.
3.
A reply to the draft Memorandum of Understanding sent to your
Office on August 28, 1986.
Upon receipt of the above items, we will prepare a draft Cooperative
Agreement for your review. The draft MOU will be finalized and a
final MOU will be forwarded to your Office for execution.
If you have any questions, please contact Kai Chan, Project Engineer,
at (415) 923-4233.
Sincerely yours,
Burch C. Bachtold
District Director
By !1ì Cl &¿\;l\J~
N.A. Cerruti
Senior Engineer
Project Development A, SCI-I
-
--
Jdb
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Public Works
July 24,1986
Mr. Thomas Fleischli, Vice
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Suite 100
Cupertino, CA. 95014-2210
President
RE: 900 East Hamilton Avenue
Dear Mr. Fleischli:
The staff has reviewed your letter of May 28, 1986 to Joseph Elliott
regarding the intersection configuration required for the connection
of the new public street to Hamilton Avenue. It was our understanding
that this subject had been discussed with representatives of your
company shortly after receipt of the letter and that your question
had been answered during that meeting.
In order to clarify the City's response, please be advised that the
Public Works staff's position remains that all traffic~mitigation
conditions for the proposed development are requirements of the first
phase of development. This position is consistent with the ordinance
adopted by the City Council in connection with the development.
In recognition of the time requirements involved in securing necessary
approvals from Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Public
Utilities Commission, the Public Works staff could recommend that the
development be allowed to proceed concurrently with the processing of the
above approval requests subject to certain conditions. It would be
necessary for the City to be guaranteed that the process was moving
along as rapidly as possible, that appropriate interim improvements
would be provided and also that cash deposits would be provided to the
City that would allow completion of the ultimate improvements by public
contract in the event of default, or unreasonable delay on the part of
the developer.
Please contact me if I can provide any additional information at this
time.
Very truly yours,
<\?xv~
BilìL.J M. Helms
Acting Director of Public Works
cc: K. Duggan, City Manager
A. Kee, Planning Director
,.....
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
May 15, 1986
Mr. Bruce compton
State of California Department
Environmental Analysis
P.O. Box 73l0
San Francisco, CA 94l20
of Transportation
RE:
Final EIR, Prometheus Development Co.
920 E. Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
State Clearinghouse #85012215
Dear Mr. Compton:
Enclosed per your request, please find the enclosed copy of
the final EIR prepared for the referenced project. The final
EIR consists of the following:
1.
Draft EIR
2.
Responses to written and oral comments
3.
Minutes of the City Council meeting when the EIR was
certified
The City of Campbell considers the draft, plus these attachments
to be the Final EIR.
If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
-~~,C</V. xl-Mfft4&
PHILIP J. STAFFORD ~-
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PJS:lj
Enc.
...
,-
",'
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
December 17,1985
Mr. Thomas E. Fleisch1i, Vice President
Prometheus Development Company, Inc.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE: EIR 84-04, 920 E. Hamilton Ave., Campbell
Accomting of fmds
Dear Mr. F1eisCh1i:
The following information regarding deposits and actual disbursement
of ftmds for preparation of the referenced EIR is submitted for your
records.
I.
Fmds from Prometheus placed on deposit with City:
Date Receipt No. Arne m t Total
10-18-84 26100 $13,800.00
5-21-85 30368 500.00
11-08-85 2177 384.61
$14,684.61
II. Ftmds disbursed to Ruth & Going, Inc.:
Date
Invoice No.
Check No.
Arne m t
Total
$ 6,000.00
2,247.61
752.24
1,500.15
Subtotal
III. Ftmds disbursed to Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.:
1-15-85
4-05-85
5-08-85
6-10-85
84-1393
85-1722
85-1828
85-2051 &
85-1993
21636
21919
23071
23884
$10,500.00
Date Invoice No. Check No. Arnemt
4-05-85 31943 21806 2,880.61
1;1-20-85 32528 24887 1,304.00
Subtotal
Total
$ 4,184.61
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SlJM.1ARY
Total Funds Placed on Deposit by Prometheus:
Total Funds Disbursed to Consultants:
Balance
Mr. Thomas Fleisch1i
December 17,1985
Page 2
$14,684.61
14,684.61
0.00
If you have any questions regarding this infonnation, please call.
Sincerely,
ARI'HUR A. IŒE
PLANNING DIRECI'OR
./~JY~
PHILIP J. STAFFORD / .
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PJS:1j
....'
C H E C K
R E 0 U EST
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
City of Campbell
Please issue check payable to: B
Address:
Street:
(20 spaces)
City:
State:
Zip:
(20 spaces)
Exact Amount Payable: ~1,304.00
Account Number:
3520 - Fund No. A
Purpose:
EIR 84-04 Prometheus Development Co. - 920 E. Hamilton Ave.
Inv. No. 32528 from Barton-Aschmann.
FINAL PAYMENT ON lliIS ACmUNT
Requested by:
Approved by: d'
Title:
Date:
Principal Planner
Date: 11/8/85
Return to:
Planning
Department
Mail in attached envelope
Linda
Mail as is
Name
Other:
REV 4/22/83
DA IE MAILED
NOV 20 19~.a:
V~I ~?t.l A 7'
U--'
. '
~
CITY OF CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Kevin C. Duggan
City Manager
Date:
October 22,1985
From:
Arthur A. Kee, Planning Director
Philip J. Stafford, Principal Planner
Subject: Prometheus Development Co., EIR 84-04
Outstanding billing from Barton Aschman in the amount of $384.61
----------------------------------------------------------
RECDlvNENDATIŒJ:
TIlat the Administrative Staff be directed not to devote any additional
time on the Prometheus Development proposal until the final payment to
the City's consultant has been satisfied.
DISCUSSION:
On September 24,1985, the City received a letter from Barton Aschman
Associates, which outlined their understanding of the billings and
payments with regard to the referenced EIR. Staff concurs with this
understanding.
Subsequently, on September 26,1985, the Planning Staff sent a letter
to Mr. Thomas Fleischli of Prometheus, outlining our position and re-
questing that the final payment of $384.61 be paid to the City as soon
as possible.
Since there was no response to our letter, a second letter was sent to
Mr. Fleischli on October 14,1985. To date, Staff has not received
any response frem Prometheus.
Since the City is ultimately responsible for payment of the consultant's
fees, it is our reconunenàation that the Staff be directed by your office
to cease further work on the Prometheus Project, including attendance
at meetings, until payment in full has been made by the developer.
PJS : Ij
""'"'"
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
P1arming
October 14, 1985
Mr. Thomas F1eisch1i
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd. #100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE:
EIR 84-04,900 E. Hamilton Ave.
Dear Hr. F1eisch1i:
01 September 26, 1985, a letter was sent to you explaining
the request by Barton Aschman for final payment of fees in-
curred in preparation of the referenced EIR. The ammmt
that Prometheus has not yet paid is $384.61.
As of this date, the outstanding amomt has not been paid
to the City of Campbell for disbursement to Barton Aschman.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
ARI'HUR A - KEE
PLANNING DIRECfOR
PHILIP J. STAFFORD tf' .
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PJS: 1j
--
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
planning
September 26, 1985
\
Hr. Thomas E. F1eisch1i
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Ste. 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE:
E1R 84-04 - 920 E. Hamilton Ave.
Billing from Barton-AschmaI1 Associates
Dear Mr. F1eisc1ù.i:
The City of Campbell bas received a request from Barton-AscbnaI1 for payment
of the final billing for ,..,rk related to the referenced EIR. The ammmt of
this billing is $1,304. 00. A copy of the letter from Mr. Jeffrey 1JamOIl,
dated September 24, 1985, is attached for your reference.
This office originally received the bilUng for $1.304.00 (dated Jme 4, 1985)
on June 7, 1985. ()1 June 27. 1985, a letter was sent from the Planning Depart'
men t to Barton - Aschman indicating that on1 Y $919.39 reinained in the City' 5
EIR account for their oonsult:ing services. The June 27 letter also expla:ins
our understandIDg that the difference between the $1,304. 00 and $919. 39 had
been paid by Prometheus directly to the consultant.
After reviewing their records, Barton-Asdn1laI1 is mdicatmg that they did
not receive the $500 requested on April 16, 1985. You may recall that both
Bartcn-Asclønan and Roth & Going, Inc.. had requested an additional $500 fOT
each of their services. Prometheus did deposit $500 with the City, >ihich
was then paid to Ruth & Going. A swIar amount for payment to Bart<m-
AschmaI1 was never received.
At this t iJre. Barton - Aschman . s billing reflect s an amendment £rom the $S 00
request to $384.61. This sun, plus the $919.39 that the City still has on
deposit will allow us to make final payment to the OOI1sultant.
With this in mind, please transmit the sum of $384.61, payable to the City
of Campbell, to this office at your earliest convenience. Q1ce the final
payment has been made. "" will be able to close our file and transmit to you
an accounting of the disbursement of your deposits with the City.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call
me at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
~,~1'HUR .A'.1
/~ .:;1 I
PH 11 J AFF . .
IN 1PAL P
--
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113
Barton -Aschman Associates, Inc.
408-280-6600
September 24, 1985
Mr. Phil J. Stafford
Principal Planner
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Phil:
As follow-up to our phone conversation of September 23, 1985 and your letter
dated June 27, 1985, this letter is intended to clarify the status of our billings as they
relate to the 900 E. Hamilton Avenue project.
On June 4, 1985 we submitted invoice number 32528 for $1,304.00. The invoice
was for services performed at the City of Campbell and/or Prometheus request as
noted on the invoice. I have attached a copy to this letter.
You may remember that back in early April of 1985 Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc. and Ruth and Going, Inc. submitted a request to you for an additional $500.00
each. Our intention for the additional $500.00 requested was to make up the
difference between the $919.39 you held at that time and what we estimated was
required to perform the services requested. A copy of this letter is attached.
Subsequent to that letter, several documents passed between the players
outlining the reasons for the additional monies. These have also been attached.
Hence, we come to our submittal of $1,304.00. In reality, we only spent $384.61
of the requested additional monies, therefore the request to Prometheus at this time
should be for the $384.61 figure only. The additional monies are for the EIR portion of
the study as noted in my May 6, 1985 letter to you (attached).
The $11,748.00 payment by Prometheus you refer to in your letter of June 27,
1985 was to cover only the costs we incurred during the "Design Study" portion of the
study. That work was executed under a separate contract and job number between
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. and the Prometheus Development Company.
(6J
rö)Œ@Œ~.WŒr~
U\\ SEP 2 it 1985 UdJ
CITY OF CAMPBELL
P-CANNlNB DEP.ARTh1ENJ¡
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
I respectfully request that our $1,304.00 invoice now outstanding with the City
be expedi ted and paid.
If you have any questions, please feel to contact me.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
~.~~
Senior Associate
JPD:pd
Attachments
202105LO92485
.-
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBEll, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning Department
August 23, 1985
Ms. Sally Germain
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA, 94604
RE: Prometheus Development Co. Office and Hotel Development
920 E. Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, California
State Clearinghouse Number: 85012215
Dear Ms. Germain:
Enclosed for your records, please find the information regarding the
referenced project which you requested in your letter of July 29, 1985.
Please be assured that Negative Declarations and DEIRs for projects having
regional housing and transportation impacts will be referred to your
office in the future. Until now, it had been my understanding that the
State Clearinghouse transmitted copies of these documents to ABAG as part
of its review process. I hope my misunderstanding has not created any
problems for you.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PHILIP J. STAFFORD
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
t1"'" :1 ~ it'
. 'J "
I Lt
"',
.' .,
;', ,.
~,
tN
;;j'i J
i g
ld
Enclosures
P~AM!1,ml~,;\" "¡~" ~." 'f[
~ Ub;~N~~~;i2 Df1;!~R~ l:~~B\~'1
f:ABAG
,. ".~,
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
F-rrr'o
\JUN 207985
COunty CI
Santa c/ erk
ara COuntu
BY ,
DEPUTY
TO: COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
191 N. FIRST ST.
SAN JOSE, CALIF., 95113.
FROM: CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
70 N. FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIF., 95008.
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section
21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
PROJECT TITLE: Prometheus Development Company Office and Hotel Complex
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 85012215
CONTACT PERSON:
Phil Stafford
TELEPHONE: (408}866-2140
PROJECT LOCATION: 920 E.Hamilton Ave., Campbell, Ca.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed project includes construction of two
six-story office buildings (350,000 sq. ft.) and one five-story hotel (250
rooms) .
THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT THE CITY OF CAMPBELL HAS APPROVED THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PROJECT AND HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED PROJECT:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the
project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this
project.
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
I ).",j ~.)XJ h:;-
'iihi ftft4~<: throUlh ::-~, "I .....
in tlil; ht!;;;g lit \hB County Clerk"
EIR8404D
. ,:
. " .
"
," ,
-_.
-
(
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
June 27, 1985
Mr. Jeffrey P. Damon, Associate
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: EIR 84-04, Prometheus Development Co., and
Your Invoice Number 32528
Dear Mr. Damon:
This office is in receipt of an invoice from Barton-Aschman Associates
for work related to the referenced EIR. The amount indicated on the
invoice is $1,304.00.
After reviewing our records pertaining to this EIR, as well as our
records pertaining to funds spent in payment for consultant services,
it has been brought to my attention that your invoice amount exceeds
the amount remaining in your account. Our analysis of your account
is as follows:
Total deposited by Prometheus - 10-18-84
Payment to Barton-Aschman - 4-05-85
Balance payable to Barton-Aschman
$3,800.00
2,880.61
"$ 919.39
It is my understanding that Prometheus may have paid a portion of the
outstanding amount directly to your firm in connection with payment
of the $11 ,748.00 for preparation of the Design Study portion of the
traffic analysis.
My purpose in writing to you at this time is to request that you re-
view your records to determine if a portion of the referenced invoice
has already been paid by the developer.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
pD~~.
PHILIP ~ .STÁFFORD /
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PJS: lj
"'--
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866.2100
Department:
Planning
June 19, 1985
Mr. Thomas Fleischli
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Cupertino, CA, 95014-2575
RE:
EIR 84-04, 920 E. Hamilton Ave.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Dear Mr. Fleischli:
Enclosed, for your records, please find copies of the Notice of
Determination that have been filed with the state Secretary for Resources
and the Santa Clara County Clerk. Filing of these notices is required by
California State Law for each project approval for which an EIR was
considered.
Filing of the Notice of Determination and the posting on a list of such
notices (at the state and county levels) starts a 30-day statute of
limitations on court challenges to the approval under the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to
call me.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ld
F" lE C' 0, :P" V
I . . ~ ~ ~.'. 'I
PlAtJNING DfPP!RfMftfI
PHILIP J. STAFFORD
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
EIR8404F
eMttlC
It t
U EST
Descript
TO: fiNANCE IJ RECTOR
City of Ca8pbe11
fluse issue check PllIb1e to: -RID'li §.. G.9WÇ. W~- - - - - - - - - - - (10 spaces)
Address: Street: .l'..s> .lQ]..J. ?.4~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - (20 sPIces)
Cfty: -~'}Q?É.._--------- (15 SPICes)
.State: ..cA.. (2 sPIces)
Zip: ~159- - - (5 sPIces)
¡:4ZD
.,'-::>."
E!P--?~~,\;;.~".L - - - - - - - - - - - - (20 sPIces)
,~-- $500.00 .
~
.
Account Number:
Ree. #26100
Rev. Acet. 3520 - Fund No. A
~
Purpose:
mv. No. 85-2051 - Services perfonned from March 16 thru May 31. 1985
Promet hells neve lopmen t Co. -..., \
Requested by: Phil Stafford Tit'e: Principal P1annerDlte: 6/10/85
Approv8d b,: /}.., L ~"-- Title: Plannino Director IIIte: §llO~85
'-t:: A. Kee
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING ClfECK IE
IIIn as is
...n in attached enve10pe
Iteturn to:
Planning
DePlrt8ent
Linda
iue
Other:
"
. .
(j /?1~/~~Á
w /$/ (}-ð¿;, /.j-
DATE MAILED
JUL 3 1985
~ :d ,¿"3V'..>~7'
'J17.,j¿;¿J,/7
. .. _. . _.. ~
GDY/LJH
Ruth and Going, Inc.
INVOICE
May 31, 1985
FINAL BILL
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ATTN: PHIL STAFFORD
75 N CENTRAL AV
CAMPBELL CA 95008
).. Ã !./ff
I?~'
R+Ci
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
16,845
Job No. --
85-2051
Inv. No.
500.00
$
For Services Performed From March 16, 1985 through May 31, 1985
RE: Prometheus Development Company
Description
Budget
1.
Preparation of Environmental
Impact Report
$ 10,000.00
500.00
2.
Extra Work
(0186g)
~ ~J~N~ ~~8~ \D)
CITY OF CAMPBEL.L.
p¡,:¡..NNING DEPARTMENT,
This invoice is for professional services and is due and payable upon presentation.
A Monthly Charge of 1 V2 % will be added to past due Accounts,
this is an annual percentage rate of 19.6%
Total Previously Amount
Billed Invoiced Now Due
10,000.00 8,999.85 Complete
500.00 0.00 500.00
AMOUNT THI S INVOICE ;500.00
P.O. Box 26430
San Jose, CA
95159-6430
408-297-8273
---"
RESOLUTION NO. 6967
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING
EIR 84-04 AS COMPLETE (920 E. HAMILTON AVENUE).
After notification and public hearing as specified by law on Draft
Environmental Impact Reports, and after presentation by City Staff
and Consultants for the C11ty of Campbell ,;~and after hearing testimony
from proponents and opponents~ the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council does
hereby find as follows:
1.
That the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for
a proposed office/hotel complex on property known as
920 E. Hamilton Avenue provides sufficient information
upon which to base a decision.
The City Council does hereby adopt a resolution certifying the Draft
Environmental Impact Report prepared for 920 E. Hamilton Avenue as
complete.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ro 11 call vote:
21st
day of
May
1985 by the following
AYES: Councilmen:
NOES: Councilmen:
ABSENT: Counci 1 men:
Chamberlin, fuetsch, Ashworth
Kotowski, Podgorsek
None
APPROVED: ~~
. ASHWORT , MAY R
ATTEST'
THE FOr!EGOING INSTRUMENT ISlA TRdE
AND CORRECT COpy OFi tHE ORIGINAl,
ON FilE¡ IN THiS OFFICE, ,
, ATTEST:., ANNE if, COYNË, ClTY, a'LERK
CITY C¡~i\lF~,~Il~ ~AllF,o N,<,", "
. ¡ ,; I " 0"
BY I , , .
DATED "'~-.:Jli9'r-'€i:
~
'P ,"
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
191 N. FIRST ST.
SAN JOSE, CALIF., 95113.
FROM: CITY OF CAt.IJPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
70 N. FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIF., 95008.
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section
21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
PROJECT TITLE: Prometheus Development Company Office and Hotel Complex
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUt>1BER: 85012215
CONTACT PERSON:
Phil Stafford
TELEPHONE: (408)866-2140
PROJECT LOCATION: 920 E.Hamilton Ave., Campbell, Ca.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed project includes construction of two
six-story office buildings (350,000 sq. ft.) and one five-story hotel (250
rooms) .
THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT THE CITY OF CAMPBELL HAS APPROVED THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PROJECT AND HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED PROJECT:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the
project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this
project.
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
EIR8404D
CITY OOUNCIL'-
~~Y 21,1985
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
Public Hearing -
approval of Draft
Environmental
Impact Report -
office/hotel
complex -
EIR 84-04
This is the time and place for public hearing to
approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report -
for an office/hotel complex - EIR 84-04.
Planning Director Kee - Report dated May 21, 1985.
Mayor Ashworth declared the public hearing open and asked
if anyone in the audience wished to be heard.
Ray Clark, 325 April Way, Campbell, expressed concerns
regarding the proposed sale of the Camden High School and
the impact that a research and development project would
have in regard to traffic on Bascom Avenue.
Mr. Clark addressed issues concerning density, quoting
statistics from the San Jose Mercury News; possible
financial considerations; traffic mitigation; and
possible reduction of building height of the two office
buildings and hotel.
Garnetta Annabel, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell, spoke
before Council expressing opposition to certifying the
Draft EIR as complete in that the report did not cover the
traffic impacts of the proposed R&D project at the Camden
High School site, and is opposed to certifying the Draft
EIR as complete.
Timothy Lundell, Attorney Representing
OWners' Association, 2060 The Alameda,
opposition to certifying the Draft EIR
in that it does not reflect the impact
create on the residents of the park.
Hamilton Mobilehome
San Jose, spoke in
as being complete
relocation would
Chuck Williamson, President, Hamilton Mobilehome Owner's
Association, spoke to the Council regarding the language
used in the Draft EIR in reference to matters which are
still under litigation and are the prerogative of the
court. He requested that language be removed from the EIR
which is not pertinent to the project.
Councilman Podgorsek requested clarification on the impact
the Camden and Hamilton School sites would have on the
project in terms of traffic, and why these were not
addressed in the EIR.
Abdul Rashid, of Barton-Aschman Associates, responded
stating that these two sites are still under the auspices
of the school district and therefore were not addressed in
the EIR.
There being no one wishing to be heard, M/S: Chamberlin,
Doetsch - that the public hearing be closed.
-5-
Resolution No. 6967 -
approving Draft
Environmental
Report - office/
hotel complex -
EIR 84-04
_)uncilman Kotowski addressed se,,~.al concerns regarding
relocation of the residents of the mobilehome park, and
the necessity of the City undergoing a circulation study
in order to determine the level of development that could
be absorbed in these various locations.
After discussion, M/S: podgorsek, Kotowski - that the
public hearing approving Draft Environmental Impact Report
for an office/hotel complex be continued for 30 days to
address concerns regarding the proposed sale of the Camden
High School and its development, the Hamilton School site
and its proposed sale and development, and the impact of
relocation on the residents of the mobilehome park. Motion
was failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES Councilmembers:
NOES Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Kotowski, podgorsek
Chamberlin, Doetsch, Ashworth
None
After Discussion, M/S: Chamberlin, Doetsch - to adopt
a resolution approving Draft Environmental Impact Report
on an office/hotel complex - EIR 84-04 and certifying that
the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for 900 E.
Hamilton Avenue as complete. Motion adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES Councilmembers: Chamberlin, Doetsch, Ashworth
NOES Councilmembers: Kotowski, podgorsek
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
""-
--
Public Hearing - Resolution - approving Draft Environmental Impact Report
- office/hotel complex - EIR 84-04.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the public hearing on this item be continued to the City Council
meeting of June 4, 1985 in order that the issue of payments to the
City's environmental consultants may be resolved; or
2.
If the issue of payments to the City's consultants is resolved by
May 21, 1985, that the City Council certi!y this Draft Environmental
Impact RepOrt as complete,
STAFF DISCUSSION
The Draft Environmental Impact Report which is before the City Council at
this time has been prepared in order to assess the impacts of a proposed
project at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue. The project, if approved, will result
in the removal of the Hamilton Avenue Mobilehome Park and the construction
of two 6-story office towers and a 5-story hotel. As outlined in the
attached memorandum from the Planning Commission, the project will provide
an additional 350,000 square feet of office floor area and 250 hotel
rooms.
In addition to assessing the environmental impacts of the project, the
Draft EIR also suggests several measures to help mitigate these impacts.
Staff has been notified that the City's consulting firms will require
additional funds, consistent with their written scope of work, in order to
attend additional public meetings. On May 15, 1985 Staff notified the
applicant that it will be necessary to deposit the requested sum ($1,000)
with the City in order for the environmental review to proceed.
In addition, the City's traffic consultant, Barton-Aschmann Associates,
has notified the City that there is an unpaid billing for work related to
preparation of the Design Study element of the traffic analysis.
It is the opinion of the Staff, as well as the City Attorney, that any
outstanding billings to the City's EIR and Traffic Consultants should be
paid prior to the EIR being heard by the Council. For this reason, a
continuance of this public hearing to the next Council meeting is
recommended.
Should this matter be resolved prior to the City Council meeting, then
Staff recommends that the hearing proceed and that the Draft EIR be
,......+-;S::'~-'I - -'-"'~
I
PREPARED BY
Planning Department
AGENDA
5/21/85
TO:
FRor.1 :
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT:
PD84-04, Prometheus Development Co.
920 E.Hamiltom Ave.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council certify this Draft EIR as complete.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
On September 24, 1984, an application was filed with the Planning
Department for approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the
construction of 2 six-story office buildings and a five-story hotel. As
indicated on the plans which were submitted as part of the application,
the office portion of the development would amount to a total of
approximately 350,000 gross square feet of floor area (175,000 gross
square feet per building). The proposed hotel will have a total of 250
rooms, and will include a restaurant and group meeting facilities. This
proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan which
indicates a "Commercial" land use for the project site. The project is
also consistent with the P-D (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning
District which is in effect over the entire site.
Access to the development is primarily from a new public street which will
be constructed from Hamilton Avenue to Campisi Way, and will include a new
bridge across Los Gatos Creek. There is also limited access to the site
directly from Hamilton Avenue. In order to construct a new signalized
intersection on Hamilton Avenue, near the railroad tracks, the developer
is proposing that the existing off-ramp from northbound Highway 17 be
modified to intersect with the new street rather than Hamilton Avenue.
Once the application was filed with the staff, an initial study was
completed in order to determine the anticipated environmental impact of
the proposed project. As a result of the initial study, the Planning
Director advised the applicant that a focused EIR was required. Pursuant
to the City's adopted guidelines for preparing an EIR, the consulting firm
of Ruth and Going, Inc. was selected to conduct the study and prepare the
report. The engineering firm of Barton-Aschman Associates was retained to
prepare the traffic analysis for the project.
The applicant and consultants were advised by the City staff that the EIR
should focus mainly on the following subjects:
EIR 84-04
-2-
May 21,1985
I.
Traffic - complete analysis of the projected increased traffic
volumes and movements as a result of the proposed development on
the public streets and highways system including:
A. Hamilton Avenue corridor between Winchester Blvd. and
Leigh Ave. including a.m. & p.m. level of service
calculations at Winchester Blvd., Central Ave., Salmar Ave.,
Highway 17 southbound off-ramp, Highway 17 northbound
off-ramp, Bascom Ave., April Way and Leigh Ave.*
B. Bascom Ave. corridor between Hamilton Ave. and Campbell
Ave. including a.m. & p.m. level of service calculations at
Hamilton Ave., Campisi Way & Campbell Ave.*
C. New public street connecting Highway 17 northbound
off-ramp at Hamilton Ave., from Hamilton Ave. across bridge
over Los Gatos Creek to Campisi Way, including level of
service calculations at Highway 17 northbound off-ramp and
Campisi Way.*
D. Any other areas identified by public agencies having
jurisdiction over roadway facilities that may be affected.
*Inc1uding roadway segment volume analysis.
II.
Aesthetics and visual impact of the proposed development on the
surrounding area.
III. An analysis of the proposed project's impact on the Jobs/Housing
balance in Campbell, with particular attention to the impact on
the existing mobile home park.
Other potential environmental impacts were identified in the staff's
Environmental Impact assessment. Each of these potential impacts are also
addressed in the EIR. The applicant was advised that the scope of work
being called for in this EIR is intended to satisfy the environmental
impact requirements of the City of Campbell. Other agencies such as
Ca1Trans may impose additional and separate environmental review
requirements.
Since the gross floor area of the proposed office portion of the project
is greater than 250,000 square feet, the state CEQA Guidelines (Section
15206) requires that the EIR for this project be subject to review by the
State. The minimum time for this review period is 45 days from the date
that the state acknowledges receipt of the EIR. The 45 day review priod
ended on March 11, 1985.
EIR 84-04
-3-
May 21,1985
It should be noted that the information contained in the draft EIR which
is before the City Council at this time has been revised since the
submission of the original draft to the staff. While efforts have been
made to maintain consistency between the various sections of the draft,
staff is aware that inconsistencies do exist with regard to the party
responsible for undertaking mitigation measures. It is the Commission's
recommendation that all mitigation measures prescribed in the draft EIR
are the responsibility of the developer.
Major mitigation measures proposed for this project which are identified
in the Draft EIR as as follows:
I.
II.
Traffic
1.
Construct a bridge over Los Gatos Creek to provide site access to
Campisi Way.
2.
Widen Hamilton Avenue overcrossing at Highway 17 to allow an
additional lane for the west bound on-ramp.
3.
Add a right-turn-only leg on the south leg of
Hamilton/Winchester.
4.
Add a second left-turn-only lane on the south leg of
Bascom/Campisi intersection.
5.
Interconnect signal operation of the following intersections
along Hamilton Avenue: Salmar, Site access, Bascom, April, and
the site access/off-ramp intersection.
6.
Reconstruction of the Highway l7 northbound off-ramp to intersect
new public street, providing direct access to Hamilton Avenue,
with a new signalized intersection.
7.
An additional northbound through lane at the Hamilton/Leigh
intersection.
8.
During construction, provide adequate traffic control and when
possible, disturbances should occur outside the AM/PM peak hours.
Population/Land Use
9.
Develop a relocation plan for mobile home park tenants in
conformance with Section 66427.4 of the Government Code.
III.
Visual
10.
Proposed building shapes and setbacks will help reduce the
feeling of building mass.
--
ErR 84-04
-4-
May 21, 1 985
Written comments from other agencies and individuals pertaining to the
draft EIR which were received prior to preparation of this staff comment
sheet are attached for the Council' review.
* * *
"
CITY OF CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil
From: Linda
Subject: Prometheus
Date:
t~ay 20, 1985
----------------------------------------------------------
At the City Manager's direction, I contacted Tom about the $500
check, rather than $1,000. Tom indicated that it is for $500 because
they have paid Barton-Aschmann already. He said that he has a good
rapport with Barton-Aschmann implied that the $500 was no big deal
to them because Prometheus paid the $11,000+.
However, if we need the other $500 let him know right away.
get it to us.
He'll
r
..;.....
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
May 18, 1987
Mr. Burch C. Bachtold, District Director
State of California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 7310
San Francisco, CA 94120
ATTN: MR N. A. CERRUTI, SENIOR ENGINEER
RE:
Final EIR, Prometheus Development
920 E. Hamilton Ave., Campbell
State Clearinghouse #85012215
Dear Mr. Cerruti:
Enclosed per your request, please find copies of the final EIR
prepared for the referenced project. The final EIR consists of
the following: (1) Draft EIR
(2) Responses to
(3) City Council
Draft EIR as
written and oral comments
Resolution 6967, certifying
complete.
The City of Campbell considers the draft, plus these attachments,
to be the Final EIR.
If you have questions regarding this transmittal, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRE~TOR
~/ .
PH~~j(/STA RD
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ld
Enclosure
:' <
---------,
'\
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
i'
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
May 15, 1985
Mr. Thomas F1eisch1i
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Ste. 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE:
EIR 84-04
920 E. Hamilton Ave.
Dear Mr. F1eisch1i:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 30,1985 in which you
stated your position with regard to the requests of Ruth & Going and
Barton-Aschmann Associates for an additional $500 each for the finaliza-
tion of the referenced EIR.
At the outset, it should be noted that additional monies have not been
spent to complete the EIR. Instead, it is my understanding, that the
consultants are requesting additional funds in order to complete their
work. This understanding is predicated upon the following documentation:
1.
Letter dated October 3, 1984 to Mr. Arthur A. Kee from
Ruth & Going, Inc., which includes the Scope of Work
(copy attached).
"Meetings
Our proposal includes attendance at two hearings related
to the adequacy and certification of the EIR. Attendance
at additional meetings will be negotiated on a time and
materials basis."
2.
Letter dated September 28,1984 to yourself from Barton-
Aschmann Associates which includes the scope of work for
the traffic portion of the EIR (copy attached).
"Task 10: Public Hearings - This proposal includes
twelve (12) hours of preparation and attendance at
public hearings by Mr. Damon. Additional time or
additional staff would be subsequent to the fee
noted in this proposal."
, --
Mr. Thomas Fleischli
~1ay 14, 1985
Page Two.
As you are aware, both consultants were present at the two hearings before
the Planning Commission related to the EIR. Based on this information, it
is the opinion of the Planning Director that the consultant1s request for
additional funds is justified. You are therefore requested to deposit
the sum of $1,000 with the City in order that the review of this EIR may
proceed at the City Council level. As indicated to you previously, you
will receive an accounting of the disbursement of these funds.
On another, but related, matter the City is in rec~ipt of a letter to
your from Barton-Aschmann Associates dated April 25,1985. In this
letter, Barton-Aschmann indicates that there are two outstanding
billings to Prometheus in the amount of approximately $11,748. These
billings are related to the "Design Study" portion of the traffic
analysis.
Please be advised that it is the opinion of the City Attorney that
any outstanding billings to a Consultant to the City must be paid
prior to the ErR being considered by the City Council.
If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please call.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIR~C~~
~~~Yo ~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ld
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Ruth & Going, Inc.
Barton-Aschmann Associates
¡\/~ ÁP~ ~ ~ c&f7'1f6- )
GDY/LJH
R+Ci
Ruth and Going, Inc.
May 10,1985
INVOICE
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ATTN: PHIL STAFFORD
75 N CENTRAL A V
CAMPBELL CA 95008
Job No. 16, 8~
Inv. No.
85-1993
1,000.15
$
For Services Performed From March 16,1985 through April 30,1985
RE: Prometheus Development Company
Total Previously Amount
Description Budget Billed Invoiced Now Due
1. Preparation of Environmental
Impact Report $ 10,000.00 10,000.00 8,999.85 1,000.15
AMOUNT THIS INVOICE
J1.000.15
(0186g)
~ ~~~ ~Q~1;5~ ~
CITY Qf'- c..AMPSELL
~ ~E:.NZ
This invoice is for professional services and is due and payable upon presentation.
A Monthly Charge of 1 Y2 % will be added to past due Accounts,
this is an annual percentage rate of 19.6%
P.O. Box 26430
San Jose, CA
95159-6430
408-297-8273
"
-
-J
.
.
PLANNING OOMMISSION
'"
¡
APRIL 9, 1985
* * *
ErR 84-04
Prometheus Dev. Co.
Continued public hearing to consider
the Draft Environmental Impact Report
which has been prepared for an
office/hotel complex which is proposed
to be located at 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in
a PD (Planned Development) Zoning
District.
~. Kee indicated that responses to questions from the last hearing are
included in the Commission's packet, and representatives from Ruth & Going
and Barton-Aschmann are present to answer questions.
..
Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jerry DeYoung, representing Ruth & Going, noted that he would respond
to specific questions as necessary throughout the discussion.
In response to a question from Commissioner Toshach, Mr. Kee indicated
that the responses available this evening would be added to the original
EIR document, making it one document under consideration.
Mr. Ray Clarke, 325 April Way, asked that the effect of this project on
the residents of the mobilehome park be kept in mind in the
decision-making process. Additionally, Mr. Clarke commented on the
Cal-Trans action on the off-ramp alignmentJ the bridge across Los Gatos
RESOLUTION NO. 2327
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED
OFFICE/HOTEL COMPLEX ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 E.
HAMILTON AVENUE (EIR 84-04).
After public hearing as required by law to consider an Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed officejhotel complex on property known as
920 E. Hamilton Avenue, and after presentation by the Planning Director,
proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission
did find as follows:
1.
That the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses to
questions asked by the Commission and the public on the proposed
officejhotel complex satisfies the state requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report.
2.
That the Draft Environmental Impact Report provides sufficient
information on which to base a decision regarding the proposed
project.
The Planning Commission of the City of campbell does hereby accept the
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed officejhotel complex, and
does recommend that the City Council certify this Draft Environmental
Impact Report as complete.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of April 1985 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Perrine, Christ, Dickson, Fairbanks
Kasolas, Toshach
None.
APPROVED:
JoAnn Fairbanks
Chairman
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
. ,
ITEM NO 7
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 9, 1985
EIR 84-04
Prometheus Development
Continued public hearing to consider
the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) which has been prepared for an
office and hotel complex which is
proposed to be located at 920 E.
Hamilton Avenue in a P-D (Planned
Development/Commercial) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the Planning Commission review the attached Response to Comments;
and
2.
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 ErR Guidelines.
STAFF DISCUSSION
This public hearing was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of
March 12, 1985 in order to allow time to respond to questions raised by
the Commission and members of the public.
Attached, for the Commission's review, is a copy of the "Response to
Comments" which has been prepared by the City's environmental and traffic
consultants.
Also attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the Staff Comment
Sheet from the March 12, 1985 meeting.
* * *
April 9, 1985
tÞ C~~TS PE~AINI~ TO THE OFFICE ST~~URES AAD THE H~EL C~LEX - p~UHEUS
PROJECT
During June of last year, the community went through a referendum. One of the
objections that caused that referendum was the high rise and density of the
development. The total square footage of that proposal was 485,000. Naturally,
we do not want to participate in another referendum..
RA'1MOND ClARK
325 APRtL WAY
CAMPBELL. CA 95008
The new Prometheus proposal contains 350,000 square feet of office structures,
up to six stories each, in two story increments.
The proposed hotel structure contains five stories, in two story increments.
It is planned to accommodate 232 rooms, 9600 square feet of restaurant and
a conference room for 150 people. There is no indication in the DEIR about
the total square footage for the hotel structure. Using a rough estimate of
500 square feet per room times the 232 rooms we come up with a rough estimate
of about 116,000 square feet for the hotel structure.
To the hotel complex we add 18 or more executive suites, three level structures.
Additionally, it is planned to construct a parking garage (2 levels above grade)
Once again, we have office structures with 350,000 square feet and the hotel
structure with 116,000 square feet which total approximately to 466,000
square feet; plus the sq4are footage for the 18 (or more) executive suites and
the parking garage (2 levels above grade.). THIS APPEARS TO ME TO AN EXCESSIVE
AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 14 PLUS ACRES.
It is respectfully recommended that -
The office structures, with the. two story increments, be built to four
stories. They should be limited to 125,000 square feet each with a
total of 250,000 square feet for both structures.
The hotel structure should be reduced from 232 rooms to 175 rooms.
At the estimated 500 square feet per room the hotel structure would
be reduced to about 90,000 square feet.
RAYMOND CLARK
325 APRIL WAY
CAMPBELL. CA 95008
April 9, 1985
4IÞ COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CALTRANS ACTION ON THE OFF-RAMP REALIGNMENT.
In as much as the analysis, planning and scheduling of this item is essential
before issuance of final approval of the project, would it not be appropriate
for this part of the project be completed and made part of the approved EIR?
(Questions 5 and 11) (R&G and B-AAssoc) Response to Comments.
4IÞ COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE BRIDGE ACROSS LOS GATOS CREEK TO CAMPISI WAY.
It appears that analysis, planning and scheduling is essential before
issuance of final approval of the project. Would it not be appropriate for
this item to be completed as part of the approved EIR? It seems to me that
the type, length, capacity, abutment to abutment identification and the
like should be determined and approved as part of the EIR.
--
--
oj{ ,kJ 111. GS 'fO
Ii R+G
.
GDY/LJH
Ruth and Going, Inc.
INVOICE
April 5.1985
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ATTN: PHIL STAFFORD
75 N CENTRAL AV
, CAMPBELL CA 95008
Job No. 16, 84~
85-1828
I"v. No.
752.24
$
For Services Performed From February 16. 1985 through March 15,1985
RE: Prometheus Development Company
Total Previously Amount
Description Budget Billed Invoiced Now Due
1. Preparation of Environmental
Impact Report $ 10.000.00 8,999.85 8,247.61 752.24
AMOUNT THIS INVOICE
J752.24
(0186g)
,¡.." i;
flJ/!¡ - Y ,
This invoice is for professional services and is due and payable upon presentation.
A Monthly Charge of 1112% will be added to past due Accounts,
this is an annual percentage rate of 19.6%
P.o. Box 26430
San Jose, CA
95159-6430
408-297-8273
RESPONSE TO COM MENTS
DRAFT EIR 84 - 04
PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
RUTH AND GOING, INC.
and
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
.
March 27, 1985
0 From City of San Jose Letter <3/6/85):
Question No.1:
Given that Building Permits cannot be issued without a detailed soils analysis, the
Campbell Planning Staff is of the opinion that suitable mitigation will be
established and required for both on-site and off-site impacts before the project
could proceed.
Question No.2:
According to the Campbell Fire Department, development of the proposed project
will not have a substantial impact on the level of fire protection service for the
area. Currently under the Mutual Response Agreement, San Jose provides one (1)
ladder truck in return for Campbell providing response to a portion of San Jose.
The Campbell Fire Department is requiring the proposed building to be
sprinklered, to have smoke detection systems, and provide on-site fire hydrants at
locations specified by the department. Adequate water service is provided by a
19 inch main in Hamilton Avenue and a 25" main in Bascom Avenue.
Question No.3:
Sanitary Sewers: The project will be serviced by County Sanitation District 4.
District staff has indicated that adequate capacity exists within their lines to
serve the project. The site is served by an 8 inch line running through the site
tieing into a 15 inch line running north from Hamilton Avenue.
The District has a 13.5 MGD share of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant capacity. Presently the District only discharges approximately 10.4
MGD to the plant.
Storm Sewer: Given the site's adjacency to Los Gatos Creek, the Public Works
staff has indicated that the project's on-site storm water collection system will
outfall directly to the Creek.
Question No.4:
Given the Title 25 requirements for noise mitigation, the Campbell Planning Staff
is of the opinion that suitable mitigation will be established and, therefore,
required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Question No.5:
The impacts associated with the signal and new intersection are noted in Tables 4
&. 5 of the traffic study.
0 From City of San Jose Letter-3/6/85 (Continued):
Final approval of the project is conditioned upon approval of the off-ramp
realignment by CAt TRANS and possibly the PUC and amendment of the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STlP).
Question No.6:
The ultimate design of the signal at the Highway 17/Hamilton Avenue intersection
would require signal preemption for Southern Pacific trains.
The projected volumes on Hamilton and from the site in the evening meet signal
warrants 1, 2, &: 8.
The queuing issue has been addressed in the "Design Study" portion of the analysis.
With the interconnect system, the storage space was determined using the Transyt
7F program and found to be adequate with the existing at-grade intersection.
Question No.7:
The City of Campbell conducted extensive counts at the intersection of
Bascom/Hamilton during February, 1983. As a result of those counts, it was
determined that the traffic on Bascom and Hamilton Avenues was heaviest during
the weekday AM and PM "peak-hours".
Question No.8:
As stated in CSJ's comments, the impacts have been noted in the document.
The existing north/south maximum timings at Bascom/Hamilton were used in
developing the interconnect timings along Hamilton A venue. Therefore, if the
intersection is operating at capacity, the north-south timings would be the same
regardless of the interconnect.
Hamilton/Leigh and Hamilton/Meridian are not part of the proposed interconnect.
Therefore, either traffic-actuated conditions (at Hamilton/Leigh) or north-south
progression (at Hamilton/Meridian) will control the intersection operations.
The exact roadway alignments for the southeast corner of the Hamilton/Leigh
intersection have yet to be determined. However, the improvements envisioned
(addition of a shared through-right turn lane or the addition of a right-turn-only
lane) will adequately mitigate the intersection as noted in Tables 4 and 5 of the
traffic study. All intersection improvements are within the City of Campbell.
Question No.9:
The transportation level of service calculations are a separate appendix to the
traffic study and on file at the City of Campbell.
0 From City of San Jose Letter-3/6/85 (Continued):
Question No.1 0:
An analysis of the Hamilton/Meridian intersection for both the AM and PM peaks
using the City of San Jose counts, approved trips and level of service methodology
was undertaken subsequent to the EIR preparation. With the project-generated
traffic assigned to the intersection, it was determined that the CSJ criteria of 1%
(or more) change in critical volume would not be exceeded with this project.
Therefore, using the CSJ criteria, additional mitigations are not required.
Question No. 11:
Final approval of the project is conditioned upon approval of the off-ramp
realignment by CAL TRANS and possibly the PUC and amendment of the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STlP).
The impacts associated with the signal and new intersection are noted in Tables 4
and 5 of the traffic study.
16845-085
0 Response to Timothy A. Lundell, Attorney at Law
Notwithstanding the fact that there is on-going litigation regarding the right of
the property owners ability to "go out of business", the residents of the park may
eventually be forced to move.
As discussed under the Mitigation Section, the Project Proponent, Prometheus
Development Comapny, would be required to mitigate the displacement of the
residents.
0 Response to Santa Clara Valley Water District
No response required.
0 Response to Lynton Baker
The quality of the air in Campbell and surrounding cities is a regionally caused
problem. As a result, the San Francisco Bay Area air basin is a nonattainment
area for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulates. This means that the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these air pollutants are not now met
or not expected to be met by 1987 on the basis of measurements and regional
modeling by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
The BAAQMD predicts that particulate emissions will increase in the future due
to projected industrial growth and increased vehicle miles traveled. Carbon
monoxide emissons will decline regionally due to controls on motor vehicles
including vehicle inspections required at time of transferring of vehicles and re-
registration. The tighter control over vehicle emissions and the increasing use of
unleaded gasoline will bring dimenishing lead emissions resulting from vehicle use.
The predicted levels of carbon monoxide were generated by the use of air quality
modeling techniques contained within BAAQMD's Guidelines For Air Quality
Impact Analysis of Pro jects. This model assumes a dispersion model which uses a
Pasquill stability class of E or "slightly stable", and a wind speed of one meter per
second at an angle of 22.5 degrees to the roadway. As such, the model provides a
reasonable estimate of concentrations downwind from a road/link under adverse
meteorologial conditions. Emission factors utilized were 1985 composite factors
from EMFAC 6C developed by California Air Resources Board based on EPA's
Mobile 2.
0 Response to State of California
The Resources Agency (Memorandum dated 2/27/85)
As shown in Figure 3A, following Page 1-4, the P.G. & E. easement and additional
portions of the site adjacent to Los Gatos Creek are slated to be used as a
greenbelt area, as well as for parking and P.G. & E. storage uses. It is
recommended that, to the maximum extent feasible, the proposed greenbelt be a
nationally vegetated open space planted with native trees and shrubs.
. Response to State of California The Department of Health Services
(Memorandum dated 3/5/85)
The 80 db is for noise generated by Hamilton Avenue at 100' distance; not from
Highway 17.
Regardless of noise levels estimated in the noise element, the project proponents
will be required to provide a site specific noise analysis to show how external
noise sources can be mitigated to acceptable Title 25 Noise Requirements.
. Response to City of Campbell Planning Commissioners:
Commissioner Toshach
Reflectivity - Response:
As indicated on Page 11-14, the building will be constructed of concrete panels and
tinted glass. According to the projects' Architect, the glass anticipated to be
used reflects only 25% of the light striking the surface. In the summer time, with
the sun path high in the sky, very little light will be reflected away from the
building. In the winter, the low sun angle will produce longer reflection patterns.
However, in neither case will direct light be reflected off the site. As a result of
the materials selected by the Architect no other mitigations are necessary to
minimize the potential impacts from glare.
Commissioner Kasolas
Fiscal Analysis - Response:
The EIR, on Page 11-32, estimates the potential revenue of $1.317M resulting from
development of the proposed project. The estimates of annual property tax
revenue are based on the following set of assumption factors:
1)
The development will have the following assessed value:
Total
$ 4lM
$ 47M
$ 32M
$120M
Phase I
Phase II
Hotel
2)
Of the 1% maximum tax levy, the City will receive 13.08%, therefore,
for every dollar collected the City would receive $13.08.
3)
The tax rate is equal to 1.0975 per $100.
The City's share of this increase (above the existing revenue of $2,860) would
normally be $174,264. However, since the project is in a redevelopment area the
tax base is "frozen" and the total difference in tax revenue accrus to the City of
Campbell a net increase in revenues of approximately $1.3M.
In determining estimates of the potential revenue generated by the hotel
component of the project, the following assumptions/factors were utilized:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Occupancy Rate: 77%
Average Room Rate: $100/Day
Transient Occupancy Tax: 5%
250 Hotel Units
The projects hotel component upon full completion is expected to generate
roughly 5350,000 in occupancy tax annually.
Should the project not ultimately be completed as projected or scaled down prior
to commencement of construction, the amount of revenues that would be
generated would be lower in that the revenues are directly related to the size (via
assessed value or number of rooms for rent) of the project.
Use of Assumptions - Response
The subject EIR, as well as all EIRs in general, are based on the assumption that
the project described in the document will be constructed as proposed. As such an
EIR analyzes the "worst case" condition to inform decision makers about the
potential impacts. Generally speaking, if the projects impacts exceed the
environments ability to respond adequately, then mitigations are recommended.
Once the "worst case" is analyzed, then if the project isn't built out to the
proposed level, it is assumed that the stated impacts will be reduced, however,
the lessening is not quantified. Should significant changes be made in a proposal
project, the lead agency would require further a new EIR or amend certain
portions of one already certified. In many cases the need to amend an EIR, as a
result of a downward scoping of a project, stems from the desire to closely match
impacts with required mitigations on the part of the proponent; since mitigations
generally have an economic effect on the project.
. From Public Hearing comments ...
lb.
The pedestrian access in front of the site (in conjunction with a new bus
duckout) will be included in a new site plan. All new signals will have
pedestrian phasing and control to facilitate pedestrian movements. The
design of the bridge over S.R. 17 is still speculative at this time and may
still allow pedestrian flow along the north side of Hamilton Avenue.
2.
The directional distribution for the office and hotel trip was developed
through numerous discussions between City staff and the consultant. The
distributions are assumptions based on informed staff (local conditions) and
consultant (regional) input. As traffic engineering is as much an art as a
science, determining a confidence level of analysis on the assumptions is
inappropr ia tee
_.
3.
The status of Highway 85, as of February 1985, is as follows. The
environmental review, including selection of a preferred alternative, is now
underway. Three alternatives are currently under review: a four-lane
freeway with HOY lanes and a median LRT line; a six-lane freeway with
HOV lanes; and an eight-lane freeway with LRT. The Final EIS is scheduled
for completion by the end of 1986; it is generally recognized that EIS may
be delayed until as late as the end of 1987. Construction of all segments by
FY 94-95.
What impact this additional roadway capacity will have on key intersections
identified in the traffic report is unclear and beyond the scope of this site-
specific document.
4.
The current status of light rail in the Vasona Corridor is that the corridor
was approved on March 26, 1985 as the number 3 priority for a major
transportation investment (LRT) by the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors for more detailed study. The T-2000 alternatives analysis
demonstrated the potential for LRT in the corridor. However, at this time
as a 113 ranking, behind the U.S. 101 corridor and the Fremont to South Bay
corridor, the timing for a major $100M investment in the corridor remains
purely speculative.
As noted on pp 24-26 of the traffic study, the "LRT operations should
consider a grade separation when crossing the Hamilton Avenue arterial."
The densities and proximity of this development as an attraction lends itself
to potentially making a future LR T line in the corridor more successful.
5.
The assumptions used in report are: For trip generation rates Caltrans
and/or ITE resources were used with staff concurrence. For the 20%
reduction in hotel trips due to "synergism" of the project, the Urban Land
Institute/Barton-Aschman shared parking study found this to be adequate -if
not conservative. For the background growth factor of 1.5% annually, this
is a generally accepted growth factor by virtually every municipality in
Santa Clara County. Many cities use a 1.2% growth factor. No risk
assessment can be associated with the assumptions, they are based on both
consultant experience and City staff concurrence.
. From CAL TRANS comments ...
1.
The information is included in the traffic operational analysis (Design Study)
conducted as part of the traffic environmental analysis for the project.
..
. .. .~"
,:1
PLANNING CCM4ISSION
MARΠ12, 1985
EIR 84-04
Prometheus Dev. Co.
Public hearing to consider the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which
has been prepared for an office and
hotel complex which is proposed to be
located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a
PD (Planned Development) Zoning
District.
Mr. Stafford reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
conunission.
conunissioner Kasolas asked in what position the City would be left if this
EIR is certified as complete, and for one reason or another, certain
assumptions made in the EIR do not come to fruition.
-
-
-6-
, .
Mr. Stafford stated that measures contained in the EIR would be made
conditions of approval and would be required as part of Phase I prior to
occupancy. If these conditions are not met, then the project would be
back to square one, or the developer would have to ask the City to
reconsider it's position.
Commissioner Toshach expressed concerns about the reflectivity of the
glass purposed in the building materials (what effect on the environment,
and direction of reflections); provision for pedestrian traffic on
Hamilton Avenue; vehicle flow (trip origins/destinations); and, the
validity of the presented 10.5 trip ends per hotel room--with one parking
space per room.
Mr. Gerry DeYoung, Ruth & Going, Inc., explained that the architects have
chosen to use reasonably non-reflective glass for this project, thereby
providing a minimal impact on the surrounding area. Mr. DeYoung continued
that although he is unable to answer specific questions relative to light,
he can say that there will be some downward reflection.
Commissioner Toshach noted that at high noon the downward glare could be
significant, and he is concerned with the impact on the community. In
that the EIR does present a mitigation measure, there is no basis for
making a judgement on what effect the mitigation measure will have.
Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
Mr. Jeff Damon, Barton-Aschman Associates, responding to the pedestrian
traffic issue, noted that although not designed yet, the bridge over the
creek will be widened and the pedestrian walkway will be removed at this
location. pedestrians will be forced to cut across the street to proceed
on Hamilton Avenue, thereby prohibiting pedestrian traffic on one side of
Hamilton Avenue in this area.
Mr. Damon indicated, in reference to the 10.5 trip ends per day with one
parking space per hotel room, that the 10.5 trips would be one vehicle
making 10.5 trips in or out of the development during the day. This
information is derived from Cal-Trans standard literature. Trip
distribution for the hotel was determined by looking at the general
geographic area, and it is felt that a significant amount of hotel traffic
will come from the north (Silicon Valley area); and, for the office uses,
we looked at the future growth for the residential areas.
Commissioner Toshach asked about the reference in the EIR to Poisson
distribution, and challenged the assumption that the distribution is
Poisson.
Mr. Damon explained that the Poisson manner is a standard statistical
traffic engineering tool used nationwide.
-7-
Mrs. Garnetta Annabel, 951 Dry Creek Rd., representing the Cambrian
Village Homeowner's Association, stated that it is the opinion of the
Association that the proposed project is, in all its essential features,
the same as the development which was repealed with the referendum. They
asked that the EIR not be accepted on those grounds. If the mitigation
measures were not adequate last year, they are not adequate this year.
Additionally, it is felt that the EIR doesn't address queuing on Hwy. 17
between Hwy. 280 and Hamilton Avenue southbound trying to exit and go east
on Hamilton if another light is put between Bascom and Salmar. Mrs.
Annabel concluded that she did not think a project of this size could be
considered without adding another lane on Hwy. 17 between Hamilton and
Hwy. 280.
Mr. Timothy Lundell, 2060 The Alameda, San Jose, representing the Hamilton
Park Mobilehome Owners Association, cited from his letter (attached
hereto) sent to Ruth & Going regarding the EIR. Mr. Lundell stated that
he felt it appropriate that the EIR be amended regarding housing
displacement; and, that the issue of any noticing given by the property
owners is questionable at best, and the statement on page 11-40 of the
report is disputed.
Mr. Ray Clarke, 325 April Way, reviewed his concerns regarding the EIR as
presented in a memorandum (attached hereto) to the Commission. Mr. Clarke
added that a written committment is essential from Cal-Trans for
northbound off-ramp at eastbound exit of the development. Finally, he
referred to the letter in the Commission's packet from the City of San
Jose (attached hereto)--item nos. 3, 4, 6, 10, and ll. Mr. Clarke
requested that consideration be given to not approving this EIR until such
time as it satisfies the concerns expressed.
Mr. Marv Rothman, 50 N. Midway Ave., stated that history is repeating
itself, and cited the Ainsley development as an example. He noted that
the traffic was at a maximum level when the Ainsley project was approved
by the City of San Jose, and they approved it anyway. He felt it would
behoove people to research the records. Mr. Rothman also felt that the
issue of noise pollution was not adequately addressed.
Mrs. Lorraine Holland, 40 N. Midway, spoke regarding the air quality in
the valley. She read from an article published in the San Jose Mercury
News on February 23, 1985 indicating that the problems of over-crowding,
traffic, and high housing costs is making this a bad area to live and
work. Mrs. Holland felt that the EIR does not address the lead content in
the air (citing a letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, attached hereto). Further, Mrs. Holland felt that traffic is a
tremendous problem in the area, and she did not see how someone could say
that it could be controlled. She felt that a stand should be made, and
that this project should be denied.
-8-
Commissioner Kasolas asked what assurances would be given that Phases I
and II would, in fact, be built, noting that he did not see any fiscal
impact report, financial analysis, or references made to Highway 85 and
the light rail issue in the EIR. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he
felt there were a lot of fears as to whether or not this project would be
a benefit to the community; and, at this time, he felt a little
uncomfortable with this EIR and would feel better if these issues could be
addressed.
Commissioner Toshach asked for further clarification on the shared parking
issue.
Mr. Damon explained that these figures are presented in Table 7, page 20.
There has been a fairly large study nationwide which looks at shared
developments, parking considerations, and types of synergisms. This study
was done under the auspices of the ULA, and shows assumptions made from
types of land uses. Mr. Damon continued that he has looked at basically
every major office development in the southbay area. Regarding Highway
85--at the time the report was prepared it is not certain what was going
to happen with this issue. Regarding the light rail issue--it was
recently learned that this is now the third priority listed with the
County; however, when the report was prepared it was nothing but a plan
line. Frankly, things are occuring faster than the E1R would indicate.
Commissioner Toshach asked about Table 6, page 11-64, which is used to
support an assumption that average parking demand is three spaces per 1000
net leasable square footage.
Mr. Damon noted that this was the case. The assumption is suggesting the
three spaces, with a 15% conservative factor, which Barton-Aschman feels
quite comfortable with.
Mr. DeYoung noted that, regarding the fiscal issue, page 11-32 mentions
the benefits of this project to the City. Since the project is in a
redevelopment area it would generate tax increment monies in the amount of
$1.3 million dollars on the entire complex. Additionally, if and when the
hotel is built, the City will realize an additional $350,000 in occupancy
taxes.
Commissioner Kasolas felt that there was not sufficient amount of
information in this area, and asked how the figures were arrived at. He
noted that he would like some assurances that these uses are feasible for
this area. Is a hotel going to be built, and what basis/method is being
used to come up with these figures.
-9-
Mr. DeYoung responded that the EIR is certainly based on a whole set of
assumptions. Certainly the consulting firm has no way of knowing whether
or not the developer intends to built the project. The consultants
typically deal with "worst cases" that the project could cause for the
area. Regarding the fiscal impact--this is based totally on the square
footage of the project and its future value. Since it is in a
redevelopment area, the City will continue to accrue tax increments, and
this is where the $1.3 millon dollars comes from. Regarding Phase I and
Phase II, the consultants have no way of knowing if a project is going to
be constructed. Ruth & Going tries to present, as the City's consultants,
things that would happen if the project is built out at a maximum
capacity.
Commissioner Dickson referred to the letter received from the City of San
Jose, and a letter received from Mr. Lynton Baker (attached hereto), and
asked that the issues raised in these letter be addressed before the EIR
is certified as completed.
MIS:
Dickson, Kasolas -
That EIR 84-04 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 9,
1985, in order that issues discussed
this evening, as well as issues raised
in correspondence received, be addressed
in the EIR.
Discussion on Motion:
Mr. DeYoung indicated that discussion would be needed with Staff to
determine level of detail¡ however, Ruth & Going is prepared to respond as
soon as the information is received.
commissioner Christ noted the changes in the status of Route 85 and light
rail, and asked that they be taken into account in the report.
Commissioner Toshach stated that there are a number of questions about the
assumptions that were made in the report. He felt that the assumptions
that were made should be explicitedly laid out--where there are
assumptions used, he would like some idea as to what risk is associated
with accepting those assumptions.
Mr. Dempster noted that the Commission may wish to take into consideration
the issue of closing the public hearing or continuing the public hearing.
If the public hearing is not closed and the answers to issues brought up
this evening are brought back to the Commission, then other items are
brought up under the public hearing, this matter could go on forever.
Commissioner Dickson stated that this might be appropriate at the next
meeting. He felt that the public. should not be excluded as yet.
Commissioner Kasolas stated his agreement with Commission Dickson.
;--
. .
ITEM NO.5
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 12, 1985
EIR 84-04
Prometheus
Development
Company
Public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) which has been prepared for an
office and hotel complex which is proposed to be
located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a P-D (Planned
Development/Commercial) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council certify this Draft EIR as complete, pursuant to Section l5085(G)
of the State EIR Guidelines.
STAFF DISCUSSION
On September 24, 1984, an application was filed with the Planning
Department for approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the
construction of 2 six-story office buildings and a five-story hotel. As
indicated on the plans which were submitted as part of the application,
the office portion of the development would amount to a total of
approximately 350,000 gross square feet of floor area (175,000 gross
square feet per building). The proposed hotel will have a total of 250
rooms, and will include a restaurant and group meeting facilities. This
proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan which
indicates a "Commercial" land use for the project site. The project is
also consistent with the P-D (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning
District which is in effect over the entire site.
Access to the development is primarily from a new public street which will
be constructed from Hamilton Avenue to Campisi Way, and will include a new
bridge across Los Gatos Creek. There is also limited access to the site
directly from Hamilton Avenue. In order to construct a new signalized
intersection on Hamilton Avenue, near the railroad tracks, the developer
is proposing that the existing off-ramp from northbound Highway 17 be
modified to intersect with the new street rather than Hamilton Avenue.
Once the application was filed with the staff, an initial study was
completed in order to determine the anticipated environmental impact of
the proposed project. As a result of the initial study, the Planning
Director advised the applicant that a focused EIR was required. Pursuant
to the City's adopted guidelines for preparing an EIR, the consulting firm
of Ruth and Going, Inc. was selected to conduct the study and prepare the
report. The engineering firm of Barton-Aschman Associates was retained to
prepare the traffic analysis for the project.
The applicant and consultants were advised by the City staff that the EIR
should focus mainly on the following subjects:
. .
EIR 84-04
-2-
March l2, 1985
I.
Traffic - complete analysis of the projected increased traffic
volumes and movements as a result of the proposed development on
the public streets and highways system including:
A. Hamilton Avenue corridor between Winchester Blvd. and
Leigh Ave. including a.m. & p.m. level of service
calculations at Winchester Blvd., Central Ave., Salmar Ave.,
Highway 17 southbound off-ramp, Highway 17 northbound
off-ramp, Bascom Ave., April Way and Leigh Ave.*
B. Bascom Ave. corridor between Hamilton Ave. and Campbell
Ave. including a.m. & p.m. level of service calculations at
Hamilton Ave., Campisi Way & Campbell Ave.*
C. New public street connecting Highway 17 northbound
off-ramp at Hamilton Ave., from Hamilton Ave. across bridge
over Los Gatos Creek to Campisi Way, including level of
service calculations at Highway 17 northbound off-ramp and
Campisi Way.*
D. Any other areas identified by public agencies having
jurisdiction over roadway facilities that may be affected.
*Including roadway segment volume analysis.
II.
Aesthetics and visual impact of the proposed development on the
surrounding area.
III. An analysis of the proposed project's impact on the Jobs/Housing
balance in Campbell, with particular attention to the impact on
the existing mobile home park.
Other potential environmental impacts were identified in the staff's
Environmental Impact assessment. Each of these potential impacts are also
addressed in the EIR. The applicant was advised that the scope of work
being called for in this EIR is intended to satisfy the environmental
impact requirements of the City of Campbell. Other agencies such as
CalTrans may impose additional and separate environmental review
requirements.
since the gross floor area of the proposed office portion of the project
is greater than 250,000 square feet, the state CEQA Guidelines (Section
15206) requires that the EIR for this project be subject to review by the
State. The minimum time for this review period is 45 days from the date
that the state acknowledges receipt of the EIR. The 45 day review priod
ends on March 11, 1985.
EIR 84-04
-3-
March l2, 1985
It should be noted that the information contained in the draft EIR which
is before the Commission at this time has been revised since the
submission of the original draft to the staff. While efforts have been
made to maintain consistency between the various sections of the draft,
staff is aware that inconsistencies do exist with regard to the party
responsible for undertaking mitigation measures. It is the staff's
opinion that all mitigation measures prescribed in the draft EIR are the
responsibility of the developer.
Major mitigation measures proposed for this project which are identified
in the Draft EIR as as follows:
I.
II.
Traffic
1.
Construct a bridge over Los Gatos Creek to provide site access to
Campisi Way.
2.
Widen Hamilton Avenue overcrossing at Highway 17 to allow an
additional lane for the west bound on-ramp.
3.
Add a right-turn-only leg on the south leg of
Hamilton/Winchester.
4.
Add a second left-turn-only lane on the south leg of
Bascom/Campisi intersection.
5.
Interconnect signal operation of the following intersections
along Hamilton Avenue: Salmar, Site access, Bascom, April, and
the site access/off-ramp intersection.
6.
Reconstruction of the Highway 17 northbound off-ramp to intersect
new public street, providing direct access to Hamilton Avenue,
with a new signalized intersection.
7.
An additional northbound through lane at the Hamilton/Leigh
intersection.
8.
During construction, provide adequate traffic control and when
possible, disturbances should occur outside the AM/PM peak hours.
Population/Land Use
9.
Develop a relocation plan for mobile home park tenants in
conformance with Section 66427.4 of the Government Code.
III.
Visual
10.
Proposed building shapes and setbacks will help reduce the
feeling of building mass.
_.
EIR 84-04
-4-
March 12, 1985
Written comments from other agencies and individuals pertaining to the
draft EIR which were received prior to preparation of this staff comment
sheet are attached for the Commission's review.
Written comments which are received by the staff prior to the public
hearing will be presented to the Commission at the meeting. It should be
noted that comments regarding this draft EIR may be forthcoming which
could substantially change the staff recommendation regarding this item.
****
-.
MARCH 12,1985
From: Ray Clark, 325 April Way, Campbell, CA 95008
To:
The Planning Commission, City of Campbell
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
Draft Environmental Impact Report - 900 East Hamilton Avenue
Campbel, CA 95008.
Reference: Referendum~ 1984 Election Pertaining to
Ordinance No. 1493. Total Votes: 7745.
In favor of the Ordinance: 3403 (44%)
Against the Ordinance: 4342 (56%)
Reference:
Additional
EIR
Page
i-5
1I-1
11-2
Item
Soils & Geology
1I-4
Air Quality
11-10
Noise
11-14
2 Story Parking
Structure
11-15
Office Structures
Comments
No comment has been made relative to the bridge
site. Soil analysis for the abutments should be
made before approving the DEIR.
The bridge is like any other structure. Its type,
size, capabity, location, etc. should be determined
before approval of the DEIR. It is a part of the
public road through the site.
Your attention is invited to the letter dated
May 8,1984 from the Bay Area Quality Management
District. liThe addition of 6000 new cars per
day would serve to increase emissions of precursor
organic compounds and carbon monoxide. Hence
interference w;th the attainment of standards".
(furnish copy of letter to Commission)
The increased traffic from and to the site will
generate additional noise which will materially
impact of the residenta1 tract on the Campbell/
San Jose border (Hamilton Avenue). An noise
analysis should be .. performed prior to approval
of the DEIR.
In the DEIR this appears to be questionable.
Will this structure be constructed as part of the
project? If it is,then a positive. comment
must be made.
Aside from the profit motive, why must these
office structures be six stories each? Why should
they not be built consistent with the construction
in ,the surrounding area? (Two, Three and at most
four stories)
We have a number of office structure developments
in process now. Do we really need 350,000 sqft
additional office space? Aren't we the community,
taking a gamble that this space will be sellable?
11m sure the developer thinks so. But, I think
not. We appear to be reaching the office saturation
point.
I recommend that the office structure height be
brought down to a maximum of 4 stories or a total
of 250,000 sqft for both structures.
. ~~f~r~~£~:_-Q~!~_:~QQ-g:_~~~i!~~~_~Y~~~~l_Ç~~~~~!!l_Ç~-~~QQê_:_~~r!~Lê~_____-
11-15
Hotel Structure
11-35
Mobile Home
Park Residents
Traffic
Thank you.
(!~¿ 7~A IV
Þu>y 17
The hotel project is calling for 250 rooms
which includes 18 (or 36) executive suites.
Like office structures hotels are a new develop-
ment activity in the Bay Area communities.
We have no objection to hotels, per see But,
we do question the need for the 250 rooms being
proposed.
Generally, we are talking about 250 rooms each
estimated at about 500 sqft. This gives us a
structure in the neighborhood of 125,000 to
150,000 sqft.
Do we, in Campbell need that much hotel density?
Mr. Sahadhi's Campbell Inn is in the development
process. This facility has 104 rooms with planned
amenities for the executive traveler.
Comments in the DEIR that pertain the residents
on the site provide very general information.
They do not make any specific commitments to
ensure the residents know they will receive
fair value for their movement from the site.
These people are very concerned about their
future. Rumors and derogatory comments keep
cropping up.
It is essential that appropriate measures in
the form of commitment (financial) be established
by the City of Campbell with the developer.
The Commission's attention is invited the the
letter dated March 6,1985, from the City of -
San Jose. It covers the city's comments on
the DEIR for 900 East Hamilton Ave. Particular
attention ~hould be made to the comments relative
to traffic, fire protection, storm and sanitary
sewers, and the like. These should have serious
consideration before final approval of the DEIR
if made.
/l C A ¿ 773-FhU ¿£>.R.. J fl"E' /!./ 4> 7W M I r hi E ,0 /--- ~. ß ~
~. /V~ 1f.~ a/ ~ ~~:f'
~IÄ~
J ~ 7L 2) ¿I"f ~ ~'A¿~/
C¡;y "/r-rr--£~'
.--..
',"""
IECI
It
UEST
10: nllMCE DIIECTOR
CttJ Of r.¡rn
PlIISI tllll c88Kt ..Jlb1. to: _'W'[Pfi-.A~ltWL.WQC1AI~JJir-- (10 IPlClS)
Address: Street: _1..2«1. ~A!IL £.ElftfR. .E~ZA.. ~I.G...uil- (20 Sf8c.as)
Clt,,: ~ JP~Ji. - - - - - - - - - (15 S,-CIS)
.Statl: _C~ (2 sPIces)
Ztp: _9jUl - (5 SplCIS)
Description: J!l.~4!:.O.! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (20 s.-cas)
Exact J8Dunt ..,.b11: ~
~
..
Account "ber:
Rec. No. 26100
Rev. Acct. No. 3520 - Fund No. A.
-
Purposl:
Inv. No. 31943 - Services r~n4~ thrnufh 1/]2/85
920 E. Hamillon Ave. (Prometheus Dev. Cn.)
...,.stecl by:
Tlt11:
IItl:
Approved by:
Tlt1.: Principal 1>1 annllt.: ~/lll RE;
A. Kee
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLII' CHECK 1£
IIIn 81 ts
.. n ta attacbed ".""
leturn to:
Linda
. "1
Other :
,
. . .. . .. _. - _...
--
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVE.., ....R
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
t,1arch 11, 1985
Phi 1 Stafford
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA. 95008
SUbdect: Prometheus Development Co. Office/Hotel Complex, SCH # 85012215
Dear fk. Stafford:
'D1e State Clearinghouse sutmitted the above named draft EnviroJllleIltal Im¡;act Report
(EIR) to selected state agencies for review. 'l1le review period is closed and the can-
menta of the indiviàJal agency(ies) is(are) attached. If you would like to discuss
their concerns and reC(lIIITdPl'1àations, please contact the staff fran the appcopriate
agency(ies) .
When pre¡aring the final BIR, you must include all oamœnts and resp:>næs (cmA
Guidelines, Section 15132). 'D1e certified EIR must be œnsidered in the decision-
mking process for the project. In addition, we urge you to resp:>m directly to the
cœanenting agencyUes) by writing to than, including the State Clearinghouse number on
all œrres¡:ondenœ.
In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant
effects, the lead agency DUSt make written findings for each significant effect and it
must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for
each urunitigated significant effect (CEGA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093).
If the project r~uires discretionary approval fran any state agency, the Notice of
Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the
County Clerk. Please œntact Price Walker at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
about the environnental review process.
~~
O1ief Deputy Director
cc: Resources Agency
attachment
~ Π~" r?-' n.i""',r;,-,,c \-.'\,--',"
0 ï \~ \ , 'i'.' , !
, I ,l., " ¡' II
" -,' t. . ~.- :: I!
, ' J ,
,,', '",',~:,:, ;"':::"--'
:3iTY c:;- =.¡::-:..:~ ::...::...1...
FLANN!!\::: D::PÞS-:-:'~=:'..!T
.
Wi ~,~~n~~,f~
CAMPEJELL
CITY Or DE:PARTtV'oENT
p~NNING
~?1V,7k. ~-
Camb~ian Villag. Hom.own.~s
C/O Ga~netta J. Annable
951 D~y C~eek Road
Campbell, Cal ifornia 95008
Ma~ch 9, 1985
As.sn
C i t y Cou n c i 1
Planning Commission
Ci ty of Campbell
Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
Promethus Development
Essential Features Are The Same
Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners:
Webster defines "essential" as: basic~
indispensable~ necessary.
There were only two <2) basic, indispensable, necessary features of
the Promethus development which was defeated in the June 1984
Referendum. These two "essential" features were:
A.
B.
Commerical Land Use Development,
Very High Density Development.
All other aspects of the development were incidental to these two (2)
"essential" (basic, indispensable, necessary) features.
The Prome thus deve 1 opmen t proposed today" in all its
features" <emphasis added) remains the same, to wit:
e~.sential
A.
B.
Comme~ical Land Use Development,
Ve~y High Density Development.
Contrary to the City Attorney's opinion, current case law does provide
assistance in determining what amounts to "essential" features of a
development. In the case of Martin vs. Smith, 1 Cal. Rptr. 307,
which is the case your attorney cites as an authority in his
memorandum ~~garding Referendum and New Plans, the court, at page 312,
made a finding which stated precisely the "essential" features of the
development. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the case. As you
wi 11 note, not withstanding there were complete development drawings
and plans, the court found, at page 312, that there were only two (2)
"essential" features.
Like, Martin vs. Smith ~ supra, this commission and counci ~ can and
~.houl dJ boi 1 the Promethus Project down to i ts "e~.sent i al featu~e~.", to
wit:
A.
B.
Commerica' Land Use Development,
Very High Density Development.
It is our opinion that these are the only two Uessenti&l" features of
the project. Further, it is our opinion that the developer/s opinion
bears this out. The developer has always maintained repeated that
without these two "essential" features the Promethus project would not
be feasiability.
In the case of
Martin vs. Smith, supra,
the court found, that:
" .when an ordinance was suspended by a referendum
the council could not enact another ordinance "in all
its essential features" liKe the repealed ordirlance."
It is contended that unless the density of this development is reduced
this development "in all its essential feature~," remains the same as
the Promethus development repealed in 1984. Consequently, the
development as presently proposed cannot legally be approved.
Martin vs. Smith
, supra, at page 310, further states:
"The council may, however, deal further with the subject
matter of the suspended ordinance, by enacting an
ordinance protested against, avoidinQ, perhaps, the
oJection made to the first ordinance." (emphasis added)
If we examine the objections made to the first ordinance as propounded
by the referendum leaders, we find the root obejection was to the
density of the project. Mayor Ashworth objected to the development.
He stated:
"I voted against the project. I felt that the proposed
density was too great an impact on the community. "
Mayor Ashworth went on to state:
". . over 2700 signatures were gathered of registered
voters in Campbell saying that they also felt that from
a planning standpoint the density was too great. ."
Coucilman PodgorseK, stated in January
1984 "
-,
"First, it is far too big for the Hamilton Avenue
site and second, there really is no existing open
left in Campbell large enough to accomodate it.
Prometheus is trying to cram 485,000 square feet
(11 acres) of floor space onto a site of less than
14 acres of land."
site
Because the developer has not reduced the density of the project, he
has not avoided the objections of the civic leaders and the objections
of the voters who supported the referendum.
It is respectfully reque~.ted that the council and commis,:ion find tha,t
the "essential features" of the Promethus Project are:
A.
B.
Commercial land Use Development,
Very High Densi ty Development.
---
The council and commission should fu~the~ find that until the Density
of the Development is ~easonably ~educed the p~esent P~omethus
development is "in all its essential featur'e~. 1 ike the ~epealed
o~dinance." The~efo~e, they cannot legally app~ove it as p~esently
proposed.
The commission and council must stand firm in ~equi~ing the developer
to reduce the density of the development, or we will find ourselves
with frozen tor~ents of t~affic on all our majo~ ~oadways.
We urge the commission and council membe~s not to pu~sue bl ind
economic growth. Insist that the density of this development be
reasonably ~educed. St~ive fo~ a conside~ate balance of environmental
integrity and economic growth.
Thank yOU for your time and consideration.
CAMBR I AN \) I LLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC I AT! m..)
~.;; ~ 1./ /- -
GARNETTA J. A~AB~'
Pr'esident
Enclo~,ur'e
CITY DF SAN .JDSE. CALIFORNIA
CITY PLANNING
March 6, 1985
~ ~,p ~i~í~j~ ~
Mr. Arthur Kee
Planning Director
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: 900 East Hamilton Avenue Draft EIR
CITY OF' CAMPEELL
PLANNING DEPARTMCNT
Dear Mr. Kee:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR prepared
for the above referenced project. .. .. ..
We have reviewed the DEIR and would like to offer the following suggestions
for inclusion in the Final EIR.
1.
Highway 17 is depressed adjacent to this site; the possibility of slope
failure or lateral spreading to the west or northwest should, therefore
be discussed in the Draft EIR. On page 11-2, the document states that
". . . a detailed soils analysis will be conducted by the applicant prior
to final design. II We recommend that a soils analysis should be included
as part of the Draft EIR in order to identify all potential impacts and
mitigation measures that will be included in the project.
The question of fire protection is a particularly important one to the
City of San Jose. Campbell and San Jose have a mutual response
agreement. The Draft EIR should address the potential impacts on our
service levels and include mitigation measures that are being proposed.
2.
3.
There is no mention made of the adequacy of storm and sanitary sewers in
this area, and there is no discussion of the potential impacts on the San
Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant with future capacity.
Page 11-12 of the Draft EIR states that, "A noise analysis shoul d be
perfonned prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. II
This noise analysis should be included in the Draft EIR in order to
identify all potential impacts and mitigation measures that will be
included in the project.
4.
5.
The Draft EIR states that project access is proposed from the northbound
Hi ghway 17 to eastbound Hamil ton Avenue off-ramp via a IIT" i ntersecti on
on the project site. This proposal will have significant Level of
Service impacts which will affect eastbound traffic onto Hamilton Avenue
Mr. Arthur Kee
March 6, 1985
Page Two
6.
which is a major arterial facility for San Jose residents. Conflicts
between off-ramp traffic and project traffic would result at this
on-site "T" intersection which could affect the northbound lanes of
Highway 17. A signal installation at this location will further impact
the situation, because of its close proximity to the proposed Hamilton
Avenue/Highway 17 off-ramp intersection. Furthermore, realignment of
the off-ramp will require approval from the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS District 4), as indicated in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
The proposed signal installation at the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17
off-ramp intersection includes no provision for the existing Southern
Pacific Railroad crossing of Hamilton Avenue which will be affected by
that signal. In addition, this signal installation will affect traffic
volumes on Hamilton Avenue. A signal warrant study for the proposed
signal installation should be provided. The potential effects to the
Bascom Avenue/Hamilton Avenue intersection with respect to vehicle
queuing distances during the PM peak-hour should also be discussed in
the Draft EIR.
7.
Page II-50 paragraph 1 states: "It should be noted that the Levels of
Congestion indicated in Table 1 are peak week day morning and afternoon
conditions. During the remainder of the day and weekend congestion is
lower or nonexi stent. II Thi s statement is not supported by any
documentation within the Draft EIR.
8.
The City of San Jose has determined that an increase of one percent or
more in critical movement is a measure of significant traffic impact at
intersections which exceed level of service 110". A review of Table 5
indicates that the intersections of Hamilton Avenue/Bascom Avenue
(which operates at p.m. peak hour Level of Service "E'I under City of San
Josels September 9,1982 count and Level of Service IIC" under City of
Campbell IS February 15-17,1983 count) and Hamilton Avenue/Leigh Avenue
(which operates at level of service "0" during the A.M. peak hour and
"CII during the P.M. peak hour) will experience increases of 2.9% and
12.6% respectively, as a result of project traffic. Mitigation proposed
for the intersection of Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue to provide for
a signal interconnect along Hamilton Avenue to facilitate eastbound and
westbound traffic will significantly impact north/south traffic in the
area. Since the greatest percentage of AM and PM traffic within the
City of San Jose is primarily in the northbound (AM) and southbound (PM)
direction (i.e., due to jobs in the north and housing in the south), the
proposed mitigation would further congest the existing major northbound
and southbound facilities (i.e., Bascom Avenue, Leigh Avenue and
Meridian Avenue) while giving priority to Hamilton Avenue traffic bound
to and from the project site. The City of San Jose is presently
installing a time based signal interconnect along Meridian Avenue and
plans on installing similar systems along Leigh Avenue and Bascom Avenue
in the future. Affects on vehicle progression for Bascom Avenue, Leigh
Avenue
Mr. Arthur Kee
March 6,1985
Page Three
9.
10.
11.
and Meridian Avenue will also need to be discussed. Mitigation for the
intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Leigh Avenue may require additional
right-of-way to be acquired by the developer. A discussion of
right-of-way acquisition needs to be included with detailed plans
showing the proposed lane configurations and modifications to the
Hamilton Avenue/Leigh Avenue intersection to determine the potential
impacts of the proposed mitigation.
An agreement exists between the City of San Jose and the City of
Campbell for traffic monitoring at the intersection of Bascom Avenue and
Hamilton Avenue. An annual report is submitted to both City Councils
for information concerning traffic congestion at this intersection.
The Appendix A/Traffic Report does not include transportation level of
service calculations.
The Draft EIR did not include an analysis of the intersection of
Hamilton Avenue and Meridian Avenue which presently operates at level of
service "F" (V/C = 1.063) during the PM peak hour and level of service
II E II (V /C = 0.901) duri ng the AM peak hour. We have determi ned that the
proposed project will have a 2.44' increase in critical movement volume
during the PM peak hour and a 2.94' increase in critical movement volume
during the AM peak hour. Mitigation for this condition would be the
installation of double left turn lanes on the south approach of the
intersection for which detailed plans would need to be prepared to
determine the feasibility of the installation.
Modifications to State Route 17 will require compliance with State
procedures including amendment of the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The Draft EIR does not document CALTRANSI concurrence
with the proposal and does not discuss what potential procedural
problems (including environmental review) may still exist.
As documented in the Traffic Analyses, the proposal will have impacts in
excess of l' (using both methods of calculation) on Transportation Level
of Service. As defined by the City of San Jose General Plan and adopted
City Council Policy, the project proposed at 900 East Hamilton Avenue
will have significant, unmitigated adverse impacts on the circulation
system in the City of San Jose.
In addition to the above intersection analysis, we have determined that
severe traffic congestion for the project access to westbound Hamilton
Avenue may result. This will be due to project traffic exceeding the
rated capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour for the northbound Highway 17
on-ramp. Also, it is unknown whether the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17
overcrossing can be widened as proposed due to structural limitation of
the existing bridge.
Mr. Arthur Kee
March 6, 1985
Page Four
We would like to recommend that the project EIR be revised to include these
impacts in the Summary of Major Impacts and Mitigation measures and that no
mitigation is available.
In light of the previously mentioned potential impacts, we would recommend
that the EIR be further supplemented prior to certification as a Final EIR.
Please send us copies of any additional environmental documentation and
responses to comments prepared on this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR.
Sincerely,
6~ f) ~ S~~~CC ~- ---
Gary J. Schoennauer
Director of Planning
cc:
Mayor
City Counci 1
Gerald Newfarmer
GJS:JR :rs
5012L/p. 56-59
'" ...
'CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 5, 1985
œAL REQUEm'S
Ray Clark re:
Pranetheus Project
1985 Draft EIR
-
Ray Clark, 325 April Way, Canpbe11, appeared before the
Council, and requested that the City Council initiate
action to have the preparer of the 1985 Draft EIR for
900 E. Hamilton Avenue report the substantial differences
between the new Pranetheus project and the previous
project.
In response to Cotmcilman O1amberlin r s inquiry, City
Attorney DEDpster stated that there is no criteria
established as to what constitutes a substantial difference.
Mr. Denpster further stated that the new application
has been handled. properly up to this point, and that
Hr. Clark's concerns will be addressed. when the project
is heard at the Planning Carmission and City Council
hearings. Mr. Danpster also stated that there would
be no prob1an if Mr. Clark forwarded his letter and
concerns to the developer.
Garnetta Annable, 951 Dry Creek Road, Campbell,
appeared before the Council and requested that the
Planning staff review the application and report back
to the City Council specifically on the substantial
differences .
-
State of California
Department of Health Servicn
Memorandum
){I J
To
Terry Roberts
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Date :
f'.1arch 5, 1985
. Subject: Prometheus
Development Co. Office/
Hotel Comp1ex-
SCH /185012215
From:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
714 P Street, Room 600
322-2308
~ ~(g~~W~ lQ)
tviA;:( u 0 í9~5
i1"tÐ C~~S:it1ShOus.ß
The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers
the following comments.
The section on noise contains some noise level estimates which appear to be
inconsistent with the Department's estimates and some misinterpretations of
standards.
The following table illustrates the inconsistencies assuming that traffic
on Highway 17 is the only noise source.
LID in dBA
Noise Element Estimates,
(Paqe II-II at About:
Department Estimates,
at About:
Year 50 Feet 100 Feetl 1100 Feet2 50 Feet 100 Feet 1100 Feet
1975 80 77 67 80 65
1995 83 80 70 80 > 70 .
But, on page II-12 in 1995: 75 70
1.
Approximate distance to hotel rooms nearest Highway 17.
2.
Approximate distance to end of office building farthest from freeway
(see Site Plan, Figure 3A).
Based upon traffic on Highway 17 alone, the table shows that the exterior
noise levels at the hotel rooms nearest the freeway (at 100 feet) according
to the City's Noise Element and the Department's estimates are about 5 dBA
higher than the level estimated on page 11-12 (75 dBA). In addition, the
-:;:/
Terry Roberts
-2-
11arch 5, 1985
hotel is likely to be exposed to higher levels throughout its length because
of its proximity to the off-ramp, which curves around the hotel at a distance
of about 65 feet, and its proximity to Hamilton Avenue, for which noise level
estimates have not been provided.
On page II-II, it is stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Guidelines indicate an LID = 70 dBA is compatible with hotel uses. The
statement is incorrect for two reasons. (1) The LID used by the FHWA is a
"design hour" level, that is during peak traffic hour. The City's Noise
Element may not be in units of "design hour" LID. (2) The FHWA Guidelines
indicate that transient lodgings are compatible with noise levels up to
Ldn = 80 (under certain conditions Ldn = LID -3 dBA) provided that noise
level reductions of at least 35 dB are incorporated into building design.
The proviso indicates that the Cityls Noise Element interior hotel standard
of LID = 45 dBA between 9 PM and 7 AM is nearly equal to the FHWAts.
It is recommended that an on-site noise survey be conducted before the site
plan is finalized in order to determine which is the most noise sensitive
use proposed.
If you have any questions or need further information concerning these com-
ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office
of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 215l Berkeley Way, Room No. 613,
Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. .
? / lil ~7 /}/)
VÁ tt~~~ .
.~in~~ Phillips, R.S., AC~f
Office of Local Environmental Health Programs
cc:
Vincent Cancilla, Director
Environmental Health Services
Santa Clara County
-'.
."
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 N. 1 st
Campbelï: CA 95008
1615 Phantom Ave. ~
San Jose, CA 95125 '() t
March 1, 1985 f;Jt II {I;?
0,' ,/$ /'"
",..., . 'J / () I
,()<"¡J\1J\1 0:> .. /~~¡;S" !!!IV/
'tv,.., 011
'-> -"v:
o~ . I/,;)/'.,
:. J?)' <;;.¡.£:- J
"1"- 'I..
'-tv)'
RE:
Draft EIR - 900 E. Hamilton Ave.
To Whom It May Concern:
The following are comments on the Draft EIR for the 900 E.
Hamilton Ave. office building project. The Draft EIR is quite
comprehensive in detailing the purpose, alternatives, and most
of the impacts of the project. However, clarification and addi-
tional information are needed in the section on air quality.
The Draft EIR states that the air quality at the project site
is poorest in late summer. If this was true, why didn't the
report do any air quality modeling of the impacts on the concen-
trations of ozone, the summer air pollutant of concern? In fact,
air quality is poorest at the project site during the winter.
Because the Hamilton and Bascom intersection is one of the busiest
in the county, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District found,
in a study conducted last winter, that the corner is the highest
"hot spot" for carbon monoxide (CO) in the county, exceeding the
CO standard on winter evenings and early mornings under clear
skies with a ground-based inversion.
The Draft EIR estimates CO concentrations and predicts that
the project will increase the present CO concentrations, which
already viòlate the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for CO, by 1.5 ppm. How can this project consider it permissible
to increase concentrations and the number of exceedances even
further? Justification must be in the Final EIR.
The Draft EIR does not mention the method by which these CO
predictions were calculated. This must be in the Final EIR. What
type of air quality dispersion model was used for this project
location? Was it an EPA approved model? What meteorological
conditions were used?
The Draft EIR does not mention the project's impact on ambient
air concentrations of lead, another air pollutant with a NAAQS.
The Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution Control has found that
several similar sized intersections in Phoenix are close to or
already exceed the lead standard due to auto exhaust from cars
-
still using leaded gasoline. This project could cause exceedances
of the lead standard at the Hamilton and Bascom intersection.
The Final EIR must address this issue.
I hope that these comments will contribute to the effective
EIR process.
Sincerely,
¥~~
Lynton Baker
State of California
The Resource. Agency
Memorandum
2.
Honorable Gordon K. Van Vleck
Resources Agency
Phil Stafford
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Date
: February 27, 1985
To
: 1.
From: Department of Fish and Game
~ ~("\,';:..;;r,;;-:::~'
"-:'\ \""""""'" -.," ".....,', \
'T\~.;::ï¡¡ "-,,l ',",!,
~ \..'"' I~, ." ~ )
f \\.-.\', L-'" '...' ,-.. ',' , ,j
, ,.~..J "- i -'
" .. ,,"," ,
I . þ./\ Q 1"" "',"" ..'
,-" ,tin,. ~. .
"""at.~ f1¡{'f;';",h'!~ïfH)t:3~
,~'" oJ \i'- .'...... W'-='~~
Subject: Draft EIR for 900 East Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, Santa Clara
County, SCH 85012215
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft EIR
for 900 East Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, Santa Clara County, and we
have the following comments.
The portion of Los Gatos Creek lying adjacent to the proposed
project has lost much of its wildlife due to past development in
this locality.
The construction of another bridge in this area will further
decrease the remaining wildlife habitat found along the side of
the watercourse. We are concerned that another bridge may
unnecessarily destroy wildlife habitat because the Hamilton Avenue
bridge now provides access to the property.
If the additional bridge is found to be necessary, we recommend
the 100-foot wide PG&E easement paralleling Los Gatos Creek be
retained as a naturally vegetated open space and be planted with
native trees and shrubs.
The Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code
Section 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would
substantiålly divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially
change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. Operators will be
required to submit notification of proposed channel modifications
under Fish and Game Code Section 1603. Work cannot be initiated
until streambed alteration agreements are executed.
Department of Fish and Game personnel are available to discuss our
concerns in more detail. To arrange a meeting, the project
sponsor or applicant should contact Calvin Hampy, Wildlife
Biologist, telephone (408) 462-6871¡ or Ted Wooster, Environmental
Services Supervisor, Region 3, Department of Fish and Game, Post
Office Box 47, Yount viI Ie , CA 94599, telephone (707) 944-2011.
~~
i~J~Ck C. Parnell
~ "'Dlrector
San~a Clara Vc...~~ Wa~er Dis~ric~
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118
TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600
February 25, 1985
Mr. Arthur Kee
Planning Director
City of Campbell
70 North Fi~st Street
Campbell, California
95008
Dear Mr. Kee:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Prometheus Development Company's project located at 900 East
Hamilton Avenue in Campbell.
Page 11-4: In addition to the 1603 permit required by the Department
of Fish and Game, a permit is also required by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District. The permit is required for any construction activities
within Los Gatos Creek or any other work to be done adjacent to our
right of way.
Sincerely,
Dr. Bernard H. Goldner
Environmental Specialist
Project Development Branch
~ ~c~ ;'~1~5~ ~
CITY 07 CAMPBELL
PLANNING DCPARTMENT
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
.
. 5t.ote- of California
Buliness and Transportation Agency
Memorandum
To
: Price Walker
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth St., Room l2l
Sacramento, CA 95814
DaN: February 20, 1985
File :
SCLO17-12.34
SCH #85012215
SCO17005
From: DEPARTMENTOFTRAN5PORTATION-4
~bi~: DEIR - Prometheus Development Company Office /Hotel Complex
Lead Agency is City of Campbell
Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards
the following comment:
The site plan (Figure 3A) shows the Hamilton Avenue northbound
off-ramp terminal relocated to a new road. This off ramp/new
road intersection is only about 150 feet from the Hamilton
Avenue intersection. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for
these two intersections are necessary so that Caltrans can
analyze lane needs, storage lengths, etc.
The following is an excerpt from a letter to the Director of
Public Works (City of Campbell) from our District Director:
We reviewed your basic proposal for the revision to the
the northbound off-ramp with our Headquarters geometric review
people. They remained rather noncommittal until a traffic
operational analysis is done. This should be done by the
developer or his consultant before geometric options can be
evaluated. The Department will be looking from the standpoint
of designing an acceptable plan for traffic movement. If
traffic flow will not be improved, it will be difficult to
approve a revision to the ramp. A project of this type will
require involvement at many levels. A proposed schedule should
be developed so that the project can be programmed into the
system. This would include getting it into the local RTIP
process.
Should there be any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Yolanda Henderson of my staff at (415) 55ì-9431.
00 rg@rg~\VJrg [Q)
MA~ U B ';g:J
4.\f.te Q.~1D8bOU&..e
"
SCO1700S
Page 2
February 20, 1985
Subsequent information on this project can be sent to the under-
signed contact person for this agency at the following address:
J. M. ELLIS
District CEQA Coordinator
Caltrans District 4
P.o. Box 7310
San Francisco, CA 94120
J. M. ELLIS
District CEQA Coordinator
TIMOTHY A. LUNDELL'
ATfOP.NEY AT LAW
2060 THE ALAMEDA
~ JO~E. CAUFOP.NIA 95126
TELEPHONE c.oa> 241.2301
~\~u Lf
January 30, 1985
~ Œ,~r~ U ~~ IDJ
.., ..,' .'
Ruth and Going, Inc.
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95113
CITY OF CAMPCEL-L
PLANNING O::PARTMENT
Re:
Draft Environmental Impact
Report for~900 Bast Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, California
Gentlemen:
c
Please be advised that this office represents the Hamilton
Park Mobilehome OWners Association whose members are owners and
occupants of mobilehomes situated at the Hamilton Park Mobilehome
Park, the proposed site for the above-referenced project.
I am in receipt of a copy of the draft Environmental Impact
Report for this project which has been prepared and distributed by
your office. Although neither I nor my clients have as yet the
opportunity to review the report in detail, there is one portion
of the report which I feel requires immediate correction or clarifi-
cation. At page 11-40 of the report, you state:
~
-However, even in the absence of
the subject project, or any other
proposal to develop the site, the
property owner and manager intends
to close down'the mobilehome park
operation. As a result, a one-year
termination of residency notice was
presented to park residents on
April 26,1983. with the manager's
intention to go out of business, and
recover the value of the land he owns,
park residents would be forced to move,
regardless of future plans for the
property."
The foregoing quotation is subject to several qualifica-
tions. The notice served by Mr. Keesling on April 26,1983, and
in-fact his entire proposal to close the park to -go out of
business", are the subject of on-going litigation in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court action Hamilton Park Mobilehome
TIMOTHY A. LUNDELL
,-
Ruth' Going, Inc.
Page '¿ -I
January 30,1985
owners Association v. Robert L. Kees1in~ Case Number 495965. The
right to change the use of the park to "no use" without complying
with the impact and mitigation measures imposed by Government
Code 565'863.7 and 66427.4 is vigorously disputed by the homeowners.
The trial of this issue has been continued a number of times since
March, 1984, because of the continuing efforts of Prometheus
Development Company to acquire and develop the property. If,
indeed, the proposed project becomes a reality, the "right to go
out of business" question becomes largely moot. If however
Mr. Keesling intends to follow through with his proposal to convert
the land to "no use", the homeowners intend to pursue this liti-
gation to its ultimate conclusion with the expectation that their
rights under the various protective mobilehome statutes will be
vindicated. '
It is significant and important that your report not make
the misleading suggestion that the mobilehomes are due to leave
in any event, thus perhaps reducing the mitigation measures which
would otherwise be appropriate as a consequence of the Prometheus
project. I trust that the Environmental Impact Report will be
amended to accurately set forth the anticipated alternatives of
project/no project on the mobilehomes at Hamilton Park. Should
you have any questions, or should you desire to review the issues
raised in the above-referenced litigation, I shall be happy to
assist you. Thank you for your kind courtesy in this regard.
Very tru
~I~HY
~
TAL/sb
'\ cc: Planning commi..ion, City of C88Ipbell
Phil stafford, City of Campbell
Thomas Fleischli, Prometheus Development Company
Charles Williamson, Hamilton Park Mobilehome
Owners Association
.
,
0
.
-
.
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
January 25, 1985
Mr. Gary SchoeIUlauer
Planning Director
Ci ty of San Jose
801 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Mr. Schoennauer:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact _~p()T~t:..resented
for the Prometheus Development Co. project located a~on
tå1UIIU.
The City of Campbell Planning Department would appreciate your
comments on this EIR no later than March 8,1985.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Planning Department at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
ARTIIDR A. KEE
P~ING DIRJC!-°~ I
7!1~ ~ðULj
PHILIP J. STAFFDRD £c-L
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1d
-------.-
-----
¡ß
ME JI6RANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
From:
Arthur Kee
Planning Director
Phil Stafford
Principal Planner
Date:
January 7, 1985
To:
Subject: EIR 84-04
Prometheus Development Co.
------~~~~~ß~~~$-~~~--------------------------------------
DrsæssrON
As we discussed this morning, the date on which the draft ErR for
the Prometheus Proj ect is ready for distribution and review at the
State level is important in that the public hearing before the
Planning Comnission cannot take place prior to the expiration of the
45 day review period. The following schedule indicates how the Draft
ErR distribution date can affect the earliest date on which a hearing
is scheduled.
In this schedule, the asstmlption is made that the Draft EIR is ready
for distribution on a Wednesday, and that a one day delivery to
Sacramento will assure receipt of the Draft by Friday. If the EIR
is ready for distribution on a Monday or Tuesday, and received by
the State any day of the same week, this schedule will not be affected.
On the other hand if the ErR is not received by the State tUltil Monday
or Tuesday of a given week, the hearing date could be delayed by 2-3
weeks.
DATE DRAFT EIR DATE 45 DAY END 45 DAY EARLIEST P.C.
I S ACCEPTED FOR STATE REVIEW STATE REVIEW HEAR I NG DATE
DISTRIBlITlON BEGINS
1. 1-9-85 1-11-85 2-25-85 2-26-85
2.1-16-85 1-18-85 3-4-85 3-12- 85
3.1-23-85 1-25-85 3-11-85 3-12-85
4. 1-30-85 2-1-85 3-18-85 3-26-85
5. 2-6-85 2-8-85 3-25-85 3-26- 85
-
..
Ruth and Going, Inc.
December 6, 1984
16,845-085
Phil Stafford
City of Campbell
75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
Re:
Prometheus Development EIR
Dear Phil:
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
President
.Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Sr. Vice President
As you discussed previously with Gerry De Young,
we're forwarding our 60% billing for completion
of the Administrative Draft. If Barton/Aschman
can get us their revisions tomorrow or Monday,
we expect to have a revised copy for you to
approve for circulation early next week.
E. Jack Christensen, AlA
V.P. Architecture
Gerald De Young, AICP
V.P. Planning
Bruce M. McClish, CE
Our contract spells out payment at the time the
Draft copies are released for public review, and
my understanding from discussions with Jeff
Damon is that there may be some lag time related
to possible CALTRANS review of the document.
Because of the potential delay between our
completion of the draft and the review period
we submit the bill now instead of at the time
the copies are released for review.
V.P. Civil Engineering
Roger Redig, S.E., C.E.
V.P. Structural Engineering
Michael D. Maul, CE
Albert W. Ostoff, AlA
Henry L Reynaud, LLS
Port L Shafer, LLS
Founders
E. Jackson Going, Jr. C.E.
Leo W. Ruth. Jr., CE' M.E.
Let me know if you or your accounting department
have any questions. Thanks:
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 297-8273
Sincerely,
~~
Leah Hernikl
Associate Planner
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 26430
San Jose
CA 95159-6430
sk
Enclosure
[Rl ~o~~ O!~ ~
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Joseph P. Bert
Fred F. Cooper
L. N. "Judge" Landis
(Chairperson)
Frank H. Ogawa
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Thomas J. Corcoran
(Secretary)
Sunne Wright McPeak
MARIN COUNTY
AI Aramburu
NAPA COUNTY
Harold I. Moskowite
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Harry G. Britt
Carol Ruth Silver
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gus J. Nicolopulos
K. Jacqueline Speier
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Rod Diridon
(Vice Chairperson)
Ralph P. Doetsch. Sr.
Roberta H. Hughan
Susanne Wilson
SOLANO COUNTY
John F. Cunningham
SONOMA COUNTY
Helen B. Rudee
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
May 8,1984
Honorable Ralph P. Doetsch, Sr.
Mayor
1100 Shady Dale Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ralph;
Here is the information you asked about on air
quality for same of the Santa Clara County stations,
and comparison with other areas of the Bay Area:
1983 days exceeding Standards
Station Ozone Carbon Monoxide
Alum Rock 5 *
San Jose 9 2
Gilroy 5 *
Los Gatos 12 *
Mt. View 5 *
xxxxx
Santa Rosa 0 0
Oakland 0 0
*Does not measure carbon monoxide
The station at Hamilton and Bascom (Moorepark)
measures only suspended particulate. However we can
estimate that the Ozone Standard was exceeded at that
station by interpolating between the San Jose and Los
Gatos Stations -- that is there probably were about
10 days there when the Ozone Standard was exceeded.
Since all the stations in Santa Clara County are
nonattainment for the Ozone Standard, the addition of
GOOO new cars per day in the vicinity of the Moorepark
Station would serve to increase emissions of precursor
organic compounds and carbon monoxide, and hence inter-
fere with the attainment of standards.
I hope this information is helpful.
any questions, please call.
If you have
Sincerely,
~
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Con~rol Officer
MF:gp
939 ELLIS STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 . (415) 771-6000
Barton -Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113
408-280-6600
May 6, 1985
Mr. Phil Stafford
Principal Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: EIR 84-04
920 East Hamilton Avenue - Additional Service
Dear Phil:
In response to Tom Fleischli's letter of April 30, 1985 regarding the billing of
additional services, I am enclosing the following list of services conducted by Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc. at either the City of Campbell's request or at the request of
Prometheus Development Co., Inc. in connection with the above-referenced project.
Please note that in order to minimize confusion overall, billing for all services
performed by Barton-Aschman is now being sent solely to the City of Campbell for
reimbursement.
Services performed by Barton-Aschman in connection with this project and
considered to be additional services are:
March 6, 1985 meeting with community leaders and staff at the request of
Prometheus.
March 11, 1985 meeting with Campbell staff.
March 12, 1985 meeting with Campbell staff.
Responses to EIR document.
Preparation of trip generation documents for Planning Commission hearing,
at the request of Prometheus.
Preparation of phasing diagrams at the request of Prometheus.
Modification of "Graphic" at the request of Prometheus.
Time spent on miscellaneous phone conversations, typing, and deliveries.
Future time for preparation and attendance at City Council hearings in
connection with project.
[6J
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
These services are being billed on a time plus expense basis at our hourly charge rates
current at the time the work is conducted.
Our request for additional monies is to cover what we anticipate to be necessary
to see this project through to completion. This is not a "not-to-exceed" figure. We
expect to be completely reimbursed for all serviceswe conduct at the request of the
City of Campbell and/or Prometheus Development. If you feel additional monies
should be requested at this time (to be put in the "bank") or if this process is
unacceptable, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
~r:~
Jeffrey P. Damon
Assoc ia te
JPD:lb
cc:
Tom Fleischli, Prometheus
Jerry De Young, Ruth &: Going, Inc.
[R{ Œ~Œ~WŒ ~
MAY 07 1985
CITY OF CAMPBELL.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-
Ruth and Going, Inc.
~ ~A~ ~2 ul~5æ [D)
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 30, 1985
Mr. Phil Stafford
Principal Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
Prometheus Development Company EIR
Dear Phil:
As requested in your letter of April 19, 1985, I am
pleased to próvide you with additional information
regarding our request for an increase in the contract
amount by $500.
To date, you have received billings from us which total
$8,999.85. With the initial Planning Commission
Hearing, the response to comments received and the
final Planning Commission Hearing during which the
EIR was certified as complete, our fees total
$10,155.84.
At the time of Planning Commission certification, we
had attended two public hearings and produced a complete
document. As such, our contractual obligations were
met at that time. This request for an increase in the
contract amount by $500 is to cover our additional
time and materials charges relating to additional public
hearings following certification of the EIR. As you
are aware, Leah Hernikl attended the Planning Commission
Hearing on April 23 and will be available at the
City Council Hearing on May 21.
To my knowledge, her attendance at these two additional
meetings has been requested by Tom Fleischli at
Prometheus Development Company.
As with our original contract, billings for this
additional amount will be made on a time and materials
basis based on the actual numbers of hours Leah's
attendance is required at these hearings.
RG
16845
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
President
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Sr. Vice President
E. Jack Christensen, AlA
V.P. Architecture
Gerald De Young, AICP
V.P. Planning
Bruce M. McClish, C.E.
V.P. Civil Engineering
Roger Redig, S.E., C.E.
V.P. Structural Engineering
Michael D. Maul, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff, AlA
Henry L. Reynaud, llS
Port L. Shafer, LLS
Founders
E. Jackson Going, Jr. C.E.
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 297 -8273
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 26430
San Jose
CA 95159-6430
--
.
Ruth and Going, Inc.
Mr. Phil Stafford
April 30, 1985
Page 2
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. However, should
you need to discuss this in more detail, please
contact me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
be~h
Vice President, Planning
cc: Tom Fleisch1i
16845
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
-
--
PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
20300 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. SUITE 100
CUPERTINO, CALIFOBNIA 915014-215715
408-446-0157
April 30, 1985
Mr. Philip Stafford
Principal Planner
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
EIR 84-04
920 East Hamilton Avenue
Dear Phil:
Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1985. I have enclosed
a copy of a letter from Ruth & Going, Inc. to Arthur Kee dated
October 3, 1984 wherein Ruth & Going represents that the referenced
EIR will be prepared on a time and materials basis for a fee not
to exceed $10,000 without the City's advanced authorization.
Further, the scope of work identified in this letter includes
preparation of the draft EIR and response to comments on same.
As of this date, I have not received any indication from either
the consultant or the City that additional monies were being expended
to complete the referenced EIR. Further, my observation is that the
scope of work identified in the referenced letter of October 3, 1984
has not been exceeded and therefore additional monies are not
appropriate.
I appreciate you requesting a more detailed analysis of the
nature of work incurred in the request for additional funds submitted
by Ruth & Going, however, unless it can be demonstrated that the
scope of work has been expanded, and further that prior authorization
was received from the City to incur additional costs, I do not feel
this additional billing is appropriate.
Please let me know of the consultant's response to this letter.
Thank you.
~ ~~Œ~Wœ ~
MAY 07 1985
CITY OF' CAMPBELL
FLANNING DEFARTMENT
cw
Enc.
cc: Jerry DeYoung (Ruth & Going, Inc.)
Jeff Damon (Barton-Aschman)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113
408-280-6600
April 25, 1985
Mr. Tom Fleischli
Prometheus Development Company
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Suite 100
Cupertino, CA 95104
Dear Tom:
This letter is to notify you that I will be away from May 19th, to June 20th,
1985. In my absence, Mr. Abdul Rashid, Principal Associate, will have
responsibility for the project at 900 E. Hamilton Avenue, Campbell California. I
would ask that inquiries during that period be directed to him. Mr. Rashid is
completely versed in all aspects of the project and will be available for City
Council hearings.
On another note, as we discussed over the phone your organization still has
two outstanding billings for the "Design Study" portion of our analysis. The billings
total approximately $11,748 and date back to February 21, 1985. I must
respectively request that renumeration be made in the very near future. We would
anticipate receiving complete payment prior to Barton-Aschman's continuance on
this project, including presentations at future public hearings. If you have any
questions regarding this please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
¿:~~
Associate
JPD:lb
cc:
Bill Helms, City of Campbell, Public Works
Phil Stafford, City of Campbell, Planning
Abdul Rashid, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Bob Scales, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~ ~~~6~~Π[D]
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
-
--
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
Apri119,1985
Mr. Torn Fleischli
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Suite 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE:
EIR 84-04 - 920 E. Hamilton Ave.
Dear Mr. F1eisch1i:
This office has received a request for additional funds fraIl the- -------- ---
consultants responsible for preparing the reference Environmental
Impact Report for your proj ect in Campbell. The total amount
requested is $1,000, since each of the consultants is requesting
$500. A copy of the letter from Ruth & Going, Inc., dated April 16,
is attached for your records.
As you may recall frem previous conversations with this office, the
applicant is responsible for payment of all expense incurred in the
preparation of an' ErR for thê. City of Campbell. A statement to that
effect is also included in my letter to you of October 9, 1984.
I have asked both consultants to submit a more detailed analysis
of the nature of the work incurred in this request for additional
funds. You will receive a copy of this information once it is
received. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department
at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. IŒE
p~. . G DIRECTOR
#~~
pm'LIP J. r- STmORD 4'-
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc:
Gerry De Young
Jeff Damon
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866.2100
Department:
Plarming
April 19, 1985
Mr. Gerry De Young
Ruth & Going, Inc.
P. O. Box 26430
San Jose, CA 95159-6430
Mr. Jeff Daroon
Barton-Aschmann Associates
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450
San Jose, CA 95113
Gentlemen:
Attached for your records, please find a copy of the letter that
was sent to Mr. Tom F1eischli of the Prometheus Development Co.
in response to your request for additional funds.
I have anticipated that Mr. F1eischli will request a specific
analysis of the actual work involved leading to the request for
an additional $1,000 ($500 each). With this in mind, it will
be appreciated if you will send a more specific breakdown to
me as soon as possible.
If there are any questions, please call me at 866-2140 after
next Thursday.
Sincerely,
.ARTHUR A . IŒE
PLANNING DIREcrOR
a~' .x:Iqy~
PHILIP J. STAFFOrof^-
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1d
cc: Tam Fleisch1i
Ruth and Going, Inc.
April 16, 1985
Mr. Phil Stafford
City of Campbell
75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
Prometheus Development EIR
Dear Phil:
As discussed with you previously and at your request,
this letter is our formal request and the request on
behalf of Barton-Aschman Associates for additional
monies for the finalization of the Environmental Impact
Report on the subject property. I ask that you increase
the existing contract amount by $500 for ourselves as
well as $500 for Barton-Aschman Associates.
Should you have any difficulty in honoring our request,
please contact me at your earliest convenience.
yery truly yours,
Gerry De ~
Vice President, Planning
cc:
Jeff Damon
~ ~~~~~Π~
APR 1 7 1985
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
16845-085
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
President
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Sr. Vice President
E. Jack Christensen, AlA
V.P. Architecture
Gerald De Young, AICP
V.P. Planning
Bruce M McClish, C.E.
V.P. Civil Engineering
Roger Redig, S.E., C.E.
V.P. Structural Engineering
Michael D. Moul, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff, AlA
Henry L. Reynaud, LLS
Port L. Shafer, LLS
Founders
E. Jackson Going, Jr. C.E.
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 297 -8273
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 26430
San Jose
CA 95159-6430
.--
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
April 5, 1985
Mr. Thomas E. Fleischli
Prometheus Development Co.
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Ste. 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2575
RE:
PD 84-06/EIR 84-04/Conversion Impact Report
920 E. Hamilton Ave.
Please be advised that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has
set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, April 9,
1985 for consideration of the above-referenced application.
A copy of the agenda and the Staff Comment Sheet for this item is enclosed
for your information. It is advisable that you, or an authorized
representative, be present for said hearing.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning
Department at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
tl.¿;, ~
ARTHUR A. KEE ~
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ld/lj
Enclosures
cc:
Mr. Robert Keesling, 17 Circle Dr., Campbell, CA 95008
Heller & Leake, Architects, 939 r1arket St., San Francisco, CA
Mr. Timothy Lundell, 1725 S. Bascom Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
94103
-....
(
CITY
OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
March 25, 1985
Mr. Thomas Fleischli
Project Manager
Prometheus Development Co.
10080 N. Wolfe Rd., Ste. 201
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE:
EIR 84-04
920 E. Hami Hon Ave., Campbell
Dear Mr. Fleischli:
The Planning Department has received several comments from
various State agencies, under a cover letter which is dated
March 11, 1985. As you are aware, the 45 day review period
for the referenced ErR ended on March 11, 1985. Although
these comments were not received by this office until March 15,
it is my opinion that the comments and issues raised by the
state agencies need to be addressed in the Final ErR for your
proj ect.
Staff from the Public Works and Planning Departments met with
representatives of Ruth & Going, Inc. and Barton Aschman Asso-
ciates, Inc. to discuss the comments raised by the State. It
is my understanding that the consulting firms are in the process
of preparing responses to these comments as well as to issues
raised by the Planning Commission.
A copy of the State's letter of transmittal dated March 11, 1985
and its attachments are included for your files. rf you have
any questions regarding this information, please feel free to
call.
Very truly yours,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
- ~.Yz. L f '¡_)l?),f/fll--t:ê.d-
PHILIP J. STAFFORD)
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PJS: 1 j
Enc.
.--
CITY OF CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Joe Elliott
PUblic Works Director
Date:
March 19, 1985
From:
Art Kee, Planning Director
Phil Stafford, Principal Planner
ElR 84-03, Prometheus Development Co.
Comments received from State Agencies
Subject:
----------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION:
As you are aware, the 45 day review period for the referenced EIR concluded
on March 11, 1985. The Planning office has received several comments from
the State under a cover letter which is dated March 11, 1985. Although
the conments were not. received until March 15,1985, it is our opinion that
the comments and issues raised by the state agencies need to be addressed
in the final EIR.
A copy of the state's transmittal letter of March 11, 1985 and its attach-
ments are included for your files.
lj
~ ~
GDY/LJR
Ruth and Going, Inc.
R+Ci
INVOICE
March 1, 1985
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ATTN: PHIL STAFFORD
75 N CENTRAL AV
CAMPBELL CA 95008
16,845
Job No._-
85-1722
Inv. No.
2,247.61
$
For Services Performed From November I, 1984 through February IS, 1985
RE: Prometheus Development Company
Total Previously Amount
Description Budget Billed Invoiced Now Due
1. Preparation of Environmental
Impact Report $ 10,000.00 8,247.61 6,000.00 2,247.61
AMOUNT THIS INVOICE
;2.247.6:1..
~ ~,~ ~J~I~5~ ~
(0186g)
CITY OF" CAMPBELL
PLANNING DZPARTMENT,
This invoice is for professional services and is due and payable upon presentation.
A Monthly Charge of 1 V2 % will be added to past due Accounts,
this is an annual percentage rate of 19.6%
¿~. tIC ð ¿i-O.V 71
¿' . 1. ~/.IIì..l'I-'" -<....
ï ';Ji .
P.O, Box 26430
San Jose, CA
95159-6430
408-297-8273
--
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
City Council
Date:
March 5,1985
From:
Planning Staff
Subject: EIR 84-04
Prometheus Development Company
-___3]Qß~tl~~~~&~y~---------------------------------------
Attached is the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Prometheus
Development Company project at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue, which will be con-
sidered by the Planning Conmission at its meeting of March 12, 1985.
It is being distributed to the Council at this time to allow sufficient
time for your review prior to the Planning Conrnission meeting.
Ij
March 5,1985
From:
To:
Ray Clark, 325 April Way, Campbell, CA 95008
Campbell City Council, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
SUBJECT:
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES - DRAFT EIR {Jan85)/PRE-REFERENDUM
PROJECTS (PROMETHEUS)
Request the Campbell City Council initiate action to have the preparer
of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (January 1985) for
900 East Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, report the substantial differences
between the new Prometheus project and the pre-referendum project.
Of particular concern is the difference in the traffic impact gener-
ated by the projects.
The determination of substantial differences is a requirement of
par. 4055, California Election Code.
On review of the recent Draft EIR {Jan 85)there is no indication of
essential differences from the pre-referendum project. Relative to
the traffic impact, there appears to be no change. In fact, it
appears that traffic generation will be increased.
Accordingly, it is essential that this issue be covered by the Draft
EIR preDarer to emphasize the substantial differences between the
two projects.
Thank you.
ctfu11y submitted,
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
Arthur Kee, Planning Director
Date:
February26,1985
From:
Joseph Elliott, Director of Public Works
Subject:
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 900 EAST
HAMILTON AVENUE
----------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing the traffic impact report prepared by Barton-Aschman
Associates for the proposed development located at 900 East Hamilton
Avenue, the City of Campbell Public Works staff generally concurs with
the numbers and conclusions submitted.
The following table, identified as Table 5 in the draft EIR, indicates
the predicted change in the peak hour levels of service at those in-
tersections significantly affected by the proposed development:
TABU! 5
DIITIIIO II PVl'UU LBYELI OF IDYICB - a8CULAa 111, PLAMIQIIO IIII'I'IIODOLOOT
"...eetlon .184 .189 .189 ... .189 ...
IIdltlnr IÞd8ttnr + Ap(IrOftCI IÞd8tInr + Approwed a.... IÞd8tInr + Ap(IrOftCI a....
+ Project In + Project w/llltlpUOll In
LOS V/C LOS v/c LOS v/c v/c LOS v/c VIe
H_II ton/WIIIC!heIt..
AM e .735 e ."0 e .fH 0.1 .
PM E .139 , 1.104 , 1.83. I.' .
H_lltOII/Central
AM A .58' B .151 B . 1ST 0.1 ..
PM D .101 D .In D .195 1.1 ..
H - II tOIl /881 m..
AM e .713 D . 1ST B ...,5 13.1 'D .913 1.5
PM E 1.930 , 1.013 P 1.." 10.' E .150 (.0.1)
""'"tCIII/Iite A-
AM A .5" e .no
PM B .111 E .112
H_llton/Bacom
AM D .15' E .HI E .HI 1.1 ..
PM D .894 E .158 P 1."" 11.1 ..
H_IItOll/Aprll
AM A .503 D .IU D .151 4.1 ..
PM A .501 D .119 D .149 1.4 ..
Hem II ton /LeI1h (13.,~
AM , 1.031 , 1.13' , 1.170 1.1 D .111
PM D .IT4 , ..102 , ..OU 1.0 E .154 (4.8
Bacom/Camplli
AM B .114 e .731 e .T4I 1.1 e .f41 0.8
PM C .742 D .133 D .1'13 4.1 D .1.1 (1.0)
lleseom/C_pbeU
AM e .714 C .fll C .715 2.2 ..
PM F 1.013 E .n' E .111 2.5 ..
. Addition or -rree- rïpt brn on ~b lee.
.. 'wther Int...eetlon widlninr not r8MIbie. Int.._.I8C!tIOll of .....1 .,.t8ft\' .. mltlptiOll (elleepl Bacom/Cempbell).
Arthur Kee
2
February 26,1985
The concept of "level of service" is a qualitative measure of the effects
of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic in-
terruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience,
and operating costs. With regard to traffic signal controlled intersec-
tions, the levels of service are defined as follows:
level A, Free Flow: No significant congestion at any time; all approaches
clear on each phase.
level B, Free Flow: Very little congestion occurs at any time; all approaches
clear 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:
may be great.
There may be long queues of vehicles and delays
, level F, Saturation:
periods.
The City staff's defi ni tion of liS i gni ficant impact" in terms of 1 evel s of
service at an intersection is 1.5% degradation or more if the intersection
currently operates at level D (V/C = .80 - .90), or 1% degradation or more
if the intersection currently operates at level E or F (V/C = .90+). As
illustrated in Table 5, seven of the nine listed intersections will experi-
ence degradation of significant impact during either the morning or evening
peak commute hours as a direct result of the proposed project. The table
also shows that three of the nine intersections will experience an improve-
ment in their morning or evening peak hour congestion as a result of the
mitigation measures for the development identified in the draft EIR.
Extreme congestion, substantial delays during peak
The projected degradation of level of service is particularly severe in two
locations:
1.
Hamilton Avenue at Bascom
The projected level of service degradations as a result of the devel-
opment are 2.8% in the morning peak and 12.6% in the evening peak.
The 12.6% increase indicates that this intersection would perform at
level F, characterized by extreme congestion, rather than currently
projected level E, defined as long queues of vehicles and lengthy
delays, during the evening commute peak.
Arthur Kee
3
February 26, 1985
The Barton-Aschman report states that the methodology utilized in
the calculation of levels of services does not acknowledge any
mitigation effect of the proposed Hamilton Avenue traffic signal
interconnect. This mitigation, that is therefore difficult to quan-
tify, is the only measure identified for relief of this intersection.
The report further states that any additional mitigation at this loca-
tion would probably require a grade separation of the two roadways.
It should be noted that an extensive engineering analysis of the
Hamil ton Avenue corri dor woul d be necessary in order to determine
the desirability and/or feasibility of a grade separation at this
location.
2.
Hamilton Avenue at Site Access Street
The level of service at the intersection of the proposed new site
access street is projected to function in the lip range (V/C = .992)
during the evening peak. This change is difficult to directly com-
pare because the current intersection at this location is the
northbound freeway off-ramp controlled by a stop sign operating at
Level B (V/C = .681), rather than a signalized intersection of an
arterial. However, the impact of the addition of another inter-
section in this particular section of the Hamilton Avenue corridor
operating at a service level similar to the Salmar intersection is
a source of significant concern. The intersection of the northbound
off-ramp and Hamilton Avenue, currently operating at Level B, char-
acterized by free flow with very little congestion, would perform at
Level E, defined as long queues of vehicles and lengthy delays, during
the evening commute peak.
Barton-Aschman also states that geometric constraints may preclude the
construction of both a signalized intersection at this location and a
grade separation at the Hamilton Avenue-Bascom Avenue intersection due
to their proximity. The engineering analysis necessary for that deter-
mination has not been addressed in the draft EIR because of the time
delays involved in a study of that nature.
It is the staff's opinion that this possible conflict cannot be
evaluated without the extensive corridor study and preliminary design
study as discussed above. .
In order to achieve the projected levels of service as shown on Table 5 of
the report, if those service levels are acceptable to the Planning Com-
mission and the City Council, the staff recommends that the following public
facilities be provided as a minimum requirement prior to the occupancy of
any portion of the proposed development:
1.
Develop a site plan incorporating those parameters identified in the
EIR and design study, including providing 180' minimum of vehicular
Arthur Kee
4
February 26,1985
storage from Hamilton Avenue south to the new off-ramp signal.
Site plan to include roadway geometry and access points as
directed by the City Engineer.
2.
After developing a site plan and roadway alignment acceptable to the
City Engineer, obtain Caltrans, SPRR and PUC approval.
3.
Construct a two-way public street with pedestrian access traversing
the development from Campisi Way across a new bridge structure over
Los Gatos Creek, connecting to a new Highway 17 off-ramp signal and
to Hamilton Avenue.
4.
Reconstruct the northbound Highway 17 off-ramp as required by the City
Engineer and Caltrans.
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campisi Way and the
new street.
5.
6.
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of the new street and
the Highway 17 northbound off-ramp.
7.
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of the new street and
Hamilton Avenue.
8.
Provide interconnection of the above new signals and the existing
signals at Hamilton and April, Hamilton and Bascom, Hamilton and
Salmar/Highway 17, Hamilton and Central, and Hamilton and Winchester.
Provide all necessary hardware and software for signal system inter-
connect as required by the City Engineer.
Construct a free right-turn lane and signal modificátion as required
at the southeast corner of Hamilton and Winchester.
9.
10.
Construct an additional westbound lane on Hamilton Avenue across
Highway 17 through Salmar Avenue intersection.
11.
Construct street improvements on the southeast corner of Hamilton
and Leigh to provide an additional northbound lane on Leigh and an
additional eastbound lane on Hamilton.
12.
Modify traffic signal installation at the intersection of Bascom
Avenue and Campisi Way and widen as necessary to provide two north-
bound left-turn lanes while maintaining three through lanes at
intersection.
13.
Install median islands on Hamilton Avenue between Los Gatos Creek
and Highway 17.
Arthur Kee
5
February 26,1985
14.
Construct a bus pull-out lane and shelter on Hamilton Avenue frontage
of development.
Provide pedestrian-bicycle pathway along westerly bank of Los Gatos
Creek and across new bridge to easterly creek bank.
15.
BH/1e
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113
408-280-6600
Invoice Number 31943
February 21, 1985
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, California 95008
Attention: Phil Stafford, Principal Planner
Billing for professional services rendered through January 12, 1985 in connection
with the preparation of the traffic study/EIR and review thereof. Revisions include:
revisions of tables, assessment of the "design study", additional Levels of Service,
multiple revisions of the text, and modification of figures.
R. Ivy, Principal Associate
J. Damon, Associate
J. Bierstedt, Associate
W. Uerkvitz, Graphic/Design
L. Filiece, Support/Clerical
E. Bennett, Support/Clerical
P. Douglas, Support/Clerical
J. Brkchick, Support/Technician
5.0 hrs. @ 90.00
15 .0 hrs. @ 55.00
9.0 hrs. @ 50.00
11. 0 hrs. @ 50.00
10.5 hrs. @ 35.00
2.5 hrs. @ 35.00
1. 0 hrs. @ 30.00
3.0 hrs. @ 20.00
Total of Staff Time
$
450.00
825.00
450.00
550.00
367.50
87.50
30.00
60.00
2,820.00
TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE
23.25
23.96
13.48
60.61
$ 2,880.61
Outside Clerical
Outside Reproduction
In-House Reproduction
Total of Expenses
[6J
~ ~~~5~1~~ ~
CITY OF" CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENJ:
~ I /¿ ft(~ (; r,/
f7() ~ ;ÝtLy~'7
""-
-.
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
February 20,1985
Mr. Jeffrey P. Damon, Associate,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.,
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450,
San Jose, CA, 95ll3.
RE: Billings for the 900 E. Hamilton Avenue Traffic Study
EIR 84-04
Prometheus Development Co..
Dear Mr. Damon:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 17, 1985, in which
you raised certain questions regarding billings and reimbursement for
costs incurred in preparing the traffic study for the referenced
environmental impact report. My reason for delaying a response to your
letter until this time is based on an understanding that a substantial
portion of the fees in question have been paid by Prometheus Development
Company directly to Barton-Aschman.
In our telephone conversation of February 14,1985 you indicated that
Prometheus has paid the $11,033 design study fee and the $693 fee for the
graphic preparation. The remaining fees yet to be paid to Barton-Aschman
include $l,054 for the initial traffic study and $1,826 for the revised
traffic study - a total of $2,880.
As you may be aware, Prometheus Development Co. has deposited the sum of
$3,800 with the City in order to cover expenses incurred by Barton-Aschman
in the preparation of the traffic portion of the referenced EIR. To date,
we have not received a billing from yor office. In order for us to
disburse funds from the City's account, it will be necessary for you to
submit a detailed billing to the Planning Department. Please allow
approximately three weeks to process any bill which is submitted.
The information contained in this letter represents my understanding of
the current status for bills and payments for the referenced traffic
study. If my understanding is not correct, please let me know as soon as
possible.
Very truly yours,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
~ ~L?l./
PHILIP J. ~T~~~v ~~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
í CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:Planning .
February 20, 1985
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
Notice is hereby given that the Planning commission of the City of
Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 1985 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California for
public hearing on the following proposed projects:
UlflU 11 B.l~U .11'- ~Jrefl~e - Prometheus Development Co. -
Draft Environmen a Impact Report for proposed office/hotel
complex - PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District -
APN 288-1-2,3,4.
2.
PD 84-06 - 920 E. Hamilton Avenue - Prometheus Development
Plans, elevations, and development schedule - office/hotel
complex of two 6-story buildings and 250-room hotel with
restaurant/conference facilities - PD (Planned
Development/Commercial) Zoning District - APN 288-1-2,3,4.
Co. -
3.
Public hearing to consider a report on the impact of the
conversion of a mobilehome park upon the displaced residents of
the mobilehome park to be converted. - 920 E. Hamilton Avenue.
4.
PM 85-04 - 1295 Harriet Avenue - Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide parcel into three separate parcels. APN 403-l9-009.
Notice is also hereby given a Negative Declaration has been prepared for
the following proposal which will be considered by the Planning Commission
on March l2, 1985:
1.
S 85-03 - l84 Veitenheimer Lane & 898 McGlincey Lane - J.
Schweitzer - construction of two industrial buildings - M-I-S
(Light Industrial) Zoning District - APN 4l3-50-20,11.
Maps, legal descriptions and plans for subject projects are on file in the
Planning Department, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING COMMISSION
ARTHUR A. KEE
SECRETARY
PUBLISH ONE TIME:
Wednesday, February 27,1985
EXTRA Section
í
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
February 12, 1985
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, C'A 95118
RE:
900 E. Hamilton Ave.
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report presented
for the Prometheus Deve1o¡nent Company's project located at 900 E.
Hamilton Avenue in OmJpbe11.
The City of Campbell Plannmg Department would appreciate your
comments an this EIR no later than March 8,1985.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Planning Department at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
AR 1HJR A . IŒE
PLANNING DIREcroR
ß:d ~h
PHILIP J. S~~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1d
Enclosure
--
(
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
February 12,1988
Mr. fun Hebard, Chairman
Los Gatos Creek CbIIlIlÌttee
205 Ca1aoo Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
900 E. Hamil ton Avenue
Dear Mr. Hebard:
Pnc1osed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report presented
for the Prometheus Development Cbrnpany's project located at 900 E.
Hamilton Avenue.
The City of Campbell Planning Department would appreciate the Cbrnmittee' s
COJJJneIlts on this EIR no later than March 8, 1985.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Planning Department.
Sincerely,
AR'IHUR A . IŒE
PLANNING DIRECIDR
~ Á?;~~,~
PHILIP J .~~ ~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1d
Pnc1ostn'e
,^
_.
(
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866.2100
Department:
P1arming
February 12, 1985
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
RE:
900 E. Hamilton Ave.
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report presented
for the Prometheus Deve1o¡:ment Company's project located at 900 E.
Hamilton Avenue in OmJpbe11.
The City of Campbell Planning Department would appreciate your
conments on this EIR no later than Mirch 8, 1985.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Planning Department at 866-2140.
Sincerely,
AR 1HJR A . KEE
PLANNING DIRECI'OR
~~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1d
Enclosure
(
I
i
.....;:;;.-
CITY OF CAMPBEll
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department?lanning
February 6, 1985~
Mr. Thomas E. Fleischli, Project
Prometheus Development Co.
"900 E. Hamilton Ave., A General
10080 N. Wolfe Rd., Suite 201
Cupertino, CA 950l4
Manager
Partnership"
RE:
EIR 84-04
920 E. Hamilton Ave. -- Public Hearing
Dear Mr. Fleischli:
This office has received confirmation that the State Clearinghouse has received
the Draft EIR prepared for your project at 920 E. Hamilton Ave., Campbell. A
copy of the State's notification is attached for your files. As indicated in
the notification, the review period began on January 24, 1985 and will conclude
on March 1l, 1985.
with these dates being confirmed by the State, it is now possible for us to set
public hearings on the EIR and your project application for the Planning
Commission meeting of March l2, 1985. Please be assured that as comments are
received from other reviewing agencies, copies will be sent to you.
On another, but related, matter--it is important to note that the requirements
of Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code must be satisfied. A copy
of this section is also attached. Since the advisory agency is, in this case,
the Planning Commission, it will be out intent to have your report on the
impact of the conversion scheduled for hearing on March 12, 1985.
Lastly, Section 65863.8 of the California Government Code requires that you be
notified of the requirements contained in Section 798.56 of the California
Civil Code. Attached for your files, please find copies of both these code
sections. Please note the importance of the following provision contained in
Section 65863.8 which reads as follows:
"Neither a hearing on the application, nor any other action thereon, shall
be taken by the local agency before the applicant has satisfactorily
verified that the residents and mobilehome owners have been so notified, in
the manner prescribed by law or local regulation."
If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to call
the Planning Department at 866-2140.
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PHILIP J. STAFFORD
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
TIMOTHY A. LUNDELL'
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2060 THE ALAMEDA
ShN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95126
TELEPHONE (408) 247-2301
~ ,r--' ,- V
(~"""-'I ( . ~.. \1
\~U
January 30, 1985
~ ~)~i~~~~ ~
Ruth and Going, Inc.
919 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95113
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING D!::PARTMENT
Re:
Draft Environmental Imlict
Report for"""
Campbell, California
l[Ul
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that this office represents the Hamilton
Park Mobi1ehome OWners Association whose members are owners and
occupants of mobi1ehomes situated at the Hamilton Park Mobilehome
Park, the proposed site for the above-referenced project.
I am in receipt of a copy of the draft Environmental Impact
Report for this project which has been prepared and distributed by
your office. Although neither I nor my clients have as yet the
opportunity to review the report in detail, there is one portion
of the report which I feel requires immediate correction or clarifi-
cation. At page II-40 of the report, you state:
"However, even in the absence of
the subject project, or any other
proposal to develop the site, the
property owner and manager intends
to close down. the mobilehome park
operation. As a result, a one-year
termination of residency notice was
presented to park residents on
April 26, 1983. With the manager's
intention to go out of business, and
recover the value of the land he owns,
park residents would be forced to move,
regardless of future plans for the
property."
The foregoing quotation is subject to several qualifica-
tions. The notice served by Mr. Keesling on April 26, 1983, and
in-fact his entire proposal to close the park to "go out of
business", are the subject of on-going litigation in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court action Hamilton Park Mobi1ehome
-
TIMOTHY A. LUNDELL "
Ruth and Going, Inc.
Page Two
January 30, 1985
;
OWners Association v. Robert L. Keesling Case Number 495965. The
right to change the use of the park to "no use" without complying
with the impact and mitigation measures imposed by Government
Code §65-863.7 and 66427.4 is vigorously disputed by the homeowners.
The trial of this issue has been continued a number of times since
March, 1984, because of the continuing efforts of Prometheus
Development Company to acquire and develop the property. If,
indeed, the proposed project becomes a reality, the "right to go
out of business" question becomes largely moot. If however
Mr. Keesling intends to follow through with his proposal to convert
the land to "no use", the homeowners intend to pursue this liti-
gation to its ultimate conclusion with the expectation that their
rights under the various protective mobilehome statutes will be
vindicated. .
It is significant and important that your report not make
the misleading suggestion that the mobilehomes are due to leave
in any event, thus perhaps reducing the mitigation measures which
would otherwise be appropriate as a consequence of the Prometheus
project. I trust that the Environmental Impact Report will be
amended to accurately set forth the anticipated alternatives of
project/no project on the mobilehomes at Hamilton Park. Should
you have any questions, or should you desire to review the issues
raised in the above-referenced litigation, I shall be happy to
assist you. Thank you for your kind courtesy in this regard.
TAL/sb
fIlL 1 TJ rII n
Phil Stafford, City of Campbell
Thomas Fleisch1i, Prometheus Development Company
Charles Williamson, Hamilton Park Mobi1ehome
OWners Association
J
nJI Rlr~~
.
..
N:IIDfr .JnGP.ØIHl'
State of California
Project Notification and Review System
state Clearinghouse
(916) 445-0613
ÆCH:'lHms DEVEwMNT CD OFFIŒ~; Cn.u:r,E
STATE CLEARnGIooSE WM3ER:8501221S
RE.VIEw STARTS: 01/24/ as .
REVIE.w moo: 03/11/ as
etm' ACr : PRI CE W ALlŒR
( RBVml STARTS, CN NEXT DAY 1T1r'"
REXElVID AF"l'ER 10.00 A.M.) IJ\\ [!; lID rtJ, œ r¡y
rES. 41985 ill)
Please use the State Clearin9house Number on future correspondence with this
office and with agencies approving or revOt"VY<e JPro~M FSeLL
'Ib18 card does not verify cœpliance with eli',JtMI~ 1ilfilflM1I1U~_t>.kts.
A letter containing the State'. Coøment8 or a letter oonfiDling no State
cœments will be forwarded to you åfter the rëview i8 OcII¡>let..
.. . 8/83
-
Planning
January 22, 1985
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth St.
Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE:
Draft EIR - Prometheus Development Co.
City of Campbell
Enclosed for your review
(10) copies of the Draft
the referenced project.
the Notice of Completion
is also included.
and processing, please find ten
EIR which has been prepared for
In addition, a completed copy of
and Environmental Transmittal Form
If you have any questions regarding this information,
please feel feel to contact me at (408) 866-2140.
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PHILIP J. STAFFORD
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Id
J
'.'
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza. Suite 450 San Jose, California 95113
408-280-6600
January 17, 1985
Mr. Phil Stafford
Department of Planning
Ci ty of Campbell
75 N. Central Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
[5) Œ~Œn~Œ ~
U\\ JAN 18 1985
CITY OF CAMPBELL.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Billings for the 900 E. Hamilton Avenue Traffic Study
Dear Phil:
Pursuant to our conversation last week I am sending you this written explanation
of the billing issue we face in connection with the traffic study for the 900 E.
Hamilton Avenue project.
In order to bring you up to date, the following is a brief description of the work
we have conducted to date:
1.)
Preparation of Initial Traffic Study. Contract dated September 28, 1984
for $3,800. Costs incurred for required counts additional.
2.)
Preparation of Design Study. Purpose was to evaluate the potential for a
signal interconnect and to ensure that the site access was adequate.
Contract with Prometheus dated November 9, 1984 for $7,500. (Joe Elliott
cc'd on Scope of Work).
3.)
Preparation of graphic illustrating proposed Hamilton
improvements; done at the request of the City PW staff.
Preparation of Revised Traffic Study with various changes, additional work
and comments as requested by the City of Campbell.
A venue
4.)
That's the good news, now for the bad news.
First, it did not become apparent to myself until the end of the first week in
January that Barton-Aschman Associates was, in fact, working for the City as opposed
to Prometheus on this project. As a result, billings had been directed to Prometheus.
Regarding this, the attached table shows what we have billed Prometheus to date, as
well as what has been paid to Barton-Aschman by Prometheus. I am uncertain as to
what the status between Prometheus and the City is on these billings.
[6]
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Second, it became apparent last week that the monetary agreement between
Prometheus and Barton-Aschman to conduct the required work will not cover the
actual charges we have incurred on behalf of the City of Campbell. This is especially
so with regards to the Design Study. The perplexities of the technical problems facing
the implementation of the system have made resolving those issues to a state
satisfactory to City staff a very long and expensive undertaking. The original $7,500
fee was inadequate for the work required, judging by the number of memorandum
reports (3) we submitted to staff (plus a final report); each reflected virtual re-
analysis of the interconnect system based upon new input from the City. Computer
charges alone for the analysis have exceeded $2,200.
I feel that the charges incurred on this project to date are realistic given the
level of effort requested and put into the project, the number of meetings with City
staff we have attended and the number of report submittals we have provided to staff.
We can provide you with detailed cost breakdowns of the incurred charges if you so
desire.
In conclusion, we would ask you to address two issues. We need to resolve the
billing issue of who to bill for what. And we (Barton-Aschman) need assurance that
the fees incurred by us in connection with this project for the City will be reimbursed
in the future.
Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any
questions or comments you might have.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~
Jeffrey P. Damon
Associate
cc:
Tom Fleischli, Prometheus
Joe Elliott, Public Works
Bob Scales, Barton-Aschman
JPD/lb
....
FILE COpy\.
PlAfilNiNG DEPARTMENT
-
-.
....
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
91= rc rèTõ py
PLANN~NG DEPAnIMErJT
~ ~~~1~1~~ ~
CITY OF' CAMPSELL
~J:ANNINI3 .CEP.ARTMENT..
DRAFT
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
900 EAST HAMILTON AVENUE
'"",
I' ,
LEAD AGENCY :
CITY OF CAMPBELL
'"""
PREPARED BY:
"..
RUTH AND GOING, INC.
16845-085
j"'"
JANUARY, 1985
"'-
,..
1.
r"
..-
..-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
i-I
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
i-I
I.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I-I
II.
PROJECT SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION
II-l
A. Soils
B. Biotic Resources
C. Air Quality
D. Hydrology
E. Noise
F. Visual
G. Hazards
H. Land Use
1. Population/Housing
J. Transportation/Circulation
K. Energy
L. Archeology
II-I
II-3
II-4
II-9
II-1O
II-13
II-22
II-23
II-33
II -44
II-68
II-69
III. GROWTH INDUCEMENT
III-l
IV.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
IV-I
v.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
V-I
VI.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
VI-I
VII. REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS/PERSONS CONTACTED/REFERENCES VII-I
List of Figures
1)
2)
3A)
3B)
3C)
3D)
3E)
4A)
4B)
4C)
4D)
5)
6)
7)
~)
9)
Area Map
Vicini ty Map
Site Plan
Building Elevations
Building Elevations
Building Elevations
Building Elevations
Views of Site
Views of Site
Views of Site
Location Map for View Photos
General Plan Designations
Zoning Designations
Existing Average Daily Traffic
Directional Distribution
Site Generated Traffic
List of Tables
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
APPENDIX
A)
Existing Levels of Service
Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Trip Generation Rates
Future Levels of Service - Circular 212 Method
Hourly Anticipated Parking Demand
Parking Analysis Results
Traffic Report
1-2
1-3
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
11-16
11-18
11-19
II-20
11-26
II-27
11-47
II-54
II-55
11-48
11-49
II-53
II-57
II-64
11-65
INTRODUCTION
,...
0"'.
Background
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address the
potential impacts of the proposed development known as 900 East Hamilton
,...
Avenue.
~
The Planning Department of the City of Campbell has made an assessment
,-
of the potential environmental effects and has determined that an EIR
should be prepared to address. all potential environmental impacts but
focus particularly on these items of primary concern:
Traffic, Visual
and Population/Housing impacts.
Other potential environmental impacts
are also addressed as identified by the City's environmental checklist.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
I"""
As
provided
for
in
the California
Environmental
Quality Act
(CEQA)
~,-
Guidelines, and based on information provided in the EIR, this summary
divides impacts into those found to be potentially significant and those
judged to be not significant.
Proposed mitigation is summarized for
items in both categories as well as the party or agency responsible for
their implementation.
i-I
......
.I.
,.-"
-
, ~
-
-
-,
.-.
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Impact
A.
Visual:
Project will result in 5 and
6 story buildings where a
single story mobile home park
currently exists. Views of
the project will be most
apparent from surrounding
streets.
Project buildings could
produce glare from reflected
sunlight.
B.
Land Use:
Development of the site would
displace 136 mobile home
spaces.
Project operation would have
the beneficial fiscal impact
of contributing property,
sales, and occupancy tax
revenues to the City.
Mitigation
Proposed building shapes and
setbacks will help reduce the
feeling of building mass.
Responsible Party:
Developer/Project Architect
Retaining the existing trees
on the Hamilton Avenue
off-ramp will help reduce the
impacts of views of the site.
Responsible Party:
Developer/Project Architect
Proposed surfaces include
tinted and medium reflectivity
glass to reduce glare.
Responsible Party:
Developer/Project Architect
Develop a relocation plan for
park tenants in conformance
with Section 66427.4 of the
Government Code.
Responsible Party:
Developer
No mitigation necessary.
1-2