M 98-04CITY OF 1999 S.'BASCOM AVENUE M 98-04 1/3
CAMPBELL r.
Please format one line labels on microfiche: City of Campbell Address File No.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ADDRESS
FILE NO. MQ�'�`'I
v
-._. - -- - . --- _ - - Pew
City
Council
Report
Item No
Category: Public Hearing
Meeting Date: June 2, 1998
TITLE
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Word, on behalf of William
Wilson and Associates LLC, for approval of a Special Development Permit (SDP 98-01)
to allow modification to a previously approved four level parking garage at the Pruneyard
located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-0 (General Commercial/Overlay) Zoning
District.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commissicn recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
I. Introduce an Ordinance for first reading, incorporating the attached findings,
approving a Special Development Permit, allowing modification to a previously
approved four level parking garage, subject to the conditions of approval.
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Dezlaration was previously granted
for this project. No further environmental action is required.
BACKGROUND
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Development
Permit to allow modification to a previously approved four level parking garage.
approved in conjunction with Special Development Permit 97-01. The proposed
modifications to the parking garage consists of eliminating the sub -grade ramp and 50
parking spaces, adding 71 parking spaces on the fourth floor of the garage, and extending
the wall line on the east and south elevations to fully enclose the fourth level. The
proposed changes will alter the approved design of the garage.
Project Background: On January 6, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1955, approving Special Development Permit 97-01 and a Site and Architectural
Approval 97-20 allowing the construction of a 130.000 gross square foot, six -story office
building, and a four level parking garage on the western portion of the Pruneyard
property.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency: The General Plan Land Use designation is commercial. The
proposed development modification is consistent with the General Plan designation.
ZoninizCon si• ,.ncv: T.re western half of the property containing the office development
is zoned C-2-0 (General Commercial/Overlay). A Special Development Permit must be
approved b� the City Council for modifications, additions or new construction on
properties with the Overlay zoning designation. Subject to approval of the Special
Development Permit, the proposed project is consistent with the zoning of the property.
C
City Counc;l Report —June 2, 1998
SDP 98-01 — 1999 S. Bascom Avenue
Page -3-
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance Approving the Special Development Permit with conditions of
approval.
2. Planning Commission Resolution 3167
3. Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 1998
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 12. 1998
5. Exhibits
Prepared by:
luria Sciara, Planner II
Reviewed by: :
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
Bernard M. Strojny, City Manag^r
r
ORDINANCE NO.
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT (SDP 98-01) TO ALLOW MODIFICATION TO A
PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED FOUR -LEVEL PARKING GARAGE
AT THE PRUNE YARD ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1999 S.
BASCOM AVENUE IN A C-2-0 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL/OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION
OF MR. DAVID WORD, ON BEHALF OF PRUNEYARD
ASSOCIATES, LLC. FILE NO. SDP 98-01.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Communitv Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council did find as follows with
respect to application SDP 98-01:
1. A Special Development Permit was previously approved allowing the construction of
one 130.000 gross square foot, six -story office building, and a four level parking garage
j containing 730 parking spaces on the western side of the project site.
I( 2 The proposed development application, as conditioned, is consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning designations which indicate a Commercial land uses for this property.
3. The proposed landscape plan and site amenities will improve the appearance of the
proposed project and effectively screen the parking garage.
i
4. The proposed changes to the parking garage will result in a net gain of 21 parking spaces
5. A Mitigated Nega•'ve Declaration was previously adopted for Special Development
Permit 97-01.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
I. The proposed project, with conditions of approval, is consistent with the policies of the
General Plan and the 'Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with uses in the immediate
area.
2. The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, er operation of the use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general w0fare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
City Council Ordinance
SDP 98-01 - 1999 S. Bascom Avenue - Pruneyard Garage
Page 2
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City and its residents.
4. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to acme-mmodate the proposed use and
site improvements.
5. The conditions of approval as required are related and proportional to the impacts of the
project.
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified on each
condition where necessary. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required
to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
I. Project Aooroval - Approval is granted for a Special Development Permit allowing
Modification to SDP 98-01 for property located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue .:onsisting of
the following.
• Modification to the four level parking garage to delete the sub -grade ramp and parking
and the expansion of the fourth floor parking surface and enclosure of the entire fourth
floor.
Project approval shall substantially comply with project plans prepared by Hornberger and
Worstell. Inc. stamp dated April 13, 1998. and exhibits stamp dated May 7. 1998 except as
modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Compliance with Ordinance 1955: The applicant shall comply with all conditions of
approval adopted with O:dinance 1955 approving Special Development Permit 97-01 in
addition to conditions of approval for Special Development Permit 98-01, unless
specifically modified herein.
3. Modified Storm Drainage Easement and Legal Description: The applicant shall comply
with all requirements and conditions of the City Engineer to address any additional
encroachment of the garage structure into the existing 20-foot wide City storm drainage
easement that lies parallel and immediately adjacent to the westerly property line on the
subject property. Encroachment beyond that permitted under Condition of Approval
Number 27 of Ordinance No. 1955 and the revised easement description reflecting said
encroachment shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City
Attorney.
i
,r.
City Council Ordinance
SDP 98-01 — 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Pruneyard Garage
Page 3
4. Review of Li¢htina Prior to Building Final Occunat. it: Prior to signing off on final
occupancy, staff shall review the lighting on the roo0op level to ensure that lighting levels
do not adversely impact the neighboring residential uses.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 199_, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
I
APPROVED:
j Jeanette Watso: , ;..ayor
j
I
I ATTEST:
Anne Bybee, City er
t
s�
RESOLUTION NO.3167
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW MODIFICATION TO THE
APPROVED PARKING GARAGE AT THE PRUNTEYARD ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1"9 S. BASCOM AVF'NUE IN A C-2-0
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OVERLAY) ZONING• DISTRICT.
APPLICATION MR. DAVID WORD. FILE Nu M. 98-04 (SDP 97-
01).
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Develepmmt Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application M 98-04 (SDP 97-01):
1. A Special Development Permit was previously approved allowing the construction of
one 13^,000 gross square foot, six -story office building, and a four level parking garage
containing 730 parking spaces on the western side of the project site.
2. The proposed development application, as conditioned, is consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning designations which indicate a Commercial land uses for this property.
3. The proposed landscape plan and site amenities will improve the appearance of the
proposed project and effectively screen the parking garage.
4. The proposed changes to the parking garage will result in a net gain of 21 parking spaces
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously adopted for Special Development
Permit 97-01.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that.
1 The proposed project, with conditions of approval, is consistent with the polities of the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with uses in the imnted;ate
area.
2. The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3167
M 98-04 (SPD 97-01) - 1999 S Basco-n Avenue - Pruneyard Garage
Page 2
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property and :mprovements in
the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City and its residents.
.1. The proposed site is adequate in size anal shape to accommodate the proposed use and
site improvements.
The condii.on; of approval as required are related and proportional to the irnpacts of the
project.
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. The lead department with which the applicant wrli work is identifie, on each
condition where necessary. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required
io comply wirh all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
1 Proiect Aooroxal - Approval is granted for a Special Development Permit allowing
Modification to SDP 97-01 for property located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue consisting of
the following:
• Modification to the four level parking garage to delete the sub -grade ramp and parking
and the expansion of the fourth floor parking surface and enclosure of the entire fourth
floor;
Project approval shall sub�:antially comply with project plans prepared by Homberger and
Worstell, Inc. stamp dated April 13, 1998, and exhibits stamp dated May 7, 1998 except as
modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2 Compliance with Ordinance 1955: The applicant shall comply with all conditions of
approval adopted xNith Ordinance 1955 approving Speciai Development Permit 97-01 in
addition to conditions of approval for M 98-04, unless specifically modified herein
3. Modified Storm Drainage Easement and Legal Desmption The applicant shall eomp!v
with all requirements and conditions of the City Engineer to address any additional
encroachment of the garage structure into the existing 20-foot wide City storm drainage
easement that lies parallel and immediately adjacent to the westerly property line on the
subject property. Encroachment beyond that permitted under Condition of Approval
Number 27 of Ordinance No. 1955 and the revised easement description reflecting said
encroachment shall be subject to review and zpproval by the City Engineer and the City
Attomev
i
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3167
M 98-04 (SPD 97-01) — 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Pruneyard Garage
Page 3
4. Review of Lightin¢ Prior to Building Final Occupancy Permit: Prior to signing off on final
occupancy, staff shall review the lighting on the rooftop level to ensure that lighting levels
do not adversely impact the neighboring residential uses.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12' day of May, 1998, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer -Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Lindstrom
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
APPROVED:
Dennis Lowe, Chair
i
i ATTEST:
Steve Piasccki, Secretary
i
i
I
i
l
I I
Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 1998 Page 8
Chairman I owe reau Agenda Item No. 5 into the record.
5 M 98-04 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Word
(SDP 97-01) for approval of a Modification (M 98-04) of a previously
Hord, D. approved Special Development Permit (SDP 97-01) to allow
modification to the approved parking garage at the Pruneyard
located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-0 (General
Commercial/Overlay) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration
was previously approved for this project. Tentative City
Council Meeting Date: June 2, 1998.
Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner 11, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants are seeking a Modification to the Special Development Permit
which allowed the construction of a 130,000 square foot office structure and a 730 parking
garage.
• The current request is to eliminate the plans for a sub -grade ramp and 50 spaces and the
addition to the fourth floor of the parking structure with the addition of 71 spaces. The n,t
gain would be 21 spaces.
• This addition to the building will eliminate the step effect and create one wall line.
• While there will be additional massing, this is mitigated through the use of extensive
landscaping. The landscaping is a layered concept including trellis and climbing vines
Trees to be used include poplar, cypress and olive with a range in heights from 25 to 100 feet.
The garage will be 33 feet high.
• S.ARC reviewed and had concerns regarding the lighting.
• Lighting will include three types of fixtures to provide perimeter, interior and extenor
lighting.
• The upper floor has been designed to cause a minimum of reflection on neighboring
propsties.
• The light poles are 14 feet high with 64-foot dispersion which illuminates two parking rows.
• The building has been designed so that the wall height is sufficiently high that the visibility
of car headlights by neighboring properties will be eliminated.
• The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning with Council's approval.
• Staff is supportive of this Modification.
Chairman Lowe asked about tree planting along Highway 17.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that the applicants are working with CalTrans.
- �._ _— — ---- - — — 460—
i
c
Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 1998 Page 9
Commissioner Jones presented the Site and Architectural Review report as follows:
• SARC met on April 28, 1998, to review this project and found that the information available
was insufficient to make a recommendation.
• The major concern was the impact of the lighting of this garage on neighboring apartment
and the visual impact of this structure from the Pruneyard.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that the issues have been responded to within the packet.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Mr. David Word, Applicant, 1999 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 2, Campbell:
• Advised that they are concerned with three points: Quality, Quantity and Time.
• While they are eliminating 50 below grade spaces which required mechanical ventilation they
are replacing them with 70 spaces above grade with fresh air and more light.
• Explained that this change is more expensive but represents a faster job. Advised that they
can save one month in construction time by making this change.
• Explained that they need to have the garage compl ,ed for the holiday shopping center and
their goal is completion on the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving. Also mentioned that if
they are allowed to open the garage before the elevator is finished, it could be ready by the
beginning of November. Said that since covered parking is provided nearby for handicapped
visitors, the City should consider allow him to open the garage before the elevator is
completed. People can use stairs for the short term.
• Advised that they continue to have meetings with a tenant parking commt:tee tiaui that he
has informed them of this plan and invited them to attend this evening if tl ^, had any
concerns and'or objections. They expressed support and sent no one to speak out against this
proposed modification to the garage.
• Advised that his architect is available for questions.
Commissioner Gibbons:
• Advised that she appreciates the materials provided.
• Expressed regret that no community members are present.
• Said that she continues to have concerns about the rooftop lighting and the height of the
proposed light fixtures.
• Opined that there needs to be a consistency of light level that is not depicted.
Mr. Ron MCLestel, Project Architect:
• Informed that the lighting plan was developed by a ,fighting consultant who prepared the
diagram provided.
• Stated that they have actually added lights.
• Said that the 14 foot light is a good height for their needs and allows broad dispersion
without the need for too many fixtures.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 1998 Page 10
Commissioner Gibbons:
• Stated that there is too much light in some places, while not enough in others.
• Said that the light should be spread out uniformly.
Mr. Ron McLester advised that the exhibit probably does not accurately depict the light levels.
Commissioner Jones asked if the apartment residents have been notified of this evening's
meeting.
Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the property owner was notified and asked to provide the notice to
their tenants.
Commissioner Francios stated that the fact the people are not present seems to indicate that there
is n,i much concem. Said that the lighting seems to have been well addressed with reflector
shielding light from neighbors. Said that staffhas handled this issue.
Mr Ron McLester added that the lighting being used was designed from parking lot use.
Commissioner Kearns asked what would oc-ur if there are complaints once this garage and its
lighting is installed.
Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that there is a provision that if any property causes a nuisance to
another, it can be abated. This is clone routinely.
Commissioner Jones asked if this matter would go on to Council.
his Gloria Sciara replied that it would because it is a Modification to a Special Devaopment
Permit within an Overlay District which requires Council authorization. It will likely go before
Council on .lune 2.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that she felt strongly about the appearance of the garage.
Suggested that a condition be added so that lighting levels on the roof can be reviewed by staff
before signing off on the final occupancy.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this condition would pose no problems
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy, seconded ',y Commissioner
Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3167
recommending approval of a Modification (M 98 04; to a previously -
approved Special Development Permit (SDP 97-01) to allow modification to
the approved parking garage at the Pruneyard on property located at 1999 S.
t
NMI
i
Pla"ping Commission Minutes of May 12 1998
Page 1 ]
Bascom Avenue, with the added condition that staff review and approve the
rooftop lighting prior to building final, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Gibbous, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer -Kennedy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lindstrom
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY D VELOPAI prr DIRECTOR
The written report of Mr. Step a Piasecki, Commun :evelopment Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions:
• Advised that the Vasona Corridor has been selected for the expansion of Light Rail.
• Reminded the Commission of the May 21, 1998, Study Session with Council regarding the
San Tomas Area Neighb,,rhood Plan and General Plan Updates. The time for this meeting
will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Congratulated the Commission on the successful completion of the Telecommunications
Ordinance for which Council took first reading at its last meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting
of May 26, 1998, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California. j�
1
SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: i
t
Dennis Lowe, Chair
f
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki, Secretary
ITEM NO.5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MAY 12,1998
M 98-04 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Word, on behalf
(SDP 97-01) of William Wilson and Associates, for approval of a Modification to a
Word, D. previously approved Special Development Permit (SDP 97-01) to allow
modification to the approved parking garage at the Pruneyard located at
1999 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-0 (General Commercial/Overla))
Zoning District. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously
approved for this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
I. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, tecommending that the City
Councii adopt an ordinance approving a Modification to the previously approved Special
Development Permit allowing a modification to a four level parking garage, subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In conjunction with the adoption of Ordinance 1955 approving Special Development Permit 97-
01, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The proposed
modification to the parking garage does not require additional environmental action.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Modification to the preciously
approved Special Development Permit to modify the approved design of the four level parking
garage. The proposed modifications to the parking garage consists of eliminating the sub -grade
ramp and 50 parking spaces, adding 71 parking spaces on the fourth floor of the garage, and the
extension of the wall line on the east and south elevations to fully enclose the fourth level.
Protect BackYround: On January 6, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1955
approving Special Development Permit 97-01 and a Site and Architectural Approval 97-20
allowing the construction of a 130,000 gross square foot, six -story office building, and a four
Icvcl parking garage on the western portion of the Pruneyard property. A Use Permit (UP 97-11)
was also approved allowing a 54 room expansion of the Pruneyard Inn. Prior to the approval of
the Special Development Permit, a major remodel of the shopping center was completed in 1996
by the current owners that included reconfiguration of the site and building layout, facade and
landscaping improvements, and two new single user pad buildings (Bank of America and
Outback Steakhouse).
Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1998
M 98-04 (SDP 97-01) 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Pruneyard Place
Page 2
The Pruneyard is located adjacent to offices, retail, and multi -family uses to the south on
Campbell Avenue; retail and restaurant uses to the east on Bascom Avenue: an apartment
complex bordering the northern property line, and State Highway 17 borders the west side of the
property.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency: The General Plan land Use designation is commercial. The
proposed development modification is consistent with the General Plan designation.
Zoning Consi:•tencv: The western half of the property containing the office development is zoned
C-2-0 (General Commercial/Overlay). The Overlay zone allowed a "high rise" concept for the
office buildings. A Special Development Permit must be approved by the City Council for
modifications. additions or new construction to all properties with this designation. Subject to
approval of the modification by the City Council, the proposed project is consistent with the
zoning designation of the property.
Design and Location of Garage: The approved parking garage is located at the northwest comer
of the property approximately 10 feet from the northern property line that is adjacent to the Aloha
Apartments. The structures on the apartment complex nearest the parking structure consist of
unused recreation facilities and carports. The approved garage associated with the new office
building will provided 730 parking spaces over four levels at a height of 33 feet and will add 448
net parking spaces. The approved design of the garage consists of a concrete structure with
seemented 1s% wall T-nels hetween a series of columns with openings between each floor level.
A solid sheer wall is visible on a portion of the north and south elevations. The stair tower with a
muted green tile roof is featured on the south elevation. Vertical wire trellises punctuate the
entire facade and will serve as a mechanism for climbing vines to adhere to the building.
Design Issues. The Site and Architectural Review Committee requested additional information
on the project to evaluate the impacts of the proposed modification including the following:
• Section details of the garage illustrating the impact of the lights from vehicles on the
adjacent apartments
• A perspective view of the proposed building modification to understand the changes
to the garage.
• Information on the scale of the : arage in comparison to other buildings in the
Pruneyard and to the adjacent apart n, nts.
• Details on the type of lighting standards 'i oe used.
• Illustrations demonstrating light dispersion of the overhead light standards on the
fourth level of the garage.
In response to the Committee's concerns, a discussion on these issues is provided in the
following sections.
i
i
Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1998
M 98-04 (SDP 97 1) 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Pruneyard Place
Page 3
Building Scale and Elevation Changes: A massing model study contained in the attachments
provides information on the scale of the garage in relation to the retail buildings, the Pruneyard
Inn and the Aloha Apartments. The following information summarizes the scale and height of
the buildings:
• The retail complex combines one, two and three story structures in various groupings.
• The retail buildings average heights of 15 feet for single story structures, 30 feet for two
story structures, and 36 feet for the hotel at three stories.
• The garage is 190 feet in width and 310 feet in length and is 31 feet in height.
• The three story apartments nearest the parking garage are 170 feet in width, 220 feet in
length, and 32 feet in height.
• The garage is similar in scale and dimension to other building forms within the Pruneyard
and the adjacent apartments.
The proposed modification will require exteri-)r changes to the garage to accommodate the
additional parking area. The fourth floor would be modified by extending the parking Floor from
the center of the garage to the eastern wall line at the fourth floor. The half wall used at each
floor would he added to the east and south elevations to fully enclose the fourth floor. As a
result of this modification, a net gain of 21 parking spaces would occur. The enclosure of the
upper floor will eliminate the stepped effect seen on the upper level of the garage and will create
a continuous wall line of uniform wall height to the entire structure which will appear larger than
the previu:,; design.
Perspective from Freeway: At the northwest comer of the garage. Highway 17 is elevated three
feet above the base of the garage. From the northwest comer of the garage extending along the
length of the garage northerly, the grade of Highway 17 is 10 feet higher than the grade of the
parking garage. At this point, more than a third of the garage height will be below the Highway
i 17. Consequentiy, the greatest exposure of the garage from the freeway will occur at the
northwest comer looking southeast. A condition of approval for SDP 97-01 requires the off -site
planting of 24 inch box Redwoods along the Highway 17 right-of-way that will eventually screen
the full height of the structure.
Landscape Plans: The approved landscape plan consists of ten foot wide or greater planting beds
along the north, east, and west sides of the garage. The east elevation planting of the garage has
the most detail and variety of species since it faces the public spaces of the Pruneyard and would
have the most impact ot, the overall character of the site. Varied planting approaches have been
employed to effectively provide screening of the structure including the use of trellises as a
mechanism for climbing vines. Accent trees will be combined with hedges and ground cover to
provide substamial as well as a layered planting concept. The accent trees consist of Italian
Cypress (40-60 feet at maturity) and fast growing Lombardy Poplar trees (40-100 feet at
maturity) stationed between the trellises. The broader Olive trees (25-30 feet at maturity)
separating the groups of Cypress and Poplars complete the outer layer of the planting screen
I
Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meetit,g of May 12, 1998
M 98-04 (SDP 97-01) 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Prnneyard Place
Page 4
The enlarged section detail of the parking garage shows the approved landscaping concept for the
garage.
Light Fixtures: The parking garage incorporates three distinct exterior lighting sources which
include the following:
• Perimeter lighting for highlighting the landscaping;
• Interior lighting to illuminate the interior of the garage: and
• Exterior area lighting at the top of the parking deck.
The perimeter accent lighting consist of halide lamps located on the sides of the garage focused
down onto the landscaping, and at the edge of the landings. These lights will highlight certain
landscape features only and do not broadly disperse light, and are intended to add visual interest
the surface of the garage. The interior lights are surface mounted fixtures attached to the
underside of the deck located above the center of each drive aisle and disperse the light broadly.
The fixtures being used are specifically designed for use in garages, and illuminate the garage
uniformly to increase the sense of security. Wh?n viewed from the outside, some fixtures wtll be
visible from remote angles, but the light is :jot sufficient to significantly illuminate beyond the
exterior walls.
The exterior lights are designed to illuminate the upper deck parking area while minimizing light
pollution to neighboring properties. The fixtures feature special reflectors that direct the light to
the parking area and no other surrounding areas, and do not require an external lens or bulb The
lights are mounted on 14 foot light poles on the perimeter and center parking aisles of the upper
deck. Light standards at lower heights would require more lights to give the same illumination
levels, which would create more light sources to be seen, and could not illuminate across the
entire 64 foot wide parking bays.
Visibility of Car Headlights: The section detail of the parking garage provided in the
attachments demonstrates that the headlights from cars of various heights including sports uulih
sehicles would not be visible to the adjacent apartment buildings. The four foot half walls at each
Iesel are of sufficient height to screen the headlights from the adjacent apartments.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee
re%iewed the proposed modification on April 28, 199& The Committee requested additional
mformauon as previously addressed in this report. Upon reviewing the exhibits available at the
meeting. the Site and Architectural Review Committee was unable to provide a recommendation
on this project.
Staff Report -- Planning Commis: ion Meeting of May 12, 1998
M 98-04 (SDP 97-01) 1999 S. Bascom Avenue — Pruneyard Place
Page 5
Attachments:
I. Findings
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Project Data Sheet
4. Exhibits
a. Light Standard Model Detail
b. Massing Models
c. Section Detail of Garage with Headlight Study
d. Elevation Sections of Garage
e. Overhead Lighting Details -Light Dispersion Study
5_ Location Map A
Submitted by.
iAloria Sciara. Planner II
Approved by: L�
Sh on Fierro, Senior Planner
Attachment #1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. M 98-04 (SDP 97-01)
SITE ADDRESS: 19" S. BASCOM AVENUE
APPLICANT: DAVID R. WORD, WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES
P.C. MEETING: MAY 12, 1998
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file M 98-04 (SDP 97-01)
1. A Special Development Permit was previously approved allowing the construction of one 130.000
gross square foot, six -story office building, and a four level parking garage containing 730 parking
spaces on the western side of the project site.
2. The proposed development application, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations which indicate a Commercial land uses for this property.
The proposed landscape plan and site amenities wll improve the appearance of the proposed
project and effectively screen the parking garage.
4. The proposed charges to the parking garage will result in a net gain of 21 parking spaces
P Po 8 P" B B B B P B P
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously adopted for Special Development Permit 97-01
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council luriher finds and concludes that:
I. The proposed project, with conditions of approval, is consistent with the policies of the
Genoa] Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with uses in the immediate area
2. The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of the
immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of s
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City and its residents
5. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and site
improvements.
6. The conditions of approval as required are related and proportional to the impacts of the
project.
Attachment tt2
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. M 98-04 (SDP 97-01)
SITE ADDRESS: 19" S. BASCOM AVENUE
APPLICANT: DAVID R. WORD, WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES
P.C. MEETING: MAY 12, 1998
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. Additionally, the apri—ant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with
all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that
pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
I. Proiect Approval - Approval is granted for a Special Development Permit allowing Modification
to SDP 97-01 for property located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue consisting of the following:
• Modification to the four level parking garage to delete the sub -grade ramp and parking and the
expansion of the fourth floor parking surface and enclosure of the entire fourth Floor;
Project approval shall substantially comply with project plans prepared by Hornberger and
Worstell. Inc. stamp dated April 13, 1998, and exhibits stamp dated May 7, 1998 except as
modified by the Conditions of Aoproval contained herein.
2. Compliance with Ordinance 1955: The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval
adopted with Ordinance 1955 approving Special Development Permit 97-01 ip addition to
conditions of approval for M 98-04, unless specifically modified herein.
3. Modified Storm Drainage Easement and Legal Description: The applicant shall comply with all
requirements and conditions of the City Engineer to address any additional encroachment of the
garage structure into the existing 20-foot wide City storm drainage easement that lies parallel and
immediately adjacent to the westerly property line on the subject property. Encroachment beyond
that permitted under Condition of Approval Number 27 of Ordinance No. 1955 and the reeised
easement description reflectirg said encroachment shall be subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer and the City Attorney. S
Attachment # 3
PROJECT DATA-PRUNEYAR'
ACE
Site Summary
Gross Lot
Net Lot
Building
Landscape
Paving
Area
Area:
Covera e:
Covera e:
29.68 acres
27.24 acres
_Coverage
37%
15%
4F
;.suns + proposed) 1 Ilncludrs hudscape)
Building Area Summary_
Use
Existing
Approvtt.
Addition or
Construction wider
Deletion
SDP 97-01
Retail
255,857 s.f.
236,027 s.f.
-19,830
Hotel
64,962 s.f.
84,792 s.f.
+4,655 s.f.
Parking
Garage
N/A
246,556 s.f.
+246,556 s.f.
Office Towers
234,244 s.f.
364.244 s.f.
+130,000 s.f.
TOTAL
BUILDING
AREA
555,063 s.f.
931,619 s.f.
+361,381 s.f.
Floor Area Ratio Summary
Existing
With Proposed Garage
Without Pro osed Gara e
ti7
.79
.5g
1
Shared arkine Anal sis
Existing
Existing Approved/
Parking Proposed
Added Parking
Parking
Parking Proposed
Spaces Parking
Spaces (Net)
Ratio arking
Added Ratio
1.730 spaces
1:320 2,178 spaces
448 1: 316
2,199 spaces
469 1:311
+21 spaces with
M 98-04
_ _..
Executive
i PARKING GARAGE 4TH LEVEL LIGHT FIXTURE
i
I
"r
I
I
i
I 1
TOW;rR
PRUNEYARD MASSING & SHADOW STUDY
Shadow Anaiysis for December 21 at 4 00pm (maximum shadows cast)
ALOHA APARTMENTS
IST tp NS
E
PRUNEYARD MASSING & SHADOW STUDY
Shadow Analysis for December 21 at 4:00pm (maximum shadows cast)
— - -
PRUNEYARD MASSING & SHADOW STUDY
Shadow Analysis ror December 21 at 4:00pm (maximum shadows cast(
— — --- --- - — _— _ ,r.y
I• dvvGR
VAS-:\G &---ADOW
S^cccw A^p ys 5 'o- Dece^-ce- 2• c' 4 COD— cx s^ccows :-cs•
i i �' �� �'� � � nAll�lilflflllciloi�uoirar¢o�i�,nuuruuu8
IMu«.
i
LIGHT STANDARDS-------
1
r GUARDRAIL
V 1
(I 1
li III'
li a iN,y ^ hum I 1
CREERSIDE — HEDGE RA4►
TRAM
I
REDWOODS LIGHT STANDARDS -�
HIGHWAY 17 TRUNRYARD GARAGE ALOHA PARKING ALOHA A►ARTMENT$
I
REVISED GARAGE - NORTH SITE SECTION
'� W....
i
I
'11061dlllii wo";Uhdllllltl llUlllgll i ullniiilllWIIN110Nl1a liix: ull II.
CRRRRSIDR
TRAIL
I
LIGHT STANDARDS R)(Sj�DwOOD1
7RUNRTARD GARAGR HIGHWAY 17
1
ORIGINAL GARAGE - SOUTH SITE SECTION
PRUNEYARD
PLACE
J
/ / t. --- - ___-__ ...�..... -- - -- -� CiRCULATION
PLAN
i
LIGHT STANDARD -
CAR HEADLIGHT t
I �
i
TRUMPET VINE ^aY'
ON TRELLIS s
POPLAR
OLIVE •' � �1r1� ', .z
A^HEDGE
ff II �'LL
STAR JASMINE
GROUND COVER
LANDSCAPE SCREENING
EAST WALL
1\4" - Y-0"
PRUNEYARD
PLACE
PC i
I
4TH LRYRL LIONT STANDARD
LIGNTINC DISTRIBUTION PLAN
Y
irv.•
iw•r u•na • ..••rcumcr .e.r. Pury ow u n rou 4TH LEVEL
urrr u.•u • u .00rc.weu. rwa nmr•r o• H n rou 1 ILLL"" _A_.N
uoxt unu • i. roox�rmr
_ � PATTERNS
LIGHT STAt ARD -
CAR HEADLIGHT
TRUMPET VINE
ON TRELLIS
cQ
POPLAR
OLIVE
HEDGE
I OWN
Wit*-
k 41
STAR JASMINE
GROUND COVER
LANDSCAPE SCREENING
@ EAST WALL
1\4" = Y-0"
NG
,,P,,rG
CENTER
RAILER
PARK
64 1;
...........
7
ITE
4 4
7 Li
�=�IT
1,111111 LIT''
rz
6
LOCATION MAP I I I I -.L-L.0
El 5.11
1999 S. Bascom Avenue
M 98-04 (SDP 97-01)
L
L
CITY of CAMPBELL
Community Development Department Current Planning
May 15, 1998
Mr. David Word
Pruneyard Associates
1999 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 200
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: M 98-04 - 1999 S. Bascom Avenue - Pruneyard Parking Garage
Dear Applicant
Please be advised that at its meeting of May 12, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3167 recommending approval of a Modification (M 98-04) to a
previously -approved Special Development Permit (SDP 97-01) to allow modification to
the approved parking garage at the Praneyard.
This matter will be considered by the City Council at its n:'eting of June 2, 1998, for
final approval. If you have any questions about the Planning Oommission's action,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2143.
Sincerely,
Gloria Sciara
Planner II
cc: Ron McLester, AIA (Project Architect)
Homberger+ Worstell
170 Maiden Lant.
San Francisco, CA )4108
Harold Houseley, Public Works
Frank Cauthom, Building
Wayne Hokanson, County Fire
7t1 North First Street Campbell. California 91008 1423 M 408 866.1140 FAX 409. 866.8§61 roo 408.866 3790
Nic JaS C. Slersema, Certified Public ountant
Aprl 30, 1993
Bill Seligmann, City Attorney y
City of Campbell
70 North 1" Street
Cambpell, CA 95008
Dear Mr. Seligmann
I am the ombudsman representing the tenants of the Office Towers at the Pruneyard to
the landlord. During our discussions tenants have raised a question that is beginning to
haunt us. The Pruneyard parking, as part of the original use permit, is multiuse parking,
a mix of retail and office with both sharing the lot during each tenant's peak hours.
Currently the landlord is going through some significant attempts to limit office parking
adjacent to or even remotely nearer the retail structures. The question is, is this in
violation of the use permit for the Pruneyard?
The tenants feel that with the City issuing the new construction permit and approving the
parking plan it m the responsibility of the City to determine if this is in agreement Nirh the
use permit.
Very tru ours,
II
N. S�-rsema
1
I
Tre P,uneyard Tower II teiepP ne )41-8) 978-5100
1999 South Bascom Avenue. sure 520 FAX )4( 3) 978.2333
Campbell CA 95008 entail cp: ,,@a,mnet corn
sst cA,MA
CITY OF CA,MPBELL
City Attorneys Office
i N \-1. t'ru: A—
, A
t.• t.,,,.. t Aa..a.
May 12, 1993
I
uN via -ron
I
Nicholas C Siersema
.-
The Pruneyard Tower Il
is ih
1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 520
Z8
Campbell, Calif 95008
y 1
MA
RE: Pruneyarrt Parking
%GPBEI.I.
DEFT -
PLWN
Dear Mr. Siersema:
Thank you for your letter of April 30,1998. 1 have forwarded your letter to Steve
Piasecki, the Community Development Director, for response.
Mr Piasecki has advised
me that he will be in touch with you soon, if he has not already
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Williim R Seligmann
City Attorney of Campbell
ec Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
�.nih irtN \"". ..-"+011 t Ad#sININ tnl ill /uN Ne12129 .OM •Gn ,
May 1, 1998
JF t 441A
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department Current Planning
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the
time of 7:30 t3.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Hearing to
consider the application of Mc David Word for approval of a Modification (M 98-04) of
a previously approved Special Development Permit (SDP 97-01) to allow modification to
the approved parking garage at the Pruneyard located at 1999 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-
2-0 ;General Commercial/Overlay) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was
previously approved for this project.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else taised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or
prior to, the Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community
Development Department at (408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals
must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the
Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices arc
available for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation,
please contact the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one
Heck in advance of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STEVE PIASECKI
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. M 98-04 (SPD 97-01)
Address: 1999 S. Bascom Avenue
70 North First Street Campbell, Calilomia 91008. 1414 - 408 664 2140 F+r 409 466. 63a1 rvo 408 865 2790
fAMPCO Sari F arlC, Street. S 0 Sari
San Francisco, CA 94105
SYSTEM Fax
(415) 247-9599
PARKING Fax (415 247-9599
Aff
March 9, 1998
VIA FAX
Ms. Virginia Unruh
Property Manager
The PruneYard
William Wilson & Associates
1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 200
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Plan to Park Cars Along Northem Roadway - The PruneYard
Dear Virginia
Per your request I've put together an estimate of the number of additional cars
we could park along the roadway matkino the project's northern boundary In
order to make this plan work, the parking areas identified as Lot 7 (along Left at
Albuquerque) and Lot 10 (adjacent to the Pruneyard Inn) need to be
reconfigured and the planter areas separating these lots from the roadway
needs to be removed. Note that these planters currently contains 10 large trees
in addition to the hedges, as well as three light standards that would probably
have to be relocated.
The overail width of this area, from the face of the curb nearest the buildings to
the face of the curb at the northern edge of the property is 104' 6 By
redesigning the existing lots and eliminating the planter areas, this total area is
wide enough to accommodate the existing two-way road, plus an additional row
of cars at a 90 degree angle. rep'acing the current parallel spaces in these
areas Parking stalls pro\ ided would all be 18 deep but would vary in width
from 8'8" to 9A", to maximize the number of spaces which these areas could
provide
Assuming the reconfiguration plan is acceptable (in light of the foregoing
notations regarding tree removal and light standard relocation) the capacity of
this area would be expanded from its current maximum of 17 spaces to 38
spaces. a net gain of 21 parking stalls
The table on tho following page identifies the three sections along this drive
where these additional spaces can be provided I've also included a crude
RECEIVED
. �aq8
i
Ms. Virginia Unruh
March 9, 1998
Pcge 2
drawing showing one area (Sect;o+i A) to give you an idea of how this would
work
Notes:
Section "A" is the parking area immediately adjacent to Left at Albuquerque.
Section 'B" is the eastern portion of the parking area immediately adjacent to the
PruneYard Inn.
Section "C" is the western portion of the parking area immediately adjacent to
the PruneYard Inn.
Virginia, let me know it you need anything else on this. I'd be happy to sit down
with your architects and walk them through the plan so that they can draw it up,
if you feel this is something you want to move forward on I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Section
Existing
90 De rees
Net Gain
Stall Size
A
5
11
6
9'4" X 1 B'
B
8
' 8
10
8' 10" X 18'
C
4
9
5
8'8" X 18'
TOTAL
17
38
21
I �
"es M. Hornback
;rector of Business Development
JMH tbm
Enclosure
cc Annette Aguilar
31915b
PbA,, To no ao j • F QD' pwA,5 S/,&
isrt-6 CP..,4 ) 3VUI K&Ii rte.o S
Ioy.S 1,
—
4— ZY I+ is, 4 -i
I I
i I ,
I
I
.F
V �
wIGTN' /Oy.s '—
�s e�
CITY of CAMPBELL
Community Development Department Current Planning
. April 22, 1998
Re: M 98-04 (SDP 97-0l) — 1999 S. Bascom Avenue -- Pruneyard
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that the above -referenced application has been scheduled for the following
meetings:
Site and Architectural Review Committee Meetin¢
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998
Time: 6:40 p.m.
Location: Doetsch Conference Room, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Plannine Commission Meetine
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-
2140.
Sincerely,
Gloria Sciara
Planner11
cc: David Word (Applicant)
1999 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 200
Campbell. CA 95008
Ron McLester, AI.A (Architect)
Homberger - Worstell
1-0 Maiden Lane
San Francisco. CA 94109
'0 North F-t Street Campbell. California 95008. 1423 T5l 408 866.714o - rAA 408. 966,8331 ino 408.866.2790
pF' C„ File No. lf�l t_
Development
s Application
.1e. S ao' plaenin8 Department 70 North First Street, Campbell, California 95008 /e08t 866 ]100
APN(S); 288-04-12 / 288-04-14 / Parcel 2 DATE FILED:
ZONING: C-20 GENERAL PLAN: Commercial
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1949 South Bascom Avenue
TYPE OF APPLICATION(S) Special Development ?ermit, planned development
APPLICANT: PruneYard Associates, LLC, William Wilson b Associates, Managing Agents
ADDRESS: 1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 200 TELEPHONE: 1408)371-4700
CITY/STATE: CamohelI. California ZIP: 95008
PROPERTY ONVNER: PruneYard Associates, LLC
ADDRESS: 1999 South Bascom Avenue TELEPHONE: ( 408) 371-4700
CITY/STATE: Campbell, California ZIP: 95008
Attach a separate sheet listing the names and addresses of others you wish to receive copies of staff reports and
agendas.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S ):
The undersigned person(s), having an interest to the above -described property, hereby make this
In icati n in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certdy
In
-A
rmati rve erem is W tinorrei.t to the best ohny/our �f °9961 d /eynd belief
( Applicant's Signature Date Propem (Tuner's Signature Date
NOTE: Staff is required by State Law to notify applicants of the completeness of their applications within 30 days
Only those applications which are fowid complete will be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda.
OFFICE USE ONLY
PC Meeting:
Completeness Letter Sent:
PC Action.
300 Foot Notices Mailed:
CC Meeting.
Press Notice Published:
CC Action.
Notice of Prep/Public Review:
Fee Paid:
Notice of Deterteinatioo:
Receipt No: _
Rvsd. 03/30,90
0i CA yn
h e`r FILE NO
V e-
° Site & Architectural Review Permit
f'o*cHA,o Supplernenral Application
PURPOSE
The Site and Architectural Review Area is mended to
promote orderly development; to enhance the character,
stability, and integrity of neighborhoods and zoning districts.
to secure the general purpose of the City s Zoning Ordinance
and General Plan, and to assure high quality architectural
design and optimum site design through the architectural
review process.
PROCESS
Pre -Application Review- It is recommended that the applicant
make an appointment with a planter prior to submitting an
application to discuss the preliminary design of the project.
This will help the applicant determine if the proposal is
consistent with existing renew standards and ordinance
requirements.
f ilipg of ArplicatiQu. The completed application must be
filed with the Planning Pepartment along with the appropriate
fee and all required data. The staff planner who is on duty
w 1 en-e the application and data a cursory review for
completeness. The application cannot be accepted if the
submittal is incomplete.
After the project has been assigned to a planner, it will be
reviewed in more detail for completeness A letter stating if
the application is complete or if additional information is
required will be sent to the applicant within 30 days after
receipt of the application
Emironmen:al Rc•vic, Nearly all Site end Architectural
Review requests are required to have an environmental
assessment to determine if it will be necessary to prepare an
Fin ronniental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration.
Aophcation Renew The Planning Staff. the Sne and
Architectural Rev ten Conumnee, and the Planning
Commission will consider the following in the review of Site
and Architectural Rratew applications.
Traffic safety, congestion, and site circulation.
Landscaping; and
Building and sit, layout.
Staff Review- The Planning Staff will evaluate the request M
conducting an investigation of the site and considering the
proposal in relation to adjoining structures Staff will prepare
a —Men report for the Planning Commission which will
analyze the development proposal and provide staff
recommendations A copy of this report will be sent to the
applicant.
Site and Architectural Review Committee tSARCt Prior ❑,
the Planning Commission meeting your application will be
reviewed by SARC The Committee reviews the application
for site layout and buddmg design and then forwards a
recommendation to the planning Commission.
Public Notice: At least 10 days prior to the public hearing,
property owners withm 300 feet of the subject property will be
notified by mail of the hearing. In addition. a notice of the
public hearing will be published in the Campbell F\press
Plsnnmir Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission is
required to review and approve detailed site, building, and
landscape plans. Staff will present an oral report and
recommendation for the proposed project This presentation
will be followed by testimony from the applicant and then b•,
any interested persons who mac wish to comment on the
apphcati.,n. The Plarm.ng Commission may then close the
public hearing and make a decision approving or conditionally
approving the request, denymg the request• or postponing the
decision ro a later date. Unless an appeal is filed, the Plannure
Commission's decision is final.
City Coup c L: Site and Architectural Renew applications arc
not required to go before the City Council, unless the Planning
Commission's decision is appealed within ten calendar days.
Project Summary
INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT
/omng
C-�-O
_ General Plan Designation. Cominercial
Proposed Use.
Parking Garage Existing Use:_
'a rlc1ng
Grin, Floor Area:
232 • 720
Floor Area Ratio.
No. of Stories.
3 Stories
Net Lot Size.
Pavement Coverage: _
Lot Coverage
_
Landscape Coverage:
Pavement Coverage.
Surrounding Cses.
North:
U[ 11 i ry =5an Jose 4M 4
- South: Office
Fast:
Retail
West Highwav
Revd ol. 30 95
Sire & Arch tectural Review Pag,
Supplemental Application
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
Yes No
x 1. Change in existing features of any lakes, hills, or substantial alteration of ground
contours.
_ x 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or
p roads.
x
3. Change in pattern, scale or character of the general area surrounding the project.
x 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
x 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
x 6. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns. -
x 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
x 8. Proposed development is on a filled site or on a slope of 10 percent or more.
x 9. Use of and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammables or explosives.
x
10. Substantial change in the demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, etc.).
x 11. Substantial increase in the demand for fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural
gas, etc.).
x 12. Relationship to larger project or series of projects.
x 13. Additional traffic generation or parking demand.
Discuss below all of the above items checked yes. (Attach additionzl sheets as nacessary)
None
I _
14. Describe the project site as it exists, include information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site.
The PruneYard is a mixed - use property .situated on a flat geologically stable site of
27.2 acres, at the corners of S. Bascom and Campbell Avenues in Campbell CA The
retail buildings are of Spanish Revival stvle and were constructed in the late 60's 6
early 70's.
15 Describe surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals, and any cultural, historical
or scenic aspects. Indicate the intensity of land use and the scale of development (height frontage,
setbacks, etc.)
The Prune Ya rd frnnr ed the cr nd nth ham{ � il d I m t B �
Highway 17 is to the west. A Sane Jos, Water Pump Station is immediately to the north.
Adjacent to the pump station are apartments of low density and 3 stories.
R,sd 03 30 98
Sue & Architectural Reeieu
PROJECT SUMMARY
Assessor's Patcel Number: ?RR ne n i - 21
Lot Size:
1,972,000 Gross sq. ft. (Property to center line of street)
1,186,705 Net sq. ft.
Utilization:
Building Coverage
(include co itilever portions)
Landscape Coverage
Paving Coverage
Floor Area Rauo:
Total building sq. ft.
divided by net lot size
Adtaceni Land t )ses
Sq. ft.
Percent %
435,534
37%
177,300
15-0
573,871
48%
0.63
Lac
ZMU
North Residential
R
South Retail / Res.
C-2
East Retail
C-2
West Freeway
NA
Parkme
Standard 2,146 Compact
NA
Handicap 40
TOTAL 2,lo6
Resta,iranl and Assembly Uses
Seating Count
RRcsidenual Proiccts
Unit Type
A
B C
Living Area
NA
Garage Area
NA
Total Area
NA
No. of Bedrooms
NA
Number of Units
NA
_-
Rysd. 03 30,99
Page 3
of ' CAM
0 0
Attachment C
04c„AW0,0 West Valley Sanitation District 4 Acknowledgment
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTE WATER
TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURSUANT TO
DEVELOPMENT OF APN:
Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of
any land development approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 9.045 by \Vest
Valley Sanitation. District 4, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer sen ice, if
the District's Manager and Engineer makes a determination that the issuance of a sewer connection
permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described p-operty, will, in his opinion, cause
the District to exceed its ability to treat adequately the waste water that would result from the issuance
of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be
issued by this agency.
If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain substantive conditions designed to decrease the
waste water associated with any land use approval.
ACKNO\VLEDGEMENT
By signing below. the applicant acknowledges, at the time of application, that he'she fully understands
the above.
1919 South Bascom Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
Address of P oposed Development
Apphcant's Signature Dale
Distribution
Original to: West Valley Sanitation, District No. 4
100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Copies to: File
Applicant
Rcsd. 03 30: 98
Attachment D Page 2
Contribution Disclosure Form
TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT
1. j %] IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE, CHECK HERE, AND SIGN
BELOW IN SECTION 111.
11. TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE HAVE BEEN MADE.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
ZIP:
TELEPHONE NO:
LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT MADE CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
NAME:
CONTRIBUTOR:
(if other than yourself)
i DATE (S):
AMOUNT (S):
NAME:
CONTRIBUTOR: _
DATE (S):
(if other than yourself)
_
AMOL'NT (S):
NAME:
CONTRIBUTOR
DATE (S): (ifothm than yourself)
AMOUNT (S):
III. SIGNATURE
DATE. v
Signature of Applicant Agent
Rvan 0313arvr
March 20. 1998
Gloria Sciara, Planncr II
City of Campbel I
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Revised Construction Period Parking Plan
Dear Gloria:
Enclosed are five copies of the Revised Construction Period Parking Plan with revisions as advised by your
letter dated March I2, 199d. Also enclosed is a copy of the letter from Ampro Svstems Parking in
relation to the north driveways for review by Steve Piasecki.
We respectfully request to be placed on the agenda for the April 7, 1998 Campbell City Council Meeting.
Now that we have submitted the revised plan, we will meet with The PruneYard tenants as soon as a
meeting date can be finalized to review and discuss the final drab. 'The date is tentatively set for March 31,
1998 at 8:30 A.M.
Ke realize that every aspect of the plan will not please all of our tenants nor is every aspect of the plan a
perfect solution. However. please know that we have truly made every effort to pr.rvide the tenants of the
PmneYard with a menu of altemalives which will meet their parking needs during construction .utd
perhaps some of the solutions will carry over to become permanent. As we get into to the implementation
i of the plan, we are prepared to adjust and improve wherever it is feasible and we will look for opportunities
to do so
S+^:erely
Prune d Associa I.I C
Z /
Virg i I- tJnmhCPM
Sed r ropertv Manager
i
E
ENPA:NDED INITIAL STUDY
I
i
PRUNIEYARD PLACE
1
i
City of Campbell
October 1997
Initial Study and Checklist
Title or Proposal:—PiLutyard Place
Date C'7ecklist Submitted:
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Campbell
Agency Address:_ 70 N. First Street
City/State/Zip: _ '-a =bell. CA 9s00R
Agency Contact: _ Gloria Sciara_ Planner If _ Phone: (408t R66-4123
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a) 1 find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared............................................................0
b) 1 find that the although the propose' project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measuics described on the attached Initial Study have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be preparr:................................. .............................. .N
c) I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environmenL and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is icquired.............. -....................................... 0
Signature
I..." ol. l.R.,-v� _
For (
��O-rpvi A. Yttrry
Print Name
/D-2- -9--
Date
PRUNEYARD PLACE EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10 22A7
1
f
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
A. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT
The project site is part of an existing mixed -use development on 27.2 acres, located on the northwest
comer of Bascom Avenue and Campbell Avenue within the City of Campbell (see Figures 1 and 2).
The western portion of site contains two office buildings: 1) an 18-story, 116,743 trot high-rise
office tower; and 2) a ten -story, 117,476 squar- foot high-rise office tower. The eastern portion of
the site contains an approximately'_f8,000 square foot retail shopping center with two additional
single user building pads. The northern side of the site contains an 118-room hotel (refer to Figure
3)
The project proposes to expand the uses on the site, including the construction of a new office
building and construction of a four-leyc: parking garage.
The project site received previous approval for the reconfiguration and remodel of the existing -tail
area, and expansi,n of the hotel use to accommodate an additional 54 rooms. Although the hotel
expansion has not been completed yet, it was covered by a Negative Declaration previously
approved by the City and has been included in the background conditions scenario cf this analysis.
B. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1
The applicant believes the area is well suited to suppor an expansion of office ores, given the nature
of existing office development which is at full occupancy. the regional access the site is afforded by
its proximity to Highway 17, and the future potential expansion of transit in the area (the Vasona
Light Rail Transit corridor).
E. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Descriofion of the Proiect
The proposal includes a request fcr a Special Development Permit to allow construction of a
132.000 gross square foot, 6-ston office building, to be located between the two existing
building toAers on the westerly side of the site adjacent to Highway 17, and construction of a
four-lcyel parking garage which would accommodate 730 parking spaces on the
northwesterly comer of the site. The proposed site plan showing just the office and garage
site area is depicted in Figure 4.
The General Plan designation on the site is Commercial, which is compatible wiul the
proposed expansion.
The site contains two different zoning designations: C-2-S (General Commercial) on the
eastern portion of the site, and C-2-0 (General Office) on the western portion which includes
the proposed office expansion and parking structure. The existing zoning designation allows
general business and professional office uses which is compatible with the proposed project.
PRUNEYARD PLACE _ EXPANDED INITIAL STI iDY
10/2b9'7
SAN FRANCISCO
MILPITAS
BAY
237
Y �
d
101
X
SA
m
9�3/ W <
SAN
6
80
SUN E
JOSE
$
INTL
c ra
AIRPORT
=
880
a
m
eb
o
�
Q J
r m
fStevens
Creek
G
1p1
�
CUPm PTlNO
3
260
J O S
gym.
P
Pro
cn
87
Aoe
ell Av.
A
PB
85
_
SARA A
17
LOS
GATOS
N
Proposed Project Area
REGIONAL MAP
FIGURE 1
i
I
I
17
ui
41
o O O-3
J fiJ
m Q
m
w
S A N-
w
x
U
Z
E. HAMILTON AVE.
C A M P B E L L CAMPISI WAY Lu
� Q
i J
1 �
CAMPBELL AVE. i_A S E
I �P w
Q
Z
o n
o N
------- Project Site Boundary
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
OVERALL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3
0110-
$4-e
Q
"a O
Kum.
�O
If eeeeee e O O
O
O
-- CAMPBeLL AVC
OVERALL SITE PLAN
CAMPISI WAY TERMINUS
i
I
4
a
m
FIGURE 3
. . . PFoposed Project
Site Boundary
1. SP.C[s
_ - -- 5-1 i[Dve C 5 s sw
.. 1. SP.C[s • I
]e 'P.C[6ADD 10
111 1111
r
21
_,
000 C,`
I+
--1 1* = ±
. I
l
1 ,
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 4
.1m
CITY OF 1999 S. BASCOM AVENUE M 98-04 2/3
CAMPBELL
CIUU UUUC 0 -1
V
The proposed office building will be six stories in height in a contemporary style compatible
with the existing office buildings (figure 5). Approximately one-half of the proposed
building is anticipated to provide office space to the Compuware Corporation. Amenities
that would be provided to Compuware employees within the proposed building include a
2,800 square foot cafe/break room and an approximately 2,900 square foot fitness center.
Parking
The proposed parking garage would provide free parking to employees and patrons of the
Prunevard. Access would be provided by the northern driveway off of Bascom Avenue that
would be open 24 hours a day. A car detailing station would provide service on a limited
basis located at the bottom of the ground level ramp.
There are currently 1,730 surface parking spaces within the entire Pruneyard site.
Construction activities would result in a temporary reduction of 738 spaces. Employees of
the office buildings would be provided with off -site parking (such as the downtown parking
garage) served by shuttles to reduce on -site parking demand during construction of the
proposed garage.
When the proposed garage is completed parking spaces will increase by 448 spaces above
the existing for a new site total of 2.178 parking spaces. Onsite circulation improvements
are expected to result in the loss of 16 spaces. According to the City of Campbell this would
result in an overall deficit of approximately 5 parking spaces, which is not considered
significant.
CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
Regional Plans and Policies
City of Campbell General Plan
The proposed project has a General Plan designation of Commercial, as specified in the
City's General Plan. This designation allows a mix of commercial uses. It is a goal of the
City to ensure that commercial areas are conveniently located, efficient, attractive and safe
for pedestrian and vehtcwar circulation. The proposed project would be compatible with the
General Plan goals by prov'ding additional office opportunities in an area containing a mix
of conveniently I wated uses.
Consistency: Implementation of the project would be generally consistent with the City of
Campbell General Plan.
PRINEYARD PLACE 8 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
i
1
i
_I
{ 2. Regional Plans and Policies
6
1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan and 1991 Clean Air Plan
ABAG/BAAQMD/MTC
The 1982 Icy Area Air Quality Plan and 1991 Clean Air Plan ('91 CAP) establish regional
policies and guidelines to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act• as amended through
f 990. The Bay Area is a non -attainment area for carbon monoxide, since federal standards
are exceeded for that pollutant. Each non -attainment area was required to submit detailed
plans to the State by June 30, 1991. to demonstrate new control programs and schedules for
their implementation.
The Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan is the current regional strategy for improving air quality.
The Plan proposes the adoption of transportation, mobile st urce and stationary source
controls on a variety of pollutant sources to offset population growth and provide
improve rent in air quality.
Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with these plans since the proposed project
is only increasing development by 130,000 square feet, which is not expected to cause
significant air quality impacts in the region.
iSan Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Plan
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has developed and adopted a Water Quality
Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Plan is a master policy
document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water
quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay region. The Regional Board first adopted a
water quality control plan in 1975 and the last major revision was adopted in 1995.
The Plan provides a progr:_m of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and
to protect beneficial uses based upon the requirements of the Porter -Cologne Act. It meets
the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and establishes conditions
related to discharges that must be met at all times.
i
The implementation portion of the Basin Plan includes descriptions of specific actions to be
taken by local public ertities and industries to comply with the policies and objectives of the
Plan. These include measures for urban runoff management and wetland protection.
The proposed development will conform to the requirements of the City of Campbell
regarding erosion and sedimentation control during construction and will be required to
prepare and conform to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which addresses
appropriate measures for reducing construction and post -construction impacts. The majority
of the site has been previously developed, therefore, the proposed project would only
incrementally increase stornwater runoff.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 9 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
I022197
Consistency: The proposed project would not detrimentally impact stormwater quality
therefore, the project is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Plan.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program was developed in accordance
with the requirements of th= 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan, for
the purpose of reducing water pollution associated with urban storm water runoff. This
program was also designed to fulfill the requirements of Section 304(1) of the Federal Clean
Water Act, which mandated that the EPA develop National Iollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit application requirements for various storm water discharges,
including those from municipal storm drain systems and construction sites.
The State Water Resources Control Board implemented an NPDES general construction
permit for the Santa Clara Valley. For properties of five acres or greater, a Notice of Intent
(NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to
commencement of construction.
Development allowed by the proposed project would be required to conform to the
requirements of the NPDES permitting program. Redevelopment of the site would
incrementally increase storm water runoff. Potential impacts to the water quality of this
runoff could occur during construction. Runoff -borne pollution and associated impacts will
increase both during and after construction of future development on the site.
Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with the Santa Clara Urban Runoff
Prevention Program.
Santa C:nra County Congestion Management Program
The Santa Clara Valley Transportatto Authority (VTA) oversees the Santa Clara County
Congestion ,Management Program (Cfv,P), last updated in July 1995. The relevant State
legislation requires that all urbanized cou !ies in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain
each couniv s share of the increased gas ti.n revenues. The CMP legislation requires that
each CMi- contain five mandatory elements: I) a system definition and traffic level of
service (LOS) standard element: 2) a transit service and standards element: 3) a
transportation demand management and trip reduction element: 4) a land use impact analysis
element: and 5) a capital improvement element. Santa Clara County's CMP includes the five
mandated elements and three additional elements, including: a county -wide transportation
model and database element. an annual monitoring and conformance clement, and a
deficiency plan element.
Consistency: This Initial Study ircludes an analysis of the project's impacts using the
TRAFHX model which is consistent with CMA guidelines. The proposed project is not
anticipated to result in any traffic impacts therefore, this project is consistent with the CMP.
PRI \1 YARD PI M 1 10 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/2.197
G. OTHER APPROVALS
The following approvals are likely to be required for the proposed project:
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board
PRUNEYARD PLACE I I EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING
A. LAND USF
1. ESiffi I - o(th Project Site
The project site is located in an urban area surrounded by existing development. The
mixed uses consisting of a 251.1_0y square foot shoppincenter
runeyard complex containsn, and two shopping
taling
center
net square feet ant
Anaexpznsion of theannlwas previ7 room ously usly app rove
by the C it} which
would allow a total of 171 rooms.
2. a1i rwwdM&Laod Uses
The intersection (Bascom and
project site is
located at a major
of uses including vresidential Campbell
recrreational commerrci
and sul, and office
he cast along
ascom
such al land uses
'ag fastfoodrrestauramsrtiestand service establishments (ToweraReco'Ises (o lr. Tog L
Properties to the south on Campbell .Avenue also contain commercial uses (office. Togos
etc.)
erlN
A sundary
mall portion of the Los Gate , Creek ; rai, IS ;idJr`ce n I Trail o the on the 9antasClaite ba Coum}
The Los Gatos Creek Trail is identified as a Sub re;1opportunities from San Jose and
Trails Master Plan. The trail provides recreational
Campbell south to the Lexington Dam in Los Gatos.
northerly
ary
The closest sensitive receptor is the residential use located adjacent to ae artment c boundplex s
of the site, the Aloha Apartment complex (refer to Pnotograp ). P
zoned Commercial and is considered a "nun -conforming" use.
EXPANDED INITIhf STUDY
1: 1022;97
pRt1NEYAR67LAC[
ilk
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH SL FIGURE 6
ds:
C
y1UlTl-fAMlll � ��
SKI YIN NTIAI
i
r
I'R(',,I YARD SHOPPING CEO. I I R ,
low
---- `,n knund•'r` �: i l \\lE'f i� Y- \\ E
him
dl
� �r
��V�11R' I\I I
AERIAL PHOIOGRAPH WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES
PHOTO 1: This photo was taken looking northwest across the central portion of the site.
This is the area of the site proposed for construction of the parking structure.
PHOTO 2: This photo was taken looking north along the northern boundary of the site. The
Aloha Apartments located adjacent to the protect site along, its northern boundary, are shown.
PHOTOS 1 AND 2
I
l
- 1
B. TRANSPOR T ATIGN AND CIRCULATION
The following information is based on a traffic analysis prepared for this project by Linscott
Law & Greenspan. Engineers & Planners. A copy of the traffic report is contained in
Appendix A.
Existing Roadway Network
Regional Access
.State Route 17 is a six -lane freeway which provides regional access from Santa Cruz to
Campbell. SR 17 connects with both Interstate 28C and U.S. 101 north of Hamilton Avenue.
In San Jose SR 17 becomes Interstate Highway 880 north, which provides regional access to
the Oakland area.
Local Street Network
Hamilton Avenue is located north of the project site and is a six -lane east -west arterial
providing both sub -regional and local access. .Access to SR 17 is provided via Hamilton
Avenue.
Bascom Avenue is a six -lane, north -south arterial which borders the Pruneyard on the east.
Access to the Pruneyard is via a signalized driveway at the northeast comer of the site.
Campbell Avenue is a four lane cast -west street that forms the southern boundary of the
project site. East of the site it becumcs a two lane local street providing access to downtown
Campbell.
Campisi Wa'v is a two-lane east -west local street which connects to Bascom Avenue and
terminates just north of the project site. There are future plans to extend Campisi Way to the
site to provide additional access to the Pruneyard.
Union Avenue is a two lane north -south local street which terminates at Campbell Avenue
just south of the site.
1
Driveway Access
Existing access to the Prunesard is provided by three driveways on South Bascom; a full
access signalized driveway at the northeast comer of the site, and two right -turn in/right-turn
out only driveways. There are also three driveways on Campbell Avenue, a full access
signalized driveway at Union Avenue near the southwest corner of the site, a right -turn
in/leR-tum in one-way only entry driveway, and a full access unsignalized driveway.
Access to the proposed new parking structure would be via an existing driveway which
extends from Bascom Avenue along the northern property line.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 16 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
Transit System
Light Rail
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority operates a 21 mile light tail system which.
The LRT connects passengers in south San lose to north San lose and the City of Santa
Clara. The County has approved plans to extend LRT to Los Gatos via the Vasona Corridor
extension. This extension would provide LRT service to the project area.
Existing Bus .Service
Two bus routes serve the project ar-a. Bus Route 62 provides service along Bascom Avenue
and operates between downtown Los Gatos and the Berryessa ar r San Jose. Bus Route
26 provides service along Campbell Avenue, Bascom Avenue anc. utter Avenue providing
service between the Town Center in Sunnyvale and Eastridge Shopping Center in San Jose.
Study Methodology
The operating conditions of intersections in the project vicinity were evaluated with level of
service (LOS) calculations. Level of service is a qualitative description of an intersection's
operation which can range from LOS A, or free -flow conditions, to LOS F. jammed
conditions. LOS analysis balances the capacity of an intersection with the amount of t—ffic
which attempts to travel through it.
The potential impacts of the proposed project were estimated following the guidelines set
forth by the City of Campbell. Ten key intersections were selected due to their proximity to
the project site:
I. Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue
2. Creekside Way and Hamilton Avenue
3. Salmar Avenue'SR 17 SB Off -ramp and Hamilt,)n Avenue
4. Bascom Avenue and Campisi Way
5. Bascom Avenue and Pruneyard
6. Bascom, Avenue and Campbell Avenue
7. Creekside W'ay and Campisi Way
8. Creekside Way and SR 17 SB Off -ramp
9. Union .Avenue and Campbell Avenue
10. Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue
TRAFFIX Method
The level of service method (TRAFFIX computer model) evaluates an intersection's
operation based on the average stopped vehicle delay. The average delay is then correlated
to a level of service. An acceptable level of service for the City of Campbell is LOS E or
better for ( I ) arterial to arterial street intersections and (2) freeway on -off ramp intersections
on arterial streets. LOS D or better is considered acceptable at all other intersections.'
PRUNEYARD PLACE 17 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022197
i
One of the study intersections, Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue, is within the City of
San rose. For this intersection, the City of San Jose's level of service standards (or threshold
of significance) was used. An acceptable level of service for the City of San Jose is LOS D
or better. For intersections operating below LOS D. a project is considered to cause a '
significant impact if project traffic adds more than I % delay.
Existing Levers of Service
Existing peak hour traffic information was obtained from the City of Campbell and
supplemented with peak hour counts by Linscott Law & Greenspan. The results of the
counts are indicated in Table I. According to the City's methodology all of the existing
study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service.
The intersection of Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue within the City of San Jose is
operating at an LOS "E" during the AM Peak hour which is at an unacceptable level
according to San Jose's standards.
TABLE. 1
EXISTING LOS USING TRAFFIX METHOD
Intersection Peak Hour Average LOS
Intersection
i Delay
I. Bascom AM 49.9 E
t Avenue/Hamilton PM 51.1 E
Avenue
2. Creekside Way and AM 11.7 B
Hamilton Avenue I'M 18.3 C
3. Salmar Avenue/SP. AM 31.4 D
17 SB/Hamilton PM 36.4 D
Avenue
4. Bascom Avenue and AM 15.5 C
Campisi Way PM 32.9 D
5. Bascom Avenue and AM 7.7 B
Pruneyard PM 20.3 C
6. Bascom Avenue and AM 29.3 D
t Campbell Avenue PM 29.6 D
7. Creekside Way and AM 207 C
Campisi Way PM 20.0 C
8. Creekside W'ag and AM 18.4 C
SR 17 NB Off -ramp PM 20.5 C
9. Union Avenue and AM 18.2 C
Campbell Avenue PM 23.6 C
10. Bascom Avenue AM 41.0 E
and Camden A venue PM 3" D
Background Conditions
Background conditions are defined as existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated from
approved but not yet built projects in the vicinity. Background information for this project
PRUNFYARD PLACE. 18 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022/97
I
was estimated by adding existing volumes, growth, and Approved Trip Inventory (ATI)
volumes obtained from
the City of Campbell.
As indicated in 'fable 2, under background conditions all of the key
intersections are
projected to operate at or above acceptable levels of service according to the City of
Campbell's standards.
The intersection of Bascom and Camden
is projected to continue to
operate below San Jose's standards of LOS "D" during the AM peak hour.
TABLE2
BACKGROUND LOS
Conditions
Existing Conditions
Background
Intersection
Peak
Average
LOS
Average
LOS
Hour
Intersection
Intesection
Delay
Delay
I. Bascom
AM
49.9
E
52.5
E
Avenue/Hamihon
PM
51,1
E
53.5
E
Avenue
2. Creekside Way and
AM
11.7
B
13.8
B
Hamilton Avenue
PM
18.3
C
19.9
C
3. Salmar Avenue'SR
AM
31.4
D
32.1
D
17 SB/Hamilton
PM
36A
D
3 i.2
D
Avenue
4. Bascom Avenue and
AM
15.5
C
IZ2
C
Campisi Way
PM
32.9
D
34.4
D
5. Bascom Avenue and
AM
7.7
B
7.7
B
Pmneyard
PM
20.3
C
20.9
C
6. Bascom Avenue and
AM
29.3
D
29.7
D
Campbell Avenue
PM
29.6
D
30.1
D
7. Creekside Way and
AM
20.7
C
21.0
C
Campisi Way
PM
20.0
C
20.6
C
8. Creekside Way and
AM
18.4
C
189
C
SR 17 NB Off -ramp
PM
20.5
C
20.9
C
9. Union Avenue and
AM
18.2
C
18.4
C
Campbell Avenue
PM
23.6
C
UL9
C
1
10, Bascom Avenue
AM
41.0
42,2
E
and Camden Avenue
PM
351
D
35A
U
PRUNFYARD PLACE
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
19
1012297
AIR QUALITY
The project is located in the Santa Clara Vallev, within the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. This area occasionally has exceeded Federal and state air quality standards.
Specifically, the Bay Area has experienced exceedance of the standards for ozone, carbon
monoxide, and particulates. The number of violations per year is heavily influenced by
meteorological conditions such as inversion layers, which trap pollutants in the valley.
Of the three major pollutants which occasionally exceed Federal and state standards, two are
regional pollutants. Ozone and PM-10 are considered regional pollutants because
concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources.
Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant which is usually found very near its source. The major
source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is traffic. Elevated
concentrations are usually found near areas of high traffic volumes, such as at intersections.
As can be expected due to congested traffic conditions in the project vicinity, existing carbon
monoxide concentrations are high. None of the 1-hour standards are exceeded, however, all
of the 8-hour standards currently exceed state or Federal standards.
Sensitive Receptors
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) defines sensitive receptors as
facilities where sensitive population groups (children, the elderly, and the acutely or
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools.
hospitals and medical clinics. Sensitive receptors near this project include the residents
within the apartment complex located immediately north of the project site.
D. NOISE
Background Information
Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level
of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuations in
the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a "decibel' scale which serves as an
index of loudness. Because the human ear can not hear all pitches or frequencies, sound
levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted
unit is known as the "A -weighted" decibel or dBA. Further, sound is averaged overtime and
referred to as the day -night average or L, Penalties are added to the average for noise that
is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early
moming, or late evening.
Noise Guidelines
The Noise Element of the City of Campbell General Plan sets forth guidelines to evaluate the
compatibiiity of particular land uses in relation to the noise environment. An Lan of below
60 dBA is the exterior noise goal for residential development in Campbell.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 20 EXPANDED INITIA', STUDY
10122'97
i.
I
F. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
A field reconnaissance survey of the project site was conducted in October 1997 by David J.
Powers and Associates. The majority of the project site is irban in nature and includes
paved surfaces, buildings, ornamental landscaping, and trees. fhe vegetation provides
marginal habitat for animal species adapted to human encroachment such as blue jays,
robins, and ground squirrels.
Scecial Status Plants and Animal%
Special status plants and animals are those species listed under the State and Federal
Endangered Species Acts, plants listed by the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and animals designated as Species of
Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game.
No special status species that occur in the Campbell area are known to inhabit the project site
because the habitat needed to support these species (i.e. wetlands, serpentine soils etc.) is not
found on the site. Although a portion of Los Gatos Creek is located adjacent to the
northwestern comer of the site, the proposed development would not encroach into the
riparian corridor.
1
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Due to its proximity to Los Gatos Creek the project is located in an archaeologically
sensitive area. The creek would have provided a favorable environment during the
prehistoric period with riparian and inland resources available for occupation.
The site was in the territory of the Tamyen (tamien) tribelet of the Coastanoan Indians.
Little is known about the ear!y occupation of the region because the aboriginal population
quickly declined by 1810 due to introduced diseases, a declining birthrate, and the impact of
the mission system as European settlers moved into the area.
i
H. HYDROLOGY
There are no waterways present on the project site, however, the Los Gatos Cteek is located
adjacent to the northwestern border of the property. According to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps the site is within Zone C "Areas of
minimal flooding." Therefore, the site is not located in a floodplain and is not expected to
experience Flooding in the event of a 100-year storm.
PRUNI YARD PLACE _- EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10,22, 97
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire protection to the project site is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department which
participates in a mutual aid program with the City of San Jose and other surrounding
jurisdictions. Through this program, should the City need assistance the mutual aid cities
would provide assistance to locations within the City of Campbell in whatever capacity was
needed.
The response time goal is to not exceed five minutes for the "first response" time. No
additional personnel or equipment would be necessary to serve the project.
Police protection services are provided to the site by the City of Campbell Police
Department. It is the goal of the Police Department to respond to emergencies within 3
minutes.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 23 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
IUn2/97
Existing Noise Environment
A noise analysis was performed by Paoletti Associates Inc.. Acoustic and Audiovisual
Consultants to determine existing noise levels. The results of the noise survey can be found
in Appendix B. Due to its proximity to Highway 17 and South Bascom Avenue ambient
noise levels are generally high, and are above the City of Campbell General Plan noise
guidelines.
The closest sensitive receptor is the Aloha Apartment complex located adjacent to the project
site's northern boundary. The existing commercial uses of the Pruneyard complex are
separated from the apartments by a woc i fence that runs along the property line.
According to the noise information supplied b} Paoleni Associates, exterior noise levels for
much of the Pruneyard complex and the Aloha Apartments are between of 65 and 70 Ldn
due to noise levels associated with Highway 17, Noise exposure at the Pruneyard Inn ranges
from an exterior exposure of 62 to 70 Ldn.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismic Hazards
There are no known earthquake faults crossing the site. However, due to its location in the
San Francisco Bay Area, an area of several active faults, severe ground shaking can be
expected during the life of the project. The major earthquake faults in the project area are
the Hayward Fault and Calaveras Fault, located at a distance of 8 miles and I I miles
respectively to the northeast and the San Andreas Fault located approximate:y I I miles to
thv west.
According to the City's General Plan the project site is within zone FI, which has a low
potential for both liquefaction and earthquake induced iandslides.
Soils
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service maps the project site
is underiain by alluvial soil. The specific soil type identified is Yolo loam (YaA) defined as
well drained and highly fertile. This soil does not appear to have a high shrink -swell
potential'.
Soils of Santa Clara Count}, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, August 15,
1968.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 21 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
111. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Thu checidur was used to idemtfv environmental impacts which
could occur if the proposed project is implememed
The right-tutnd column in the checklist leis the sourcetsl for the answer to each question. 77w sources cued are
idenitfred at the end of the c'hecidat. Discussions f the bases jrr each answer except "No lmpaci"are found in Section
ll of this lnina! Study. In some tmiances where the basa far
a "No lmpact" determination needs explanation, a
discussion can also be found in Section lY
Potentially
Significant
Isss
Adverse
Than
Impact Mn
Potentially
I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Sgn,fieam
Mnigmon
Slgnlficam
inG,r-
Benefnal
No
Adverse
is Included
Adverse
moron
act Imp
Impact
Impact
in Prmea
Impw
s <Isl
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
I
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
_
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vicinity?
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
1.2
d) AtTect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or
Impacts from incompatible land uses)"
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
ofan established community (including a
I
low-income or minority community)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
_
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a I Cumulativeh exceed official regional or
kraal population projections?
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directh or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an under eloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)"
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing"
❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
2
PRUNEYARD PLACE: 24
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
I Oi22'97
Les I Adverse
7Lm Impart but Potenually
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant INitisrbn sigmficam Inf -
gene'' No Adverre u Included Adve rnauw
.pact bMw in Pwi- Imp- s—Wo
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
l
R
❑
❑
❑
1
b) Seismic ground shakinL?
❑
❑
❑
I p 37
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
7
❑
❑
❑
I
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
I
e) Landslides or mudFlows?
❑
R
❑
❑
❑
I
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill?
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
I
g) Subsidence of the land'
❑
M
❑
❑
❑
I
h) Expansive soils?
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
I
IV. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff^.
❑
❑
R
❑
❑
^, P 41
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
❑
N
❑
❑
❑
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
anv water body?
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
2
e) Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
❑
1111
❑
❑
❑
^
I) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capabilit♦^
❑
❑
❑
❑
PRUNEYARD PLACE 25 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
I OQ2,'97
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Befi,%al
Impart
No
Impact
Less
Ilun
Significam
Ad—
Impact
Potentially
S.p.15 tit
Adverse
tmpan but
Mitigation
Is Included
m Pro)—
Potentially
Signifi—t
Adverse
Impact
Infor-
-ion
sor d,
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater''
❑
■
❑
0
❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality'
❑
■
O
O
O
2
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies^
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
2
V. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air qualiy violation?
❑
■
❑
O
❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
❑
■
❑
O
❑
c) Alter air movement. moisture. or temperature or
cause any change in climate'
O
■
O
O
❑
2
d) Create objectionable odors'
❑
■
O
❑
❑
2
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion"
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
4 p 3"
b) Hazards to safety from design features
f e.g, sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipmeno'
❑
■
O
O
O
4
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses"
O
■
O
O
❑
4
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site
or off -site"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
4
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians
or bicyclists"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
4
fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altematiye transportation (c.g. bus turnouts.
bicycle racks)"
O
■
❑
❑
❑
4
g) Rail. waterbnme, or air traffic ii.,pacts" I
❑
■
❑
O
❑
4
PRUNEYARD PLACE 26 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
xipnificam
4ss Adverse
CHECKLIST ihan Impanlwt ^Dorn°ally
Sigmficant MI.bpauan Signficant Inlor
Fkneficial No Adverse is Included Ad —
ENVIRONMENTAL rnanon
Impart Impart Impart mPmjea Impart Sourcgsl
11. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat etc.)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
❑ ■ O O ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors^
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
VIII. ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans"
0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Use non-renewable resources in a w .teful
and inefficient way."
,❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Result in the loss of availability ofa known
mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region & residents of the State?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
IX. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve.
1 A risk of accidental explosion or release of
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides. chemicals.
or radiation)"
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan"
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ rJ
c) Me creation of am health hazard or
potential health hazard"
❑ ■ ❑ 0 ❑
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards:'
❑ ■ ❑ D ❑
PRUNEYARD PLACE 27 EXPANDED INITw. STUDY
10/22/97
CHECKLIST
Fkncficia:
Impact
�m
Impact
Less
ThbutENVIRONMENTAL
v gnt— ft
Adverse
Impact
Potentially
significant
Adverse
Impact m
Mitigation
is Included
in j-t
Potentially
Significant
Adverse
Lnpact
Infar-
matron
So_,I
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
Flammable brush, grass or trees?
❑
■
❑
D
❑
X. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels'
❑
■
❑
D
❑
3
b) Exposure of people to severe
noise levels'
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
3 p. 38
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection?
❑
■
0
❑
❑
b) Police protection"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
c)Schools�
❑
■
❑
❑
D
2
d) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads'
G
■
❑
❑
D
1 Other governmental senlces?
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a need for
new systems or supplies. or substantial
alterav ns to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
_
b) Communications systems"
❑
■
❑
❑
LI
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities.'
❑
■
U
❑
❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
2
c) Storm water drainage"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
6 Solid waste disposal"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
g) Local or regional water supplies"
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
PRIINEYARD PLACE 28 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022197
+I,�
Puicnualh
S,gn,ficam
4ss
Adverse
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Than
Slgnlfnnt
"p-i but
Sittig—
Paem,all.
Sgrul—
Int,r.
Brnef utl
No
Adverx
a IncludW
,,j a
ImPW
Impact
ImP-0
mNut—
Im-.1
k.ur.cicl
XIII. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Have a demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect?
❑ ■ J J
c) Create light or glare?
❑ ■ ❑
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources'
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
❑ (3 ❑ ■ ❑
8, o. 40
c ) Affect historical resources?
p ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
_
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
2
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
I
i
w ithin a potential impact area?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
2
XV. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
I
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities:'
❑ ■ ❑ ❑J
_
b) .Affect existing recreational opportunities'
❑ ■ J ❑
1
VI.:NANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment.
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife•
Population to drop below self-sustaining
levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or
annuals community, reduce the numher or
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
period<•.if C'alifnmia history or prehistory^
' ■ ,❑ .] ❑
PRUNE YARD I'L:1e1 '9
STUDY
EXPANDED INITIAL
1022'97
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
9eneticial
Impact
No
Impact
Less
thin
siguficam
Adverse
Impact
Potentially
Siguficant
verse Ad
Impact but
Mitigation
-s Included
in Project
Potentially
Sigdticnn
Adverse
Impar,
Infor-
manors
sounzto
b) Does the project hale the potential to
achieve short-te..m, to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals?
❑ ■ 0 ❑ ❑
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumrtlatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
4
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on humans, either directly or indirectly?
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
2
CHECA1.LST INFOALVAT/OY c RCLY
Campbell General Plan -Lark! I , Element November 16, 1993
Professional ju,gnient and expertise of environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a
review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of project plans.
Noise Studies performed' y Paoletti Associates Inc. September and O-.ober 1997.
Transportation .4-1—s- Linscott Law & Greenspan, October 1997.
U.S. Department of Agriculture .Sods of.canta Clara Counn. June 1968.
Flood Insurance Rate Map City of Campbell Community Panel Number 0603380005C, December 7. 1982.
Campbell General Plan- Seismic Element, October 14, 1975.
Basin Research Associates..4. _huedlogical SensiuviN Maps. March 1993.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 30 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22N7
I
i
IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IA
The potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project were identified using the
Environmental Checklist Form presented in Section Ill. A detailed discussion of the areas identified
on the Checklist as being potentially significant are described below.
A. LAND USE
1. c) Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity?
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes (,f this project, a land use impact is considered significant if the project
would:
• substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area: or
• be incompatible with surrounding land uses or the general character of the surrounding
area, including density and building height.
Land Use Conflicts
Land use conflicts can arise from two basic causes: 1) a new development or land use may
cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the project site or
elsewhere: or 2) conditions on or near the project site may have impacts on the persons or
development introduced onto the site by the new project. Both of these circumstances are
aspects of land use compatibility. Potential incompatibility may arise from placing a
particular development or land use at an inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the
project's design or scope. Depending on the nature of the impact and its severity, land use
compatibility conflicts can range from minor irritations and nuisance to potentially
! significant effects on human health and safety.' The discussion below distinguishes between
potential impacts from the proposed project upon persons and the physical environment, and
1 potential impacts from the project's surroundings upon the project itself
fm1pacts to the Project
The proposed project includes the expansion of uses on an existing site in an urban area.
Similar commercial uses exist on the site. The current C-2-0 designation allows office uses
and the proposed expansion would be compatible with the existing development. It is not
anticipated that the proposed project would be impacted by existing development.
'As used in this mpon. "nuisance" is defined to mean -anno} mg, unpleasant or obno-w,is" and is not to be
confused with the regulaton use of the word.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 31 EXPANDED INITIAL STI,DY
1012297
Impacts from the Project
fhe proposed parking structure would be visible from the existing Aloha Apartments.
However, the current surface parking lot, office and retail portions of the site are currentl%
visible to the residents located on the second and third floors of the apartment complex.
Construction of the parking garage would not result in a significant visual change given the
urban character of the existing site. The project is generally compatible with the surrounding
urban character and intensity of existing development on the site.
Conclusion: The proposed project is not expected to result in significant land usa
compatibility impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
PRt1NEYARD PLACE 32 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022'97
it
j B. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
V1. a) Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion:'
The following information is based upon a traffic study prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan. Transportation Engineers. This traffic study is contained in Appendix A of this
report.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this project, a transportation impact is considered significant if the
project would:
• cause a City of Campbell arterial street or a freeway on -off ramp intersection to
deteriorate below LOS E (to LOS F)
• cause a City of Campbell local intersection to decrease below LOS D (to LOS E or less),
or
• cause an increase of 1% or more in critical movement delay to a City of San Jose
intersection already operating at LOS E or worsa.
i
Trip Generation
The traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by methods found in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation manual. The amount of traffic
generated by implementation of this project was estimated by applying a trip generation rate
to the size of the development expressed in 1,000s of square feet. It is estimated that the
project would generate 1.711 daily trips. with 234 AM peak -hour trips and 225 PM peak -
hour trips.
I
Intersection Level of Service Impacts
Peak hour trip assignments were added to the background volumes to achieve project
volumes for the purpose of analyzing project impacts. As indicated in Table 3 below, the
proposed project is not expected to result in any significant impacts to the transportation
system according to City of Campbell, or City of San Jose standards.
Because the intersection of Bascom and Camden is located within the City of San Jose, the
effects of project traffic on critical movement to this intersection were examined using the
City of Sat. Jose standards. The results of the analysis indicate that project traffic would
only add an 0.3% inc^ease to the delay which is below 1.0% and, therefore, below the City of
San Jose's threshold of significance.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 33 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10, 22'97
TABLE 3
PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Existing Conditions Background Background plus
Conditions Project
Intersection Peak Average LOS Average LOS Average LOS
Hour Intersection Intersection Intersection
Delay Delay Delay
I. Bascom AM 49.9 E 52.5 E 52.9 E
Avenue Hamilton PM 51.1 11 53.6 E 55.1 E
Avenue
2. Creekside Way AM H 7 B 13.9 B 13.7 B
and Hamilton PM 18.3 C 19.9 C 19.8 C
Avenue
3. Salmar AM 31,4 D 32.9 D 32.4 D
Avenue'SR 17 PM 36.4 D 37.2 D 37A D
SB "Hamilton
Avenue
4. Bascom AM 15.5 C 17.2 C 17.5 C
Avenue and PM 32.9 D 34.4 D 34.0 D
Campisi Way
5. Bascom AM T7 B 7.7 B 8.8 B
Avenue and PM 20.3 C 20.9 C 25.0 D
Prunevard
6. Bascom AM 29.3 D 29.7 D 30.5 D
Avenue rnd PM 29.6 D 30.1 D 30.1 D
Campbell Avenue
7. Creekside Way AM 20.7 C 2L0 C 21.0 C
and Campisi Way PM 20.0 C 20.o C 20.6 C
8. Creekside Way AM 18.4 C 18.9 C 18.9 C
and SR 17 NP. PM 20.5 C 20.9 C 20.9 C
off -ramp
9. Union Avenue AM 18.2 C 18.4 C 19.4 C
and Campbell PM 18.6 C 18.9 C 20.2 C
Avenue
10. Bascom AM 41.0 1:, 42.2 F 43.1 E
Avenue and PM 35.2 D 35.4 D 35.6 D
Camden Avenue
I
The intersection o1' Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue will not experience a change in
the level of service, however. 0roject traffic is expected to result in an increase in delay to
the northbound left turn lanel. The City has identified serveral measures that will be
implemented to improve this situation including timing improvements to encourage alternate
access tc the site v is Creekside Way and Campisi which are expected to alleviate congestion
at the Bascom -Hamilton intersection'.
Although the project would have no traffic impacts the traffic analysis also looked at varoius
scenarios based on different assumptions (with or without the Campisi extension, with and
without transit measures, and with other proposed but not yet approved projects in the
' This intersection is expected to experience a delay of 1.3°o with implementation of the project.
'Peter Ecklund, City Transportation Engineer.
PRUNEYARD PLA(C, 34 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022,97
vicinitv (see Appendix A) to determine if these measures would have a noticeable impact on
traffic. With LRT service in the vicinity and Transportation Demand Measures (i.e.
carpooling, flexible hours etc.) it is assumed that there would be a seven percent reduction in
generated commuter vehicle trips.
The Campisi Way extension would bring Campisi into the Pruneyard northeast of the
proposed new parking structure. With the Campisi extension it is expected that all project
traffic coming from the Hamilton/SR 17 direction would approach the site through Campisi
Way.
The results of the traffic analysis based on the various scenarios indicate that the proposed
project would not result in a significant traffic impact at any of the study intersections based
on the City of Campbell's standards.
♦ Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in any sigt. :ant
transportation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Parking
Although off site parking and a shuttle system will be in place during construction activities,
it is anticipated that there may be times during peak periods when there will be a temporary
lack of sufficient parking spaces (i.e. if office workers choose not to utilize the off site
parking opportunities). However, because the parking deficit will be temporary it is not
considered a significant adverse impact.
Based upon the parking demand study prepared by Linscott. Law and Greenspan available
parking would be adequate to serve the site once the parking structure is complete.
♦ Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in a
significant transportation impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
PRUNEYARD PLACE 35 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022/97
- -'►-- -- - — -- - -- - - - - ,>lobn� ..
C. AIR QUALITY
V. a) Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
V. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this project, an air quality impact is considered significant if the project
would:
• Violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation; or
• expose sensitive receptors to substantial long term pollutant concentrations
The BAAQMD has established thresholds of potentially significant emissions for projects
expected to generate 80 Ibs/day of reactive organic gases (ROG). These particular projects
would require an air quality analysis to determine impacts. According to BAAQMD
Guidelines, general offices over 305.000 square feet would be likely to generate 80 Ibs of ROG
a day. Because the proposed project is proposing construction of only 130,000 square feet of
office development which is substantially below these thresholds an air quality analysis was not
performed. Further, the small increase in vehicle trips (less than 1.800 trips per day) generated
by the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant air pollution emissions that
would affect local or regional air quality.
Construction Impacts
Construction related emissions are generally short in duration but may cause adverse air quality
impacts. Fine particulate matter (PM-10) is the pollutant of greatest concern with construction
activities. fhe do climate of the area during summer months creates a high potential for dust
generation when underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Debris from site grading
would generate relatively large amounts of dust and PM-10.
Construction vehicles could also cam' dirt onto paved roads, where it eventually becomes
airborne dust due to the action of passing vehicles. Construction dust is considered to represent
a local and temporary signiticant impact. Long term regional background levels of PM-10
would not be affected by the project.
♦ Construction activities would result in significant short term air quality impacts.
(Significant Impact)
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, and other loose materials
• Pace, apply water, or apply non -tonic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads.
parking areas, and staging areas at construction site
PRUNEYARD PLACE 16 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022'97
• Sweep daily all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas, and adjacent public
streets (as needed)
• Enclose, cover, water, or apply soil binders to exposed stockpiles
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible
• Voluntary participation in vehicle -trip reduction programs
♦ Conclusion: Implementation of the mitigation measu,: es listed above will reduce
construction related air quality impacts to a less -than -significant !evel. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
PRUNEYARD PLACE 37 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
102'_'97
-- a -._ _ - -- -- -
D. GEOLOGY
Ill. b) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic groundshaking?
III. c) Would the proposal result in seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
III. h) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
expansive soils?
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this project, a geology impact is considered significant if the project
would:
• Be located on a site with geologic conditions which may pose a substantial hazard to
property and/or human life (i.e., active fault, active landslide etc.); or
• expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques.
Seismic Hazards
The site is not located within a Fault Hazard Zone or a Geologic Hazard Zone. The San
Andreas Fault is located approximately I I miles to the west, the Hayward Fault lies
approximately 8 miles to the east, the Calaveras Fault lies approximately 9 miles to the east
of the site.
There are no notable geologic constraints on the site or in the immediate area which would
preclude development. The project would comply with the following standard procedures
due to its location in a seismically active region:
• The buildings would be designed and constructed following the recommendations of a
comprehensive soil engineering and geologic study, which would be conducted to
develop specific design criteria for the proposed development.
• Buildings would be designed and constructed in conformance with the seismic
requirements of the City of Campbell Building Code.
♦ Conclusion. The proposal would not result in significant geologic impacts with the
inclusion of the above listed measures. (Less -Than -Significant Impact)
PRUNEYARD PLACE 38 ':XPANDED INITIAL STUDY
102197
F. NOISE
X. a) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels'
X. b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels:'
Thresholds of Significance
for the purposes of this project. a noise impact is considered significant if the project would:
• Result in a 3 dB (Ldn) increase (i.e. the threshold of noticeable change) in the ambie it
noise levels in an area already considered noise impacted (i.e. has an existing level
above 60 dB (Ldn).
• expose people to substantial noise levels during construction.
Project Noise
Project Traffic
The development of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on the road
network. as indicated in the discussion concerning traffic on page 34 of this Initial Study.
However. the traffic generated from the project is not expected to be substantial'. According
to Paoloetti Associates pro�iect traffic is only expected to result in a I to 2 decibel increase in
noise. The proposed project would only incrementally add to the existing traffic levels and is
not expected to result in a change in noise levels discernible to the human ear.
Demolition and Construction Impacts
Grading activities and the construction of new buildings on the project site would
temporarily increase noise levels in the area. Of particular concern would be activities
associated with construction of the proposed parking garage because of its proximity to the
adjacent apartment use. Hourly average construction noise levels can typically range
between 75 dBA to 85 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet. These noise lesels are
expected to he temporarily disruptive to nearby residents.
♦ Construction activities on the site would result in significant short term noise exposure
to the adjacent residential use. (Significant Impact)
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential noise impacts to a less -
than -significant level:
Construction Mitigation Measures
• Construction activities will be limited to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
weekdays) and (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays).
It generally takes a doubling in traffic levels to result in a 3 dB noise increase.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 39 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22, 97
• No pile driving would be allowed for construction of the garage.
• All internal combustion engines for construction equipment used on the siic will be
properly muffled and maintained.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines will be strictly prohibited.
• All stationary noise generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, will be located as far as practical from existing residences and
businesses.
• Occupants of the Aloha Apartment complex will be notified of the construction schedule
of the garage in writing.
• Trash pickup adjacent to the northern boundary of the site will not be allowed earlier
than 6 a.m.
♦ Conciusion: With the above listed mitigation measures, the proposal would not result in
significant noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
PRUNEYARD PLACE 40 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1022.'97
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
XIV. b) Would the proposal disturb archeological resources?
XIV. c) Would the proposal disturb historical resources"
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this project, a cultural resources impact is considered significant if the
project would:
• cause damage to an important archaeological or historic resource.
Cultural Resource Impacts
The site has been previously disturbed by construction activities, therefore. the potential of
uncovering archaeological resources is considered low. However, due to its location within
an archaeologically sensitive region prehistoric cultural resources could nonetheless be
uncovered during earth moving activities. Potential impacts could result from subsurface
activities such as grading and trenching for the construction of new buildings or installation
of utilities.
Mitigation Included in the Project
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential cultural resource
impacts to a less -than -significant level:
An archaeological monitoring program conducted by a qualified archaeologist would be
established to monitor all subsurface work. In the event human remains are encountered.
all work will stop and the Santa Clara County Coroner's office will be notified. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native
American Heritage Commission to identify the "Most Likely Descendant" (MLD). In
consultation with the MIA). a plan for treatment and study of the remains and
recommendations for completion of testing or other work would be formulated and
implemented.
All significant artifacts and samples would be cataloged and curated in an appropriate
curation facility.
♦ Conclusion: Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce cultural
resource impacts to a less -than -significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
PRLNEYARD PLACE dl EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10'2 '97
H. HYDROLOGY
IV. a) Would the proposal result in changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff'
For the purposes of this project. a water quality impact is considered significant if the project
would:
• significantly increase stormwater pollution discharges to stormwater systems; or
• significantly increase peak stormwater runoff.
The project area is already totally developed with buildings and asphalt paving. Although
future proposed development may be more densely developed than the current devel(,oment,
the proposal will not result in significant changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or
significantly increase surface run-off.
the construction of a new building and parking structure could result in a temporary increase
in stormwater pollution impacts, as compared to existing conditions. Debris, oil and other
construction materials onsite could potentially result in pollution discharges to the
stormwater system. However, because the site has already been previously developed, this
increase would not be significant. Further. the prcject will as standard practice be required
to comply with the following:
At the time of construction. he project would be required to obtain a permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which oversees the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) gen_ral permits for stormwater discharges for
projects )treater than 5 acres in size.
The applicant is required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) to comply with the NPDES
and a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) with the RWQCB 30 days prior to
any construction on the site. The SWPP must specifically address mitigation for both the
construction and post construction period.
The SWPP would include erosion and sediment control measures, waste disposal
controls, post construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance
responsibilities, and nun-stormwater management controls.
♦ Conclusion: The proposal would not result in significant water quality impacts with the
inclusion of the above listed mitigation measures. (Less -than -Significant Impact)
PRL'NEYARD PLACL JZ EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
I O 22 97
VIL a) Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats?
For the purposes of this project, a vegetation and wildlife impact is considered significant if
the project would:
directly affect or indirectly affect (i.e. through habitat loss) a candidate or listed,
threatened or endangered species: or
directly affect species protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty .Act or
Endangered Species Act
As indicated previously the site provides only marginal habitat for species due to its urban
nature. No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit the site. None of the
habitat expected to provide a suitable environment for sensitive species is present on the site
(i.e. wetlands, serpentine soils etc.). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result
in a significant impact.
Constructior activities would result in the removal of several small sized ornamental trees on
site. Common tree species include Chinese elm, Monterey pine, olive trees, and raywood
ash. Construction of the garage would result in the removal of approximately 46 immature
trees (less than 4 inches in diameter). The trees however, are proposed to be replanted on the
site.
Construction of the office building w'll displace 27 trees (17 with a diameter less than 6
inches. 10 with a diameter less than 4 inches). Twelve of the larger trees will be replanted
around the base of the proposed office building. The remaining trees would be replanted
elsewhere on sit;.
Although several landscaping trees would need to be removed to accommodate the new
development the impact to trees is not considered significant. The trees are relatively small
in size and are proposed to be retained on site as part of the project. Further, landscaping
including additional trees is proposed by the project. Therefore, impacts to trees is
considered less than significant.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potential
impacts to vegetation and wildlife. (Less Than Significant Impact)
PRUNEYARD PLACF 43 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
1012,'97
l
I
it
9
J. FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES
The proposed development would generate only incremental demands for fire protection
i services above the existing development. No hazardous materials are proposed to be used by
occupants of .'.e proposed office building. Further, the project will be built to Fire Code
standards.
t
Expansion of the uses on the site are not expected to result in a significant increase in the
demand for police services. However, proximity of the garage to the Los Gatos Creek Trail
and internal safety of garage patrons is of concern. It is proposed as part of the project that
security cameras be installed on all four floors of the garage and that security personnel
patrol the garage at regular intervals.
I
PRUNE YARD PLACE :J EXPANDPD INITIAL STUDY
10^./97
VI. REFERENCES
Ecklund, Peter, City of Campbell Department of Public Works, personal communication, October
1997.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic ImpSGtytu{y Prune Yard Place_ Campbell. California, October
13, 1997.
Paoletti Associates, Inc., Letter reports dated September 22, 1997 and October 1, 1997 concerning
Noise at Pruneyard Place.
Sciara, Gloria, City of Campbell Community Development Department, personal communication,
October 1997.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 45 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10/22/97
1
VII. INITIAL STUDY AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS
AUTHOR
City of Campbell
Gloria Sciam, Planner11
CONSULTANT$
David J. Powers & Associates Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
San Jose, California
David Powers. Principal
Kathy Kovar, Project Manager
Jodi Starbird, Graphic Artist
Linscott Law & Greenspan
Traffic Consultants
Pasadena. California
Jack Greenspan, Principal
I
i
Paoletti Associates Inc.
Acoustical Consultants
San Francisco, California
Gaspar Sciacca. .AIA
PRUNEYAKD PLACE 46 EXPANDED rNIT1AL STUDY
1022,97
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PRUNE YARD PLACE
C'AMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Prune Yard Associates, LLC
1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 200
Campbell, California 95008
Prepared by:
Linscott. Law & Greenspan. Engineers
234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400
Pasadena, California 91101
Phone: (626) 796-2322
Fax: (626) 792-0941
October 13, 1997
1-972659-1
Prepared under the supervision (it'.
Q� 'C
ack M. Greenspan. P.E.
Principal No. 0142
* Ev. y{VW
`r' �AFF1C
Y/ OF CAl1�
f ,u 6 t N f I N t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
Pau
Executive Summary ........
Chapter 1
Introduction ....................................................
1
Chapter 2
Existing Conditions ...................................................
7
Streets and Highways............................................7
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................
8
Transit Service .................................................8
Existing Levels of Service .......................................
10
Chapter
Project Conditions...................................................16
16
Project Traffic Estimates ........................................
Trip Generation...............................................16
Project Impact Scenarios........................................18
Existing + Approved...........................................19
Existing + Approved + Project ...................................
25
Existing + Approved + Combined Project ...........................
25
SiteAccess...................................................30
Chapter Parking Analysis....................................................32
Existing Parking Usage ......................................... 32
Shared Parking Demand........................................34
Future Parking Supply..........................................36
Future Shared Parking Supply vs. Demand .......................... 36
Chapters Conclusions........................................................39
Project Trip Generation.........................................39
Traffic Impact Analysis ......................................... 39
Campisi Way Extension ........................................ 40
Shared Parking Analysis........................................40
F n 1. 11 1 f k S
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
977
1 Site Location..............................................................3
2 Site Plan..................................................................4
3 Existing Transit Service......................................................9
4 Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ............................. ......... 12
5 Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ....................................... 13
6 Project Trip Distribution AM Peak Hour ........................................ 20
7 Project Trip Distribution PM Peak Hour .................................... ... 2 i
8 Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak hour ........................................ 22
9 Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ........................................ 23
10 Future With Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour .............................. 26
11 Future With Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour .............................. 27
12 Combined Project Traffic Volumes AM Peale Hour ............................... 28
13 Combined Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ............................... 29
I C-11. M
ES-1
Lxecutive Summary Level of Service Summary ..................................
iv
I
Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................
...................... 11
2
Existing Conditions Level of Service Summary ..................................
15
3
Weekday Project Trip Generation .........................................
... 17
4
Level of Service Summary ...................................................24
5
Existing Parking Usage.....................................................33
6
Shared Parking Demand....................................................35
7
Future Parking Supply ...................................................
..37
8
Future Shared Parking Supply vs. Demand ......................................
38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I his report sets f-)rth the traffic impact and parking analyses prepared for a proposed 120.000 SF Net
(130,000 SF Gross) third office tower at PruneYard Place in the City of Campbell. California. The
impacts which can be associated with the proposed project were determined based on the guidelines set
forth by the City of Campbell.
PruneYard Place is the office component of the PruneYard, a 251,120 SF existing mixed -use
development consisting of retail shops, restaurants and cinema use, plus two existing office towers
which total 234.000 SF. The PruneYard is hounded by Bascom Avenue on the east, Campbell Avenue
on the south, State Route 17 (SR-17) on the west, ai-id the Aloha Apartment complex on the north The
PruneYard Place office towers are located on the westerly third of the PruneYard, adjacent to SR-17.
1-he subject third office tower will be situated next to SR-17 between the two existing office towers. A
multi -level parking structure will also he built in the northwest comer PmneYard Place. Use of the
structure will be shared with the retail, restaurant and cinema uses.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Ib determine the traffic impacts of tht proposed office tower on the transportation system in the vicinity
of the site, 10 key intersections have been evaluated using methodology set forth by the City of
Campbell.
I. Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue
I. Creekside Way and Hamilton .Avenue
3. Salmar Avenue/SB SR-17 otf-ramp and Hamilton Avenue
4. Bascom Avenue and Campisi Way
5. Bascom Avenue and PruneYard
6. Bascom Avenue and Campbell Avenue
7. Creekside Avenue and Creekside Way
- -a— — — - - — _, — _ - AFEF—..
8. Creekside Avenue and NB SR-17 off -ramp
9. Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue
10. Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue (City of San Jose)
This report also considers the extension of Campisi Way into the PruneYard. The Campisi Way
connection would provide an alternative route to the SR-17 Hamilton Avenue interchange via Creekside
Way. Also considered in the analysis is the potential affect of future public transit measures such as the
Vasona Light Rail and future Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions. Operation of the
10 key intersections were analyzed for the below 10 scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions
2. Existing + Approved: 54 room PruneYard Inn expansion included in approved as well
as Prometheus development and trips from San Jose approved trip inventory. Also
included was a 1% background growth rate.
3. Existing + Approved + Project (4 scenarios)
3.1 without Campisi - no transiVfDM
3.2 with Campisi - no transitfFDM
3.3 without Campisi - with transit/TDM
3.4 with Campisi - with transiVTDM
4. Combined Project (Existing + Approved + Project + Maxim + Winchester Drive -In)
(4 scenarios)
4.1 without Campisi - no transit/PDM
4.2 with Campisi - no Iransit/fDM
4.3 without Campisi - with transiVTDM
4.4 with Campisi - with transitfrDM
The traffic generated by the third office tower of PruneYard Place has been forecast by applying the
appropriate vehicular trip generation data found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation. Based on the linear regression equation presented in Trip Generation for office use, the
subject 130.000 SF (Gross) third office tower can be expected to generate 1.711 daily trips, with 234
AM peak -hour trips (208 in/26 out), and 225 PM peak -hour trips (38 in/187 out).
I� The City of Campbell considers LOS E to be an acceptable operating condition at (1) arterial street to
t arterial street intersections and (2) at freeway on -off ramp intersections on arterial streets. LOS D is
1
considered acceptable at all other intersections. On this basis. the Bascom Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue, Salmar Ave-ue/SB SR-17 off -tamp and Hamilton Avenue, and Creekside Way and Hamilton
Avenue (which is essentially the extension of the NB SR-17 off ramp) intersections have acceptable
operation at LOS E. The Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue intersection is in the City of San Jose,
where the acceptable LOS is LOS D. This intersection is currently operating at LOS E. Where LOS
E or F already exists, the City of San Jose defines significant impact as greater than a I % increase in the
total olume on critical movements.
Table ES-1 presents the results of the traffic impact analysis. Under the Existing and Existing +
Approved conditions (Scenarios 1.0 and 2.0), all study intersections in the City of Campbell and San
Jose are shown to operate at acceptable LOS. For this analysis. the Hamilton Avenue and Bascom
Avenue intersection was considered a Campbell intersection, which is consistent with the Congestion
Management Agency designation.
w hen project generated traffic is added (Existing + Approved + Project condition, Scenario 3.11 and
compared to Existing + Approved (Scenario 2.0) no change in LOS is observed. At Bascom Avenue
and Camden Avenue, which is a San Jose si6nal operating at LOS E. the 1% threshold for critical
movement volumes is not exceeded. All intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Hence,
no project traffic impact is identified and no project traffic mitigation is required.
Executive Summary
Table ES-1
THIRD NRUNEYARD TOWER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
AM PEAK HOUR
Existin
Ex+Appr
Existing + Approved + Projed
Existin
+ Approved + Combined Project
No C.Mo Tr
/No Tr
No Cm srrrrE
sBTr
No C/No Tr
Cm s/Nc Tr
No Cm srrr
Cm siiTr
No
Intersection
LOS
Dela
LOS
Del-
LOS
DelayDelayLOS
Dela
DelayLOS
DelayLOS
DelayLOS
DelayLOS
Dela
1
Bascom at Hamilton
E
49.9
E
52.5
E
52.852.2
E
52.8522
E
54.4
E
53.6
E
54.3
E
535
2
Creekside at Hamilton
B
11 7
B-
13.8
B-
13.713.6
B-
13713.6
C+
15.1
B-
14A
B-
15 0
B-
.4 3
3
Salmar at H 17
D
31 4
D
32 1
D
32.4328
rB-
D
32432.7
D
32.6
D
32.9
D
32 5
D
32.9
4
Bascom at Cam isi
C+
155
C
172
C
17.5161
C
175
16.1
C
17.9
C+
16.5
C
17 9
C+
16A
5
Bascom at Prune and
B
7.7
B
7.7
B
889.0
B
8789
B
8.6
B
8.8
B
86
B6
Bascom at Campbell
D
29.3
D
29.7
D
30.5305
D
30430.4
D
30.9
D
30.9
D
308
D
30.8
7
Creekside at Cam isi
C
20.7
C
21.0
C
211022.6
C
21.0226
C
21.2
C-
23.4
C
21 2
C-
23.3
8
Creekside at H 17
C
18.4
C
18.9
C
18 9
C
18.9
C
16.918.9
C
19.0
C
19.0
C
18.9
C
19.0
9
Union at Cam bell
C
182
C
18.4
C
19.4
C
19.4
C
19 3
C
19.3
C
20.4
C
20.4
C
203
C
203
10
Bascom at Camden'
+
.1
.1
+
143.1
1 IE+
43.3
+
43.3
*
+
143.3
PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
Ex-Appr
Existing * Approvecd + Project
Existing
+ Approved +Combined Project
No C/No Tr
Cm s/No Tr
No Cm s/Tr
Cm sBTr
No C/No Tr
Cm slNo Tr
No Cm srrr
Cm sBTr
Intersection
LOS
Dela
LOS
Dela X
LOS
Deta
LUS
Dela
LOS
Dela
LOS
Dela
LOS
Dela
LOS
Dela
LOS
Dela
LGS
Dela
1
Bascom at Hamilton
E
51 1
E
53.6
E
55.1
E
••7.3
E
55.1
E
47.3
E
55.9
E
47.8
E
55.8
E
47.8
2
Creekside at Hamilton
C
18.3
C
199
C
19.8
C
223
C
19.8
C
22.3
C
21.6
C-
23.5
C
k1 5
C-
234
3
Salmar at H 17
D
36.4
D-
37.2
D-
37.4
D-
37 4
D-
37.4
D-
37 4
D-
37.7
D-
378
D-
37.7
D-
377
4
Bascom at Campisi
D
329
D
34.4
D
34.0
D
31.7
D
34.0
D
31.7
D
35.8
D
33.2
D
358
D
33.2
5
Bascom at Prune and
C
20.3
C
20.9
C-
25.0
C
18.5
C-
24.8
C
18A
C-
25.0
C
18.3
C-
24.7
C
18.2
6
Bascom at Cam bell
D
29.6
D
30.1
D
30.1
D
3 1
D
30.1
D
30.1
D
30.6
D
30.6
D
30.6
D
30 6
7
Creekside at Cam isi
C
20.0
C
20.6
C
20.6
D
30.5
C
20.6
D
30.5
C
20.2
D
31.0
C
20.3
D
31 0
8
Creekside at H 17
C
20.5
20.9
C
20.9
C
20.4
C
20.9
C
20.4
C
21.7
C
20.7
C
21.7
C
207
9
Union at Campbell
C
18.6
C
18 9
C
20.2
C
20.2
20.1
C
20.1
C
20.1
C
20.1
C
200
C
200
10
Bascom at Camden'
D
35.2
1 D
35.4
D
1 35.8
1 D
35.6
D
t 35.6
1 D
135.6
D
35.7
D
1 3511
D
135.7
D
357
Notes. Project scenarios are as follows No C/Nc Tr = no Campisi Ext 8 no transit reduction: Cmps/No Tr = Campisi Ext 8 no transit
reduction, No Cmpsrrr = no Campisi Ext & 7% project transAlTDM trip reduction: and Crnps/Tr = Campisi Ext. and 7% transd7TDM
reduction.
San Jose intersection
Levels of Service where significant impacts could occur
O Level of Service E (San Jose intersections only)
_Level of Service F (San Jose 6 Campbell intersections)
.. -:-.._- __ __ - ,Alli .Yss
The extension of Campisi Way into the PruneYard (Scenario 3.2. 3.4. 4.2, 4.4) is shown to reduce PM
peak hour delay but not improve LOS at the Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue intersection and
along Bascom Avenue. The larger decrease occurs in the PM peak hour, 55.1 to 47.3 seconds. In the
PM peak hour, however, the Campisi Way extension increases both AM and PM delay at the Creekside
Way and Hamilton Avenue intersection ant, at the Creekside Way and Campisi Way intersection (LOS
C to LOS D). Transit/TDM (Scenarios 3.3, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4) are shown to produce a small, but not
significant, improvement it, expected intersection delay, and no improvement in LOS. This marginal
change is because trip reductions have only been applied to trips for proposed office projects.
Implementation of the Vasona Corridor Light Rail project can be expected to increase transit mode split
for other trips as well.
Campisi Way Extension
The proposed extension of Campisi Way into the PruneYard will provide an alternative route for traffic
on SR-17 and on Hamilton Avenue east of SR-17. No timetable has been established for construction.
Since the LOS analysis does not identify any significant impacts. Campisi Way although shown to be
desir^ble, is not required.
Parking Analysis
A shared parking anal, sis, prepared following guidance provided by City of Campbell staff, shows that
316 spaces will be needed to sup
port pport the proposed third tower. the overall PruneYard complex (retail,
restaurant, cinema. Inn and office towers), including the subject third tower, is projected to produce a
demand for a total of 2.007 parking spaces.
In connection with the development of the third office tower, PruncYard Place surface parking lots will
be reconfigured and a new parking structure constructed. These improvements will increase the parking
supply by 405 spaces from 1,730 (existing) to 2.135 spaces. Measuring peak supply (2,135 spaces)
against parking demand (2,007 spaces) shows an overall rhared parking surplus of 128 parking spates.
Phis will be reduced by 29 spaces (to accommodate circulation improvements) to a surplus of 99 parking
spaces with the proposed extension of Campisi Way into the PmneYard.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PRUNEYARDPLACE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This report sets forth the traffic impact and parking analyses prepared for a proposed 120.000 SF l' 7.
(130,000 SF Gross) third office tow,: at PruneYard Place in the City of Campbell. California. t he
impacts which can be associated with the proposed project were determined based on the guidelines set
forth by the City of Campbell.
PruneYard Place is the office component of the PruneYard, a 251.120 SF existing mixed -use
development Insisting of retail shops, restaurants and cinema use, plus two existing office towers
which total 234,000 SF. The PruneYard is hounded by Bascom Avenue on the east. Campbell Avenue
on the south, State Route 17 (SR-17) on the west, and the Aloha Apartment complex on the north. 'I he
PruneYard Place office towers are located on the westerly third of the PruneYard, adjacent to SR-17.
I he subject third office t~r will be situated next to SR-17 between the two existing office towers. A
multi -level parking structure will also be built in the northwest comer PruneYard Place. Use of the
structure will be shared with the retail, restaurant and cinema uses.
I 'v i. , I I V I
Access to the PruneYard Place site is provided via driveways that are shared with the PruneYard.
Primary driveway access will be via the signalized PruneYard driveway on Bascom Avenue. and the
signalized Campbell Avenue and Union Avenue - PruneYard intersection. This report also considers
the extension of Campisi Way into the I nmeYard. The Campisi Way connection would provide an
alternative route to the SR-17 Hamilton Avenue interchange via Creekside Way. Also considered in the
analysis is the potential affect of future public transit measures such as the Vasona Light Rail and
potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions. Figure 1 shows the PruneYard Place
location and the general surrounding roadway network. The PruneYard Place site plan is presented in
Figure 2.
The purpose of this traffic analysis is to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed office tower on
the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. , en key intersections were evaluated using
methodology set forth by the City of Campbell.
I. Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue
2. Creekside Wav and Hamilton Avenue
3. Salmar A%enue/SB SR-17 off ramp and Hamilton Avenue
4. Bascom Avenue and Campisi Way
5. Bascom Avenue and PruneYard
6. Bascom Avenue aad Campbell Avenue
7. Creekside Avenue and Creekside Way
8. Creekside Avenue and NB SR-17 off -ramp
9. Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue
10. Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue (City of San lose)
2
__ .. �.__ __- T 4NOW•
I
AVE
HAELTON /
ICAMP51
I
Pn Yard
CTP DR AVE
CRY DR
4�
17
I'
04
ry
' CURT a AVE
I
I /
� 4{F
i
-PROJECT ,
P - PARKING STRUCTURE
. • PRM YARD
- - - • LOS GATOS CHEEK TRAL
LINSCOTT
LAW & SITE LOCATION
GREENSPAN N
2 E > ° N r To SCALE PRUNE YARD PUCE
1
i
lit
o
PRUNE YARD
i - 8 INN
o
$ o
(plill, milli
-. - �J
"2, 00 PRUNE YARD
SHOPPING CENTE 1
1
_'
y. )
+ i
- CAMMM"VENUE-
UNION AVENUE
-- SOURCE HORf�BEPO—R I WORSTELL. MC, APCWF-CTS AND PLANERS 2
LINSCOTT G
LAW & SITE PLAN
GREENSPAN
t I+ C! I E E R S NOT --I SCALE PRUNE YARD PLACE
mom�....._._.....-_ ......._.._.,,....._.._........ ......._. ...... .. _....-...r..� ....---�
Operation of these key intersections were analyzed for the below 10 scenarios
1. Existing Conditiors
2. Existing + Approved: 54 room PruneYard Inn expansion included in approved as well
as Prometheus levelopment and trips from San Jose approved trip inventory. Also
included was a 1% backgrounu rowth rate.
3. Existing + Approved + Project (4 scenarios)
3.1 without Campisi - no transit/TDM
3.2 with Campisi - no transit/TDM
3.3 without Campisi - with transit/TDM
3.4 with Campisi - with transit/TDM
4. Combined Project (Existing + Approved + Project + Maxim + Winchester Drive -In)
(4 scenarios)
4.1 without Campisi - no transit/TDM
4.2 with Campisi - no transit/TDM
4.3 without Campisi - with transit/TDM
4.4 with Campisi - with transit/TDM
\ shared parking analysis was also conducted to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces
required to support the proposed project, plus the two existing PruneYard Place office towers, and the
PruneYard retail, restaurant and cinema uses.
5
i!t
1
Chapter? describes existing conditions regarding the project site as they relate to traffic olumes , traffic
operations of nearby intersections, transit service, and bicycle/pedestrian access. Project generated
traffic and project related traffic impacts are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the shared
parking analysis. Chapter 5 presents the tra.Tic and parking analysis conclusions. A separate Technical
Appendix is provided which contains the detailed calculation sheets upon which the traffic impact
analysis is based.
I
i
i
I
i
6
�♦ 1. I '+ F F X�
CHAPTER 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter provides a description of existing conditions in terms of roadway network facilities and
operations, transit services. and pedestrian/bicycle access.
Streets and Highways
Re¢ional Acem
Regional access to PruneYard Place is provided by SR-17 via an interchange at Hamilton Avenue south
of the PruneYard.. North of Hamilton Avenue and south of 1-280 there are four mixed -flow lanes and
an auxiliary lane in each direction South of Hamilton Avenue and north of Camden Avenue, there are
six mixed -flow lanes. SR-17 becomes 1-880 just north of its junction with 1-280. SR-17 extends to the
Santa Cruz Coastal area.
Local Acc ss
Local access to PruneYard Place is provided primarily by Bascom Avenue, Campbell Avenue, and
Anion Avenue.
Bascom Avenue is a six lane north -south arterial which borders the PruneYard on the east. Access to
PruneYard Place is via a signalized driveway ("Tee" intersection) at the northeast comer of the
PnmeYard site. Traffic on Bascom Avenue varies from 35,000 vehicles per day at Campbell Avenue
to 40,000 vehicles per day at Hamilton Avenue, with an average of 36,300 vehicles per day past the
PruneYard.
Campbell Avenue is a four lane major east -west street which borders the Pn eYard on the south. East
of Bascom Avenue. Campbell Avenue is a two lane local street. Access to PruneYard Place is via a
signalized driveway at Union Avenue. Campbell Avenue also serves the Civic Center and "Old Town"
Campbell which are located west of SR-17 and Los Gatos Creek. Traffic on Campbell Avenue west of
Bascom Avenue is 16.500 vehicles per day.
1 1,„ I h[[ N S
Union Avenue is a three lane north -south collector street (one through lar.: in each direction and a two
way left turn lane) which terminates at Campbell Avenue. Union Avenue parallels Bascom Avenue to
the west, crossing to the east side of Bascom Avenue as Bascom turns southwesterly towards Los Gatos.
TrafLc on Union Avenue south of Campbeli Avenue is 12,100 vehicles per day. Union Avenue north
of Bascom Avenue tames 17,400 vehicles per day.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilitic
PruneYard Place is situated next to and west of SR-17, near the point where Los Gatos Creek crosses
the freeway in a northeasterly direction. The north edge of the PruneYard Place site is within 100 feet
of the existing Los Gatos Creek Regional Trial. The Los Gatos Creek Trail is a nine -mile long Vail
which offers opportunities for pedestrians hikers, bicycl;sts and nature lovers There is access to the trail
from Campbell Avenue (adjacent to the southwest comer of the PruneYard Place site), from Creekside
Way (a quarter mile north of the site), and from Hamilton Avenue (a half -mile north of the site). Figure
I shows the location of the Los Gatos Creek Trial.
Transit Service
Two Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) local routes (Routes 62 and 26) provide transit service and
bus stops within one -quaver mile of the PruneYard Place site (see Figure 3).
Route 62 provides service along Bascom Avenue. Route 62 operates between Downtown Los Gatos
and the Berryessa area in extreme eastern San Jose. The route operates from 5:30 AM , 10:30 PM, and
has a weekday peak period headway and mid -day headway of 22 minutes, with a tv, A, frequency
o(stx stops per hour.
Route 26 provides service along Campbell Avenue, Bascom Avenue, and Curtner Avenue. Route 26
operates between Town Center in Sunnyvale and Eastridge Shopping Center in San Jose. The route
operates from 5:00 AM to 1 1:00 PM, and has a weekda:, peak period headway of 20 minutes, with a
two-way frequency of six stops per hour. The mid -day headway is 30 minutes.
8
P • PARKING STRUCTURE ,,
- PRUNE YARD ,
-.- . BUS HOUTE
LAW & T
L REENSPANI N.
E E ° 5 NOT TO SCALE
3
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
PRUNE YARD PUCE
r\ (, I N[ r R t
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Operating conditions at each of the 10 study intersections have been determined by conducting a Level
of Service (LOS) analysis. LOS is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation on an hourly
basis, ranging from LOS A (free -flow conditions), to LOS F Oammed conditions). The LOS method
specified by the City of Campbell and the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) evaluates
an intersection's operation based on average stopped vehicle delay. 11e average delay was Lalculated
using TRAFFIX software and the associated LOS determined from Table 1. To ensure consistency with
other on going traffic analyses, the TRAFFIX computations were performed by the City and provided
to the consultant. The analysis incorporates the default parameters recently adopted by the CMA.
Me City of Campbell considers LOS E to be an acceptable operating condition at (1) arterial street to
arterial street intersections, and (2) at freeway on -off ramp intersections on arterial streets. LOS D is
considered acceptable at all other intersections. On this basis, the Bascom Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue, Salmar Avenue/SB SR-17 off -tamp and Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way and Hamilton
Avenue (which is essentially the extension of the NB SR-17 off ramp) intersections have acceptable
operation at LOS E. *The Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue intersection is within the City of San
Jose, where the acceptable LOS in LOS D or better. This intersection is currently operating at LOS E.
Wh.re LOS F. or F alr.ndy exists. the City of San Jose defines significant impact as greater than a I %
increase in the total volumes on critical movements. For this analysis, the Hamilton Aveni- and
Bascom Avenue intersection was considered a Campbell intersection, which is consistent with the
Congestion Management Agency designation.
Existing peak -how traffic volumes were obtained from City of Campbell staff and also collected in the
field by the consultant. Figure a presents the existing turning movements for each key intersection in
the AM peak hour and Figure 5 the PM peak hour. The volumes presented represent actual traffic and
do not reflect reductions in turning movements applied to right -turns on Hamilton Avenue at Creekside
Way, and at Hamilton Avenue at Bascom Av:,nue. These reductions are present in the analysis of all
scenarios and are employed to reflect i portion of the right-tum-on-red movements associated these
i0
Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers
Table 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
USING AVERAGE STOPPED VEHICULAR DELAY
Prune Yard Place
Stopped Delay
Level of Per Vehicle
Service Description Sec.
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable <= than 5.0
progression and/or short cycle lengths.
B I Operations with low delay occurring with good I 5.1 to 15 0
tl progression and/or short cycle lengths.
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
15 1 to 25 0
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures begin to appear
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination
25 1 to 40 0
of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
J/C ratios Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
, lures are noticeable
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
40 1 to 60 0
progression, long cycle lengths, and high VIC ratios
Individual cede failures are frequent occurrences
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
> 60 0
occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression,
or very Iona cvcle lengths.
"hp.— y
LINSCOTT
LAW & EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN AM PEAK HOUR
E 7 NOT -o SCALE PRUNE YARD PV,CE
CITY OF 1999 S.'BASCOM AVENUE M 98-04 3/3
CAMPBELL _ -----
LINSCOTT 5
LAW & EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN N ' PM PEAK HOUR
NOT TO SCALE PRUNE YARD PLACE
intersections, as included in previous analyses conducted by City of Campbell staff. In addition, all
geometrics associated with ISTEA improvements on Hamilton Avenue are included in the LOS
calculations.
Existing intersection traffic volumes have been used along with existing lane configurations and traffic
signal phasing to determine LOS and average vehicle delay at the 10 study intersections. Table 2
presents the results of the analysis. Looking at Table 2, it can be seen that all of the 10 study
intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service, except for Bascom Avenue and
Camden Avenue. The Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue intersection presently operates at an
acceptable LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hour. The Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue
intersection, in the City of San Jose, currently operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour (LOS D in the
PM peak hour). The City of San Jose LOS policy is LOS D or better. However, when consi�ered as
a Campbell intersection, the AM peak hour LOS E condition is acceptable, since this is an arteria. to
arterial intersection.
A separate Technical Appendix is provided which contains the detailed calculation sheets upon which
the traffic analysis is based. The sheets show all assumptions and adjustment factors, and resuhant
LOS, average vehicle delay (in seconds) and volume to capacity ratios.
14
i
I
Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers
Table 2
EXiSTING CONDITIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
Prune Yard Place
23-Oct-97
EXISTING
Peak
No.
Intersection
Hour
LOS
DELAY
(a)
1
Bascom Avenue and
AM
E
499
Hamilton Avenue
PM
E
51.1
2
Creekside Way and
AM
B
11 7
Hamilton Avenue
PM
C
18.3
(a)
i
3
Salmar Av )SR 17 SB
AM
D
31.4
Off -Ramp and Hamilton Av
PM
D
36.4
1
4
Bascom Avenue and
AM
C
165
Campisi Way
PM
D
32.9
5
Bascom Avenue and
AM
B
7.7
PruneYard
PM
C
20.3
6
Bascom Avenue and
AM
D
293
Campbell Avenue
PM
D
29.6
7
Creekside Way and
AM
C
20.7
Campisi Way
PM
C
200
8
Creekside Way and
AM
C
18A
SR 17 NB Off -Ramp
PM
C
205
9
Union Avenue and
AM
C
182
Campbell Avenue
PM
C
186
(b)
10
Bascom Avenue and
AM
E
41.0
Camden Avenue
PM
D
35 2
ANALYSIS SCENARIO i
1.0
(a) LOS E acceptable LOS. all other LOS D
(b) City of San Jose intersection. LOS D or better acceptable LOS
1 ',
I INS(_O71
I AW&
( kF1NSPAN
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT CONDITIONS
The traffic impact which can be associated with the third office tower at PruneYard Place are set forth
in this chapter. Project vehicle trip generation is forecast and each of the 10 study intersections
analyzed. The project analysis contains eight scenarios with and without the proposed Campisi Way
extension to the PruneYard, and with and without future transit development and TDM actions. Taken
into account are the PruneYard Inn expansion, the approved Prometheus hotel development, approved
San Jose trips, the propo zd Maxim office and hotel development, and the proposed Winchester Drive -In
research and development project.
Project Traffic Estimates
The volum, • of project traffic at each study intersection has been forecast using a three -step process: (1)
trip generation. (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the volume of traffic
entering and exiting the site has been 'orecast on both a daily and a peak -hour basis (AM weekday and
PM peak hour). In the second step, the origins and destinations for trips approaching and departing the
project site have been forecast using a combination of the City's traffic forecasting model and existing
turning movements at mijor driveways. The driveway turning movements were —ed to identify the
general direction of travel fix the weekday AM, and the traffic model results were used to define the
access routes for the trips. Protect generated trips have then been assigned to specific streets and
intersection turning movements in the third step.
Trip Generation
The traffic generated by the third office tower of PruneYard Place has been forecast by applying the
appropriate vehicular trip generation data found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation. Based on the linear egression equation presented in Trip Generation for office use, the
subject 130.000 SF (Gross) third office tower can be expected to generate 1.711 daily trips, with 234
AM peak -hour trips (208 in/26 out), and 225 PM peak -hour trips (38 in/187 out). The trip generation
forecast is presented in Table 3.
16
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Table 3
WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]
Prune Yard Place
10/13/9 DAILY AM PEAK HOUR
Trip Ends [2] VOLUME [?]
LAND USESIZE VOLUME IN OUT TOTA
)POSED
General Office [3] 130.000 GSF
1,711 208 26 234
VOLUME [2]
IN OUT
[1' Source ITE "Trip Generation". 5th Edition, 1991, and !TE "Update to the 5th Edition," 1995
[2] 1-rips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving
[3] ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) trip generation rates
38 187 225
I N 1, I N i F R I
Project Impact Scenarios
As previously noted, project impact has been analyzed for the following scenarios.
1.0 Existing Conditions (See Chapter 1)
2.0 Existing + Approved
3.0 Existing + Approved + Project
3.1 without Campisi Extension, no transit/TDM
3.2 with Campisi Extension. no transit/I•DM
3.3 without Campisi Extension, with transit/TDM
3.4 with Campisi Extension, with transivTDM
4.0 Existing + Approved + Combined Project
4.1 without Campisi Extension, no tansit/TDM
4.2 with Campisi Extension, no transit/TDM
4.3 without Campisi Extension, with transivTDM
4.4 without Campisi Extension, with transit/TDM
The project analysis has been conducted pursuant to guidance from City of Campbell staff utilizing the
I RAFFIX software,,o determine interseetio^ peak hour LOS and average delay per vehicle. To maintain
consistency with other on going traffic analyses, the TRAFFIX computations were performed by the
City and provided to the consultant.
19
All project and non -project traffic distribution and assignment are based on City T-model rums. Future
public transit access, such as the planned Vasona Light Rail line along the existing Union Pacific rail
corridor which will have a station in downtown Campbell and at Hamilton Avenue, and future TDM
actions have been assumed to result in a 7 percent reduction in generated commuter vehicle trips. This
factor was applied to office development only (the subject third office tower at PruneYard Place, and
for the combined project analysis, the Maxim office development). No um.. itrrr M adjustment has been
applied to hotel use or to V ! Winchester Drive -In project. The Campisi Way extension, which would
bring Campisi into the PruneYard site east of die proposed new parking structure, has been assumed to
carry all project traffic with an origin or destination reached via Harilton Avenue east of SR-17 and all
traffic northbound and southbound on SR-17. This distribution and assignment has also been assumed
for existing PruneYard office, retail, restaurant, and cinema uses that utilize the signalized intersection
on Bascom Avenue. It is unlikely that all such vehicle trips would use Campisi Way, since much of the
retail and restaurari marking is along Bascom Avenue However, this approach compensates for the
possible use of the Campisi-PruneYard route by cut -through traffic seeking to avoid the Bascom Avenue
and Hamilton Avenue intersection, which currently operates at LOS E. Figures 6 and 7 present project
trip distribution and assignment percentages for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Figures g and
9 present AM and PM peak project traffic volume.
Existing + Approved
Table J summarizes the results of the project impact analysis. Approved project list was developed by
i
City staff The list includes the Prometheus 250 room hotel, the PnineYard Inn expansion, and approved
San .lose project trips as well as full occupancy of the existing Prometheus office buildings that have
iwen vacated in large part by Apple Computer. In addition, a 1 % background growth rate was included
to a,sour,t for other traffic.
19
i
I I
111 Q �
P PM Yvd
CIAO CTR DR
ORCFIAPD
CITY DR
7
I /
J � Q
I
C. AYE
I
7�
I
• PRGJECi
(J • PAWWG STRUCTURE
- PFwNE YARD J
FGINSPAN
�
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
N AM PEAK HOUR NOT TO SCALE PRUNE YA^.D PLACE
ll�
LINSCOTT 7
�+W & PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION i
GREENSPAN N PM PEAK HOUR
r t F v : NOT TO SCALE PRUNE YARD PLACE
1
LINSCOTT 8
LAw & PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN N ' AM PEAK HOUR
I r , G N E E R: NOT TO 9CALE PRUNE YARD PUCE
LINSCOTT 9
LAW PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN N ' PM PEAK HOUR
F ti NOT TO SCALP PRUNE YARD PUCE
23
Table 4
THIRD PRUNEYARD TOWER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
AM PEAK HOUR
Existing
Ez+Appr
Existing + Approved + Project
Existing
+ Approved + Combined Project
No C/No Tr
Cmps/No Tr
No Cmps7Tr
Cmps&Tr
No GNo Tr
Cmps/No Tr
No CmpsBTr
CmpsBTr
No
Intersection
LOS
Delay
LOS
DelayLOS
DelayLOS
Dela
LOS
Delay
LOS
DelayLOS
Dela
LOS
DelayLOS
DelayLOS
Dela
1
Bascom at Hamilton
00
499
00
525
00
52.8
00
522
00
528
00
52 2
00
544
00
536
00
54 3
00
53 5
2
Creekside at Hamilton
B
11.7
B-
13.8
B-
13.7LBB136
B-
13.7
B-
136
C+
151
B-
144
B-
15 0
B-
14 33
Salmar at H 17
D
31A
D
32.1
D
32.432.8
D
32A
D
32.7
D
32 6
D
32 9
D
32 5
0
32 94
Bascom at Cam isi
C+
155
C
17.2
C
17.5161
C
175
C+
16.1
C
17.9
C+
i65
C
1;
C+
16 45
Bascom at Prune and
B
77
B
77
B
8890
B
8.7
B
89
B
86
B
88
B
8 6
B
87
6
Bascom al Cam bell
D
29.3
D
29.7
D
30.530.5
D
30.4
D
304
D
309
D
309
D
30 8
D
308
7
Creekside at Cam isi
C
20.7
C
21.0
G
21.022.6
C
21.0
C
226
C
212
C-
23 4
C
21 2
C-
233
8
CreeksideatH 17
C
184
C
189
C
18918.9
C
189
C
189
C
190
C
190
C
t89
C
i90
9
Union at Cam bell
C
18.2
C
184
C
19.419.4
C
193
C
19.3
C
20 4
C
204
C
20 3
C
203
+
1
1
+
1
+
4 .1
+
43.3
E*
43.3
E+
4 .
E+
43.3
11
Bascom at UNon'
D
30 7
D
3L9
D
31.531.5
1 D
31.5
D
1315
1 D
13191
D
131 91
D
31 91
I)
31 9
PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
Ex+Appr
Existing + Approvecd + Project
Existin + Ap roved + Combiner; Pro ct
No CBNo Tr
Cm s/No Tr
No CmpsBTr
Cm s&Tr
No C/No Tr
Cm s/No Tr
I No Cm s/Tr
CmpsBTr
Intersection
LOS
Delay
LOS
I Delay
LOS
IDelay
LOS
[LlelaylLOS
Dela
LOS
Delav
LOS
Delay
LOS
I Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Uela
1
Bascom at Hamilton
00
51 1
00
536
00
551
0 0
47 3
0.0
55.1
00
473
00
559
00
478
00
558
00
47 8
2
Creekside at Hamilton
C
18.3
C
199
C
19.8
C
22.3
C
19.8
C
22.3
C
21 6
C-
235
C
21 5
C-
23.4
3
Salmar at Hwy 17
D
36.4
D-
37.2
D-
37.4
D-
37.4
D-
37.4
D-
37A
D-
37.7
D-
37 8
D-
37 7
D-
37 7
4
Bascom at Campisi
D
329
D
34.4
D
340
D
31.7
0
34.0
D
31 7
D
358
D
33 2
D
358
D
332
5
Bascom at Prune and
C
203
C
20.9
C-
250
C
185
C-
24 8
C
184
C-
250
C
183
C-
24 7
C
182
6
Bascom at Cam bell
D
296
D
301
D
30.1
D
30 1
D
301
D
301
D
306
D
30 6
D
306
D
306
7
Creekside at Campisi
C
20.0
C
206
C
206
D
30.5
C
20.6
D
30 5
C
202
D
31 0
C
203
D
31 0
8
Creekside at Hwy 17
C
20.5
C
20 9
C
209
C
204
C
20.9
C
20.4
C
21 7
C
207
C
21 7
C
207
9
Union at Campbell
C
8.6
C
18 9
C
1202
C
202
C
1201
C
2011
C
201
C
20 1
C
20.0
C
200
10
Bascom at Camden'
D
52
k32
D
35.4
D
35 6
D
35 6
D
35 6
D
35 6
D
357
D
357
D
35 7
D
35 7
11
Bascom at Union'
D
3
D
333
D
35.1
D
35 1
D
35 0
D
1350
1 E+
1411.31
E+
1 41.3
1 E+
141.2
1 E+
141.2
Notes Project scenanos are as follows No C/No Tr = no Campisi Exi & no transit reduction, Cmps/No Tr = Campisi Ext & no transit
reduction. No CmpsBTr = no Campisi Ext. & 7 % project transit/TDki trip reduction, and CmpsBTr = Campist Ext and 7% transit/TDM
reduction
•= San Jose intersection
Levels of Service where significant impacts could occur
= Level of Service E (San Jose intersections only)
_Level of Service F (San Jose & Campbell intersections)
. -J- - -- - - - 6ift-
Looking at Table 4, it can be seen that the addition of approved project traffic to existing traffic does
not result in a change in LOS. All of the study intersections are also shown to continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS.
Existing + Approved + Project
Figures 10 and 11 present Future with Project (Existing +Approved+ Project) traffic volumes for the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively, without adjustments for transit/ TDM on the Campisi Extension.
The Existing + Approved + Project condition is analyzed under four scenarios, with and without the
Campisi Way extension and with and without transit/rDM. Examination of Table 4 reveals no change
in LOS under the "without Campisi - no transit/TDM" scenario (Scenario 3.1). when measured against
the Existing + Approved condition (Scenario 2.0). It should also be noted that the Bascom Avenue and
Camden Avenue intersection, which is a San Jose signal operating at LOS E. the San Jose I % threshold
is not ccceeded. Hence, it is concluded that the proposed third office tower at PruneYard Place will not
result in an unacceptable LOS at any of the 9 study intersections in the City of Campbell. Since the
increase in critical volume traffic at the Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue intersection for this
project scenario does not exceed the 1%threshold, measures to mitigate direct project traffic impact are
not required.
No changes in LOS occur for any of the "with project" alternatives, compared to the Existing +
Approved scenario.
Existing + Approved + Combined Project
Hic combined project consists of the approved projects, plus the subject project, plus two additional
developments that are being proposed but have not been approved. *hey area 280.000 SF research and
development project at the Winchester Drive -In site and a combined hotel (170 rooms) and office
( 160.000 SF) project on the site of the approved Prometheus hotel. Figures 12 and 13 present the
threcast traffic volumes without any adjustments for t.ansit/'[ DM or the Campisi Extension.
25
10
LAW &TT FUTURE WITH PROJECT
GREENSPAN N TR/,FFICAMOEK HOUR
E 0 E f % NOT TO SCALE PRUNE YARD PLACE
11
LINSC,OTT FUTURE WITH PROJECT
LAW & TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN N PM PEAK HOUR
NOT TO 9CALE PRUNE YARD PUCE
LLAW &� 12
COMBINED PROJECT
GREENSPAN N, TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR
t P : NOT TO SCALE PRUNE YARD PUCE
'R
13
LINSCOTT COMBINED PROJECT
LAW & TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GREENSPAN N ' PM PEAK HOURS
F E A 5 NOT TO SCAL E PRUNE YARD PLACE
29
I N C I I f F N}
In both the AM and PM peak hour, the 10 study intersections are shown to be at an acceptable LOS in
each scenario. In fact, including two additional projects does not result in an)changes in LOS at any
of the intersections, and the increase in critical movement traffic at the intersection of Camden Avenue
and Bascom Avenue still does not exceed the San Jose impact threshold. The geographic separation of
the three major projects in the combined scenarios: PruneYard Tower, Maxim Devehpment, and the
Winchester Drive -In project, means that there is no significant overlap of estimated project volumes.
Site Access
Access to the project site is via the signalized PnuicYard driveway on Bascom Avenue at the northeast
comer of the overall PruneYard site, and via the signalized PruneYard driveway on Campbell Avenue
opposite Union Avenue (See Figure 2 in Chapter 1).
Most of the parking for the existing office towers, and the subject third office tower, will be in the new
parking structure and in the surface lot to the east of the structure. A majority of the third office tower
traffic will use the Bascom driveway and travel along the propert) line roadway. Platmed circulation
improvements on this roadway, in advance of the Bascom inteNc Ii�n. will rc—it in improved traffic
flow.
For Existing + Project traffic entering the site via the Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection,
the most direct route to parking is along the west edge of the site. The site plan shows circulation
improvements to facilitate expected traffic flow. A landscaped area (no parking) is provided at the foot
of the PruneYard driveway, and the route to parking facilitated with striping. It is also expected that
"Speed humps" will be installed to slow down through traffic traveling along the west edge of the site.
t 1 <. 1 N E E R t
Th. proposed extension of Campisi Way into the PnmeYard will provide an alternative route for traffic
on SR-17 and on Hamilton Avenue east of SR-17. This will add a third project access point to the
existing access via the Bascom Avenue signal and via the Campbell Avenue and Union Avenue signal.
No timetable has been established for the construction of this road section. Because the LOS analysis
does not identify any significant impacts, the Campisi Way extension although shown to be desirable,
is not required for the project. A combination of funding sources will be required to implement this
improvement.
31
f '. �. I N f( X l
CHAPTER
PARKING ANALYSIS
Following guidance provided by City of Campbell staff, a Str:red Parking Analysis has been prepared
which takes into account the existing PruneYard Shopping Center (retail, restaurant and cinema uses),
PruneYard Inn and the PnmeYard Place office towers. The Shared Parking analysis is based on actual
parking usage, factored to full occupancy. and further factored upwards to account or circulation.
i
i
Existing Parking Usage
Table 5 presents existing parking usage. Shown are the th primary uses (Shopping Center, Inn,
offices), the supply of parking in the parking lots tributary to each use, and peak site parking occupancy
on a Fridav and . Saturday
i "
Looking at Table 5, it can be seen that there are presently a total of 1,730 parking spaces in the
PruneYard complex. The overall number of vehicles observed parked in the shopping component is
shown to be relatively equal on both Friday (764 parked vehicles) and Saturday (770 parked vehicles).
During the peak site parking occupancy period, parking at the Inn is also similar on Friday (54 parked
vehicles) and Saturday (63 parked vehicles). Friday office parking is shown to be 560 parked vehicles.
and Saturday 117 parked vehicles (20.9 percent of Friday).
From a parking occupancy standpoint, the overall site showed that on Friday, 1,378 of the 1.730
available parking spaces were occupied, for a total site occupancy rate of 79.7 percent. I'he shopping
compiutent was observed to be 87.6 percent occupied. This essentially represents full occupancy, since
it is generally recognized that circulation (parking search) becomes difficult when a facility reaches 85.0
percent occupancy. On Saturday, the shopping component occupancy remained high at 88.3 percent
Looking at the office component, the two existing towers are fully occupied, and showed 75.6 percent
occupancy on Friday aflemoon; 560 spaces occupied out of 738 spaces available.
12
Linscott, Law K G,eenspan,Engineers
Table 5
EXISTING PARKING USAGE
Prune Yard Place
Land Use
Size
Parking
Supply
(1)
Peak Parking at 2:00 PM
Friday Saturday
July 11, 1997 July Q. 1997
No. Parked % Occupied No. Parked % Occupied
(2)
Shopping Center
251,120 GS^
872
764 87.6% 770 88 3%
Inn
117Rms
120
54 45.0% 63 525%
(3)
Offices
234,000 GSF
738
560 75.9% 117 15 9 %
TOTAL
1 730
1.378 79.7% 950 54.9
J11 Number o/ vehicles observed parking in surrace lots tributary to use
;2J Shopping Center 92% occupied (231.030 SF)
/-; Office is in net SF for parking analysis at lull occupancy
Shared Parking Demand
The analysis of Shared Parking Demand is presented in Table 6. Taking into account full occupancy
and allowance for circulation, results in an existing demand for 1.691 parking spaces. The subject third
office tower will generate a demand for 3 T 6 spaces, which increases total demand to 2,007 parking
spaces (Existing + Proposed).
These figures are based on analysis of the peak number of parked vehicles observed in the parking lot
tributary to •: ach use (Saturday for the shopping and Inn components, Friday for the office component).
Shopping Center parking has been factored up to full occupancy, with 15 pe*cent (per City staff
guidance) added to account for circulation. The circulation factor is added on the basis that the last
vehicles entering during the peak hour, should not have to search through the entire parking supply
looking for the last few vacant spaces. A parting space demand factor of I space per 260 SF has been
developed for the PmneYard Shopping component. This results in a demand for 966 parking spaces to
serve the retail, restaurant and cinema uses.
PruneYard Inn parking has also been analyzed on the basis of the Saturday afternoon peak, to include
the appro%ed expansioi: of the Inn by 54 rooms. (from 117 rooms to 171 rooms). A 15 percent
circulation factor nas been added. This results in a Saturday afternoon shared parking demand of 109
parking spaces.
Existing office parking demand has been analyzed using the Friday aftemoon peak, with a circulation
factor of 10 percent (per City staff guidance). A parking space demand factor of I space per 380 square
feet has been developed for the PnuteYard Place office component. 'Ibis results in a demand for 616
parking spaces to serve the existing office use. It should he noted that the I space per 380 square feet
demand factor developed for PruneYard Place is consistent with other office parking studies conducted
by the consultant. which showed a typical office parking space demand factor of I space per 375 square
feet.
34
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Table 6
SHARED PARKING DEMAND
Prune Yard Place
10/24/97
Component Parking Spaces
Existing:
Shopping Center 966
Inn 109
Office 616
Existing Total 1,691
Third Office Tower 316
TOTAL EXISTING 8 PROPOSED
2,007
Shopping Center Parking Space Demand
Peak Number Observed Parked at 2:00 PM Saturday 770 Vehicles
Occupied SF = 251.120 x 0 92 = 231,030 SF
Circulation Factor equals -15%
(7701231,030) x 1,000 x 1.15 = 3.83 spaces per 1,000 SF
1,000/3.83 = 261 SF
Parking Space Demand Factor = 1 space per 260 SF
Parking Demand = 251,120/260 = 966 spaces
Inn Parking Space Demand
Number Observed Parked at 2.00 PM Saturday 63 Vehicles
Number of existing rooms = 117 rooms
Approved expansion = 54 rooms
Number of future rooms = 171 rooms
Circulation Factor equals -15 %
Parking Demand = (171/117) x 63 x 1 15 = 109 spaces
Existing Office Parking Space Demand
Number Observed Parked at 2 00 PM Friday 560 Vehicles
Occupied SF = 234.000 SF (Net), full occupancy
Circulation Factor equals -15%
(5601234,000) x 1,000 x 1.10 = 2 63 spaces per 1 000 SF
1.00012 63 = 380 SF
Parking Space Demand Factor = 1 space per 380 SF
Existing Parking Demand = 234.0001380 = 616 spaces
Proposed Third Office Tower
120,000 SF (Net)
Parking Demand = 120.000/380 = 316 spaces
Linscott, Law 3 Greenrpan, Engineers
Table 7
FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY
Prune Yard Place
10/24/97
EXISTING
WITH
i
SITE
CAMPISI WAY
Component
ACCESS
EXTENSION
Existing Supply:
Shopping Center
872
872
Inn
120
120
Subtotal
992
992
Reconfigured Office Parkin Lots
422
422
Subtotal 2
1,414
1,414
Parking Spaces Lost to
Circulation Improvements
- 16
- 45
Total Future Surfacre Lot Spaces
1,398
1,369
New Parkin Structure
737
737
TOTAL FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY
2,135
2,106
Future Parking Supply
Future parking supply is present in Table 7. Table 7 shows projected parking supply with existing site
access, and with the Campisi Way extension. Examination of Table 7 shows a total of 992 existing
parking spaces in the Shopping Center and Inn components. The PruneYard Place third tower site plan
shows 422 surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,414 spaces. To accommodate circulation
improvements at the signalized driveway entry on Bascom Avenue, and on the north side of the Outback
Steak House, 16 parking spaces will be removed, leaving a total of 1,39f surface parking spaces. The
new parking structure, in the northwest comer of the PruneYard site, will contain 737 parking spaces,
which will result in a shared parking supply of 2,135 parking spaces. This is an increase of 405 spaces
over the existing supply of 1,730 parking spaces.
Circulation improvements necessary to accommodate the extension of Campisi Way into the PruncYard
will produce a loss of 29 parking spaces, for a total loss to circulation improvements of 45 spaces. this
will result in a shared parking supply of 2.106 parking spaces (an increase of 376 over existing supply).
Future Shared Parking Supply vs. Demand
Table 8 presents fume shared parking supply versus demand. Measuring future shared parking supply
(2,135 spaces) against future shared parking demand (2,000 spaces) reveals that a surplus of 128 parking
spaces can be expected. This will be reduced to a surplus of 99 parking spaces with the Campisi Way
extension. The Campisi Way extension will reduce the parking supply by 29 spaces to accommodate
circulation improvements related to extending Campisi Way into the PruneYard.
37
i
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Table 8
FUTURE SHARED PARKING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND
Prune Yard Place
10/24/97
I
i
EXISTING
SITE
ACCESS
WITH
CAMPISI WAY
EXTENSION
—Component
Future Parking Supply
2.135
2,106
Future Shared Parkin Demand
2 007
2 007
SURPLUS + I DEFICIENCY -
+ 128
+ 99
CHAPTERS
CONCLUSIONS
Project Trip Generation
The proposed development of a 120,000 SF Net (130,000 SF Gross) third office tower a PruneYard
Place is expected to generate a total of 1.711 daily vehicle trips, with 234 vehicle trips in the AM peak
hour (208 in/26 out) and 225 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (38 in/187 out).
Traffic Impact Analysis
A total of 10 intersections have been studied. As determined by City of Campbell staff, traffic
conditions under 10 scenarios were analyzed; with eight scenarios evaluating alternative conditions with
and without the proposed Campisi Way extension, and with and without allowance for transit
development and TDM actions. The results of the analysis shows that with the third office tower traffic
` added to Existing , Approved project traffic, all study intersections in the City of Campbell can be
expected to operate at an acceptable LOS as defined by the City. 'fhe Bascom Avenue and Camden
Avenue intersection, is in the City of San lose where the acceptable LOS is LOS D. This intersection
currently operates at LOS E. However, for this analysis. Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue was
considered a Campbell intersection, which is consistent with the Congestion Management Agency
designation. In any e%ent. the San Jose LOS F/F significant impact threshold of 1%ofthe total critical
movement volume is not exceeded.
The extension of Campisi Way is shown to reduce PM peak hour delay but not improve LOS at the
Hamilton A%enuc and Bascom Avenue intersection and along Bascom Avenue. In the PM peak hour.
the Campisi Way extension reduces LOS by one service level at the Creekside Way and Hamilton
Avenue intersection l LOS D to LOS E) and at the Creekside Way and Campisi Way intersection (LOS
C to LOS D). However, the result at LOS at each location is acceptable as defined by the City.
1'ransitTDM is shown to produce a small, but not significant. improvement in expected average vehicle
delay.
39
F Y (; I N F E N
Campisi Way Extension
1 he proposed extension of( ampisi Way into the PruneYard will provide an alternative rote for traffic
on SR-17 and on Hamilton Avenue cast of SR-17. No timetable has been established for construction.
Since the LOS analysis does not identify any significant impacts, Campisi Way although shown to be
desirable, is not required.
Shared Parking Analysis
A shared parking analysis, prepared following guidance provided by City of Campbell staff. shows that
+16 spaces will be needed to support the proposed third tower. The overall PruneYard complex (retail,
restaurant, cinema, Inn and office towers), including the subject third office tower, is projected to
produce a demand for a total of 2,007 parking spaces.
In connection with the development of the third office tower, PruneYa,d Place surface parking lots will
be reconfigured and a new parking structure constructed. These imrrove-rents will increase the parking
supply by 405 spaces from I,730 (existing)to 2.135 spaces. Measuring peak supply (2,135 spaces)
against parking demand (2.007 spaces) shows an overall shared harking surplus of 128 parking spaces.
Phis will be reduced by 29 spaces (to accommodate circulation improvements) to a surplus of 99 parking
spaces with the proposed extension ot'Campisi Way into the PruneYard.
1
I
APPENDIX B
NOISE INFORMATION
I
i
PA 0 L E TT I
1 tuu7 Fas
22 October 1997
Mr David Word
David Word & Associates
!999 South Bascom Avenue 200
Campbell CA 95008
Fax 408-371-3831
Tel 408-3 71-4700
Suhj Sound Measurements and Jncreased Traffic Noise Impact
New Office Building Project, Campbell, California
PA Project 97094 20
Dear David
On 15 and 16 July (Tuesday and Wednesday), Paoletti Associates, Inc made background noise
measurements along the entry drive to the office complex at The Pruneyard Shopping Center that
is next to an existing apartment building complex. The purpose was to establish the existing noise
levels due to traffic to the office complex A proposed new office building will add about 1/3
more office space to the existing complex It is assumed that this will increase office parking
requirements and traffic by 1 /3 also'
The 24-hour measurement conforms to the California Model Noise Element metric for
determining environmental noise conditions, the Dav Night Level (DNL or Lt,,) See the
Appendix to this letter for further explanation The office traffic is only one source of
environmental noise in the area Other sources of environmental noise include traffic from the
i following
o Shopping Center
❑ Hotel
❑ Highwav 17 (west ofthe apartments)
❑ South Bascom Avenue Gast of the apartments)
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
The attached Figure I chows the measured, tvF..el, mid -afternoon noise levels due to all sources
Paoletit Asuxtatcs Inc has also res iewnl the traffic Ic\cls estimated he Linscon Law & 1'—span Engineers In
either case noise lescls gen mated he the increased coltanc of traffic in the shopping center do not increeae the DM,
value at the Apartment Complex predicted in this letter The reason for this is the dominance of the noise from Highway
I' and South flascom Avenue
Mr David Word
David Word & Associates
21 July 1997
Page 2
including Freeway and South Bascom Avenue traffic These levels were made using spot
measurements within a 2-hour period The background noise level from all traffic in or near The
Prtmeyard Shopping Center ranged from 60 dBA to 80 dBA during the mid aftemoon. The
higher levels closer to the Freeway and South Gascom Avenue were expected and show that the
environmental noise at the Apartment buildings is predominately from South Bascom
Avenue traffic and not the Shopping Center/Office traffic. Shopping Center/Office traffic
noise was fully 20 dB lower than the noise from South Bascom Avenue. Interestingly, the loudest
Shopping CenledOffice noise was measured around 1 00 P M and not 5 00 P M
I o do the DNL measurement, a calibrated sound level meter was placed in the hedge at the edge
of the anvewav (along the property line) along the center of the Middle Apartment Building.
Since a sound level meter (using the DNL metric) does not discriminate along noise sources, we
selected the measurement site to be about equidistant from Highwav 17 and South Bascom
Avenue to reduce the influences of these high noise sources The meter was programmed to
integrate and record the level of all noise in one -hour intervals over a 24-hour period The 24-
hour measurement (Ls „) represents the average level of all noise sources at the property line of
the existing apartment complex for 24 !lours, technically, the equivalent constant energy level due
to all noise for a day To this a 10 dB penalty is added to the nighttime hour levels to obtain the
final day -night level (DNL)
NOISE IMPACT
The recorded DNL = 62.4 dBA Figure 2 shows the hour by hour noise levels When the
davtime hour noise levels are increased by 3 dB to represent a doubling of all traffic (including
Freewav and South Bascom Avenue) the DNL = 63.8. Of this, only a small percentage is noise
from Shopping Center/Office traffic (The actual office complex traffic incree— is only 1/3 )
i
The California Community Model Noise Element requires no mitigation of environmental noise
for housing when the noise is less than 65.0 dBA For noise zones of 65 to 70 dBA, mitigation is
required for outdoor living areas Mitigation for outdoor living areas is usually by a screen wall.
the apartments in question already have such a screen in place
SUMMARY
The background noise level from all sources was measured at the apartment building property
along The Prunevard Shopping Center This location was equidistant from the Freeway and
South Bascom Avenue The resulting Day Night Levels from existing traffic and from future
estimated traffic was less than DNL = 65 dBA. Spot noise measurements show that daytime
noise levels near the apartment rarged from 60 dB to 80 dB However, the higher levels were
due solely to the noise of the Freeway and Sout) Bascom Avenue The traffic due to the
Mr David Word
David Word & Associates
21 July 1997
Page 3
Shopping Center/Office Complex was fully 20 dB below the overall traffic noise levels With
such low office traffic noise levels, the contribution to the overall noise lesel would be
insignificant
OTHER NOISE SOURCES
We understand that all construction scheduling will be in conformance to City of Campbell Noise
Ordinances regarding construction noise (i e , time of day restrictions) We understand from the
developers that there will be NO PILING DRIV NG
This noise study was planned to verify existing noise conditions at the site so that we could
estimate the impact of additional traffic It was not designed to identify existing nighttime single
event sources (e g , garbage pickup) that have no relevance to increased traffic during business
hours However, a review of our hour/c sound level summaries shows higher single event activity
only twice during the nighttime hours These are in the hours from 9 00 to 10 00 P M and from
11 00 to midnight (i e_ none at 10-11 00 P Ni or at other morning hours ) These single event
sources are surelv are associated with the Hotel Our meter cannot differentiate different sources
However, there is no connection to the increase traffic during the day from the proposed office
building. We understand from Pruneyard that trash pickup is after 6 00 A M and will remain so
after the completion of the office building No other singe event activity was recorded during the
nighttime hours We think future single event activnv will probably remain the same
APARTMENT BUILDING CONDITIONS
j No mitigatien is required due to of increased office building traffic because this source alone does
not increase the existing environmental noise However the following existing conditions should
i be noted
The transmission of sound through the adjacent apartment building walls is estimated at Sound
Transmission Class of about STC 45 (having only general information about the walls) Because
of this , odest number, the walls are not a factor in noise transmission due to the walls because
the weaker sound path is through the doors/windows %ke understand that the glass is 1/8" thick
and therefore provides only a modicum of sound transmission loss We estimate that the
window/wall combination has a sound transmission class of about STC about 25-29 The lower
number is attributed to the possible leaky conditions of the windows Roughly speaking, STC
represents the sound reduction in dB through a material in the middle frequencies
A screen wall is currently in place. The noise reduction from a screen wall s anes with factors
mosth do with distance and height of sound sources However, for initial estimates, we can be
certain that if there is no obstruction of line -of -sight (e it at the upper floors) there will be no
Mr David Word
David Word & Associates
21 July 1997
Page 4
sound attenuation. Otherwise, with line -of -sight obstruction, one can rely on about 5 d13 of
attenuation behind d screen Higher values are possible depending on the exact conditions.
Sincerely
PAO A TES INC
Gasper J Sciacca, AIA
Encl. Fig. 1. Showing Daytime noise levels
Fig 2. Measured DNL noise levels and projected future DNL noise levels.
Appendix: Acoustical Terms used in this Report
cc Gloria Sciara/Fax 408-866-8381
Kathy Kovar/Fax 408-371-3831
I0BFnF,'97\\\ 97091C.U(BOF07 C,)S
\J
z rn f}PA,Q TH EN7
%0 n
I �
0
I I
IV
FX/ STiNCv o /SE E E L S G a'9 N/CvNW /4 Y
'TO -rNS 4V I 319 o
rOZ 19iPY C GU /[.}c- / L/ /1/� FFEG %' d
i
dB Calculations *** by ;loel A. Lewitt, P.E. FIGURE 2
07-17-1497 14:08:25
Leq(24), Ldn, CNEL
Day Hours (no weighting)
0700 = 60.0 dBA 0800 = 61.5 dBA 09o0 = 59.0 dBA
1000 = 59.5 dBA 1100 = 62.5 dBA 1200 = 62.0 dBA
1300 = 62.5 dBA 1400 = 58.5 dBA 1500 = 59.5 dBA
1600 = 61.0 dBA 1700 = 59.5 dBA 1800 = 57.5 dBA
Evening Hours (no weighting for Ldn, +5 dBA for CNEL)
1900 = 56.5 dBA 2000 = 59.0 dBA 2100 = 58.0 dBA
Night Hours (+10 dBA weighting)
2200 = 57.5 dBA 2300 = 58.5 dBA 2400 = 52.5 dBA
0100 = 47.5 dBA 0200 = 47.5 dBA 0300 = 48.0 dBA
0400 = 53.0 dBA 0500 = 56.5 dBA 0600 = 55.5 dBA
Leq(24) = 58.8 dBA ::: Ld = 60.1 dBA: Ln = 54.6 dBA --- Ldn = 62.4 dBA
Ld = 60.5 dBA: Le = 58.0 dBA: Ln = 54.6 dBA --- CNEL = 62.8 dBA
Leq(24), Ldn, CNEL
Day Hours (no weighting)
0700 = 63.0 dBA 0800 = 64.5 dBA 0900 = 62.0 dBA
1000 = 62.5 dBA 1100 = 65.5 dBA 1200 = 65.0 d.9A
1300 = 65.5 dBA 1400 = 61.5 dBA 1500 = 62.5 dBA
1600 = 64.0 dBA 1700 = 62.5 dBA 1800 = 60.5 dBA
Evening Hours (no weighting for Ldn, +5 dBA for CNEL)
1900 = 59.0 dBA 2000 = 62.0 dBA 2100 = 61.0 dBA
Night Hours (+10 dBA weighting)
2200 = 57.5 dBA 2300 = 58.5 dBA 2400 = 52.5 dBA
0100 = 47.5 dBA 0200 = 47.5 dBA 0300 = 48.0 dBA
0400 = 53.0 dBA 0500 = 56.5 dBA 0600 = 55.5 dBA
Leq(24) = 61.4 dBA ::: Ld = 63.1 dBA: Ln = 54.6 dBA --- Ld❑ = 63.8 dBA
Ld = 63.5 dBA: Le = 60.8 dBA: Ln = 54.6 dBA -- CNEL = 64.3 dBA
I
NEW OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA, PA 97094
APPENDIX —Terms Used in this Report
"A^ WEIGHTING SCALE is a standardized decibel scale that has a weighting network that
selectively discriminates against low and high frequencies approximating the frequency response
of the human ear All sound pressure levels in this report are "A" weighted unless otherwise
indicated
AMBIENT NOISE or BACKGROUND NOISE is the sound pressure associated with a given
environment It is a composite of sounds from near and far.
DAYNIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (DNL or L,,,) is the A -weighted equivalent
continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a 10 dB adjustment added to the
sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 00 P M to 7 00 P M )
DECIBEL or properly DECIBEL SCALE is a scale to measure sound level pressure (or other
quality of interest) defined as 20 times the logarithm of the ratio between the sound level pressure
(or other quality) to a standard reference level The standard reference in the U S is 0 decibels
equals a pressure of 0.0002 Microbar The abbreviation for decibel is dB
I INTEGRATED or EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL is "A" weighted equivalent continuous
sound exposure level for a defined period This is abbreviated L, ,,,,,,,
SOUND LEVEL METER is an instrument to measure sound pressure in dB Various features
are incorporated into the instrument to select specific sound frequency bands, integrate pressure
over time and display minimum, mean, and peak levels These are necessary because sound is
highly dynamic and is constantly changing
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL The ratic, expressed in decibels, ofthe mean -square sound
pressure to a reference mean -square pressure that by convention has been selected to be equal to
the threshold of hearing
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS is the established single number rating system to classify
the transmission loss of a material rather than by reporting the separate frequency bands The
rating is derived from measured values of transmission loss, according to ASTM E 413
TRANSMISSION LOSS is a measure of the sound insulation of a material stated in decibels and
given for each of several octave band ranges In this report the transmission losses of glass and
wall types are expressed in the single number rating system called Sound Transmission Class
e umrnt avxxx v,aw c.a�aa,rn�ms
i
REVISIONS TO PRUNEYARD PLACE QVITIAL STUDY
Minor changes and clarifications have been made to the Pruneyard Place Initial Study
prepared on October 22, 1997. Attached are the pages that have been revised. Additions are
shown in undrline Deletions are shown in wri�
None of the revisions result in significant changes that would cause the project to result in a
significant impact on the environment.
In summary:
• page 8 has been revised to indicate that with onsite circulation improvements there will
be a total of 2,162 parking spaces;
• page 9, Figure 6 has been evised to remove the "commercial" notation west of the Aloha
Apartment complex;
• page 36 has been revised to include the specific propos:d building square footage and
estimated increase in vehicle trips;
• page 39 has been revised to indicate that construction activities will be limited to 8:0G
a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays, and no construction would be
allowed on Sundays or holidays.
PRUNEYARD PLACE EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
11 /7i97
The proposed office building will be six stories in height in a contemporary style compatible
with the existing office buildings (Figure 5). Approximately one-half of the proposed
building is anticipated to provide office space to the Compuware Corporation. Amenities
that would be provided to Compuwarc employees within the proposed building include a
2,800 square foot cafe/break room and an approximately 2,900 square foot fitness center.
Parking
The proposed parking garage would provide free parking to employees and patrons of the
Pruneyard. Access would be provided by the northern driveway off of Pascom Avenue that
would be open 24 hours a day. A car detailing station would provide service on a limited
basis located at the bottom of :he ground level rump.
There are currently 1,730 surface parking spaces within the entire Pruneyard site.
Construction activities would result in a temporary reduction of 739 spaces. Employees of
the office buildings would be provided with off -site parking (such as the downtown parking
garage) served by shuttles to reduce on -site parking demand during construction of the
proposed garage.
When the proposed garage is completed parking spaces will increase by 449 spaces above
the existing for a new site total of 2,178 parking spaces. Onsite circulation improvements
arc expected to result in the loss of 16 spaces for a total of 162 gmacz. According to the
City of Campbell this would result in an overall deficit of approximately 5 parking spaces,
which is not considered significant.
CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICEES
Regional Plans and Policies
City of Campbell General Plan
The proposed project has a General Plan designation of Commercial, as specified in the
City's General Plan. This designation allows a mix of commercial uses. It is a goal of the
City to ensure that commercial areas are conveniently located, efficient, attractive and safe
for pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The proposed project would be compatible with the
General Plan goals by providing additional office opportunities in an area containing a mix
ofcomcniently located uses.
Consistency: Implementation of the project would be generally consistent with the City of
Campbell General Plan.
PRUNEYARD PLACE 9 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
10,12"7
C. AIR QUALITY
V. a) Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to so existing
or projected air quality violation?
V. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes o. its project, an air quality impact is considered significant if the project
would:
• Violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation; or
• expose sensitive receptors to substantial long term pollutant concentrations
The BAAQMD has established thresholds of potentially significant emissions for projects
expected to generate 80 Ibs/day of reactive organic gases (ROG). These particular projects
would require an air quality analysis to determine impacts. According to BAAQW-)
Guidelines, general offices over 305.000 square feet would be likely to generate 80 Ibs of ROG
a day. Because the proposed project is proposing construction of only i39f99 132.000 square
feet of office development which is subs+antially below these thresholds an air quality analysis
was not performed. Further, the small increase in vehicle trips (lose dhanr1,800 I-71 I trips per
day) generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant air pollution
emissions that would affect local or regional air quality.
Construction Impacts
" Construction related emissions are generally short in duration but may cause adverse air quality
impacts. Fine particulate matter (PM-10) is the Pollutant of greatest concern with construction
activities. The do climate of the area durinj summer months creates a high potential for dust
Ifgeneration "hen underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Debris from site grading
i� would generate relatively large amounts of dust and PM-10.
Construction vehicles could also carry dirt onto paved roads, where it eventually becomes
airborne dust dL. to the action of passing vehicles. Construction dust is considered to represent
a local and temporary significant impact. Long term regional background levels of PM-10
would not be zffected by the project.
♦ Construction activities would result in significant short term air quality impacts.
(Significant Impact)
Mitigation Meats arts Included in the Project
• 'A ater all active construction areas a, least twin daily
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, and other loose materials
• Pave, apply water, or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas. and staging areas at construction site
PRUNEYARD PLACE 3n EXPANDED rNiTIAL Sil.IDY
1022/97
F. NOISE
X. a) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels?
X. b) Would the proposal result in exposure oP people to severe noise levels?
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this project, a noise impact is considered significant if the project would:
• Result in a 3 dB (Ldn) increase (i.e. the threshold of noticeable change) in the ambient
noise levels in an area already considered noise impacted (i.e. has an existing level
above 60 dB (Ldn).
• expose people to substantial noise levels during construction.
Project Noise
Project Traffic
The development of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on we road
network, as indicated in the discussion concerning traffic on page 34 of this Initial Study.
However, the traffic generated from the project is not expected to be substantiai'. According
to Paoloetti Associates project traffic is only expected to result in a I to 2 decibel increase in
noise. The proposed project would only incrementally add to the existing traffic levels and is
not expected to result in a change in noise levels discernible to the human ear.
"Demolition and Construction Impacts
Grading activities and the construction of new buildings on the project site would
temporarily increase noise levels in the area. Of particular concern would be activities
associated with construction of the proposed parking garage because of its proximity to the
adjacent apartment use. Hourly average construction noise levels can typically range
between 75 dBA to 85 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet. These noise levels are
expected to be temporarily disruptive to nearby residents.
♦ Construction activities on the site would result to significant short term noise exposure
to the adjacent residential use. (Significant Impact)
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential noise impacts to a less -
than -significant level:
Construction Mitigation Measures
Construction activities will be limited to daytime hours (44. 0 I M a.m. to 5:00 P.M.
weekdays) and (" E20 a.m. to 440 AM p.m. Saturdays) with no constructon
activities allowed on S mays or holidays.
' It generally takes a doubling in traffic levels to result to a 3 dB noise increase.
PRL'NEYARD PLACE 39 EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
Ior2n7
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES HC ;RE F,
IIItt
1
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
Special Development Permit Application 97-01
Site and Architectural Application 97-20
"Pruneyard Place"
I
Mitigated Measures
The following table has been developed in accordance with section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. and
contains the mitigation measures necessary to implement the proposed "Pruneyard Place" development
The table has been constructed to include the list of mitigations and the reference to the appropriate initial
study category, the timing of the mitigation, the City of Campbell department responsible for the
implementation of the mitigation, the date the mitigation is completed, and the initials of the individual that
was responsible for ensuring the completion of the appropriate mitigation
d
I
I.
MITIGATION TIMING DEPARTMENT DATE/
INITIAL
I Construction Mmeatwn Mruures. The
Prior to, and during all
Building OfSciaV
applicant shail implementmitigation
phases of construction.
Communes
measures asspecified inthe Expanded
as appropriate,
Development
initial Study dated 10/22/97 (pages 39-40i
Department
prepared by David t. Powers and
Associates. Inc including the following
I. Construction activities will be limited to
daytime hours of 8�00 am to 5.00 p.m.
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 400 p.m.
Saturdays. Construction is prohibited
on Sundays and holidays.
-. No pile dr,vmg is allowed for
construction of the garage.
i. All internal combustion enpna for
consoucuon egmpmem used on the site
rill be properly muffled and
maintained.
A Unnccessary idling of mtnmal
combustion engines is strictly
prehihited
5. All stationary none generating
construction tluipment. such as au
comrrr ors and portable power
gene•atot, rill be located as (aras
practical from ;fie existing residences
and husmesses.
6 Occupants of the Aloha Apartment
complex and reliant of the Pruneyard
w d; to uoufitd of the construction
uhedulc m "'!mg. and an on -site
contact person and phone number shall
he nnntded inthe notice.
Mitigation Measures - SDP 97-01/S 97-20 - 1985 & 1999 S. Bascom Avenue - Pruneyard Place
MITIGATION
TIMING
DEPARTMENT
DATE/
INITIAL
7. All active construction areas shall be
watered at least twice daily.
8. Cover all trucks hauling soil and other
loose materials stationed or prior to
leaving the site.
9. Pave, apply water, or apply nor -toxic
soil stabilizers on all unpaved surfaces,
and staging areas at the construction
site.
10. Sweep daily all paved access roads,
parking areas, staging areas, and
adjacent public streets as directed by
the City Engineer.
11. Enclose, cover, water or apply soil
binders to exposed stockpiles.
12. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved
surfaces to IS mph.
13. Install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent runoff to all
roadways, waterways or pubic
walkways accessed by the public.
14. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as
soon as possible.
15, Establish a program for panic'pation of
vehicle trip reduction by construction
crews.
16. Proviue a monthly status repon to the
Building Official verifying conditions
of the site, progress of construction and
the implementation of construction
mitigation measures.
11 Archaeological Mitigation ProgW
During pre -constitution
Community
Implement the archaeological monitoring
phase -prior to and dur-
Development
program as specified in the Expanded Initial
ing grading, subsurface
Department
Study dated 10/22/97 (page 41) prepared by
excavation.
a qualified archaeologist to monitor all
subsurface excavation If a potential
archaeological site or artifact is located or
uncovered during construction, all activitv
will be halted until such time the
ar.li. •olog(st has determined the significance
of the find, and arpropriate measures are
completed for the mitigation or removd of
the artifact c'.
i