S 80-28CITY OF CAMPBFLL 2160 S. BASCOM AVE. S 80-28 1 of 3
51,
v
ib
-{- --E.--CAMPBELL--- ---- -- —._ - - -- - --- -----AVE. --{� {
{ S Pit. 272-M-6 +• TRACT N• 406 - CAMPBE IARDEi15 w n ! {
,:t ?� s� fEl 7i St S €� ai f0 ff ' t� '' � ii 9
u
• •
q• a I � A � • 1 1 � i e NI II i It 11 B N 0
I �
I I I
AN, 1 I 1 a I• i n ,t a to • • T a 6 , • i s I! I I
Lt t 19 '-�' 0 SD ? 0 0 If � !7 1 i It i 14 i 8
'1 � a s --- � -�• y ' To rs II
+CO TRACT N' 1765 - ARROYO GARNSn DR.
36:L'y 1
t P.Y. l'.A
4 wROYO tw• o SE
DE
It..- f� � • x a ro ° I
1!oo
107 AC NET s� G� y `_ tF Z� ZB Z9 iG +V 7L ,61 L♦ + L6 ! L� - �'
I. 19 zo t1 at x3 N !a H xT to tl
It a tm: I ,.
i
F ... .._- .. .���••/yam+1..
KL. A.� Y _. ONAC 411L�
1'Lf, i • s Ts , • 9 io 7fF : is r• 15 r R
L4 IS >3 d LP
m• T u S s tl.EL 5QLY0 - AVE.
N ' '• • • TRACT N• Ct5 - EL SOLYO TRACT " " , R
_ f py _y_25 TRACT N•225 - EL SOLYO TRACT RM 325-M42 ■ {
S So -28 n „
r „
a 16 L7 9 L➢ 1-0 L4' It U is -s a
p S
1073 4C NET
• - _ -- x• ze n z• zsAN
z. x3 zz I pn . rcl a
7• {� •--FIADY "•GALE V _-
TRACT - .. _ _ __ no .,.� . P,_.___-_. ---- —AVE.—, -
_T-- N- 275 - SHADY DALE SURD • IT
er R •y' (/ ! Y I (� ' L♦ i 1! i ff i P f/`-1 !) G7 y I Lf i H I tl I 11
1
. `t_ f« 1 !a I p i !• i fa i tt !r 1 t0 I N 1 I• i 17 1S 1 re I I• 1 It
rO A i 7 i A i a • i t ' f 1 I
W
_ � I• ! .y tl r[� 19 Ll i IF i !! � >d >Y iP
T BENT
0 TRACT N!16ES- DRY CREEK RANCH '
I I I 1
In o I.111v •��s r s 8 i !! i v i +� i !! !t i 3a i i! i H if !I _
_.. roq 3 S N I N I to M I ee I to N ; n ; OR of i [• b
nn
y Na T r t •I •o M St j 3
7 AA I N a• tt At tl j 15 S
V g i 9 1 I I 1 YI R
Ihl F t "': R I„1 r • -' I. LM.i +
>z U -'
pal R • !! !� � -•-CAMEO {
- DR.-- -{�_�...
IY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 1981
I
ARCHITLCTURAL APPROVALS
S 80-28 Continued application of Mr. Robert Peepari for
Peepari, R. approval of plans and elevations to allow con-
struction of an 8,680 square foot commercial
(retail) building on property known as 2160 S.
Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant, architect and adjacent
property owner (Mrs. Robinson), had met with the Site and Archicectural
Review Committee this morning. He noted that after a lengthy discussion,
the Committee recommended approval of this project as proposed; all the
concerns seemed to have been resolved. Mrs. Robinson expressed interest in
placing solar parels on her property, and had concerns about the effect of
this project on her property and proposed solar heating units. It was the
Architectural Advisor's opinion that the solar heating units not be placed
on the garage, but either on or adjacent to the house. He then noted that
both the applicant and Mrs. Robinson are in the audience "his evening.
Mr. Kee stated that the front yard setback is now 25' and that the proposed
side yard setback is now 5', which means a total of 15' from the proposed
structure to Mrs. Robinson's home. He stated that staff is also recommending
approval.
Commissioner Fairbanks inquired if this meats that the concerns of the adjacent
property owner have been resolved.
Mr. Kee stated that as of this morning's meeting there seemed to be a general
agreement.
Commissioner Dickson stated for the record that Mrs. Robinson had called him
last evening to discuss this matter; he advised her to attend the Sitc and
f Architectural Review Committee meeting this morning in order that her concerns
could be discussed.
Mr. Peepari, architect for the project, appeared to state that he had spent
1 two hours this afternoon after the Site meeting discussing this matter with
a solar heating consultant. He showed the plans to the consultant, and the
consultant --It there would not be a problem.
Mrs. Robinson appeared before the Commission to report that her solar heating
installation oeople feel that 5' will not be sufficient.
Commissioner Kotowski expressed concern about the difference of opinion from
the solar heating consultants, and wondered if the Commission should ask for
reports from each.
I
Commissioner Meyer stated at this morning's Site meeting the Architectural
Advisor felt that a western exposure would not be necessary for any length
of time during the day; he also stated the solar panels would be Bette,
placed on the home rather than on the garage.
I
Mr. Joseph Gemma, property owner, stated that the garage is not the only
structure that could be used for solar neating. He asked for a favorable
decision on thi; project.
Engineering Manager Helms then reported on the traffic in the area and the
impact of this development on the area. He noted the traffic accident
experience for this intersection is quite low; two accidents in 1978, one
in 1979 and one in 1980. He noted that the posted traffic speed limit is
35 m.p.h. on Bascom and the cars trevel very close to that posted speed. He
noted the overall impact of this development would be no more than •..,at exists
for t'ne area on Bascom between Hamilton and Dry Creek.
Motion
Commissioner Kotowski then moved that the Planning Cormission approve S 80-28
subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet with the added
condition that the Landscape Plan be approved by the Site and Architectural
Review Committee, and acknowledging the Traf:ic Report made by Engineering
Manager Helms. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Commissioner Dickson felt that the progress made thus far by the developers
is notable, however he felt that it might be better arranged in order that
it would have less of an impart on the residential area; particularly where
there is residential next to commercial.
-4-
Commissioner Fairbanks spoke against the motion; she noted her concerns regarding
commercial rext to residential, and felt there should be at least 10 feet from
the proposed structure to the property line.
Commissioner Campos also spoke against the motion. He felt the developers could
resolve some of the conce^ns expressed toil evening. He felt the developer
should do everything possible to accommodate the single-family residence.
After considerable discussion, Commissioner Pack withdrew her second to
Commissioner Kotowski's motion for approval of S 80-28.
Commissioner Kotowski's motion for approval failed because of a lack of a
second.
At this time it was asked of the applicant if he desired a continuance or a
decision this evening on this project. Mr. Kee also noted that this application
has been before the Commission since November. He stated the applicant would
have the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission within 10 days
of any action ttken, to the City Caiauil.
Mr. Peepari felt that various alternatives had been looked into; he felt that
this project should not be denied.
Mr. Gemma, property owner, asked for a decision of the Planning Commission this
evening, noting he could consider an appeal to the Council should this be denied.
Once again, Commissioner Kotowski moved that S 80-28 be approved, as previously
conditirned. This motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Dickson then moved for denial of S 80-28, based on the discussion
this evening relating to this application, seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks,
and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Pack, Campos, Dickson, Fairbanks
NOES: Comnissioners: Kotowski, Meyer
ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas
Commissioner Kotowski expressed concern about commercial property abutting
residential property; he felt the decision on this matter was not really fair
and there should possibly be some guidelines for developers to follow.
ITEM N0. 3
STAFF CENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1981
S 80-28 Coniinued applicatior of Mr. Robert Peepari for
Peepari, R. approval of plans and elevations to allow con-
struction of an 8,680 square Foot commercial
(retail) building on property known as 2160 S.
Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, subject to attached conditions, including Cond. No. 1, "Revised plans
& elevations indicating a reduction in floor area of 640 s.f, to be approved by
Planning Director upon recommendation of Architectural Advisor
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its meeting of January 20, 1981 the Planning Commission contiouccl this
application with the concurrence of the applicant, so that revised plans
could be submitted which addressed concerns expressed by the Commission at
its previous meeting of January 6, 1981.
The applicant has since submitted revised plans which indicate the following
changes:
1. The provision of a 25 foot setback along Shady Dale Avenue.
2. Paint treatment to soften the easterly elevation.
3. An increase in the depth of the retail structure from 40 feet
to 42 feet.
These changes address the majority of the concerns expresses' by staff, however,
the presented site plan still lacks adequate parking.
The applicant has provided 42 parking spaces (14 compact, 1 handicapped, 27
standard) for this project. The provided parking results in a parking ratio
of 1:215. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit a revised site
plan for approval of the Planning Director, which indicates a reduction in
floor area of approximately 640 square feet. The resulting parking ratio
would be 1:200.
The recommended reduction in floor area could be accommodated along the
easterly property line, thus creating a ten foot buffer between this project
and the adjacent property to the east. This buffer area would seem to
address the concerns of the adjacent property owners as expressed in their
letters of January 7 and 26, 1981, which are attached for the Commission's
review. The proposed setback, additionally, would conform to a typical
setback for a residential development in this area. Staff has prepared an alternative
site plan, Exhibit A, which illustrates a possible solution.
The Commission also has received a referral from Mayor Hammer concerning
the traffic in the project location. The Public Works Department is
prepared to present an oral report on traffic in this area as per the
request of Mr. Eugene McFarlane.
CHRONOLOGICAL REVIEW
MR. ROBERT PEEPARI
2160 S. BASCOM AVENUE
Pe -ember 16, 1980
Planning Commission continues application with concurrence of the
applicant to meeting of January 6, 1981. The Commission noted
that the adjacent property to the east should be contacted.
Concerns cf presented plans:
I. Provision of additional driveway along Bascom Avenue frontage.
2. Treatment and submittal of complete north and east elevations.
3. Concern regarding northern exit system.
4. Location of trash enclosures.
January 6, 1981
Planning Commission continues application with concurrence of the
applicant to meeting of January 20, 1981, in order that revised plans could
be submitted and that the applicant take into consideration Mrs. Robinson'.,
concerns regarding a 25' setback.
Mrs. Robinson, property owner of adjacent parcel, re;uested that a
25' setback along Shady Dale be considered. She frlt that with a 25'
setback the building wouldn't: look so bad and would be consistent with
the setback of other structures along Shady Dale.
Concerns of presented plans:
1. On -site circulation problem with only one driveway.
2. Elimination of parking spaces.
3. Concern regarding northern exit system.
4. Lack of treatment to soften the effect of eastern elevation.
5. Setback along Shady Dale Avenue.
January 7, 1981
Planning Department receives a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robinson,
adjacent property owners, requesting chat the proposed structure only
follow the easterly property line for 60 feet and the remainder of the
area proposed as parking. f
January 20, 1981
Planning Commission continued application with concurrence of
applicant to meeting of February 3, 1981 in order that revised plans
may be submitted.
Concerns of presented plans:
1. Elimination of par.<ing spaces for driveway .
2. Lack of treatment along easterly elevation.
3. Setback along Shady Dale Avenue.
J
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: PEEPARI, R.
Page 1
FN
Meeting of February 3, 1981
Revised site plan indicating a reduction in floor area of 640 sq. ft.
to be approved by the Planninr ^irector upon recommendation of the
Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of Planning Commission approval.
2 Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in
red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with thr approved plan.
3 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of hose bibs or sprinkler system to be submitted for
approval of the Planning Director prior to application for building
permit.
4 Fencing plan indicating 'iration and design details of fencing to
be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to applica-
tion for building permit.
S Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the
amount of t 3.000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping
of parking areas .ithin three months rf completion of construction,
or (2) file written agreement to compl, , landscaping, fencing and
striping of parking areas prior to application for a building permit.
n/a* Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to t,c City Attorney
limiting the use of the property to, square feet of office
use, square feet of speculative ndustrial use, and
square feet of warehouse use, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
_ 7 All mechan'cal equipment located )n roofs to be screened as approved
by the Planning Director.
g Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
*Not applicable to this application.
00'tt
CONDITIUNS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari. R.
Page 2
The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required
to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of th= City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of California.
A All parking and driveway areas to be developcd in compliance
with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All
parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs
or bumper guards.
B Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
C Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utiliti-s including water, sewer, electric, telephone and
television cables, etc.
D Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions
of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed
until application is approved and permit issued by the Building
Department. (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code.)
E Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet oarbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the city
of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company.
This r=quirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple
apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial,
manufacturing, and construction establishments.
F Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire
Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist
of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and
have self -closing doors of a size speciried by the Fire Department.
Al enclosures to be constructed at grade level.
G Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City require-
ments for the handicapped.
n/a Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated
in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page 3
PUBLIC 410RKS DEPARTMENT
H. Process and file a parcel map to combine two lots.
1. Provide a copy of the Preliminary Title Report.
J. Pay the Storm drainage area fee.
K. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the r:view and approval
of the City Engineer.
L. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees andpost surety to remove the
driveway approach on Bascom Avenue; install a handicap ramp at the
corner, replace roll curb and gutter with residential walk with
vertical curb and c,uiter and commercial walk.
STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified
that the property is to be maintained free of any comLustible trash, debris
adn weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing
structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors
sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from property. Sect. 11.201 R
11.414, 1979 Edition of Uniform Fire Code.
The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable
Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this
deve.Opment and are not herein specified.
J
----6----E.--CAMPSELL------------..- -- --- ---A.
K ►Y. 272 M fi n • n TRACT N• 106T�
JS r
s �€ .tT t' is ?Y t' fo 2' f/ �i fR y €4 a' €,* ^.+ f!' €� •a
.I ! . 7 • I to II y
•n • ' a i • ' � • � � a � u � �• u
- a; '�n� r• Il - It l0 9 a i ; a S ; z I z
E`,D
P. TRACT GARDENS - ARROYO GARDEn I DR. fe
Y M. xx e S
g369-Y4. ARRDYDt_.a. ! w ,o w �•o "� e
107 AC NET i 1 L� y •el 1 t7 �9 _ a1 �1 �f
81 1 , ' ...
u i O t! N
' j3 al x,+
I I.
J13 11
1 . S s 7 • • ro Ki A l x is 1 u Is
L L !IU IP t' Y
z o2 L
V) ' —_T TRACT N• 223 - EI SOLYO TRACT ')
�---. 2 A--LL SOLYDc_= _—'. _-_..---- - -- -------- -----AVE.—__..._:
PM 262-M-23 » r, TRACT N•225 r' EL SO— TRACT r) rr PM 3�5-M-12 2 _
Xi
LJ BO —ZS Y—r—r--�_
` Y • KL •..• 073 AC NET
!
'. � t9 iA 27 to 2! t• tl . 2! ♦• Pfit I• 's
U K
�NI •r•:•••�••••,: I 1
c)� L4 y p e 6 s J r
• 5---••- —SHADY ".DALE--- --------- AVE.—•r—s—
R — • TRACT N• 975 - SHADY DALE Suso
)2w Xw . ,)• ,)., r).. •+ »•, 1••+ t• 17 7 -W.—r, Trw T�T7t�)
� PM
W w� o KL.A f U li L4 Gt if P i !1it v i y i YJ L4 al
> _
t ..`t_ •)x 1 i. II ea 1 !• i to i xE � tl I zo Y I IJ i IT � Y � I! 1 I• �
1a Iz I 11 1 r0 ' • 1 A I 7 I 1 1 t � • 1 t � t I
l ~.4 `a tli d� 1 IF as A ,P 1 1 L4 ' I I L 1 !D 1 d 1 d i v a
& I I I I I
�• TP
t j
BENT '•,) DR.
'a IS iy`r TRACT N• 1626 - ORY :REEK RANCH
I� � tr w •t, x 1 w 1•u )w � , b , I ,)Y 1 nSe
__ �•x� 4„t. - LFli? i 10 w i( I i( I lit1 v I b/ Ri
. �_-:.�� _ < IA 16 I IO i zl � 'zt I !! I 1• 1 to 1 !6 1 ti I N '
of Q _Y 3_Air____f________+____{____�____�____{____i____+_*�_,_1
_ •Ir ' •0 „ to 1 !7 !A M !• 1 tt ' at al 7
z 5 r I I I St
m i � 2 1 r !f €0 fT 4f 0 f/ I S K €t 1 EP °1 , Q1 _
. ,�, .. , , - �F�ae°Aeya�m ._• �4s;�•r �_„rt,�p,..,,,*,a,�
CITY OF CAMPBI?LL
75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
(408) 378-8141
Department, 'rlannina..Y."1.�LG!-�'�
0% �r9VWIT� 0
JAN 7 1991
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLAN JG DEPARTMCNT
January 7, 1981
RE+ Develupment proposal at 2160 S. bascom Avenue (S 80-28)
C7ty Planning:L�J7r:-t�f" -
dhen we built on my property ten years aro we were told by the planning commission
that when the property next to us was tu.'.lt on, they would not be allowed to put
a high wall on the line which would block my house from the sun, llcht, view etc.
I recieved a letter January 5. 1981 that plans had been drawn up for a fifteen
foot high building on the property line the whole length of my house and lot,
going almost to the street. This building will block my windows on the west side
completely, will keep me from having any solar heating, will be nolsey with air
conditioners on top, will be within a few feet of a fireplace.
This building could have been built along the north side of the lot without caus-
ing problems to anyone, It could even come down for sixty feet by my garage and
ba..xyard without covering windows on our house. The balance could be parking.
I think this is a reasonable request, the Planning Commission says they can do
most anything they want to do. There doesn't seem to be any laws to protect us
at all. We seem to have no rights at all.
Since this will ruin our house completely and will destroy the value of it, as
tax paying citizens we think the Planning Commission should give us some consid-
eration :nd see that the plans are redrawn. Also someone from Planning should
come out and look at it. We believe also that we should have been notified of
this before January 5, 1981.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Joeeph E. Robinson
a •
CITY OF CAMFBELL
75 NORTP. CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 378-8141
January 23. 1981
Departments Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission:
We are writing to you once again on the building plans at 21hn So. Aascom
Avenue (S 80-28). After seeing the susposedly new plans at the Jan•..ary
20, 1981 meeting. We find that Mr. Peeparl is not concerned with any of
our problems.
We are not sure if the Planning Commission is aware of what we -were asking
for. We were hoping that parking could be next to the property line, if
this was done, my windows would not be blocked off and we could have solar
heating.
All the other houses In our location that are next to commerical property,
all the way on Bascom Avenue are done in this way. This would eliminate
a lot of future problems for us.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph E. Robi on _
CM OF CAIFULL
CM OMMIL/ADVISORY COWISSION/SU" r, 7 P W j D
REFERRAI. FORM Lvinllrn+ : 11v/ �C,
'N
TO: George Kasolas ro„ CI"Nf INO DEPARTMENT
OF' CAMPBELL
Planning Commission _
IRON: u�
D1SiRUMONS FOR USE OF THIS PM:
1 Ibis Fors should be Utilised Whenever a referral is made from me elected or
advisory body to the city Cowlcil or Advisory Commission or City Manager. The
informmtion requi sd to complete the fors Abould be provided by the initiator
at the time the referral is mmde. The staff advisor Will be responsible for
completing the fors for review and siputy" by the Mayor or Commission Chairman.
SULYM: (A specific summary of the referral.)
At the City Council meet in of Jan 2t. Mr. Euvene McFarlxn
requested that a traffic study be conducted in the area
of Bascom Avenue and Shadv Dale Avenue and that the re��*s
of the study be available to the Planning Commission for *ha
i
February 3 meeting.
�a
r----------- ------ M---------------- ------------ »----«-------------- w-------- «--
} ACTION REQUESM:
TUffORMUIQI QIIY REVIEW A REC"M ACTION TAU ACTION
E
ca*E s: (if necessary)
------------------------------------- 7---------------- »----------
_--
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY: (gy Whit dste the action should be aampletsd' if so date
is specified. that should be indicated)
Date: Jan. 28, 1981' t sir mm am sa
Chairssn)
a w
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
JANUARY 20, 1981
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
S 80-28 Continued application of Mr. Robert Peepari for
Peepari, R. approval of plans and elevations to allow construction
of a 8,680 sq. ft. commercial (retail) building on
property known as 2160 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Meyer reported that the applicant had met with the Site and
Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending
a continuance of this application to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 3, in order that the applicant could submit revised plans.
Commissioner Pack then moved that S 80-28 be continued to the Manning Commission
meeting of February 3, 1981, seconded by Commissioner Kotowski and unanimously
adopted.
} i k
W
WEM NO. 1
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING C014MISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1981
S 80-28 Continued application of Mr. Robert Peepari for
Peepari, R. approval of plans and elevations to allow con-
struction of a 8,680 sq. ft. commercial (retail)
building on property known as 2160 S. Bascom
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
STAFF RECO14MENDATION
1. Continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 1981
with the concurrence of the applicant, so that the applicant may submit
revised plans.
2. If approved, subject to the attached conditions, including Condition
No. 1, "Revised plans and elevations to be approved by the Planning
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor."
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its meetinq of December 16, 1980 and January 6, 1981 the Planning
Commission continued this item, so that the applicant could submit
revised elevations and site plan. Attached is a copy of the previous
Staff Comment Sheets and a letter from the adjacent property owner.
The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan which indicates
the following changes:
1. Elimination of the exit indicated for the northerly end of
the building.
2. Addition of a driveway along the Shady Dale Avenue frontage.
Staff is of the opinion that these changes do not address the concerns
expressed by the Commission concerning the impact of the proposed
building on adjacent residential properties. Staff is recommending a
continuance at this so that revised plans may be submitted. It should
be noted that staff did discuss the Commission's concerns with the
applicant.
a
CITY OF CAMPBUL
75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
(408) 378-8141
Department: Planning o �14 +'✓
JAN 7 1981
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLA: JD DEPARTMCNT
January 7, 1981
RE: Development Proposal at 2160 S. Bascom Avenue (S 80-28)
City Flanning:0',117�2,/-4c,�e�
When we built on my property ten years ado we were told by the planning commission
that when the property next to us was built on, they would not be allowed to put
a high wall on the line which would block my house from the sun, light, view etc.
I recieved a letter January 5, 1981 that plans had been drawn up for a fifteen
foot high bulldinP on the property line the whole length of my house and lot,
going almost to the street. This building will block my windows on the west side
completely, will keep me from having any solar heating, will be noisey with air
conditioners on top, will be within a few feet of a fireplace.
This building could have been built along the north side of the lot without caus-
II
Ing problems to anyone, It could even come down for sixty feet by my garage and
backyard without covering windows on our house. The balance could be parking.
I think this is a reasonable request, the Planning Commission says they can do
most anything they want to do. There doesn't seem to be any laws to protect us
at all. We as
to hate no rights at all.
Since this will ruin our house completely and will destroy the value of It, as
tax paying citizens we think the Planning Commission should give its some consid-
eration and see that the plans are redrawn. Also someone from Planning should
come out and look at It. We believe also that we should have been notified of
this before January 5. 1981.
S L.cere ly ,
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph E. Robinson
K,
• •
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1981
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peeoari for approval of plans
Peepari, R. and elevations to allow construction of a 8,680 sq. ft.
commercial (retail) building on Droperty known as
2160 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zonino District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Continuance to the meeting of January 20, 1981 so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations; or
2. If approved, subject to the attached conditions, including Condition No. 1,
"Revised plans and elevations to be approved by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor."
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its meeting of December 16, 1980 the Planning Commission continued this item
so that revised plans and elevations could be submitted. Attached is a copy
of the December 16, 1980 Staff Comment Sheet for the Commission's review.
The applicant has submitted revised plans and elevations; however, several
problems are apparent:
1. The driveway, as indicated on the original plans, has been relocated
from Shady Dale Avenue to Bascom Avenue, which in staff's opinion creates
a difficult on -site circulation problem. It is also the opinion of the
Public Works Department that an additional driveway be provided on Shady
Dale Avenue.
2. Approximately six parking spaces have been eliminated with the two new
driveway locations, from what was indicated on the original submittal.
Therefore, to meet the parking ratio of 1:200, the building floor area
will have to be reduced approximately 1,0nn sq. ft. or other modifications
made to the site plan.
3. The Building Department is concerned about the exit system indicated for
the northerly end of the building. Stairs are not allowed to extend into
a 10 ft. setback (where protection of openings are required). To correct
this problem will require a modification in the elevations and/or site
plan.
4. The easterly elevation is adjacent to the residential property, thus
staff is recommending treatment to soften the effect of this wall.
Texturing and paiting of this wall, as well as the northerly wall is
recommended. The revised elevations show no treatment of these walls.
Staff is recommending a continuance so that the applicant can submit revised plans
and elevations addressing the aforementioned concerns. The adjacent property
owners have been notified of the development proposal.
STAFF COMMENT SHEET(VFLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OFWEMBER 16, 1980
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval
Peepa: , R. of plans and elevations to allo�-:-onstructi
of an 8,680 square foot commercial (retail)
building or property known as 2160 S. Bascom
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. If approved, subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8,680 square foot commercial
(retail) building on the .67 acre site. Presently, the site is occupied
by three (3) residential structures. These will be removed. The
proposed building will cover approximately 30 percent of the site. The
proposed use conforms with the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
designation for the property.
Building materials are indicated as cement plaster (white) with wood trim
(brown) for the walls and cement tile (brown) for the roof.
The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces (30 regular, 14 compact, and
1 for the handicapped), resulting in a parking ratio of one space per
190 square feet of gross floor area.
While the parking proposed for this project does conform to recent Plannina
Commission approvals, staff is of the opinion that additional access should
be provided to Bascom Avenue and that the southerly driveway should be
shifted to the west to an area to be approved by the Department of Public
Works. These changes will result in a revision to the proposed parking
layout; therefore Condition No. 1 has been recommended which would require
that the revised layout be approved at staff level. Provision of an additional
driveway would reduce the number of parking spy^.es to approximately 42,
resulting in a parking ratio of 1:206. Staff is of the opinion that the ratio
will be workable, and will provide better on -site traffic circulation.
A` The site plan indicates that 25 percent of the project will be landscaped.
4 The applicant intends to retain two existing large trees on the Bascom
Avenue frontage, however, two tether large trees on Shady Dale Avenue are to
be removed. It is the Staff's opinion that these two trees could be
accommodated with little or no modification to the plans as presented.
F
S 80-.8
Peepari, R. A
Page 7
The plans do not demonstrate the elevations of the proposed building
wa: ted on the easterlu property line. Since this property line
w be adjacent to a residential property, Staff i, recommending
re _sed elevations be presented which show the treatment that will
be given to this wall.
Staff is also concerned over the proximity of the proposed trash area
to the residences to tr_ south and east.
The Building Department expresses concern that the exterior exit system
'r clear.
Th- Ai,hiiactural Advisor is of the opinion that the project is "generally
31 ptaule" but he recommends roof treatment on the north wall.
Because of the aforementioned problems, the Staff is recommending a
continuance to the January 6, 1981 meeting so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations addressing the stated concerns.
7
0
I. 1-17 -'r -- .21 1� I I I
A A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page 1
1 Revised clans and elevations to be approved by the planning Director
upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor.
2 Property to be fenced and landscaped as Indicated and/or
added in red on plans.
3 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material,
and location of hose bibs or sprinkler system to be submitted
for approval of the Planning Director prior to application
for building permit.
4 Fencing plan Indicating location and design details of fencing
to be submitted for approval of Planning Director prior to
application for building permit.
5 Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained In accordance with
the approved plan.
6_ Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond In
the amount of $ 3,000 to Insure landscaping, fenc' and
striping of perking areas within three months of completlo
of construction, or (2) file written agreement to complete
landscaping, fencing and striping of parking areas prior to
final Building Department clearance.
N/A* Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney
limiting the use of the property to: square feet of
office use, square feet ofspeculative industrial
use, and square feet of warehouse use.
7 All mechanical equipment located on roofs to be screened as
approved by the Panning Director.
8 Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
9 Trash area to be relocated as approved by the Planning Director.
10 Northerly and easterly walls to be textured and painted in a manner
approved by the Planning Director and Architectural Advisor.
*N/A - Not applicable to this application.
a
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page 2
The applicant Is notified as part of this application that he/she Is required
to meet the fcllowing conditions In accordance with Ordinances of the City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of California.
A All parking and driveway areas to be developed In compliance
with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All
parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs
or bumper guards.
8 Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
r Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
Indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sever, electric, telephone and
television cables, etc.
D_ Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions
of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be Installed
until application Is approved and permit Issued by the Building
Department. (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code.)
E Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the city
of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company.
This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple
apartment units, to all commercial, business, Industrial,
manufacturing, and construction establishments.
F Trash container s) of a size and _ ( quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located In area(s) approved by the Fire
Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist
of a concrete floor serrounded by a solid wall or fence and
have self -closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department.
All enclosures to be constructed at grade level.
6 Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City require-
ments for the handicapped.
N/A' Noise revels for the Interior of residential units shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as Indicated
In the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan.
*N/A - Not applicable to this application.
CDODITIONS OF APPRO11*- S BO-28
A,plicatlon of: Peepari, R.
Page 3
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Process and file a parcel map to combine two lots.
1. Provide a copy of the Preliminary Title Report.
J. Pay the storm drainage area fee.
K. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
L. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety to remove the
driveway approach on Bascom Avenue; install a handicap ramp at the
corner; replace roll curb and gutter and resident'al walk with
vertical curb and gutter and commercial walk.
The applicant Is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable
Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
--l--E.—CAMPBELL AVE 7 —____ _
d
`i N •D• - CAY•te LL t1110[NS p
�� i �� � I n � « � w i w w , «• i
'I i/ iP t' d =� d tl 0, tf t/ s B =� N s, to 5 fs lz ° N pl, it !
TI �' !'
I
e ,• i n w u to A •
m * u tl i� ff tl 11 S+
�1 stco TNACT r• 1765-ul•ovo •uro[Ns DR. y
Oim7{r[t tl el tl O tl tl tl •_ L N dl L� 8 L• L� ,
•I ' ;, _
Lf to I, It d ' N N N ; t/ f• AA I
I
Ij t
ti/t , • • 1 ! ' T ' • , i • q _.� u,;Ay
It ; u 1 q ICY l r
i�i L! 11 i At 4 d0 }
!9 If
t< k EF
i ! I • N a
•• ' • TRACI M• 23S - [L f0LT0 TNAti " p'= ` r
'—EL SQLYO= �. ------ - --------AVE.---'—•— �r zQ-r-TS ?PACT N•215 - EL SDL+D TRACT •r 3S5-Y42 • i
n • 1 Y
5 Sc-2B pl
SI y i I
Ion Ac Ic, , i
Ki • t• N e+ N N t• N I N •A • •q • • • t
Lf
.SHADY
DALE
7t•C7 N• •TS - /NADT DAL[ w•o AVE.—
7747
E r•a' q // !! i Y i Lw tl i d i P j I/�-j O i d V I tl i tl i
' 1 !'
e^ I N I S• I• 1 as I et t1 I to w 1 r I n I r 1 r 1 I• 1 n
A.
n ' e 1 u 1 le • 1 • 1 f 1 • 1 • ' .........................
, •
tl t j7 i!jrI I i ' i
1 I 1 1 I I 1 I
f • t DR.
•%' �BENT r gTPACT M• 1614 - DAY CN[[N IIANCN
j t 1 I 1 I , , I I +
�- I• L L '� q u i 8 !I I tr i tl i N it D i [! i tl 1 tl Q
--'Ltt!L '•I I w ee t' j ft i N N ' N N i t7 I [• i' ~
n ' to A, ' + iN
' ' M 1 1 I
1 1 11
r
r r i O i tl i tl N i 0 i tl v p ti • F Y Pi
i I�r • y her' 1 I I � I � i � � .I
t/ •al It �'� •—CAMEO - •-- DR-• �—•�, t
• b t J
Ij—
L
w •
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
JANUARY 6, 1981
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval of plans
Peepari, R. and elevations to allow construction of a 8,650 sq. ft.
commercial (retail) building on property known as
2160 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant had met with the Site and
Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending
a continuance of this application to the Planning Commission meeting of January 20
in order that concerns about on -site traffic circulation could be resolved.
Mr. Kee stated that staff is also recommending a continuance of this application
in order that revised plans could he submitted; he further noted that the pro-
perty owner to the east would prefer that this building also have a 25' setback.
3-
Mrs. Robinson, property owner next door to the site, requested that a 25'
setback considered. She felt that with a 25' setback the building wouldn't
look so bad.
Commissioner Meyer then moved that S 80-28 be continued to the Planning I
Commission meeting of January 20 in order that revised plans could be sub-
mitted and that the applicant take into consideration Mrs. Robinson's concerns
regarding a 25' setback. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kotowski
and unanimously adopted.
�AWNIMMLWMW i 1.
Item No. 3
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1980
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peeper! for approval
Peepari, R. of plans and elevations to allow construction
of an 8,680 square foot commercial (retail)
building on property known as 2160 S. Bascom
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
S.^.AFF RECOMMENDATION
1. If approved, subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8,680 square fc-t commercial
(retail) building on the .67 acre site. Presently, the site is occupied
by three (3) residential structures. These will be removed. The
proposed building will cover approximately 30 percent of the site. The
proposed use conforms with the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
designation for the property.
Building materials are indicated as cement plaster (white) with wood trim
(brown) for the walls and cement tile (brown) for the roof.
The applicant is providing 05 parking spaces (30 regular, 10 compact, and
1 for the handicapped), resulting in a parking ratio of one space per
190 square feet of gross floor area.
While the parking proposed for this project does conform to recent Planning
Commission approvals, staff is of the opinion that additional access should
be provided to Bascom Avenue and that the southerly driveway should be
shifted to the west to an area to be approved by the Department of Public
Works. These changes will result in a revision to the proposed parking
layout; therefore Condition No. I has been recommended which would require
that the revised layout be approved at staff level. Provisior of an additional
driveway would reduce the number of parking spaces to approximately 42,
resulting in a parking ratio of 1:206. Staff is of the opinion that the ratio
will be workable, and will provide better on -site traffic circulation.
The site plan indicates that 25 percent of the project will be landscaped.
The applicant intends to retain two existing large trees on the Bascom
Avenue frontage, however, two other large trees on shady Dale Avenue are to
be removed. It is the Staff's opinion that these two trees could be
accommodated with little or no modification to the plans as presented.
S Bo-28
Peepari, R.
Page 1
The plans do not demonstrate the elevations of the proposed building
wall located on the easterly property line. Since this property line
wall will be adjacent to a residential property, Staff is recommending
that revised elevations be presented which show the treatment that will
be given to this wall.
Staff is also concerned over the proximity of the proposed trash area
to the residences to the south and east.
The Building Department expresses concern that the exterior exit system
is not clear.
The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the project is "generally
acceptable" but he recommends roof treatment on the north wall.
Because of the aforementioned problems, the Staff is recommending a
continuance to the January 6, 1981 meeting so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations addressing the stated concerns.
• •ITEM N0. 6
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSIOM MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1981,
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval of plans
Peepari, R. and elevations to allow construction of a 8,680 sq. ft.
commercial (retail) building on oroperty known as
2160 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zonina District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Continuance to the meeting of January 20, 1981 so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations; or
2. If approved, subject to the attached conditions, including Condition No. 1,
"Revised plans and elevations to be approved by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor.'
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its meeting of December 16, 1980 the Plannino Commission continued this item
so that revised plans and elevations could be submitted. Attached is a copy
of the December 16, 1980 Staff Comment Sheet for the Commission's review.
The applicant has submitted revised plans and elevations; however, several
problems are apparent:
1. The driveway, as indicated on the original plans, has been relocated
from Shady Dale Avenue to Bascom Avenue, which in staff's opinion creates
a difficult on -site circulation problem. It is also the opinion of the
Public Works Department that an additional driveway be provided on Shady
Dale Avenue.
2. Approximately six parking spaces have been eliminated with the two new
driveway locations, from what, was indicated on the original submittal.
Therefore, to meet the parkins ratio of 1:200, the building floor area
will have to be reduced approximately 1,000 sq. ft. or other modifications
made to the site plan.
3. The Building Department is concerned about the exit system indicated for
the northerly end of the building. Stairs are not allowed to extend into
a 10 ft. setback (where protection of openings are required). To correct
this problem will require a modification in the elevations and/or site
plan.
4. The easterly elevation is adjacent to the residential property, thus
staff is recommencing treatment to soften the effect of this wall.
Texturing and paiting of this wall, as well as the northerly wall is
recommended. The revised elevations show no treatment of these walls.
Staff is recommendinq a continuance so that the applicant can submit revised plans
and elevations addressing the aforementioned concerns. The adjacent property
owners have been notified of the development proposal.
Item No. 3 t`
CA j
f
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1980
S 80-18 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval
Peepari, R. of plans and elevations to allow construction
of an 8,680 square foot commercial (retail)
building on property known as 2160 S. Bascom
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. If approved, subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8,680 square foot commercial
(retail) building on the .67 acre site. Presently, the site is occupied
by three (3) residential structures. These will be removed. The
proposed building will cover approximately 30 percent of the site. The
proposed use conforms with the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
designation for the property.
Building materials are indicated as cement plaster (white) with wood trim
(brown) for the walls and cement tile (brown) for the roof.
The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces (30 regular, 14 compact, and
1 for the handicapped), resulting in a parking ratio of one space per
190 square feet of gross floor area.
While the parking proposed for this project does conform to recent Planning
Commission approvals, staff 1: of the opinion that additional access should
be provided to Bascom Avenue and that the southerly driveway should be
shifted to the west to an area to be approved by the Department of Public
Works. These changes will result in a revision to the proposed parking
layout; therefore Condition No. 1 has been recommended which would require
that the revised layout be approved at staff level. Provision of an additional
driveway would reduce the number of parking spaces to approximately 42,
resulting in a parking ratio of 1:206. Staff is of the opinion that the ratio
will be workable, and will provide better on -site traffic circulation.
The site plan indicates that 25 percent of the project will be landscaped.
The applicant intends to retain two existing large trees on the Bascom
Avenue frontage, however, two other large trees on Shady Dale Avenue are to
be removed. It is the Staff's opinion that these two trees could be
accommodated with little or no modification to the plans as presented.
4
S 80-26 A
Peepari, R.
Page 2
The plans do not demonstrate the elevations of the proposed building
wall located on the easterly property line. Since this property line
wall will be adjacent to a residential property, Staff is recommending
that revised elevations be presented which show the treatment that will
be _71ven to this wall.
Staff is also concerned over the proximity of the proposed trash area
to the residences to the south and east.
The Building Department expresses concern that the exterior exit system
is not clear.
The Architec— Advisor is of the opinion that the project is "generally
acceptable' bu ae recommends roof treatment on the north wall.
Because of the aforementioned problems, the Staff is recommending a
continuance to the January 6, 1981 meeting so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations addressing the stated concerns.
4 A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
AppIIcatlon of: Peepari, R.
Page 1
1 Revised plans and elevations to be approved by the Planning Director
upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor.
2 Property to be fenced and landscaped as Indicated and/or
added in red on plans.
3 Landscaping plan Indicateng type and size of plant material,
and location of hose bibs or sprinkler system to be submitted
for approval of the Planning Director prior to application
for building permit.
4 Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing
to be submitted for approval of Planning Director prior to
application for building permit.
5 Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained In accordance with
the approved plan.
6_ Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond In
the amount of $ 3,000 to Insure landscaping, fencing, and
striping of parking areas within three months of completion
of construction, or (2) file written agreement to complete
landscaping, fencing and striping of parking areas prior to
final Building Department clearance.
N/A' Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney
limiting the use of the prcperty to: square feet of
office use, square feet 3T—specuTative industrial
use, and square feet of warehouse use.
7 All mechanical equipment located on roofs to be screened as
approved by the Planning Director.
8 Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
9 Trash area to be relocated as approved by the Planning Director.
10 Northerly and easterly walls to be textured and painted in a manner
approved by the Planning Director and Architectural Advisor.
*N/A w Not applicable to this application.
I
A A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page 2
The applicant Is notified as part of this application that he/she is required
to meet the following conditions In accordance with Ordinances of the City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of California.
A All parking and driveway areas to be developed In compliance
with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All
parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs
or bumper guards.
B Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20-16.070 of the Campbeli Municipal Code.
r Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities Including water, sewer, electric, telephone and
television cables, etc.
FSign application to be submitted In accordance with provisions
of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be Installed
until application is approved and permit Issued by the Building
Department. (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code.)
E_ Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code s:ipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the city
of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company.
This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple
apartment units, to all commercial, business, Industrial,
manufacturing, and construction establishments.
FTrash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located In ares(s) approved by the Fire
Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist
of a concret: floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and
have self -closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department.
All enclosures to be constructed at grade level.
F Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City require-
ments for the handicapped.
N/A* Noise levels for the Interior of residential units shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as Indicated
In the Noise Element of the Campbell General Ilan.
'N/A - Not applicable to this application.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
ArplicetIon of: Peepari, R.
Page 3
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Process and file a parcey map to combine two lots.
I. Provide a copy of the Preliminary title Report.
J. Pay the storm drainage area fee.
K. Provide a grading and drainage p;an for the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
L. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety to remove the
driveway approach on Bascom Avenue; install a handicap ramp at the
corner; replace roll curb and gutter and residential walk with
vertical curb and gutter and commercial walk.
The applicant Is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable
Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
DECEMBER 16, 1980
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval of plans
Peepari, R. and elevations to allow construction of an 8,680 square
foot commercial (retail) building on property known as
2160 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that the applicant met with the Site and Architectural
Review Committee this morning and requested a continuance of this application to the
next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that perhaps staff may want to notify the property
owner to the east of what is being proposed next door to them.
Commissioner Meyer then moved that S 80-28 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of January 6, 1981, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
- . ......... - ._ I
low
No. 3
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1980
S 80-28 Application of Mr. Robert Peepari for approval
Peepari, R. of plans and elevations to allow construction
of an 8,680 square foot commercial (retail)
building on property known as 2160 S. Bascom
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. If approved, subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8,680 square foot commercial
(retail) building on the .67 acre site. Presently, the site is occupied
by three (3) residential structures. These will be removed. The
proposed building will cover approximately 30 percent of the site. The
propc;ed use conforms with the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
designation for the property.
Building r terials are indicated as cement plaster (white) with wood trim
(brown) for the walls and cement tile (brown) for the roof.
The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces (30 regular, 14 compact, and
1 for the handicapped), resulting in a parking ratio of one space per
190 square feet of gross floor area.
While the parking proposed for this project does conform to recent Planning
Commission approvals, staff is of the opinion that additional access should
be provided to Bascom Avenue and that the southerly driveway should be
shifted to the west to an area to be approved by the Department of Public
Works. These changes will result in a revision to the proposed parking
layout; therefore Condition No. 1 has been recommended which would require
that the revised layout be approved at staff level. Provision of an additional
driveway would reduce the number of parking spaces to approximately 42,
resulting in a parking ratio of 1:206. Staff is of the opinion that the ratio
will be workable, and will provide better on -site traffic circulation.
The site plan indicates that 25 percent of the project will be landscaped.
The applicant intends to retain two existing large trees on the Bascom
Avenue frontage, however, two other large trees on Shady Dale Avenue are to
be removed. It is the Staff's opinion that these two trees could be
accommodated with little or no m. dification to the plans as presented.
05 0
S 80-28
Peepari, R.
Page 2
The plans do not demonstrate the elevations of the proposed building
wall located on the easterly property line. Since this property line
wall will be adjacent to a resilential property, Staff is recommending
that revised elevations be presented which show the treatment that will
be given to this wall.
Staff is also concerned over the proximity of the proposed trash area
to the residences to the south and east.
The Building Department expresses concern that the exterior exit system
is not clear.
The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the project is "generally
acceptable" but he recommends roof treatment on the north wall.
BecauFe of the aforementioned problems, the Staff is recommending a
continuance to the January 6, 1981 meeting so that the applicant can
submit revised plans and elevations addressing the stated concerns.
=0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page i
1 Revised plans and elevations to be approved by the Planning Director
upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor.
_ Property to be fenced and landscaped as Indicated and/or
added in red on plans.
3 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material,
and location of hose bibs or sprinkler system to be submitted
for approval of the Planning Director prior to application
for building permit.
4 Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing
to be submitted for approval of Planning Director prior to
application for building permit.
5 Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved plan.
6 Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in
the amount of $ 3,000 to Insure landscaping, fencing, and
striping of parking areas win three months of completion
of construction, or (2) file written agreement to complete
landscaping, fencing and striping of parking areas prior to
final Building Department clearance.
N/A* Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney
limiting the use of the property to: square feet of
office use, square feet of speculative industrial
use, and square feet of warehouse use.
1 All mechanical equipment located on roofs to be screened as
approved by the Planning Director.
B Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
9 Trash area to be relocated as approved by the Planning Director.
10 Northerly and easterly walls to be textured and painted in a manner
approved by the Planning Director and Architectural Advisor.
*N/A - Not applicable to this application.
I
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S W 28
Applica*Son of: Peepari, R.
Page 2
The applicant is notified as part of this applicat'on that he/she is required
tc meet the following conditions in accordance with O,dinances of the City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of Califurnia.
A All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance
with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All
parking spaces to be provided with appropriate conL.ete curbs
or bumper guards.
8 Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and
television cables, etc.
U Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions
of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed
until application is approved and permit Issued by the Building
Department. (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code.)
E Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the city
of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company.
This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple
apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial,
manufacturing, and construction establishments.
r Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) appruved by the Fire
Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist
of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and
have self -closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department.
All enclosures to be constructed at grade level.
G Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City .require-
ments for the handicapped.
N/A* Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated
In the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan.
*N/A = Not applicable to this application.
J
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 80-28
Application of: Peepari, R.
Page g
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Process and file a parc2T map to combine two lots.
I. Provide a copy of the Preliminary Title Report.
J. Pay the storm drainage area fee.
K. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
L. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety to remove the
driveway approach on Bascom Avenue; install a handicap ramp at the
corner; replace roll curb and gutter and residential walk with
vertical curb and gutter and commercial walk.
The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable
Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
J
No.
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIEC MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED -
NOT FOR INTFRNATIONAL MAIL
Is -
TOTAL PDSTADF AND F-
POSTYAA, Op DATE
!I
i
M"
■1
CITY OF CAMPBELL
75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMP BELL, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008
(408) 378-8141
Department: Planning
January 1, 1981
Mr. Joseph Robinson
1045 Shady Dale Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Development Proposal at 2160 S. Bascom Avenue (S 80-28)
Dear Mr. Robinson:
As you may or may not be aware, a proposal to construct a commercial/retail
building at 2160 S. Bascom Avenue (property adjacent to you on the west) is
now being considered by the Planning Commission. The matter went before
the Commission on December 16, 1980 and was continued to the meeting of
January 6, 1981. The Commission has directed Planning Staff to rotify you
of this proposal.
Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Comment Sheet regarding this project. You
should note that a 15 foot masonry wall will be built along your westerly
property line.
You may review the file on this project in the Office of the Planning
Department, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell. If you so desire, you may
comment on this proposal at the January 6, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting which begins at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall.
If you have ary questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MARTY WOODWORTH
PLANNER I
ld
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL
cc: Planning Commission
PITY (IF VAMPRELL
75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMP0ELL, CA LIFORNIA 95008 -
14081 378 8141 �.
Departmwr: Planning December 21, 1981
Mr. Joseph Gemma
c/o Joey's Girls
3350 Ross Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124
RE: S 80-28
2160 S. Bascom Ave.
Dear Mr. Gerona:
Pursuant to your request of December 16, 1981, please be advised that
the Planning Director and Public Works director have approved a waiver
of the underground utility requirement for the Gill Cable service only.
It is my understanding that the PG&E service to your property will be
underground.
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to
call.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PHILW Y 'STAF�F,OjR�D
PRINCIPAL 'LAN, R
ld
1
All"
4900A(s
MAIN SALON 33!i C3 ROSS AV Nl< .� !-_ t 95+2.. �'li •1'/00
December 16,1980
Mr. Arthur Kee
Planning Commission
Campbell, Ca.
Dear Mr. Kee:
As per my conversation with Mr. Phil Stafford on December 14,
1981, I am requesting a waiver of underground utility requirements
for the Gill Cable connection only, for the proposed center located
at 2160 S. Bascom, Campbell, Ca.
I am awaiting your letter of acknowledgement.
Cordially yours,
/oseph A. Gemmna
J A GEMMA
`i
1
I
'AAd 1'MIII
Y�ur.Jlreemlkr M\11 f"spa.e,m
'
1
Y
I The l„Il,tw,nl;lsrrs,r is mlue+irJ l,hnk nndl
WIN— Ia wh,,.., and ,fat.' debt rrrd _
Show N, w h—. darn and add—, of del,. rn'
Y
RFCTRICIID MI IYFRY
show re whom a .'.ale
-i PH RII TI-.(1 UIII.IVFRI
Show I„ whom. das .md add —of ddh.,,,
Ir 1".11'EI FLI1 LI—R FI IR FFFI!
t. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO 5-2g
Mr. Joseph Robinson
1045 Shady Dale Avenue
LA 95008
a�
■
_&aLnpbe�_
l AFTICLE DESCRI—ON
RE-7FR[O NO 1 CERTIFIED NO i INSUNFD NO
a
10226795
C.— rbaln slEr f" 11 eednssw w —"
I ,r•
f
SIG1.1unE l ... ❑ ,
e
a p4T[ VER1� :! a. POST
✓
c
C
1 ,1D0R[45 rCemeleN oily I rpuvsl«f
L UNARLI TO DELIVER S[CAUSE L'L TANS
ALS
ILL
2160 S. Bascom Ave. "
+1
L_
J
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE SHEET
Robert Peepari
4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose, CA 95129
APPLICATION FOR S 80-28 DATE FILED
AMOUNT OF FEE DATE PAID
PROPERTY ADDRESS 2160 S. Bascom Avenue
DATE PUBLISHED IN CAMPBELL PRESS
DATE PROPERTY WAS POSTLD
DATE LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT _
DATE OF FIRST PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED TO: _�-/-f/- /-ele-2f/,
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO.
DENIED RESOLUTION NO.
DATE OF PUBLIC NEARING BY CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
December 4, 1980
December 16, 1980
I STAFF CALCULATION SHEET
DATE:
NAME: riC,.,'
ADDRESS: 21C0 S. Qcsce-++
PROPOSED USE: IQa.fc: l .34 e 4 S
AGENDA DATE: I2 / 8p
FILE NO. $ o — 2
APN: 1 % .7o
ZONE: C -
GROSS LOT AREA: 4 it 0 sq.ft. 1. o ,3 acres
NET LOT AREA: 2 5 b sq..fft. 7 acres
BUILDING AREA BY USE: 1.
2.
3. -- —
4.
TOTAL FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA: G P o sq.ft.
COVERAGE: 30 % of net lot area.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF PA',ING: 13 / 7 I sq.ft. `%.� % of net lot area.
LANDSCAPING:
CODE: 2 Q 9 sq.ft. 0 of net lot area.
PROVIDED: 7 l�sq.ft. 7.,r of net lot area. % of total lot
area.
EXISTING LARGE TREES: Yes No
SETBACKS: AS PROVIDED
Front
Left Side _
Right Side
Rear
SEPARATION BETWEEN 9UILDINGS:
AS PROVIDED
I
CODE
is —
CODE
PARKING SPACES:
TYPE AS PROVIDED
CODE
Regular 3 O
2
Compact
Handicap
Total
f,3
Covered
o
Uncovered
13
PARKING RATIO:
PROVIDED IyQ / L
C
CODE / o
PARKING DESIGN:
ACCEPTABLE
UNACCEPTABLE
Stall Size u
Driveway Width k
Backup Distance k
Distance from Bldgs.
Turnaround Area
DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL): Total No. of Units
Type and No. of Each
AS PROVIDED
CODE
Units per Gross Acre
Units per Zoning Formula
Open Space ( %)
ZONES BORDERING
PARCEL:
Front 2 S
Left Side
Right Side C 2 S
Rear Lew d..9-5-
INTEROmCE ROUTE SLG _
PLEASE gIPROVE
t"foR YOUR INFORMATION PLEASE SEE ME
PLEASE HANDLE PLEASE ADVISE
FOR FILING PLEASE NOTE A RETURN
FOR MAILING
REMARKS �' M
✓-
/6 I✓/ 111777
nry �n1
Iillllll\\\\UU JAN .. � L_,
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLAW_NG DEPARTMENT
1
J
S t -�ynS
i January 9, 101
L: uV=id
Dear Mayor Hammer,
.. CC R?.
Since I haven't been able to speak to you on the phone, ,just
wanted you to know that I talked to Mr. Arthur Kee of the �lanninc Com-
mission. When I asked him why I wasn't notified of what was being done
since it is of great concern to me. T was told by him that they didn't
have to send me a letter, that it was commercial property and that the
owner could do anything he wished. When T asked if itwas legal to put
a building blocking off all my windows, leaving me no 11kht and air cond-
itioners on top next to my house so that, It would be impossible to sleep
at night. I also asked about fire restrictions since it will be within a
few feet of my fireplace, with no access to the back if he billds on the
property line, he also said this was legal.
Mr. Kee's attitude seems to be that anyone stupid enough to own
property in a location such as this, doesn't deserve any consideration. T
have owned this property for twelve years, and all T am asking is that the
parking be put next to my house so that I will have some light and will be
some less noise, since there has to he parkin¢ provided. T do not, think
this is asking too much.
We have lived in this county for thirty-four years, we are business
people, own commercial property and have done commercial building. '71ty
Flanning's first concern was always what It would do to the people in the
neighborhood.
I also asked Mr. Kee why T wasn't told of the meetino that was
held on December 16. 1980 and main T was told the rlmnnino Commission
didn't have to let me know.
I would like to thank you fer yo'ir time and help to this matter.
I know you are very busy, but my son, Greg, thousht you were a terrific
Jerson and I was glad he met ,you. I am very glad you are our mayor and
t.lsh we had more people like you. You certainly have my support, so
thanks again.
Sincerely Yours,
4Mrq( Joae$hRobineon
ti
CITY OF CAMPBELL AN 7
75 North Central Avenue CITY OF CAMPO[LL
Campbell, California 95008 PLAt 46 D[fw'yH[aR
(408) 378-8141
Department: Planning January 7, 1981
RE: Development Proposal at 2160 S. Bascom Avenue (S 80-2e)
City Planning:
0hen we built on my property ten years a,o we were told by the planning commission
that when the property next to us was built on, they would not be allowed to put
a high wall on the line which would block my house from the sun, lioht, view etc.
I recleved a letter January 5, 1981 that plans had been drawn up for a fifteen
foot high building on the property line the whole len-th of my house and lot,
going almostto the street. This hulldina will block my windows on the west side
completely, will keep me from having any solar heating, will be nolsey with air
conditioners on top, wil_ oe within a few feet of a fireplace.
This buildin- -,!,ld have been built along the north side of the lot without caus-
ing problems to anyone, It could even come down for sixty feet by my garage and
backyard without covering windows on our house. The balance could be parkin'.
I think this is a reasonable request, the Planning Commission says they can do
most anything they want to do. There doesn't seem to be any laws to p,ccecrtus
at all. We seem to have no rights at all.
Since this will ruin our house completely and will destroy the vai�e of it, as
tax paying citizens we think the Plannlne Commission should give _, some consid-
eration and see that the plans are redrawn. Also someone from Manning should
come out and look at it. We believe also that we should have heen notified of
this before January 5, 1981.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph F. Robinson
37/- 3439
L_
t
J
..._._.. ,.-•fit c.,...,,�
ENVIRONI•10TAL CHECI''LIST TO BI; USrD BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL IN MAKING AN
FI"'`IRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSK,-Al
(INITIAL STUDY)
I. IM CKOROUND
1. Name of Proponent PO bo. + pp t na
2. Address and Phone Number r ol Proponent:
.4100 S7'4 yr,. Cry, 1. &_
40� rat-S.c3 Z.��35
3: Date of Checklist Submitted 1,/2,r F 0
pp Agency Requiring Checklist c:4-Cc.�
s. flame of Proposal, if applicaoleT— T
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yea" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
- a. Unstable earth conditlops or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil? _.
v
C. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of and unique geologic
or physical features?
_!/
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the alto?
t. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of
the Ocean Or any ay, inlet Or lake?
..-
1 of 7 Pages
^ YES
W YAF NO
g, Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards? __
v
?, Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
dcberioration of ambient air• quality?
b. The creation of ob?ectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
_
3, Water. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements, In
either marine or fresh waters?
_
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattersn, or the rate
and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the coursr or
flow of flood waters'!
_
d. CI in the amount of surface
Ovate ny water body'
_.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to termperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? _
+�
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or w1thdr3w3ls, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial r,duction in the
amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
1. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such as
floouIng or tidal waves?
2 oe 7 laws
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result
T__
a. Change 1n the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grace,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
_
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal repleniehment of
existing species?
d. Reduction In acreage of any
iagricultural
crop?
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal
reauTE—in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
Including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic or anisme,
Insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
/
of animals?
!
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
v
d. Deterioration to existing fish
/
or wildlife habitat?
_ c�
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise
.._
levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels?
-- —
7.
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
'produce new g t or glare?
8.
Land `.Ise. Will the proposal result in
aiutisEantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area?
�i
YES
MAYBE NO
^•
9.
Nature, Resources. Will the
propose resu n:
a. Increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources?
b.
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
_
10.
Risk of Uplet. Does the proposal,
nvo ve a rM of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
In the evert of an accident or
upset conditions?
11.
population. will the proposal alter
U ocat -location, dirLributlon, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an areal
—/
12.
Fall the proposal affect
�HHo��usi��n __.
exiting ho,aving, or create a
/
demand for additional housing?
13.
Trans ortation/Circulation- Will
e propose resu t n:
a. Generation of substantial addl-
tional vehicular movement?
_
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking? --
o. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems."
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
.—
a. Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic?—
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? �--
14.
Public Services. Will the proposal
lave -an cl upon, or result in
a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the
following areas: .
A of 7 V+ ..e
YES MAYBE NO '
^
a. Fire protection? �!
b. Pollee protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities,
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads'
f. Other governmental services? ✓
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? __ v
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? _ r✓
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result
n a nee or new systems, or
substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
✓
a. Po•.er or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
e. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal? !�
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
resu In: —
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding .
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to.potential /
health hazards? .._
s of 7 Pases
L
7
y6,S MS i BE NO
18. Aestn, 7es. Will the proposal i ^•.alt
n Ne oJStruc1Jon of un* scenic
virta or vier: open to the public, or
will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view'?
ly. Necreation. Will the proposal result
n an mpact upon the quality or
Quantity of existlnL- recreational
opportunities'' _.
.20. Archeolofical/Historical. Will the
propose reu t n an a teratlon
of a significant archco]oeical or
historical rite, stricture, object
or building" —
21. Mandetory 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
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or sliminatc'important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? _
b. Does the project have the poten-
tial to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goa:e? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure
well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environ-
�ental efii:cta which will cause .
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
d
6 of 7 Pages
III. DISCUSSICP-,OF 2XVIRONtu,NTAL LIVALUATI—A
6q v<4:�Ic f•a'�•c wall ,ac...ya f4.. no:s< /t�.�l 6.f
IV. DETERMINATION:
AMR REVIEWING THE ENVIROtE4ENTAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT, AND AFTER COMPLETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST USE]
BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL IN WAKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
I firl c,e proposed project COULD NOT have a elenifleant
effec., on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
L7 I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILL EE PREPARED.
L7 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an EANIRO,1!MF.NTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Date ll�k_-
S gna u`rT
IPor 4 " A
19/4n-1.',5 n:rFCI er
7 of 7 Pages
I
C'TTY OF C'AMPBELL 2160 S. BASCOM AVE. S 80-28 2 of 3
Ic
/r 7
...
I
PROOF OF PUBLICATION!
(Zais.s C.C.P. )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Santa Clara
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County a dresaid; 1 am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to or Interested
In the above -entitled matter. 1 am the principal
clerk of the printer of the
CAMPBELL PRIM
IMO No. Blaney Avenue, Cupertino, California,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published every Thars"y In the city of Cuper-
tino. County of Santa Clara; fond which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of gen.
eral circulation by the Superior Court of the
County of Santa Clara, State 1 California, Case
Number UW; that the notice of which the an-
nexed 1s a printed copy (set In type not smaller
than non-pereil), has been published la each
regulaf and entire lone of said newspaper and
not In any supplemmel thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
Dec. ?
all In the year Is-
1 certify for derlarel under penally of perjury
that the feregoing Is true and correct.
Dated at Cupertino, California, this
:rd >day of Dec. It 1 -
Signature
1
5 go-Ze
T►b apace 1 for the County Clerk's
Ftlla/ Stamp 3
ADu 1,70_CD
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
AE9ATIVE ") CLARATICN
NOTICE
NOCm . hw.br C.- tho
. rnpedo.dtrir~ M. b.w,
proprwf fw ar.p *Ntbr of
Mr. Room Pupnt fw WP-
wl of plot. w.l .I.wawn to
ppre4tct. mronwaW Irwrl)
aril N . o r
2'66S
7Ri aolect b. _
ofCwrfwapw D ab t16,
of CwrvbeA m Osarrtw 16.
reap.
Ird.r.wed : rrwr
view a copy of of tri i,epw
W-
dedraowi mfile m d,e ol6m
of the Planing Depwmrwrc,
Cw WW City H.A. 75 Nord,
Cwmd Mamie. C.mubA.
Pub- 12-J86 570 CP
CITY (IF CAMPBELL
75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008
(408) 378 8 14 1
Department: PLANNING
EIR - 3 File N S 80-28
DECLARATION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED
(NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
APPLICANT Mr. Robert Peepari
ADDRESS 4300 Stevens Creek Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95129
PROJECT NAME Retail Building
ADDRESS 2160 S. Bascom
Campbell, California
Pursuant to the applicable section; .f the California Environmental Quali-y
Act of 1970 and City of Campbell Resolution No. 5164; and
After review of plans and information supplied by the applicant Dortaining
to the captioned project, and after completing the attached ir;tial study,
the undersigned does hereby determine that the captioned project will have
no sigificant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act and Resolution.
Executed at Campbell, California. this 25tn day of Novemher , 19 g_0
Arthur A. Kee
Director or Official
BY:
Marty Woodworth
Planner I
I —
/CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF DETERW NA'.ION
TO: _ Secretary for Resources FROM: Planniny Department
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Campbell
Sacramento, LA 95814 75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
x County Clerk's Office
Santa Clara County
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Se,.tion
21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
PROJECT TITLE: S 80-28
STATE CLEARI1GHOUSE NUMBER (If Any)
CONTACT PERSON ilarty 1loodworth Tel. No. (408) 378-8i41, Ext. 236
PROJECT LOCATION 2160 S. Bascom Camchell. CA g5008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application of Robert Peepari for approval of plans W
construct a rel:ail building.
This is to advise that the CiTY OF CAMPBELL has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project.
1. The project has been _ _ approved by the City of Campbell.
disapproved
2. The project __ will have a significant effect on the environment.
will not
3. _ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval
may be examined at: The Planning Department, City of Campbell,
75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008.
4. Mitigation measures _ were made a condition of the approval
were not
of this project.
5. A statement of Overriding Considerations _ was adopted for this project.
was not
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: _ SIGNATURE j
TITLE
W
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLAPITIG COMMISSION
APPLICATION
APPLICATION
_? Architectural Approval
Planned Development Permit
Use Permit
Zone Change
General Plan Amendment
Vrriance
Other:
Date:
FILE NO.:
sOtt-
APPLICANT:
Name: 4T ri..,a. ,,,
�F-, Phone:
Address:
City/State: q:, -_E
Zip:
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name: J1�C, ; 7,}
,e'.,n;H Phone:
Address: : 3 -,'
1.
4 , ,;•, _•�
_
City/State: A.-, -
Zip:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: -^.ti,c - ZONING:
I/We the undersigned person(s) having an interest in the above described
property hereby make the above application(s) in accordance with the
provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code, and I/We 4ereby certify that
the information given herein is true and correct to the bast of my/our
knowledge and belief.
RespVctfully submitted,
° 19 t4' v
Signature o pp cant, ace
)51gna ura o �a atl�
1-1� e-,�
RECEIPT
CITY OF CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA
NAME ��. / "��✓�+
FOR // r
REVENL E ACCOUNT NO J 1 J/
FUNDNUMBER
�//
pE3<HECII
❑ MONEVORDEP ❑ CASR
//'rI/
THIS EKEIK
MUST BE MACHINE
VALIDATED AND
DATE AMOUNT
(;I1
O10 B*�1►15.00
SIGNED BElO W
+**75.CG
N° 09405
Yw
CITY OF CAMPBELL
I`;
U�O�IfC-f7tlll aI—lHtd ✓!l!U (J'--sst�Gllff�Ij
�/ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ^ O
A
GILROY ^LPFIJ MAIN .�-FF'CE 7ARATOGA
SUNNYVALE
I'9 aedm Awr,ua
7AIAu
I Iso r", Snsw i, _J N 01Av N.d. 973 + m'ro A Yn 201'9 Mawr Onw
177 $0. M9Mikle Aw"aie
an los OS770
Cup:.119 -A v5011 p 0, ao. 5725 7,—,e :A 95125 ra rove, CA a3070
C.081 47 xIc091
Sunn �M• 0
e061�
.A091 eel 2080
7eee Oel ovs.plp0 10s1 ]7t.aado b7�71C0
9
110s1 779.ebo
Ix
l0a ALTOS
.OS GATCS MANY. rR Mi!Opp MORE-^N
E,,,
PALO Al.
360 Ae San Rued
7.0 Sawtogv A A
922 WVYr c.emon" Awnw 4010 k A A
217 W Main Ai
3e3 A Suite 7
loY CA 94
J.. ZrY
taY "030 5unnwvi1 :�7 117 Moroon Hill• OY 93p]7
0e7 x1 l81
oil, Alt A 9,11
Pali Alb, 1, 0170a
C$, 1- 70022
110e1 911.5700
I
"I 334-1 22 .2 9 30117
1C81 734e022 �10a1 7757770 noel 2197701 1Ca1 77o.2166
3
11131 321,0510
PRELIMINARY REPORT12-8-79—SJV1-227
ESCROW SERVICE 15 BEING PROVIDED AS INDICATED BELOW'
y^ ALMADEN ;] GILROf .OS ALTOS [2 LOS GATOS [ 'AARY FREMONT ',] CUPERTINO
❑ MOORPARK 12 MORGAN HILL •^_ PALO ALTO 2 SAN IOSE ] 5UNNYVAL2 2 SARATrY A
❑ a GUY GIUFFRE
Y 1176 Royco tt Way ONCE" red. 96254—HJJ
San Jose, CA
ESCROW rip. 96254—HJJ
Attention: luy :7llffre at: LEMMA, Joseph A.
P,aperTy ]OCress 2160 S. Bascom avenue, Jampbell Tanya Sue
Dow as of N— ;'O 2 1979 at 7:30 A.M. by
Chief Tit', Officer
In reeporriN to the abotre referenced application for a policy of title insurance•
CALIFORNIA LAN" TITLE COMPANY of Santa Clara County
Mreby reports that it is prepared to issue, as of the data hereof. a Cauforhie Lana Title Association Standard
Covere„ from Policy of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest that'", hereinafter set
forth. ',during against loss which "Y be Sustained by reason of any defect. I," or encumbrance not shown or
referred to as an Except*, herein or not excluded •tom coverage pursuant to the printed Scheduln. Conddrone
and Stipulations of said policy form.
This report (and any supplements or amendments thereto, s issued solely for Ina purpose of facilitating Me is.
suance of a policy of title insurance line no liability is assumed mri If it is destrea that liability be assumed
prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance. a Binder or Commitment should be reouHted.
The'stab or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to Covered by this Report to:
A FEE
Title to mid astals or interest at ens ante hereof is reseed :n:
AYICA KULISICH
The land M"�tjdi Liie Report is situeea -n the State of Caldomia, County of Santa Clan
city of and is described as ioil—
°LEASE SEE .ATTACHE:
and
J
OR�'-R NO. 9 625 4
DESCRIPTION
BEGIN14IIG at a point in the Northerly line of Shady Dale
Avenue with the Southwest corner of parcel 1 as said Avenue
and parcel are shown on that certain Record of Survey of a
portion of the Subdivision of the Estate of A. Johnson,
which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder
of Santa Clara County on June 30, 1960 in Book 122 of Maps,
page 35;
thence leaving said Northerly line of Shady Dale Avenue
along the West line of said Parcel 1, North 00 21' West
132.85 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 1 and the
Northerly l'ne cf Lot 10 as said Lot is shown upon the Map
of the Subdivison of the Estate of 1. Johnson, hereinabove
referred to;
thence along the Northerly line of Lot 10, South 89° 39'
West 223.79 feet to the Westerly line of Bascom Avenue,
(formerly San Jose -Los Gatos Road) as widened on that
certain Map of Tract No. 975, Shady Dale Subdivision, which
Map was filed for record May 6, 1952 Santa Clara County
Records, in Book 36 of maps, at page 49;
thence along the East line of said Bascom Avenue, South 00
21' East 105.67 feet to a tangent curve to the left with a
radius of 20 feet a central angle of 900 for an are distance
of 31.42 feet t, the Northerly line of Shady Dale Avenue
hereinabove mentioned;
thence along said Northerly line North 89' 39' East 78.96
feet;
thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 230 feet an
angle of 100 52' 20" for a distance of 43.64 feet to a
reverse curve to the left with . radius of 170 feet a
central angle of 100 52' 20" for an arc distance of 32.26
feet;
thence continuing along said Northerly line of said Shady
Dale Avenue Nortn 39° 39' East. 49.38 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING and being a portion of Lot 10 of the Subdivision
of the Estate of A. Johnson, which Map was filed for record
in the office of the Recorder on March 26, 1891 in Book "A"
of Maps, at page 37.
288-7-15
10-062
JOKES/OM:ac
(A) 780-56-133
(NI)
-2-
:.,�..s;eli�R,:.
!!
■c
/1 CRD— NO. 96254
SUBJECT TO:
1. Any amounts which may be added to the property tax
amounts for fiscal year 1978-79 and 1979-80 by reason of,g
reappraisal of any improvements added to, or change of '
ownership of, the hereindescribed premises subsequent to
March 1, 1975•
2. Right of way for the purpose of laying down p!.pes and
aqueducts, as granted by William H. Ware and Archibald
Johnson to San Jose 'dater Company, by Deed dated Maroh 14,
1874 and recorded March 14, 1874 in Book 31, page 464 of
Deeds. (The exact location cannot be determined of record).
NOTE 1: Taxes for the fiscal year 1979-80 have been paid.
Bill No. 288-7-15- Coae Area 10-062. First installment
amounting to 3448.01. Second installment amounting to
$U48.01.
Th, above installments include a property tax exemption of
$1,750.00.
NOTE 2: The last recorded instrumeni(s) conveying record
title to the premises is/are:
a) Deed executed by Emily E. Puncan, a widow, Grantor(s) to
Anton Kulisich and Diane Kulis:.:h, husband and wife as Joint
tenants, Grante-(s), recorded on September 24, 1936 in Book
787 of Official Records, at page 425•
b) Decree terminating Joint Tenancy, (Anton Kulisich),
recorded June 8, 1971 in 2ouk 9363 of Official Records, page
139•
The last conveyances affecting said land recorded within the
last six months, prior to the date of this Report are:NONE.
NOTE 3: Ef ective March 1, 1979, any conveyance of the
hereindescribed premises by Grant Deed will require the
payment of the $10.00 Survey Monument Preservation Fund fee
pursuant to Government Code Section 27584 and Ordinance No.
NS-300.273-
ME
cc wltll
Revenue and Taxatior Code OFFICE Of COUNTY ASSESSOR — Sk
i've Date Mar. 1, 1976 ""IN
L. MATHIESEN - ASSESS01;
EL SOLYO ---
PW 282- —23
TRACT N! 225
73
71
LJ
1.073 AC.NFT
PCL A
I
29
I 28
2179
K, 11 PCL.2
2 3
i
0 z
L)
14
m
Cl)
tau 4114
721
FFOS122-M-35
SHADY DALE
TRAC
CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '1
O
ey
— AVE.
EL SOLYO TRACT
OOKp PAGE
2BB
19761'
_ O
I •• • 100•
1
1,
A 4
77 f
30
I I I
j j I 1 I I I I
I 23 24 23 22 PCL A i PCL B 19 IS I IT
l.�a 17 r
I A 1 S 1 • 1 T I • 1 9 I IO I 11 I 12 }
1 1 1 I I I �t � •3
2 i g, i s g ; t 3 i P �; i EL Md
DR.
1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I
11.7 1 72.7 11.97 1 7297 1 7l fJ7 1 7297 7397 4l77 !O• y
SMADY DALE SUED. -m
�* AVE.—- F
s
O
Thn plat is imened as a inaMor of iifoawalion owy
nna •r, 1. the r -1 Camp I.d from mformalian
.hich .. halo lu he --I, nn hobi!ity it
cuumed by ftic c"Pany as h7 fho carrmfh w
of wid Info tl.L ')
to
EIR-1
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFOPIAATI(.N FORM - TO BE COMPLETrD BY APPLICANT
Date Filed:
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
JasEPy A. C'EnMMA
3350 Rus; -+vE!!["E -Jn 1 - _.a 9
2. Address of project:
Assessor's Block and �Number 3HF -- _7 r
_. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted
concerning this project: A-,'A3E:; r �LAR)k �EErgk, a�c.�.�Ecr
TE:.r 431- O ; /EVENS G4'EEK /3L
:44-7770 s.JN .,C"' :-4
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which
this form pertains:
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public
approvals required for this project, including those required
by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
6. Existing zoning district: f72
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
.47E7-A/_
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
8. Site size.-
9. Square footage.
10. Number of floors of construction.
11. Amount of off-street parking provided.
12. Attach plans.
13. Proposed scheduling. ••`` -•-� - .vsrR r rlo�� M�4 I9®/
14. Associated projects.
15. Anticipated incremental development.
1 of 3 gapes
F
Ci S
■
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit
sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household
size expected.
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city
or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and
loading facilities.
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift,
and loading facilities.
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employ-
ment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and
community benefits to be derived from the project.
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning
application, state this and indicate clearly why the application
is required.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as
necessary).
Yes No
v 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration
of ground contours.
L 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from P:;isting
residential areas or public lands or roads.
✓ 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general
area of project.
L' 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
1/ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in
vicinity.
L' 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
quality or qufnity, or alteration of existing drain-
age patterns.
✓ 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration
levels in the vicinity.
L,, 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more.
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
v' 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)
L� 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
2 of 3 pages
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project,
including information on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects.
Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use
of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots
or polaroid photos will be accepted.
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information
on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic
aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial,
etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses,
shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development
(height, frontage, set-bszk, rear yard, etc.). Attach photo-
graphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be
accepted.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the
attached exhibits present the data and information required for
this initial evaluation to the best of v ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information pro-ented are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
)ate Signature
JosEAN A . GEMMA
or
33. :�:re �iesent,y'ch
be r^e rrso vG a• %ge+�l2� is ESs c+sv/�/i.f /eve.'
w.'24A souse 7�I'ees wisic% w.'// be /Yis^io vec%
34. Pro oe. fly �o sos t is Siq��E - ra m.'�y /'E 5/cue !irv;'.
Go�rr�a�c:ol.
3 of 3 pagas
1
�
CTTY OF CAMPBELL 2160 S. BASCOM AVE. S 80-28 3 of 3
*00
RIDGELEY
w
MC BAJN Am -AL -A
`,
two API
ARROYO
1.0,
EL SOLYO
-Nis'
SHADY DALE.
E j
74 P
1 77, 'T 11 41 5 61 t 3 �41
4
r—MAer,*,t14- VVkL-L. r,=A,-
memo
PETAi_,
uj
14- SQN�nl r in
F) -rr, d E-.- L! OZI Lw?cx--
III
U)l
off 1 III
10- -0. ------ L
—.62--
ov;�.
104' 42'
J
�"-ADY
DALE AVLE7
I D,
ay
42-
�:%.4-4-
F—I
-41
V44
mm�6=
L
ro
0
raw
21 1 31 1 41 31 ' 41 '5 �91 I �11 2 �13 �11 5
REWSHM By
1 .'.AN 51
GJ
0 o 0
L
Lic 0
L_
1
IL
04
m
bo
0
P4 am
aA
t 0
x
0
cc
DATE
SCALE
DRAM
job
SHEET
Cr SILLtTS
•
oiI
o!
75.
-01
t1w:.
L! d
17—Y
i3 — e 7.
A
C.L
?
!04'
4-
0
�C7L00 3 VMW D K
J,
f E I�''�-.�—� f
'73 F
7--T- —
11 1 21 ' 31 4F1-5T7-GF7T7TT8TTq 111 '2T137 71 14 151
1 5
21c),
f
R DD
JAR 13 1981
CITY OF CAMPBELL
+ PLAN NO DEPARTMENT
RLMIIO*S I my
4- —
0110
6 C
Z.:9
L; c D
IL
t
O x
U
IE
OATS
I i.> Nov 60
S.CALI
\ ;' 1-.4- —
0 OtAWN
SAP
JOB
hI
OF WKETS
to