Loading...
UP 77-11CITY OF CAMPBELL 2155 S. BASCOM AVE. UP 77-11 1 of 4 m 'AMItim tl-'[ dfl 3AV WOOSVq S SSi7 I ti ti I W OD W W Y s <Q a. - J 2 Q 2 � F LL �ZJ W Q U U W ~ J W Q m 2 a � f na � U t ,� PUBLIC HEARIHSS UP 77-11 This is the tine and place for continued Whitney, William public hearing on the application of William Whitney for approval of plans to construct a skateboard park on property known as 2155 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-9 Zoninp District. Commissioner Campos reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the staff and applicant. The committee was going, to recommend a continuance of this item due to the fact that the revised plans were received late and the appropriate City Departments were not able to review them. The committee did, however, request that the staff try to route the plans for this item to the other departments for review before the meeting began. The staff did this and have submitted an addendum for the Commission's review. Mr. Kee explained that the staff recommends approval of the Use Permit, subject to the following two conditions: 1. Site and Architectural approval of Site Plans and building elevations by the Planning Commission. 2. Use Permit to expire one year from date of approval unless project is under construction. Commissioner Hebard stated that this was a public hearing and that the people in the audience might want to hear more about the noise report. Mr. Kee stated that the noise report was only received at noon on Monday and the staff was not able to prepare a s,immary for the Commission. He went on to say that the staff coulc not foresee any major problems in this area. If the Commission feels that a summary of this repor' is necessary, a continuance can be recommended until a summary can be made to present to the Commission. Commissioner Vierhus suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting until a summary of the noise report can be presented. Some discussion was held center..ng around whether a continuance would be needed to acquire new information in order to make a decision at this time. Chairman Dickson asked if the applicant could give a description of his project to the Commission. Mr. William Whitney, applicant, exnlained that the area will be used to provide a skateboard park for controlled skateboarding. He presented a set of plans for the Commission's review and explained the layout. The park is set up so that it will hold 100 skaters at one time. -3- Chairman Dic:kson declaimed the public hearing open and asked if anyone in tt,e audience would like to speak on this item. Mr. Ken Burns, 3200 Pavne Avenue, appeared before the Commission to speak in favor of the skateboard park. He explained that there are approximately two million youngsters around the Santa Clara Valley that are riding skateboards and that this activity is banned on streets and sidewalks in most cities. He talked about the popularity of the sport and the need ` r a controlled area to ride skat,:, ,oards. Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Burns about the noise factor for residents along the outskirts of the park. Mr. Burns stated that the only noise that would be bothersome would be if the park played music over a PA system. Mr. Whitney stated that the park will not be playing music for the skateboarders. At this time the Commission took a short break. The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. Chairman Dickson raised the question whether or not a sound barrier is included on the plans and if so, will it be a six foot high wall. Mr. Kee stated that this is the reason that "ite and Architectural approval is being conditioned so that these kinds of matters can be discussed when the plans are reviewed. Chairman Dickson asked if the noise factor is compatible with the provisions in the City's General Plan. Mr. Kee said that it is compatible with the General Plan ane asked Senior Planner Phil Stafford to respond in greater detail. Mr. Stafford presented the Noise Element maps of the General Plan and explained the requirements related to this item. Chairman Dickson reminded the Commission that action is being taken on the Use Permit and that the plans will be referred back at a later time. Commissioner Hebard expressed concern that there are few such parks in this area and that Campbell will be an experimental city. He mentioned that we have no other sources to help us determine possible future problems and expressed the opinion that r..aybe Campbell should wait until such parks are built in other cities. Commissioners Vierhus, Campos, and Samuelson agreed that such action would not be necessary; someone has to be first. Commissioner Samuelson stated that this park should not be treated any different than any other new recreational area built within the City of Campbell (he gave the example of children's putting courses). Mr. Kee said that the only problem that he could foresee would be with a PA system for music and the applicant has already addressed this matter. RESOLUTION NO. 1637 Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Planning Coiunission adopt a Resclutinr annroving UP 7/-11, application of William E. Whitney, subject to the recommended conditions, seconded by Commissioner Campos and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson, Dickson. NOES: Commissioners: Hebard. ABSENT: Commissioners: Pack. ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Lubeckis. ^ I tao,,k2 _ C. STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1977 UP 77-11 Continued public hearing to consider the application Whitney, W.E. of Mr. William E. Whitney for a use permit and approval of plans to allow construction of a skateboard park on property known as 2155 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continuance in order that a noise report and revised plans may be submitted. STAFF nISrI6SInN- This item was continued from the meeting of September 6, 1977 in order that the applicant could prepare a noise report and submit revised site plans and revised elevation plans. As of this writing the revised plans have not been submitted. rtltlL. HEARINGS: a I UP 7]-11 This is the time and p'=ce for public bearing to Whitney; W. E. NV consider evidence on t consideration of the .�� application of Mr. William E. Whitney for a use permit to allow construction of a skateboard park on property knasn as 2155 S. Bascom in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Vierhus reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the staff and applicant, and after reviewing the plans recommends a continuance; however, he felt that there might be possible discussion now on some of the items addressing the Plans. 5 L_ � . els 01� Mr. Kee located the subject property on the map, noting that the applicant would be making some landscape changes. Chairman Dickson read into the record a memorandum to him from Ken Podgorsek, Chairman of the Youth Advisory Comr.,ission (dated August 15, 1977) regarding the skateboard park proposal. Chairman Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against thr_ application. Messrs. Bill Whitney, Mike Phelan and Dick Lerner, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. They described the project and apoke of other similar skateboard parks in the state, and answered questions of the Commissioners. Mrs. Munk, 155 Michael Drive, appeared before the Commission expressing her concerns about the noise and lighting effects of the project. Mr. Lennen extended an invitation to Mrs. Munk and the Commissioners to visit a skateboard park in the area in order to see some of the effects. Chris Lenan, a skateboarder from Reawood City, appeared before the Commission to explain the safety of the sport and speak in favor of the project. Commissioner Pack indicated that she is in favor of the park. Commissioner Hebard stated that this kind of a use has inherent damages causing injuries. He asked whether it would be appropriate under the circumstances as one of the conditions that it might be required to have the applicant provide liability insurance. City Attorney Dempster replied that there is no evidence that it is any more dangerous than operating any other (swimming pool, race car track, etc.) private enterprise cover by a use permit. It would be between the individual and the facility if something should occur, not the City. Commissioner Vierhus asked whether the City would be responsible for the design of the skateboard park isafety). Attorney Dempster replied that in respect to private enterprise, the City is not responsible for how they bu'ld a certain ride. Commissioner Pack moved for continuance subject to the condition that the concerns raised by staff and Site Review Committee could be discussed and brought back to the Commission., including staff report and site plan, landscaping, and a sound report. Motion seconded by Commissioner Vierhus. Commissioners Lubockis and Hebard indicated they would like names and addressed of parks in the area. AYES: Commissioners Hebard, Vierhus, Pack, Lubeckis, Dickson NOES: Commissioner: Samuelson ABSENT: Commissioner: Campos - 6 - Item k3 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING LOMM'SSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 UP 77-11 Public hearing tc consider the application of Whitney, W. E. Mr. William E. Whitney for a use permit to allow construction of a skateboard park on property known as 2155 S. Bascom in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. STAFF RECOP.MENDATION: Continuance in order that revised plans and elevations may be submitted. STAFF DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to construct a skateboard park on approximately 1.7 acres. The site is bounded by a trailer sales operation (Baker Trailers) to the North, Bascom Avenue, to the East, a commercial building (Color Rite Paint), and single family residences to the. South and apartments to the West. The single family residences on the Sough side are indicated for high density residential on the General Plan. The site reflects a 2300 square foot building oriented to Bascom Avenue, as well as 40 parking spaces near the front of the parcel. The skateboard area is oriented towards the rear of the property with a setbacl: of approximately 12 feet away from the northerly property line and 10' from the rear property line. A staff review of the site indicates that the site plan does not accurately reflect the existing trees as indicated on the plans. There is a ten foot landscaped area between the existing apartments to the rear but no setback to the existing single family to the south. The proposed building is indicated as being five feet from the Bascom Avenue property line, which in the staff's opinion, is much too close. Landscaping on the site is minimal and not well- defined in area. The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the site reflects movement and excitement, but the building lacks imagination. There is no data on the plans that would indicate assurance chat sound generated from the site would not be ob;ectionable to the residential areas abbuting the proposed park. The only fencing shown on the plans is the existing fencing around the site which in many instances is delapidated. A copy of a sound study done by a Homeowners Association in the Town of Irvine is attached for the Commissions review. it is the staff's opinion that this application should be continued in order that more complete site plans can be presented that reflect the previously mentioned concerns. Additionally the building should be revised in order to present a more acceptable appearance. Finally, a sound report should be prepared that speaks directly to this site, how it will affect adjoining properties, and types of mitigating measures that should be employed into the site design. Item N3 UP 77-I1 - Whitney, W. E. - Continued It should be noted that under the Use Permit procedure hours of operation can be stipulated and/or modified thru the Public Hearing process to help insure the welfare of the community. the applicant, on his own initiative, has presented this skateboard park proposal to the Youth Advisory Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission. A memorandum, from the Youth Commission to the -hairman of the Planning Commission is attached. MEMORANDUM r0� L CITY' OF CAMPBELL To: J. DUWAYNE DICKSON, Da,e: AUGUST 1S, 1977 CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION From: KEN FODGORSEK *�V— CHAIRh1AN, YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Subject: SKATEBOARD PARK PROPOSAL ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mike Phelan of Concrete Curl Inc., appeared before the Youth .Advisory Commission at their August 15th meeting and presented his proposed Skateboard Park for 2155 S. Bascom Avenue. The Commission unanimously approved Mr. Phelan's project and strongly support this development for the City of Campbell. In recent months petition.3 from citizens for Skateboard Parks have come to the attention of the Youth Commission and the Commission feels that the park proposed will help to meet the needs of the youth in Campbell who skateboard. Skateboarding's increasing in popularity as a recreation activity for youth and adults and the need for a safe place for people to skate is becoming more important. Since the proposed park is a private development, the City will not have to worry about spending tax dollars on a park. The Commission would appreciate being informed of the progress of Mr. Phelan's project as it comes before the Planning Commission and City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions reR,rding the Youth Commission position on this project. ah L.C. MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1978 Referral to Planning This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further Commission - Use clarification. Mr. Harold Clark has requested that there be Permit for Skate- a public hearing to revoke the use permit for the Skateboard board Park - Park at 2155 S. Bascom Avenue. 2155 S. Bascom Ave. Councilman Doetsch asked Planning Director Kee why all the conditions of the use permit have not been met. Mr. Kee advised that the conditions were met but that the fence between Mr. Clark's property and the Skateboard Park had been torn down. It has now been repaired. Councilman Paul proposed and moved that Mr. Clark's request for a public hearing to revoke the use permit for the Skateboard Park be referred to the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Podgorsek and unanimously adopted. t� l 1�1r+ ,...� . , __.. . �. ......: -., ram... ... _. .. -.. .. _ _�..... ...,..... ... ... ��._.._ �� V of ,/'` P.C. MEETING egse_, " Ate' 11/21/78 COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mr. Harold Clark, dated November 6, 1978, regarding Campbell Skateboard Park. Mr. Kee noted that this letter had been addressed to the City Counc'I and that before any action is taken by the Planning Commission, the Council should have the opportunity to review this letter and possibly refer it formally to the Commission. He stated that upon numerous complaints, the staff had been in con- tact with the property owner regarding the fence several times. He noted that the fence is in need of constant repair (wooden slats keep coming out). Chairman Pack requested that any further communications regarding this item with the owner of the park be in writing, and requested that the letter submitted by Mr. Clark be incorporated into the minutes. A copy of Mr. Clark's letter is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. __....,.......— I ., �1 ITEM N0. 1- Nov G, 191, OttCougeA o4« Fran D Dml-i b,eu , CAI if 9&wl Nov 81678 CT/ OF "#4PBELL CRMp1 u, QR f `tSmi I �m liEou�s�ea� A �ubt�e. URF-10q-A 'Wevo KG The USE v uri lT Foe The SATE -bookrd ?ISE S. 3iiSCAnn Abe Cf)M?bell CA1iT- qMoo8 '`may `mac EAsAN �0�►s `QUEST R Wk \o��wQeN �� 'QYo�er�Y A� Thy \7AM4a1e �UE` �o �e ��1STAll.\Nqq 0� the � q�'�pgrcl �At-� See T�►c't`t�RFs 3 R SAW "E71H lJ \% -N\y OWKERS p � `ChE SK�'gOA►r� Rik � � $�.uC� 14 �WEII o� '�� �` 1..fl�N►u� �e(� FtND •m SQ\� we were �su�e!Fd '�� Go �w5 ova fog Q, _ rilf--?nr1393% -- I W PLANNING CO980SSI0N h1TG. MARCH is, Staff Report Staff report on the Campbell Skateboard Park located on property kno•m as 2155 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (rererai Commercial) Zonin, District. Mr. Kee reported that on February 19, 1980 the Commission considered a letter from Mr. Dave Brady which listed reasons why, in his opinion, the owners/ operators of the Campbell Skateboard Park are not adequately maintaining and supervising their facilities. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and made a p., f these minutes. This item was continued in order that staff could r,:vit 1r. Brady's complaints, and it order that both Mr. Brady and representatives of the s!cateboard part: could be present at the Commission meeting. Inspection of the property revealed that the pool areas are clean. The ormer of the park has submitted a letter which answers !'r. Brady's concerns (a copy of which is also attached). Staff is concerned with the applicant's expansion of the skateboard facilities to include bicycles. I'` the Commission determines that bicycles should be allowed on these facilities, staff is of the opinion that the use permit should be reviewed and modified. Acting Chairman Kasolas inquired if the City Attorney could review with the Commission the procedures and findings in order to make a determination that a reopening of a public hearin% might be in order to consider revocation of the use permit. City Attorney Dempster reviewed with the Commission findings that could be considered, i.e., detrimental to the health, safety, welfare... of the neighborhood. He noted, however, that in this case the first two items mentioned in Mr. Brady's letter involve safety. he felt it mould not be in the best interest of the Commission to get into regulations of safety. After further discussion, Commissioner !leyer moved that the Planning Commission determine that there is no need for a public hearing to consider modifications of the use permit for the skateboard part; located at 2155 S. Bascom Avenue. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kotowski. Comissioner Fairbanks expressed her concern about safety and the use of bicycles at the site. -6- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Pack, Meyer, Kotowski, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Campos . a . _ �J 7 1^ February 6, 196G it,, Rick Schneider Carabell Planning Corms ssion Ca -.bell, California Dear Mr. Schneider, I would like to make a formal complaint against Carpbell Skateboard Park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue for violation of their Use Permit. The executive management has failed to maintain a standard of safety that should enhance an atmosphere of logical progression and con^on sense. I feel the Car.pbell Skate Park management is negligent in the following areas. 1, The park (riding surface) is not clean. Dirt, litter, and water about the park endangers the skater's ability to maintain proper balance and injury could occur. 2. Requirement of helms t, elbow, and knee pads is not strictly enforced. 3. Only one employee will be present at the facility. That employee's responsibility is to stay inside the building, take admissions, and run the pro shop. This leaves the main activity area unattended, as a result a serious injury could be over looked. I am asking that the City of Campbell investigate and take action to correct the problems that exist at this park. Thank you for your attention to this request. DR[6ItdS0 Since VU fE8 G 198� Dave Brady CITY of GAMAPec TL 5037 Esther Drive San Jose, CA 95124 %408) 377-4087 t Pr,, [U FEB 21 '991 CITY OF CAMrUELL n LANNING DL-&TMLN7 February 20, 1980 Planning Commission City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Up 77-1, 2155 S. Bascom Avenue Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: I am David G, Kenyon, president of Concrete Curl, Inc., which is the owner of Campbell Skateboard Park. I attended the Commission's meeting on February 19 with the manager of Campbell Skateboard Park, Kathy Bridenbaugh, and a former officer of the corporation, Gary Fishburn, Because of time constraints and the desire of the Commission to make a further study before discussion of the issues, we were not given the oppertunity to discuss the issues presented to the Commission in Mr. B.-rdy's letter of February 6, I received notice of the hearing and Mr. Brady's letter on the morning of February 19, the day scheduled for the hearing and was, therefore, unable to prepare a written response prior to the hearing. In view of the time constraints of your meetings and in courtesy to the other participants, I felt a written response would be less burdensomeon you. Upon learning of the impending meeting, my assistant went to the planning staff to find out what this was all about. We found that when the planning staff member visited the skatepark, it was closed. There were approximately twenty bicyclers and skateboarders trespassing. Some were riding in the park without safety equipment. Campbell Skatepark's management has tried everything reasonably possible to keep the children out of the park when closed, but to no avail. We have in the last month (notably before we received notice of any complaint to the commission) repaired and strengthened the fencing. Our wire fences have repeatedly been cut. During the life of the park we have spent in excess of $3,500 on repairing fences although not entirely responsible, therefore, to keep peace with the neighbors and this commission. We have on several occasions ' 1 QC Planning Commission -2- February 20, 1980 called the Campbell Police Department and asked to have patrol cars stop by when the park is closed, so that the kids will not come in. We know of only one response to our requests, and this occurred several weeks ago. On that occasion the patrol car came by about 1y hours after our call wherein we reported several trespassers who would not leave despite instructions from the manager to do so. By the time the patrol car arrived some 1y hours later, the trespassers had left, and the officer tried to evict the skatepark staff who were cleaning the runs. We had last week come to the conclusion that the skatepark must remain open at all times that school is out in order to ensure that no one is hurt while the park is closed and unsupervised. Since the park was examined by the staff, the fences have been repaired, the runs cleaned and the run with water in it, pumped out. The parks maintenance man was ill for a time and the park had fallen below the standards that we maintain. But, all of our action was before any notification of the planning commission's involvement. I would like to point out that our park has a very good safety record. By comparison, we have far fewer and less serious injuries than our nearest competitors while enjoying much greater patronage. Many months ago, we considered allowing bicyclists in the skatepark, but before doing so, tripled our supervisory staff durinq the trial period. We have yet, to my knowledge, had a single notable injury involving a bicycle or bicycle and skateboarder. I believe the lack of injuries is due in larqe part to the design of our park. We have fewer rough spots in the park than Winchester skatepark, and have fewer bi-directional traffic advanced runs. Most of our runs are uni-directional by desian. As I pointed out at the Commission meeting on the 19th, Mr. Brady is a co -manager of the Winchester Skatepark. In the past, Mr. Brady and I have had our differences. Our last discussion was about the points that he brings up in his letter, plus an additional point which he emphasized in our discussion, but failed to put before you. He feels our "lack of supervision" allows many skaters to enter our park without paying. This in turn causes a reduction in his business. I did suggest to Mr. Brady in that discussion that if he were to suspend skaters from his park for two weeks for breaking our rules and vice versa perhaps we would have far greater control and would be able to enforce the safety rules better. He refused. It seems monetary motives, not safety, are his real concern. I find it interesting he did not indicate his managerial position with our competitor in his complaint. Planning Commission -3- February 20, 1980 1. Campbell Skatepark, before we were aware of this complaint, cleaned the surfaces of the park. 2. Campbell Skatepark does enforce to the best of its ability, the requirement that skaters wear knee pads, elbow pads, and helmets. 3. Campbell Skatepark has a far better safety record than our competitors. 4. Generally, two employees are on duty at all times the park is open. This has been a park policy since approximately February 12. 5. If the use permit for this park were revoked, a completely unsupervised facility would exist which would, therefore, be dangerous. Thank you for your consideration. I intend to be present at the hearing where this will again be considered. Respectfully, David G. Kenyon / President Concrete Curl, Inc. DGK/pas ^ ^ ITEM NO. 7 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1980 Staff Report Staff report on the Campbell Skateboard Park located on property known as 2155 S. Bascom Avenue in d C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After hearing the evidence presented, the Commission make a determination as to the need for a public hearing to consider modification of the use permit for the subject skateboard park. STAFF DISCUSSION On February 19, 1980, the Commission considered a letter from Mr. Dave Brady which listed ;,easons why, in his opinion, the owners/operators of the Campbell Skateboard Park are not adequately maintaining and supervising their facilities. A copy of this letter is attached for the Commission's review. This item was continued in order that staff could review Mr. Brady's complaints, and in order that both Mr. Brady and representatives of the skateboard park could be present at the Commission meeting. Inspection of the property revealed that the pool areas are clean. The owner of the park has submitted a letter which answers Mr. Brady's ccncerns. Staff is concerned with the applicant's expansion of the skateboard facilities to include bicycles. If the Commission determines that bicycles should be allowed on these facilities, staff is of the opinion that the use permit should be reviewed and modified. Attachments: Mr. Brady's letter of February 6, 1980 Mr. Kenyon's letter of February 20, 1980 Resolution No. 1637 adopted on September 20, 1977 Location Map R R C � [IV/ 17� FEB 21 1980 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Planning Commission City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Up 77-1, 2155 S. Bascom Avenue Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: I am David G. Kenyon, president of Concrete Curl, Inc., which is the owner of Campbell Skateboard Park. I attended the Commission's meeting on February 19 with the manager of Campbell Skateboard Park, Kathy Bridenbaugh, and a former officer of the corporation, Gary Fishburn. Because of time constraints and the desire of the Commission to make a further study before discussion of the issues, we were not given the opportunity to discuss the issues presented to the Commission in Mr. Bradv's letter of February 6. I received notice of the hearing and Mr. Brady's letter on the morning of February 19, the day scheduled for the hearing and was, therefore, unable to prepare a written response prior to the hearing. In view of the time constraints of your meetings and in courtesy to the other participants, I felt a written response would be less burdensomeon you. Upon learning of the impending meeting, my assistant went to the planning staff to find out what this was all about. We found that when the planning staff member visited the skatepark, it was closed. There were approximately twenty bicyclers and skateboarders trespassing. Some were riding in the park without safety equipment. Campbell Skatepark's management has tried everything reasonably possible to keep the 7hildren out of the park when closed, but to no avail. We have in the last month (notably before we received notice of any complaint to the commission) repaired and strengthened the fencing. Our wire fences have repeat3dly been cut. During the life of the park we have spent in excess of $3,500 on repairing fences although not entirely responsible, therefore, to keep peace with the neighbors and this commission. We have on several occasions Planning Commission -2- February 20, 1980 called the Campbell Police Department and asked to have patrol cars stop by when the park is closed, so that the kids will not come in. We know of only one response to our requests, and this occurred several weeks ago. On that occasion the patrol car came by about IS hours after our call wherein we reported several trespassers who would not leave despite instructions from the manager t� do so. By the time the patrol car arrived some IS hours later, the trespassers had left, and the officer tried to evict the skatepart staff who were cleaning the runs. We had last week come to the conclusion that the skatepark must remain open at all times that school is out in order to ensure that no one is hurt while the park is closed and unsunervised. Since the park was examined by the staff, the fences have been repaired, the runs cleaned and the run with water in it, pumped out. The parks maintenance man was ill for a time and the park had fallen below the standards that we maintain. But, all of our action was before any notification of the planning commission's involvement I would like to point out that our park has a very good safety record. By comparison, we have far fewer and less serious injuries than our nearest competitors while enjoying much greater patronage. Many months ago, we considered allowing bicyclists in the skatepark, but before doing so, tripled our supervisory staff during the trial period. We have yet, to my knowledge, had a single notable injury involving a bicycle or bicycle and skateboarder. I believe the lack of injuries is due in larqe part to the design of our park. We have fewer rough spots in the park than Winchester skatepark, and have fewer bi-directional traffic advanced runs. Most of our runs are uni-directional by design. As I pointed out at the Commission meeting on the 19th, Mr. Brady is a co -manager of the Winchester Skatepark. In the past, Mr. Brady and I have had our differences. Our last discussion was about the points that he brings up in his letter, plus an additional point which he emphasized in our discussion, but failed to put before you. He feels our "lack of supervision" allows many skaters to enter our park without paying. This in turn causes a reduction in his business. I did suggest to Mr. Brady in that discussion that if he were to suspend skaters from his park for two weeks for breaking our rules and vice versa perhaps we would have far greater control and would be able to enforce the safety rules better. He refused. It seems monetary motives, not safety, are his real concern. I find it interesting he did not indicate his managerial position with our competitor in his complaint. Planning Commission -3- February 20, 1980 1. Campbell Skatepark, before we were awa a of this complaint, clerned the surfaces of the park. 2. Campbell Skatepark does enforce to the best of its ability, the requirement that skaters wear knee pads, elbow pads, and helmets. 3. Campbell Skatepark has a far better safely record than our competitors. 4. Generally, two employees are on duty at all times the park is open. This has been a park policy since approximately February 12. 5. If the use permit for this park were revoked, a completely unsupervised facility would exist which would, therefore, be dangerous. Thank yov for your consideration. I intend to be present at the hearing where this will again be considered. Respectfully, David G. Kenyon President Concrete Curl, Inc. DGK/Pas ITEM NO. 1 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 1980 Communication Letter of Mr. Dave Brady. UP 77-11 RECOMMENDATION After hearing the evidence presented, that the Commission make a determination as to the need for a public hearing to consider modification or revocation of the use permit for the subject skateboard park. DISCUSSION On February 6, 1980 Mr. Dave Brady submitted the attached letter listing three reasons why in his opinion the owners/operators of the Campbell Skateboard Park are not adequately maintaining and supervising their facilities. Subsequent to receiving Mr. Brady's letter, staff has inspected this park, and verified fir. Brady's statements. In addition, staff observed several patrons riding bicycles in the skateboard pools. Staff has received complaints from the surrounding residents that the patrons of the park are entering/leaving through their yards rather than the park entrance. ` The owners of the skateboard park as well as Mr. Brady have been sent a copy of this staff report, and advised of the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting. After hearing evidence on this matter, the Commission may determine that the problem has been resolved and that no further action is necessary. If, on the other hand, the Commission determines that a public hearing is warranted, staff should be directed accordingly. ,..,. `A J .. February 6, 1980 Mr* Rick Schneider Campbell Planning Commission Campbell, California Dear Mr. Schneider, I would like to make a formal complaint against Campbell Skateboard Park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue for violation of their Use Permit. The executive management has failed to maintain a standard of safety that should enhance an atmosphere of logical progression and common sense. I feel the Campbell Skate Park management is negligent in the following areas. 1. The pars (riding surface) is not clean. Dirt, litter, and water about the park endangers tho skater's ability to maintain proper balance and injury could occur. 2. Requirement of helme t, elbow, and knee pads is not strictly enforced. 3. Only one employee will be present at the facility. That employee's responsibility is to stay Inside the building, take admissions, and run the pro shop. This ]eaves the main activity area unattended, as a result a serious injury could be over looked. I am asking that the City of Campbell investigate and take action to correct the problems that exist at this park. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely in) MM O FEB G A983 Dave Brady pp _^MPBEt-L Ctn ,pfMF.Nt 5037 Esther Drive 'v,NNINa OEP San Jose, CA 95124 ,408) 377-4087 E. CAMPBE ll • P. M. 326. M 2) AVE— Pm"?IA37'PM 286-M-21 15 -W, PCL >• z < V-1 PC A K cc In ocl 0 Iff I. J—/ MIC44 A'r J- DR tl jL7 A) � 3 er : L14 CT 'm f7 3 PC.L A 329 Ac MET LW7AC GET L2 Z Sk ZIP 77-11 2 v 7COL6 Z ET L. li cD sc, Go so '. YF5* M- 1 :M R MICHAEL -61 IDIR 60 -3 HC' J A-7 IM 2- 26 21 Zb 29 20 31 22 p -TL .4. lz S, as ts ILI 61 a. u. L �.PRICOT PANNING COMMISSION MTG. FEBRUARY 19, 1980 Communicacion Letter of Mr. Dave Erady, dated February 6, 1980. UP 77-11 After considerable discussion (the Skateboard Park owner, Mr. Kenyon, present), Commissioner Pack moved that the Planning Commission set a date of public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer. -2- After a review by the City Attorney as to what should take place before considering revocation of a use permit, Commissioner Meyer withdrew her second, then Commissioner Pack withdrew her motion to set this for public hearing. Commissioner Kasolas then moved that this item be scheduled for the Nanning Commission meeting of March 18 in order that staff could prepare a complete review of the complaints as stated in Mr. Brady's letter. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kotowski and unanimously adopted. F ^ ITEM NO. 1 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 1980 Communication Letter of Mr. Dave Brady. UP 77-11 After hearing the evidence presented, that the Commission make a determination as to the need for a public hearing to consider modification or revocat;on of the use permit for the subject skateboard park. DISCUSSION On February 6, 1980 Mr. Dave Brady submitted the attached letter listing three reasons why in his opinion the owners/operators of the Campbell Skateboard Park are not a]equately maintaining and supervising their facilities. Subsequent to receiving Mr. Brady's lette^, staff has inspected this park, and verified Mr. Brady's statements. In addition, staff observed several patrons riding bicycles in the skateboard pools. Staff has received complaints from the surrounding residents that the patrons of the park are entering/leaving through their yards rather than the park entrance. The owners of the skateboard park as well as Mr. Brady have been sent a copy of this staff report, and advised of the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting. After hearing evidence on this matter, the Commission may determine that the problem has been resolved and that no further action is necessary. If, on the other hand, the Commission determines that a public hearing is warranted, staff should be directed accordingly. i I "on I February 6, 1980 Mr, Rick Schneider Campbell Planning Commission Campbell, California Dear Mr. Schneider, I would like to make a formal complaint against Campbell Skateboard Park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue for violation of their Use Permit. The executive management has failed to maintain a standard of safety that should enhance an atmosphere of logical progression and common sense. I feel the Campbell Skate Park management is negligent in the following areas. 1. The park (riding surface) is not clean. Dirt, litter, and water about the park endangers the skater's ability to maintain proper balance and injury could occur. 2. Requirement of helme t, elbow, and knee pads is not strictly enforced. 3. Only one employee will be present at the facility. That employee's responsibility is to stay inside the building, take admissions, and run the pro shoo. This leaves the main activity area unattended, as a result a serious injury could be over looked. I am asking that the City of Campbell investigate and take action to correct the problems that exist at this park. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, FEg 19 Dave Brady L'11.y pF o PMFTBENTL 5037 Esther Drive PVNNeN6 San Jose, CA 95124 e408) 377-4087 _AO 0 SKIM A11.4 U&4 QKMPSELL ---AVE- P.M. W 326-M 2) A-w'� F#A"?m37'PM 286-M-21 'b j > 3 1 119 #4 2 se Z- PC ok al 28 cc .40 t CAL I 16 11L .F ecs 14 V-6 1, 05-U-5 " -V 0 1, DR t 'F W AV 4 5 II &L LOf Gl 10, CT L14 %% Aui- U-S 2 LOS KL 3 all A 329 Ac NET C) &MAC NET V) 72 Zl,#o 77-11 73 106 AC NET MICH A E L 6 ID,R 60 ts" Af- 24 2- 2c 21 2b 29 so 31 32 -g-yl- - -.- jr - -I ice{ so IL/ it ILI JLP 'of .aICOT CITY COUNCIL MTG. 2-12-79 UP 77-11 - Skateboard Park This is approval of UP 77-11 for Skateboard Park at 2155 So. Bascom Ave. 2155 South Bascom Avenue. MEMORANDUM T. Honorable City Council Date: January 24, 1979 From: Planning Commission '711-a CITY OF CAMPBELI Subject: Council Referral - Letter from Mr. Harold Clark requesting revocation of Use Permit - Skateboard Park, 2155 S. Bascom Avenue. RECOMMENDATION That no action -e taken to initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit for the subject skateboard park. DISCUSSION On November 6, 1978, Mr. Harold Clark addressed a letter tc the City Council requesting a public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for a skateboard park located at 2155 South Bascom Avenue. Mr. Clark cited three reasons in his letter (attached) as justification for this request. In addition, several photographs were submitted which showed sections of damaged fencing between Mr. Clark's apartments and the park. The staff conducted a field investigation of the site on December 27, 1978. At that time, it was apparent that some action with regard to the fencing had been taken since the time Mr. Clark wrote his letter. The fencing was, for the most part, in good repair. In addition, a section of chain link fencing had been attached to the skateboard park side of the redwood fencing. Lastly, several strands of barbed wire were attached by brackets to the top of the redwood fence. At its meeting of January 16, 1979, the Planning Commission was advised that the parties involved had reached an agreement regarding the problem. For this reason, the Commission did not initiate any proceedings for revocation of the Campbell Skateboard Park's Use Permit. PJS/Id --on P.0 MEETING JANUARY 16, 1979 MISCELLANEOUS Continued City COuncil Referral - Letter from Mr. Harold Clark Continued City Council referral reg.rding the request of Mr. Harold Clark for a public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for thr skateboard park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue. Chairman Samuelson noted that since the fence problem between the skateboard park owners and the adjacent residents had been resolved, it was requested that this item be moved up on the agenda. Mr. Dave Kenyon, one of the owners of the skateboard park, explained that the problem of the fence has been worked out; he has agreed to keep and maintain the fence in good repair and that meets with the property owners' approval. Mr. Harold Clark appeared before the Commission to state that he felt this was a good example where fences between commercial developments and residential developments should be other than just wooden fences. The City Attorney noted that this problem had been resolved and no further action needed to be taken. Mr. Kee stated that staff would rel.,rt back to the Council on how this matter had been resolved. e • � /11TEM NO. I STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1979 Continued City Council Continued City Council referral regarding the Referral - Letter from request of Mr. Harold Clark for a public Mr. Harold Clark hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for the skateboard park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After hearing additional evidence presented, that the Commission make a determination as to the need for a public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for the subject skateboard park. STAFF DISCUSSION This item was continued from the last regular meeting of the Planning Commission in order that the concerned parties could meet to try and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Staff was not requested to be involved in any of said meetings, and therefore is not aware if a solution has been reached. A verbal report will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. P.L. MEETING 1/2/79 Referral from Letter from Mr. Harold Clark, dated November 6, City Council 1978, regarding Campbell Skateboard Park. t Campbell Skateboard Park Itr. Kee requested that the Commission listen to the presentation and comments from people in the audience before opening up proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit for the Campbell Skateboard Park. Mr. Kee stated he had reviewed Mr. Clark's letter, and that steps have been taken by the skateboard park to keep children from cutting through the adjoining properties; the fencino has been repaired; and a chain link fence has been installed inside the wooden fence. He further stated that the six-foot chain link fence does not run the full length of the adjoining property -- only in the immediate problem areas. Mr. Harold Clark stated that he was required to put up a good -neighbor fence upon the purchase of his property, and the skateboard park was not required to put up a fence since there was an existing one when the park was built. The problem with the deterioration of the wood fencing belonging to Mr. Clark comes from the skateboards coming up the concrete embankments and going through the board fence with qreat force. He stated that the current repair solution of the park involves attaching a four -foot chain link fence to his existing wood fence, then putting barbed wire atop his wooden fence. It was his feeling the park should be required to put up a separate chain link fence adjacent to his fence. Mr. Dempster, City Attorney, questioned the location of the fence. He stated that if the fence Is on the prcperty line, then the fence belongs to both parties, no matter who erected the fence. Mr. Clark reported that, during a meeting with Mr. Powell, he and the representative from the skateboard park had agreed the park would construct a self-supporting chain link fence next to Mr. Clark's fence. Mr. Kee indicated Oct when the park was issued a building permit, they were required to fence the area, but a certain type of fencing was not specified. Wood fencing was indicated on the plans, and accepted by the Commission. Commissioner Pack felt that if a certain type of fencing was prcmised tc Mr. Clark during a meeting with the skateboard park, then thaL type of fencing should be built. Mrs. Ennid Monk, manager of apartments behind the skateboard park, appeared to inform the Commission of the problems she was having on her section of the fence. She stated that tenants of the apartments she manages are unhappy with the slamming of the skateboards aginst the fence, and that skateboards have flown over the fence a few times. Lhe also stated that additional dirt has been banked against the wood fence and is causing the fence to bow. It is her desire to see the wood fence restored to its original good condition. She stated that she was very unhappy with the mended nature of the fence as It Is now. J --,4, ; F OWN eN -9- Mr. David K:anyon, Manager of the Campbell Skateboard Park, appeared to report to tie Commission. It was Mr. Kenyon's feeling that the park had rectifi'ad the proolems in accordance with ideas presented by Mr. Bruce Powell. He stated that the park did, however, make a few changes in Mr. Powell's suggestions. intending to save money. He stated that the park had used bulkheads in the ground, replaced rails of the wooden fence with heavier ones, attached 2"x4"'s to the existing posts, and installed chain link fencing. He stated that if one were to throw their full weight against the chain link, one could not touch the wooden fence of Mr. Clark's. Mr. Kenyon felt that although they have not been able to completely stop the traffic of children cutting through the property, they have slowed it down as much as they can. He said the current repair solution has been up about a month with no new problems as far as he could see. All the slatted boards of Mr. Clark's fence have been replaced where needed. The Commissicn asked if the noise from the park was a nuisance to the residents behind the park. Mr. Kenyon stated that a noise study was done prior to building, and this type of activity was not found to be excessively noisy. Commissioner Dickson stated that if the park had responded to the problem earlier, a Ir.t of time and bad feelings could have been spared. Mr. Kenyon apologized to the Commiss'on. He further stated that Oe chain link fence is the same height as the wooden fence with the addition of 3 strands of barbed wire on top of the fence to further deflect any skateboards. Mrs. Monk stated thatshe had not seen any chain link fencing on the other side of the wooden fence, and repeated her appeal for a suitable repair job on the existing fence. It was suggested by the Commission that Mr. Kenyor give Mrs. Monk a tour of his side of the fence and she do likewise. Mr. Kee stated that the staff could take pictures of the area in question if the Commission would like. The Commission felt that this was not necessary. Mr. Kenyon further invited the Commission to come to the park and see the fencing in question. Mr. Kee stated that he would be happy to meet with all the parties involved to work for an amicable solut!on, which he thought had been attained. Commissioner Kasolas suggested a two -week continuance of this item, which would allow time for the involved parties to meet and try to resolve any further problems. It was moved by Comm�ssioner Kasolas,and seconded by Commissioner Pack that the referral from the City Council regarding the Campbell Skateboard Park be continued until the regular meeting of January 16, 1979• This motion was unanimous!y adopted. } + rt ITEM N0. 5 STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUAR'Y 2, 1979 City Council Referral City Council referral regarding the request of Letter from Mr. Harold Clark for a public hearing to consider Mr. Harold Clark revocation of the use permit for the skateboard park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After hearing the evidence presented, that the Commission make a determination as to the need for a public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for the subject skateboard park. STAFF DISCUSSION On November 6, 1978, Mr. Harold Clark addressed a letter to the City Council requesting a public hearing to consider revocation of the use permit for a skateboard park located at 2155 South Bascom Avenue. Mr. Clark cited three reasons in his letter (attached) as justification for his request. In addition, several photographs were ,ubriitted which showed sections of damaged fencing between Mr. Clark's apartments and the park. The staff conducte,+ a field investigation of the site on December 27, 1978. At that time, it )parent that some action with regard to the fencing had been taken ,.,e time Mr. Clark wrote his letter. The fencing was, for the most part, in good repair. in addition, a section of chain link fencing had been attached to the skateboard park side of the redwood fencing. Lastly, several strands of barbed wire were attached by brackets to the top of the redwood fence. The owners of the skateboard park as well as Mr. Clark have been sent a copy of this staff report, and aavised of the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting. After hearing evidence on this matter, the Commission may determine that the problem has been resolved and that no further action is necessary. If, on the other hand, the Commission determines that a public hearing is warranted, staff should be directed accordingly. OttYy CouNctl o io-E: CRi�n�bell, CAlif 9S001 City �t vokN %j bct-r Q%MVIoeu, Cq Irk gSmy ITEM N4 1 %Aov L, 1911 © rcrRwr D NOV 81978 CITY OF CAMPBELL PUNNING DEPARTMENT 1- A� ���.U6S�'\No A �ubtie NERR��1 to I 'c Evo i< -The Usc TIE2m IT Foe the sta`TE 1�a� d �NQ �rss s, 3ascom AUE CRmpbeLL V-oe 'V„ -t RU-Esr ROE : i So �ti� QWtiEEs oF• -Vhe c,06TeboRrd I�AW Wov,Id \Nstq\.1. R-t�ro(�riATe ���weeN Rr-olperm:'�Y ANd Thy � • ���a�Q �y Fe�ec wh�c� SAS vw-imN� �-04, tie owvvs o-F -7),1C C\�y SeW WC, Wert �ASs��ed Thy FENS wog.\d be \Ns�AlLed �D �.►- �Au el N Go �►� oN �"ucz Slx mot�\h� off_ '\`1�0¢-�• . m AnnFNni;m UP 77-11 Continued public hearing on the application Whitney, William of William Whitney for approval of plans to construct a skateboard park on property known as 265 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Use Permit, subject to the followirg conditions: 1. Site and Architectural approval of Site Plans and building elevations by the Planning Commission. 2. Use Permit to expire one year from date of approval unless project is under construction. i STAFF DISCUSSION: At the Site and Architectural Review Meeting this morning, staff was U requested to prepare an addendum to the agenda that would address Oe / revised plans as received on September 19, 1977• The applicant has (i submitted z� sound study, revised building elevations and a revised Site Plan. It is the staff's interpretation of the sound study that the pro- posed park would not be a significant contributor of noise in the general area. Proper fencing to the South along the residences and to J the rear along the apartments would provide for adequate sound attenuation. The revised building elevations were reviewed by the Architectural Advisor at the Site Review Meeting. It was his opinion that the revised elevations as presented did not reflect an acceptable design for the site and the surrounding area. He felt that revised elevations should be prepared for a more consistent architectural design. The building setback has been changed from five feet to ten feet. The revised Site Plar, is not drawn to scale, but the skateboard area is indicated as being shifted seven feet to the north which would provide a ten foot setback on both the north and south sides. Landscape areas are still not clearly defined and existing tree locations are not accurately shown on the plans. No fence detail is shown for the area bordering the single family residential. It is the staff's opinion that this is an appropriate location for a skate- board park. The major concerns of staff regarding the compatibility of this use with the surrounding area have been satisfactorily resolved. The subject area is within a site and architecturally controlled zone. The Planning Commission is charged, under Section 21.42.050 of the Campbell Municipal Code, that the proposed development will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. The staff cannot support this statement on the basis of the plans submitted. As a result staff is recommending approval of the Use Permit subject to Site and Architectural approval. A � CITY Or CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION CASE SHEET Whitney, William E. NAME ADDRESS Campbell, Ca. 95008 APPLICATION FOR__p 77_Il DATE I'ILED Aug. 15, 1977 AMOUNT OF FEE $75.00 DATE PAID PROPERTY ADDRESS 2155 S. Bascom Avenue DATE PUBLISHED IN CAMPBELL PRESS Aug. 17, 1977 DATE PROPERTY WAS POSTED DA';E LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT DATE OF FIRST PUBLIC HEARING Sept. 6, 1977 CONTINUED TO: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DENIED RESOLUTION NO. DATE OF PUBLIC HL'ARING BY CITY COUNCIL FINAL ACTION: APPROVED , DENIED CAMMULL SKATMMO M PARK CM No: � o►an 2155 S. g.WM M.. C nWbW. CA Mph • 311-U 0 0 February 6, 1980 Mr. Rick Schneider Campbell Planning Commission Campbell, California Dear Mr, Schneider, I would like to make a formal complaint against Campbell Skateboard Park at 2155 South Bascom Avenue for violation of their Use Permit. The executive management has failed to maintain a standard of safety that should enhance an atmosphere of logical progression and comron sense. I feel the Campbell Skate Park management is negligent in the following areas. 1. The park (riding surface) is not clean. Dirt, litter, and water about the park endaners the skater's ability to maintain Proper balance and injury could occur. 2. Requirement of helme t, elbow, and knee pads is not strictly enforced. 3. Only one employee will be present at the facility. That employee's responsibility is to stay inside the building, take admissions, and run the Pro shon. This leaves the main activity area unattended, as a result a serious injury could be over looked. I am askin, that the City of Campbell investigate and take action to correct the problems that exist at this park. Thank you for your attention to this renuest. Sincerely, CFB G }98= Dave Brady CIn OF CAMp8FL.L 5037 3sther Drive """Na or"" San Jose, CA 9$124 k408) 377-4087 CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning September 22, 197' Mr. William E. Whitney 2087 La Con Ct. Campbell, Ca. 95008 Re: UP 77-II - Res. #1637 2155 South Bascom Avenue Campbell, Ca. 950^.8 Dear Mr. Whitney: Please be advised that the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 20, 1977, adopted Resolution #1637, giving conditional approval to your request for a Use Permit to allow construction of a skateboard park on property known as 2155 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2- (General Commercial) Zoning District. The Use Permit will become effective September 30, 1977, assuming no appeal is made to City Council. If you have any - estions regarding this matter please contact the Planning Office. ARTHUR A. KEE Planning Directar -E-Y - BRUCE R. P0-� DWELL Senior Planner rma encl. Resrlution 1637 Ai,proved Plans cc: Fire Department Public Works Department RESOLUTION NO. 1637 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the application of Mr. William E. Whitney for a use permit to construct a skateboard park as provided by Planning Commission Resolution #1637 and Section 21.64 of the Campbell Municipal Code, said skateboard park to be located on property known as 2155 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S Zoning District, as per application filed in the office of the Planning Department on August 15, 1977, and after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents, and opponents, th- hearing was closed: After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Commission dial find as follows: 1. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission does hereby grant the requested use permit subject to the following conditions: 1 . Site and Architectural approval of Site Plans and building elevations by the Planning Commission. 2. Use Permit to expire one year from date of approval unless project is under construction. PPSSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September 1977 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson, Dickson. NOES: Commissioner Hebard. ABSENT: Commissioner Pack. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lubeckis. APPROVED: J. DuWayne Dickson Chai rn,n ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary J F g5 g- mc�8ee�iv .8E ,cn c' 98 �effi $ VI 9 v1 ys 8gy5 W, 8 Ag fib_ _�5 Aga, tl co 0 co M -. I dig si "o4Eg= .$�s8� 933�9 �pp a $p c.1 $T1 W C4 9 U6 � g4o Tff",50 1,; Ia Jo W all � g t8• ae1.e3Ee3J45J., 3�m3 v?I" m9 Js aeH R�Ni� �j� ��+S+iOm�GYa %"8mo` ta ��ssSsl I EDWARD L PACK ASSOCIATES AC. Acoustical Coitsultants TELEPHONE. (405)249.1M0 KID SCOTT BOULEVARD SAMA CLAM. CALIF. 95M September 15, 1977 Project No. 9154 Mr. William E. Whitney 2087 La Con Court Campbell, California 9S008 Subject: Noise Assessment Study on the Proposed Skateboard Park to be Located at 21SS South Bascom Avenue, Campbell Ref. (a) Site Plan for Proposed Skateboard Park by Concrete Curl, Inc., So. Bascom Avenue, Campbell Dear Mr. Whitney: The noise study presented in this report contains an assessment of existing noise conditions on the proposed skateboard site including predictions of noise levels from use of the park. The prediction of future noise impacts is made from the results of on -site noise measurements and noise tests at an operating Skateboard park. To define the existing noise environment of the site, continuous 1 hour noise recordings were made during a daytime and evening hour. The recorded noise data was obtained during a peak traffic hour and a more quiet evening period. The on -site measurements provide baseline data from which future noise :t levels can be predicted. O Q � C. 0 OP P� r [MB[A •COUtrICA� tootTY eF --A AY DSO awmpatMMa sou [rr ANMICAN $*CICTr OF tAIITI 9b ..tt.. iN tTIT UTt OF [n villOwM[MrK tCi[MCtl I. Existing N.)ise Background Levels on the Proposed Site To quantitatively define the existing noise environment of the site along Bascom Avenue, measurements were made during the daytime and evening periods. Two recording hours were selected to represent a noisy daytime hour and a more quiet evening hour. The 2 recordings represent two extremes for the probable operating hours of the proposed park. Noise recordings were made at a location 300 feet west of Bascom Avenue represc-ting a midpoint position on the site. Recordings were taken during the daytime period from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The sound measurement and analyzing system included a Gen Rad Company Community Noise Analyzer, Type 1945. The noise levels were sensed by a calibrated microphone positioned S feet above ground elevation. The "A" weighting network avid the "Fast" response setting of the analyzer ware employed in compliance to standard practice for messuremc of urban ncise. The on -site noise levels were measured, stored and processed by the noise analyzer to yield a series of statistical noise descriptors. Included for each test run were the maximum, minimum, various L exceedance values and the energy -equivalent level (L,,q) as shown in Table I below: 2 - TABLE I Measured Noise Levels at the Proposed Bascom Avenue Site Near the South Property Line and 300 ft. from Bascom Avenue 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm Noise Levels (dBA) Max L10 L50 L90 Min Leq 71 62 S9 55 50 60 71 58 53 s0 47 S4 Included in Table I are the maximum, minimum, the LIO or "intrusive" levels, the LSO or "average" levels, the 1,90 or "background" levels and the energy -equivalent level (Leq). The Leq value represents the level of a steady noise which has the same energy as a given time -varying noise. A review of the level- shown in Table I indicates that the evening hour is 5 to 6 dBA quieter than the noisy peak traffic hour of 4:00-5:00 p.m. Thus, an assessment of the largest noise impact on the surroudning area can be made by utilizing the recorded evening data. II. Noise Level Data From an Operational Park To define the noise environment created by an operational skateborad park, noise recordings were taken at the Alameda Skateboard Park, 1815 Clement Avenue, .Alameda. Sound Level recordings were taken at 2 locations near the perimeter of the concrete surface of the skating area. The noise recording locations represented the 2 potentially noisiest positions 3 - around the perimeter. One location was adjacent to the main auto parking area and the second location was nearest to an elevated section of the park where skaters assembled to await their turn for the use of certrin runs. The recordings were made on September 10, 1977 between 11:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m., during which time some 30 to 40 skaters were actively using the park. The following noise levels were measured during a peak use hour: TABLE II Measured Noise Levels Around the Perimeter of the Alameda Skateboard Park with 30-40 Skaters Noise Levels (dBA) Test Locations Max L10 L50 L90 Min Leq 30 ft. from North edge of concrete 74 58 52 44 45 55 30 ft. from South edge of concrete 75 57 s0 46 42 54 III. Prediction of Future Noise Impact Levels Noise impact levels from the proposed park can be predicted e from a comparison of the existing environment of the site against the noise levels created by an operating skateboard park. i 4 - To determine the worst -case impact, the quiet evening noise levels have been compared against the "noi.siest" period of an operating facility. Utilizing noise data from Tables I and II, the followine differen,;es are revealed: Prediction of Noise Impact Levels Noise Levels (dBA) Time Period Location Max L10 LSO L90 Min Leq 8:00 pm-9:00 pm Proposed Site 71 58 53 SO 47 54 11:45 am-12:45 pm Alameda Park 74 58 52 48 45 55 Evaluation of the data in Table III reveals a central location on the proposed site has an identical "intrusive" level (L10) as the Alameda Skateboard Park during cne of its busiest hours. The proposed site also has an "average" or L50 back- grcund that is 1 dBA more noisy than the Alameda Park. The "background" or L90 level of the site is 2 dBA above the noise background of the Alameda Park during a busy hour. An overall evaluation can be made of the various noise descriptor levels by comparing the energy -equivalent or LeQ values. Again by referring to Table III, the Leq for a busy skating hour compared to the evening period at the proposed site is 1 dBA above existing levels for the Bascom Avenue site. A 1 dBA difference is an insignificant and an unnoticeable difference. Generally, noise impact levels up to 6 dBA are considered to be of little significance and no complaints are usually =reated. 5 - J (' i TY OF C'AMPBELL 2155 S . BASCONI AVE. UP 77-1 1 2 Of 4 � I1 The above impact levels apply at a 30 ft. distance from the edge of the concrete surface of the park and under free space conditions. The existing redwood fence along part of the south and completely along the west property lines of the pro- posed site would provide an estimated 3-4 dBA of noise reduction at ground locations, but would not be effective at second floor elevations. The 6 ft. high chicken wire and chair, link fence segments along the south and north property line3 have no noise reduction benefit. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, the predicted noise levels at the residential properties located to the south and west c,f the site will experience an insignificant impact. If an effective 6 ft. high noise barrier wall is considered in lieu of the existing fences, a total of 4 to 6 dBA of noise attenuation benefit would be realized. Generally, a 3 dBA change in levels is a "just perceptible" difference, however, a noise reduction of 4 to 6 dBA is a noticeable improvement. For an acoustical barrier to be effective, it must be constructed as a solid, continuous surface with no openings or holes. All joints and connections with posts or pilasters must be made air -tight. No openings or gaps are permitted berween the barrier and ground below. The minimum surface density for noise barriers is 2 lbs. per sq. ft. During the noise recordings at the Alameda Skateboard Park, it was observed that very low level or inaudible sounds are created by the wheels on the concrete surface. The most common source of sounds were conversations between skaters at ordinary voice levels. As there was no audience present, applauding and shouting events did not occur. - 6 - I _ f Automobile traffic was observed to be minimal with an average of 12 cars in the parking lot during a peak use hour. Discussions with park personnel at Alameda revealed most skaters are under age 15 and do not drive cars. Review of the proposed park plan, Ref. (a), reveals an existing parking area for 40 cars would be utilized. As the parking area is adjacent to Bascom Avenue, traffic noise intrusion into adjacent properties should be minimal. During the noise tests at Alameda, a public-address system was used once for an announcement. At that time it was concluded that the use of a P.A. system could be the most annoying sound source. However, it is our understanding that no P.A. system will be installed at the proposed park and, therefore, no problems will be created from high-level announcements or playing of background music. From our field measurements, observations and analysis, it is concluded that very little noise is created from skate- boarding and that no noise problem is foreseen from controlled use of the proposed park. Respectfully submitted, i Edward L. Pack Principal Acoustical Consultant ELP:m 7 _ u 0V H. LAYTON Mfa�JY, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL THEODORE H. BEST H. KENETH POWELL WILLIAM L. NASH JOHN P. TOROK JIMMY D. YATES JOHN STUNSON, City M.np.r DARLEEH MITCHELL. City Clnit TO ::CT' IT ::n7 COI?C!,=U t S;!LIJ SII')r P:.^SC has been a welcome ne:7 creation to the busiresa community of the City of Ctiland Park, 'lorida. 1ho Parl: hc.a been in operation since Thanksgivin,-; of 1976 and alroady h;s established itself as a safe,norally beneficial addition to the recreational faoilities offored in our cit: . -.Is :ave had no problems concernin.- the operation of the ":ark and hive h,-d nothi'.ar but favorable comments from t-e *:arer.ts of the areas youngsters thc.t skate there. I would hi,hly recommend that any community look favorably on the ap_roval of a skateboard park such as Solid Surf Igo. �s part of their community. Sine . F. Layt n :.aingug ::ayor 1 IILI•:�njm 3630 N. E. 11 A—, — Telephone (303) 363-1731 Lail: P. O. Box 13070, Oakland Park, Plonda 33307 1 V 1k PROOF OF PUBLICATION ILgiiS]t 1'. STATE IIF CALIF111CMA. county lot tianld Clara I am a vitir.en of the United Slates and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of .•iKhleen years, and not a party to ow interested io the above -entitled matter. I am the principal '. A of the printer of the CAMPBELL 111W." Dillon Avenue. Calltlibell• 1 :dif0ruia, a ne%1- paper of general virrulathen, printed and pub- 11s11ed every N'e•dnesdav it. the city of Ca I -nanly d Santa 1'lai a: :jjjd which newspa per has her" adjudged a ne•wspala•r of general cirvola- Iam Iry the Superior Court of the Lamle o1 Santa Clara, Slate o1 California. Case Number XMIX: Ih.e( the oolh•v of which the annexrd Is a printed copy (set in tape unl smaller than non-parviU, has been published in rash regular and entire Lwe ul .aid newspaper and nut in any supple. tneol thereof o I Ihe• following dales. 1n wit: all in the year 19 77 rrrliA uu, derl:erv•e uud,•r penalt, of to,-rjury that the Nwt•Kotng is trot and cur reei. lfaleel al Campbell. Callfornin, thi. of „n u t xi 77 Sl Keeature I Ina +pace is for the Counly 1'lerk's Filing; Stamp I'M141F OF 11MILILATION OF N0710E NOTICE Y KJws/ � two rwefexlw.don ten tow pnpw.d far aw aPPEw tlm of M! Vrd" fen . eon to eelbw mnnati , of . d,.t.lea.ed pwk een g..O.rlr known n 2155S. , 1 Ol.hlT. g.. Met ern be.aer .idw.d.d fa.ppe.rM by the CITY of C.nepO./ een je jI e• P.e..ee. m.Y eervi.w . ex w a in re.PW. eYegw.t Pl e,' f1e ke to 10 . d ro Pl ckv O.p.r No* C�Ato illeeeP4.R tA11IOni.. Me.: aaii 332-CP PROOF OF PUBLICATION NTATk (IF CALIFORNIA. county of Kanto )Tara I am a citizen of the t;nilyd Stales and a resident of the County aforesaid; I ain aver the age of yightern years, and nol a party to nr (nterelitrol in the ahove+•nlilhd matter. I am the principal -L. of the printer of the CAMPBELL PRESS ;S Dillon Avenue, t'amphell, 4 Adorns— it new+- l.apri td general circula(ioly, printed and pa'r- 11.1.ru every Wednesday let the rfly of Cal"llbt•It. l ounly d Santa t'lera; and which newspaper has I -en adjudged a newspaper of general circula- Itoo by the Sup -rhfr Court of the Coon(* of Santa I lira. State of t'allfornia, Case Nunlbel KIIIIK: that the notice of whin) it,,. anne%rd is it prinlett ,-py (set In tvpe not smaller (Italy nor.-parvil). has tseen published in rash regular and entire Issue of %aid newspaper and nml ht any' supply. no-M therruf (,I-. the Iollowing dab". to wil: August 25, all in the year 19 77 i crrlih tut Ieehorl uudrr pwfaltl al prrjury that the forrgohfg is Irue and rune-). Dated at ('atnpbrll, ('alifarnia, this 25th o1 1....L G I!I79 SiKnaturr 1'111% space is for the 01unly t'lerlt's Filing vtan•p it PROOF (IF 1-UH1.11'1TIIIN OF' NOTICE OF IIli~ No 4 IIaaW Pt+n art the Ills. Ctamt�m d the Cny of CanpbM hta wt me hour of 7:30 p.m. on Toe► City H"IttlijbM in this City 7S Norm Central Avwwe. Camp bell, Calaarr", n the tMro anti puce scot public tiabq Ill tsn- erdw the gVbC W of N11. William E._�HU�ry sac • tale Pon 16 Z1 arruuction of a akalabowd prf on poP.M knowp r 2(� $•..ILMGfIII A I�� eC-1-S (Gaeta zl Ztewp Diabio, A.P.N.: 91344 99689 Map and W9W daaoripoan of a 4.0 propwW w filein to. otfc of the Plaowg m Depwtrra, 75 With Camral Avarrue. CanpbMl, Ctoof . Imerislond peraw+ met cop pear Bond be h wd in wit law inp. CIYY OF CAMPS—. PLANNING COMMISSION /s/ ARTHUR A. KEE, SECRETARY Pub.: III 342-CP UP I I USE PERMIT CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT C-�l ��.y� A p I� NAME: CAM fPEkL S(Arr—g —6 FjgKK DATE: Sr /`1 %% Please type or print ADDRESS: ao8'7 /,ft C6/v C.Y TELEPHONE: }77-9o1(p/ PROPERTY ADDRESS � � �� S d3►�•SCi�41 AUt-AM LEZ,L cA ��oF�? Applicant MUST attach legal description of property IMPROVEMENTS: ��®nNJG Existing Proposed 564-T�1-11g17 USE APPLIED FOR: (Applicant MUST citesection number of Campbell 11cni-:ipal Code which authorizes Planning Commission to grant the particular use applied for; a 5wtt4 _ Xa a.-vv t 44--A73L0 APPL'CATION: I/We, the undersigned person(s) having an interest in the above described property, hereby make application for a Use Pe^mit of the nature set forth above, in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code of the City of Campbell, California, and I/He hereby i certify that the information given herein is true ana correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. Filed in the Office of Planning Department on ,19 By: NFOEP, 5kAVE&g. Hesse print app cant a name Respectfully submitted, (Signature) (Address) fDa e GROU14D LEASE This lease is entered into between Bernard Alter and Ruth Alter, 2110 South Bascom Aver ae, Campbell, California, ( hereinafter known as " lessor " ) and Campbell Skate Board Park, 2087 Lacon Ct., Campbell, California, ( hereinafter known as " lessee ") . IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. LEASED LAND Lessor leases to lessee, and lessee hires from lessor the real prop- erty known as 2155 S. Bascom Ave., Campbell, California, described in exhibit " A " and outlined in red on exhibit " B " attached and made part of this lease. 2. INITIAL TERM OF LEASE The initial term of this lease shall be five (5) years commencing October 1, 1977 and expiring October 1, 1982. Possession of the land shall be delivered to lessee upon the commence- ment of the term. 3. UPI -ION 'iL ER ENU Lessee is granted the option to extend the initial term of t'is lease on all the provisions herein contained, except provisions for rent, fo: a period of five (5) years following the expiration of the initial term, provided lessee shall give written notice of the exercise of the option to lessor at least one hundred eighty ( 180 ) days prior to the expiratior. of the ina ial term. Lessee is granted the option to extend the first extended term of this lease on all provisions contei,,ed here except rent,for a period of five (5) years following the expirat.`.on of the first. extended term, provided lessee shall give written notice of the exercise of the option to lessor at least one hundred eighty days ( 180 ) prior to the expiration of the first extended term. Lessee is granted the option to extend the second extended term of this lea..e on all provisions contained here except rent,for a period of five (5) years following the expiration of the second extended term, provided lessee shall give written notice of the exercise of the option to lessor at least cne hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the second extended term. 4. RENT a. Lessee shall pay to lessor the annual rent of thirty thousand (30) dollars. This rent shell be payable monthly in advance in installments of $ 2500.00 per month on or before the first day of each month during the term. b. If the option to extend the initial term of this lease is exercised, the rent for this period will increase based on the cost of living index increase with the base year being October 1, 1977. IM I J For the second extended term the rent will increase based on the cost of living index with the bas- year being October 1, 1922. For the third extended term the rent will increase based on the cost of living index: increase with the base fear being October 1, 1987. 5. TAXES a. in addition to the rentals, lessee shall pay and discharge all taxes, general assessments and special assessments and other charges of every description which during the term of this lease may be levied upon or assessed against the leased land and all interests therein and all improvements and other property thereon, whether belonging to lessor o:.' lessee, or to which either of them may become liable with the one . exception: lessor shall contribute towards the aforementioned taxes the amount of tax he is presently paying on the undeveloped land based on his 1976 tax assessment year. This sum shall remain fixed based cn the 1976 Tax assessment, until this lease is terminated. b. Lessor sha1= cause all future tax bills to be sent directly to lessee from the Assessor. c. Lessee shall furnish lessor with official receipts or photocopies thereof, within fifteen days of payment, evidencing that the tax has been paid. d. Lessee shall protect and holdharmless lessor and the leased land and all improvements, from all liability for any and all such taxes, assessments and other charges, including interest and penalties, and from any sale or proceed ng to enforce paymert thereof. 6. USE Durin the lease term the leased land an all improvements constructed and maintained thereon shall be used by the lessee for a skateboard park and the related activities of proshop, food concessions and a arcad=. The leased land shall be used for no other purpose. Lessee shall at all timez daring said term conform to, and cause all persons using said premises to comply with, all public laws, ordinances, and regulations from time to time applic- atle ',hereto and to all operations thereon. 7. IMPROVEMYNI ; a. The parties agree that during the term of this lease, the title to all improvements will be vested in the lessee. b. Lessee shall, at lessee's sole cost and risk, construct whatever improvements are needed to operate the skateboard park and its related activ-.'.ties. c. Lessee shall at lessee's sole cost and r?sk, cause to be installed in, on, and about the leased land all facilities necessary to supply, water, sewage, gas, electricity, telephone, and any other ser^,ice required in lessee's operation. d. Lessor has the right to review and approve all building plans prior to constructic,n. Lessor restricts lessee to a maxium height of fourteen (14) feet for any structure on the leased land. -2- J e. At the termination of this lease, lessee has the right to salvage on all improvements, however, if lessee elects to salvage all or any part of the improvements, he must remove all improvements in itr, entirety and return the land to the lessor in its origins'_ condition. Salvage must be complete by termination date of the lease. If lessee elects -lot to salvage the improvements, lessee shall surrender to lessor posession of the leased land and all improvements constructed and installed thereon. if lessee elects to surrender improvements to lessor, lessee agrees to execute a quitclaim instrument in writting gi,,ing lessor all right, title, and interest in the improvements. 8. NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION: MECHAN"IC'S LIENS a. Lessee agrees that lessor shall have the right to enter upon the premises to post notices of non —responsibility. b. Lessee shall pay and discharge all expenses incurred by lesser for the services of mechanics or for the costs of goods and materials delivered by materialmen, and to save and holdharmless the lessor from any claims by such mechanics or materia]mar for labor or services perfcrmel or goods delivered at the instance or request of the lessee. 9. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE Lessee is responsible during the term of this lease for all maintenance and repairs to the leased land and all improvements thereon. 10. ASSIGKTZNTS; SUBLETTING Lessee shall have the right to assign, sell, sublet, or otherwise transfer lessee's interest in whole or part, only by prior written agreement from lessor. Lessor shall refuse or agree within thirty (30) days after receiving a request from lessee. Lessee shall not be released from liability hereunder in the event of assignment without prior written agreement from lessor that he is releasing lessee from liability. 11. LEASEHOLD MORTGAGE Lessee may at any time encumber the leasehold interest, upon obtaining the prior written consent of the lessor, but no such encumbrance shall constitute a lien on the fee title of the lessor. All rights acquired by the mortgagee shall be subject to the terms Of this lease and in any conflict the provisions of this lease shall control. 12. IASURANCF a. Lessee shall at his own, risk and cost keep all improvements to the land insured against loss of damage by fire, with an extended coverage endorsement. b. Lessee shall at his own cos+ aid expense, at all times during this lease, maintain in full force for the joi,it benefit of the lessee and lessor a broau form comprehensive coverage policy of public liability insurance, in which the lessor is named as an additional named insw ed and j are indemnified against liability for damage or injury to property or person including death of any person entering or using the leased land. Such policy shall be maintained with minimum limits of E 1,000,000.00 per person. This policy is to be primary and non—contributing with any —3— The laer, months rent under the initial term of this lease is to be pa`d to less -Dr by lessee no later than October 1, 1977. 19. CONTINGENCY This lease is contingent on the grai,ting of a building permit to the lessee by October 1, 1977. In the event that a building permit is not granted this lease is hereby terminated without penalty to lessor or lessee and lessor is to refund the the first months rent on depcs t with him. In the event of an unforseen delay a 30 day extention will be granted for the purpose of this sub -paragraph, however, rr.ital will start as of October 1, 1977. E1(ECUTEO ON� , 1977 LESSOR BEF W ALTER RUTH ALTER � r MIRE FHElW BILL WHITN= J 1 insurance carried by the lessor. c. If at any time insurance is cancelled or not available, the skateboard park shall close to the public until insurance is obte_*.ed from another source, so that at all times liability to the public is covered. In the event that the skateboard park closes under this sub- paragraph the payment of rent. shall continue. lj. INDEMNIFICATION OF LESSOR Lessor shall not be liable for any loss, damage or injury of any kind or character to any person or property arising from any use of the leased land, or any part thereof, or any defect in the structure or other improvements on the land. Lessee agrees to indemnify and holdharmless lessor from all liability for any loss, damage, injury of persons, and expenses therefrom arising out of the use of the land and improvements thereon. 14. DEFAULT In the event lessee shall fail to perform any obligation under this lease, he shall be deemed to be :in default 90 days after notice of the default in writting by the lessor, except for non-payment of rent, in which case lessee i, dec,i,ed 6u be in default 30 days after non-payme:.t and. no notice in writting is necessary. In the event of default the lease terminates by declaration by the lessor. In the event of termination of this lease the lessee shall not be relieved from the payment of any sums due the lessor for rents or damages. 15. PURCHASE RIGHTS I the event hat the lessor decides to sell the land during the term of this lease, lessor shall offer the first right to purchase to the lessee. The exception to this is any transfers or transactions between the lessor and any menbers of his family. 16. RECORDATION An abstract of this lease shull be recorded and all parties to this agreement agree to sign the abstract. 17. N0T1^E Whereever notice is required between the parties, the same shall be served by registered or certified mail, addressed as follows: LESSOR Mr. Bernard Alter or Ruth Alter 2110 South Bascom Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 LESSEE Campbell Skateboard park C/o Bill Whitney 2087 Lacon Ct. Campbell, CA 95002 18. DEPOSITS The first months rent is to be paid upon the signing of this lease. I 'v •Winos• ioa OF 0 77" "Vo "/Sj;z SON �N 1. cr I (AMNENCR;a at a point in the or' al centerline of Soup Bascom Avenue, formerly Sar. Jose -Los Gatos ROLd, formerly 7o'nrson Avenue, being the Northeast corner of the tract of land conveyed by W. F. Gilmore to Mary E. Newhall by Deed dated May U, 16*2 _ .d cf record in the office of the County ! Recorder of the Canty of Sand. C:2,M, State of California, in Book 59 of Deeds, page 593, et seq. , said point being also distant S. 12.84 chs. from the inter- section of said centerline of South Bascom Avenue with the original centerline of Campbell Avenue, and rurn:as thence "oath along the centerline of said South Bascor. Avenue, 75 feet; thence West 55 7. 25 feet to a point; thence N. 3' 15' E. 75.12 feet to a point; thence East 503 feet to the point of commencement, and being a part of Lot 12, as shown upo n the Map entitled, "Map of the Subdivision of the Estate of A. Johnson", and which said Map is of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Cara, Sate of California, in Book "A" of i Maps, page 37, and containing 0.955 acres of land. PARCEL NO. 2: BEGLK.NMIM at a point in the orig! =:l centerline of Sout-h Bascom Avenue, formerly San lose and Los Gatoz Ro-d, zcr:er:y 7oi:nsj n Avenue, ,with the intersection of the North line of that certain 17.135 acre tract of land conveyed by Deed from Campbell { Realty Company, a corporation, to ?red E. Lester, et ai, dated July let, 1911 and recorded in Book 372 of Deeds, Forge 488, in the o;fi=e of the County Recorder of . Santa Clara County, California, said po:nt being distant is chi. 97 2/3 lks. Southerly i from the corner common to Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36, Township 7 SaatS, Range 1 West; thence along the NortcerIj liue of said 17.135 acre tract, West 557. Sa feet to an iron pipe buried aboL t 11/2 feet below the surface; thence S. V 15' W. M. 68 feet to an iron pipe about 1:/2 feet below i:.e s !ace; thence East 561.27 feet to a point in the said centerline of said South Eascom Avenue, formerly San Jose and Los Gatos Road; thence,alonq the said centerline of said Road, North 70. 77 feet :o the i place of beginning, and being a porticn of Secttor. 35, Township 7 South, Range 1 West, M. D. M. and a portion of Lot 12 as sho«1 or. that certain Map entitled, "Map of Subdivision of the Estate of A. Johnson" recorded March 28, 1861 in Book "A" of 1 Gaps, page 37.. i CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAM PBEL L, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008 1408) 378-8141 Department: Planning EIR - 3 File # lip 77_11 DECLARATION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) APPLICANT Mr. William E. Whitney ADDRESS 2087 La Con Ct. PROJECT NAME Campbell, Ca. IS008 Concrete Curl ADDRESS 71 u c R... — e..o—. Campbell, California Pursuant to the applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and City of Campbell Resolution No. 5164; and After review of plans and information supplied by the applicant pertaining to the captioned project, and after completing the attached initia-. study, the undersigned does hereby Jetermine that the captioned project will have no sigificant effect (no s:,ostantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act and Resolution. Executed at Campbell, California, this 16 day of August . 197 7 . Arthur A. Kee Director or Official D� Richard L. Schneider Planner II ENVIRO%,USITAL CHEQ LIST TO BE USED BY THE CI?� OF CAIIPBELL IN MAKING AN �i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSL.,SMLNT (INITIAL STUDY) I. BRCKOROUND 1. Name of Proponent 2. Address and Phone Number or Proponent: ao637 S,n coN c r C A— Au - 3 / 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4, Agency Requiring Checklist.e/% 5. flame of Proposal, if applicable t "r C'6"jc 4a>e J&L- II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes In geologic substructures? / sC b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or ove,•coverins of the soil? ✓ c. Change In topography or ground surface relief features? d. 7be destruction, covering or modification of anyunique geologic or physical features? / e, Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. 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 bay, inlet or lake? , 1 of 7 Pages YES IM Y13F NO C. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, / or similar hazards? 2. Air. Mill the proposal result in: a. Substantial air or deterioration of ambientient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable 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 course or flow of flood waters? / d. Change in the amount of surface / water In any water body^ e. Discharge into surface waters, or In any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, 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 withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 2 of 7 Pages a 1 1:.71 n YES MRYBG VO 4, Plant Life. Will the prcposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gracs, Grope, mlcrofl.ora 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 replenishment of existing species? ./ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal res—Tu iIn— a. Change 1n the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthle or anisms, / Insects or microfaunag? 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 barrler to the migration or / movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise _ levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? �. l and Glare. Will the proposal ht pro uce new jigEt or glare? _ L B. land Use. Will the proposal result 1n a ^ib ntial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ 9 n' i PAVPR J YES MAY EE NO I ^ 9. Na — al Resources. Will the proposal resu n: a. Increase in the rate of use of / • ar,y natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewabJe natural resource9 / 10. Risk of Upect. Does the proposal. involve a risT< of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances - (includinE, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) In the event of an accident or upset conditions' _ 11. Population. Will the proposal alto• �Tte ocat or., di:.�.ribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area' 12. Ho sin trill the proposal affect exu ne ho,ic•inf, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t in: a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement't b. Effects cn existing parking facilities, or demand for new / parking? _ e. Substantial impact upon existing / I• transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? t. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ./ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or r pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the'proposal ve -an or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: F YES MAYSF NO a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? +J r c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? / eMhlntenance of public facili- ties. Including roads? z f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of / fuei or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? / i6. Utilities. Will the proposal result n a nee or new systems, .or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer nr septic tanks? 1Z e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal resu n: — a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding . mental health)! b. Exposure of people to.potential health hazards'? / ._ S of 7 Pages I YES MtiiU NO 18. AL hetics. Will the p,o;rosa. result Sr. t ohstruction of and sccmic vista or vler: open to the p,iblic, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ly. Recreation. Will the proposal result In an impact upon the quality or quantity of existlTir r•ecreat)onal opportunities? 20. Archeolo�l. Historical. Will the proposal —result n an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building'? 21. llsndctory Pindinas of Sictnificance. (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 wildlif 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 eliminate 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 goals? (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.) .r c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may Impact on two or more separate resourceo where the impact on each resource Is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment Se significant.) d. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause . subetantial adverse effects on hwean beings, either directly or Indirectly? all i 6 of 7 Pages J III. DISC ^ON OF EIiVIRON►E NTAL EVAL TION IV. DETERMINATION: AFTER REVIEWING THE ENVIRO11MEHTAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY :HE APPLICANT, AND AFTER COMPLETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST USED BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL IN MPRI"NG AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a elgnlficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. L% I find that although the proposed project could hsve 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 BE PREPARED. Datc Z% I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. For Signs ure 7 of 7 Pages _J CITY OF CAMP BELL, CALIFORNIA EIR-1 INITIAL STUDY L•NVIRU;*_NTAL .AFOR1 ATION FORM - TO BE M,,rLFTED 13Y APPLICANT late Filed �I� ;.177 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. 14ame and address of -developer or project sponsor: I L „V MKIKf •IL 12 GhM, LIC. 3 /S—b1c� ,�oR7 LA CGV c7 CAMP11 L ,, c 1',•4c l,41TWIF 2. Address of project: a/SS t3tqscy!� �}�F Assessor's Block and Lot urn er y3 /- c/ - }, - f 9 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: F3/LL curFl7/V'�S� i JS % L.A Ce l C 7 4. Indicate number of tLe permit application for the project to which this form pertains: / �. List and describe any other related permits ar,l other public approvals required for this project, including those required by clty,SFLSional, state an federal - encies: CITV ceset ;>e,V G. Existing zoning district: L 1 S 7. Pro osed use of site (Project for which this form Is filed): kA4TeP>CARO PA►R4 c.,i� ��c,iecd lLe.s PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) 8. Site size. JL4 x 5X 9. Square footage. 7L4, Gn 10. Number of floors of construction. C>Aj 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 10 '�(\RC t S 12. Attach plans. ✓ 13. Proposed scheduling.03C,-h cfS 3ORYS FCft c'CA)STQVCT(00J 14. Assoctated projects. +�GNE PP RK TU Oe N" Lc't ED I KJ -lV1r cIT1ES cF �,rin���osr + fiEi-r-: ANP NCR>t 15. Anticipated incremental development. CAN\W'1 {`TC-- \iCUEI aAhEtii I ry cti e prV15F o r C'�'j/v I Tr2L,C 7 10 /v 1 of 3 Pages F 7 f residential, include the number of units, schedule of 'unit If range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.__�i _ 17. If commercial, Indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally. oriented, square footage Qf sales area, and loading faCilltleq S1CRT�f3CflRp - CGMMCRCIAL L'5LIft-biAE6 �2Crp-o y y:t — G014M.A'ITr Foy: Rc-.s�CF-FV:crtAr-cv.u�c�ss,cr,s CAi'c.. OFF If 1!ndu-strial indicate type, estimated em Fz� �� ~" �.k6 y�o , yp p oyment per s , /''a,,n///d loading facilities. If institutional, -indicate the major function, estimated mployment 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 cleai7ly why the application � Is required. � S - l'�� !' � T- ie� r�� 4::P Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as iecessary). YES NO ✓ 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, : beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in / vicinity. v 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. j&6 A-(TAC14& O 28. Site on filled land or on elope pf 10 percent or more. 29. Use of disposal or potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. I YES NO / V 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services .(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). NOT A(iOJE /Vv/:MAL ``S 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). — No i 4"ov,•r A;'o'L 32. Relatlonahip to a larger projeec ct or series of�MdRc.N� projects. UsEs ENVIRONIM,NTAL 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. SEE f1Ti�u��� 5µffjS 4. Describe the surrounding properties, including, information i plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic a pects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, eLL.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photo: will be accepted. `5,`F . MEp Stf&�fS CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and Infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informw ion presented are true and (.-)rrect to the best of my knowledge ana belief. Da to ) W 12 gna ure For �41_A g ' 1 of I pnrrn _l ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING # 33. Description of proposed site. 1 An existing p.rking lot 65 feet wide rnd 200 feet deep lies forw-rd ` censer to left of the proposed vecenit lot. There are six tree's upon the let, two dead which will have to be removed along with one other five foot walnut that lies within a portion t of the lot which will have a section of the track Ft that point. All remaining tree's will be used as continous landscaping. There are 30 foot pines spaning the entire length of the property line of Baker's Campers and the proposed lot. The forward left side of the lot has an existing five foot redwood slat farce running 266 feet down the property line. From that point on 30 foot pine's continue on to the back or West end of the lot. All other vegetation upon the project siteconsists of scattered wild oats and (oxtails with various milk weed species sc ttered throughout% At the back left aurrter sepment of the lot stands a dozen or more five- foot mounds of fill (clean) . The fill will be used to set the grrde of the lot to drain tr Bascom eve. The only existing anim�ls upon the lot are those that might find shelter under ground, such as a golfer or several species of insects and arthropods. In short the lot is void of any animal life of m-aor ecological concern. The topography of the project site is at a set level of = 191, at the top of the curb and t 192, throughout the iot. There once existed two homer , of which are now destroyed and long i removed. The lot or project site displr•,es no scenic value and holds no historical value. 0 Environmental Setting # 34 To the right of th= lot or north lies the Baker Camper com- mercial c-2-s lot running the entire length.'of the north property line. No set back is required along this section. The West or bask end of the lot h-s two unoccupied four plexes. A ten foot buffer or set back is required here. Fifteen gallon evergreens set fifteen feet from center will be,planted parallel to the existing eight foot redwood slit fence . These trees will provide the necessary visual barrier between the aprrtments and the skate- board park. Due to the fact that these=pertments are rt the brick end of the lot little if any human=ctivlty will take place in or about the ten foot set back zone. Along one half of the South or lift side if the lot r six foot redwood sl=t cyclon fence will seperet the 300 foot deep beck y%rds of the residentel single dwelling homes. No set back is required along the sides of residentel nd commercirl property. However we plan to place a 3-5 foot set back 1=ndsc-pe zone along this segment of the property line. The remaining length of the lot f)rw-rd from midpoint is cnmmer- cirl property fenced of by sin existing five foot redwood fencP.whicb is 1; ndsce ped. The entensity of the userge of the Bakers C=mpers"lot and thrt of the four plexes and Colorite pint store is minim 1 at all tires. The surrounding lot posses no historicrl of scenic vrlue thrt could be harmed by the userge we plrn for the land. In fect we feel that the SkateBorrd park will ^dd a gre-t derl of scenic be,uty to the area. I �A at 7 N UP 77-11 lu t AVE ilk: J) 14 1 11 I CTTY OF CAMPBELL 2155 S. BASCOM AVE. UP 77-11 3 of 4 CITY OF CAMPBELL 2155 S.BASCOM AVE. UP 77-11 4 of 4