The URL can be used to link to this page

Council Report - Item 12 - PD et al - Robson Homes - 10-21-2014RESOLUTION NO. ____ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PLN2013-340) FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN2013-337), TENTATIVE VESTING SUBDIVISION MAP (PLN2013-339), AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (PLN2014-191), TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 81 TOWNHOME UNITS AND 19 APARTMENT UNITS ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 230, 280, 282, AND 290 (PORTION) DILLON AVENUE; 466, 472, 482, AND 488 SAM CAVA LANE; AND 186 GILMAN AVENUE. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the City Council did determine that the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration provides full and adequate environmental review for approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337), Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014- 191) to allow the construction of a residential development consisting of 81 townhome units and 19 apartment units. The City Council finds as follows with regard to the Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. The proposed project ("project") is a planned residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership), 19 apartment (rental) units, and associated on- and off-site improvements, as well as removal of existing on-site trees. The project includes applications for a Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tree Removal Permit. 2. The project site is a 4 ½ acre assemblage of ten properties, including three associated with the former Biddle Roofing company, two encompassing the Haig Precision machining company, four single-family rental properties, one property developed with a multi-tenant industrial building, as well as a small (less than a quarter acre) portion of the City's corporation yard. 3. The project site is generally located near the southeast intersection of Sam Cava Lane and Dillon Avenue, abutting the Campbell Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard to the south and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the west. 4. To expedite CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review, the State of California adopted SB 226 (2011), allowing a "streamlined" review for qualifying infill projects, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21094.5. An infill project may qualify for streamlined review where a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified (such as for the General Plan or a specific plan) and the project satisfies applicable "performance measures" (such as proximity to a light-rail station). 5. A qualified infill project may be reviewed under CEQA by preparation of an Infill Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15183.3), which incorporates a City Council Resolution Page 2 Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration File No.: PLN2013-340 multidisciplinary environmental review that evaluates various potential environmental impacts, including traffic, air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and various community impacts. An Environmental Checklist Form may rely on the environmental analysis of the project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including previously adopted mitigation measures, and reference "uniform development policies," such as noise or lighting standards that would substantially mitigate potential impacts. 6. Based on the findings of the Infill Environmental Checklist Form, the lead agency may file a Notice of Exemption, a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Infill Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 7. The project qualifies as a residential infill project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15183.3 in that it is located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least seventy-five percent of the site's perimeter. 8. An Infill Environmental Checklist Form has been prepared for the project, which resulted in the preparation of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 9. There are no responsible agencies or trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project. 10. The City of Campbell provided a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to the public via the Campbell Express, the County Clerk, and on the City website. 11. The City of Campbell provided a 20-day public review period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The 20- day public review period was between September 3, 2014 to September 23, 2014. 12. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are included as Conditions of Approval of the Planned Development Permit and/or Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: 1. On the basis of the Infill Environmental Checklist, and as supported by substantial evidence, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigation measures adopted in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR), application of uniformly applicable development policies, and incorporation of project- specific mitigation measures agreed to by the project proponent, as specified by the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Council Resolution Page 3 Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration File No.: PLN2013-340 2. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. 4. The Custodian of the Record for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Infill Environmental Checklist Form is the Community Development Department of the City of Campbell, located at 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PLN2013-340) (attached Exhibit A) for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337), Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191) to allow the construction of a residential development consisting of 81 townhome units and 19 apartment units. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: APPROVED: Richard M. Waterman, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 •FAX (408) 866-5140 •E-MAIL planning@cityofcampbell.com MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Community Development Department has prepared an Infill Environmental Checklist in compliance with State CEQA Guideline Sec. 15183.3 for the purposes of determining whether the proposed infill project described below may have a significant effect on the environment not addressed in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies, or mitigated through project-specific measures. "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Project Title: Dillon Avenue Townhomes and Apartments File Number(s): PLN2013-340 (CEQA Review), PLN2013-337 (Planned Development Permit), PLN2013-339 (Vesting Subdivision Map), PLN2013-360 (Parking Modification Permit), and PLN2014-191 (Tree Removal Permit) Project Address: 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466,472,482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue Project Sponsor: Santa Clara Development / Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda Santa Jose, CA 95126 Zoning District: P-D (Planned Development) General Plan:Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre)and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Contact Person: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner (408) 866-2193 | danielf@cityofcampbell.com Date Posted: August 29, 2014 Surrounding Land Uses / General Plan / Zoning: North: Townhome Residential / Commercial/Med.-High Residential / P-D (Planned Development) South: Maintenance Yard / High-Density Residential / P-D (Planned Development) East: Los Gatos Creek Trail / Open Space / P-F/OS (Public Facilities/Open Space) West: Industrial / Commercial/Med.-High Residential / P-D (Planned Development) Exhibit A Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ Dillon Avenue Townhomes and Apartments Page 2 Prior Environmental Document(s): On November 6, 2001, the City of Campbell adopted the Campbell General Plan and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearing House # 2001042063) for the project. The adopting City Council Resolution (CC Resolution No. 9940) for the EIR, summarized the potentially significant environmental impacts that would be mitigated to a level less than significant with the identified mitigation measures as well as those environmental impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s): City of Campbell City Hall, Community Development Department, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008. Project Description: The proposed project is an infill residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership) and 19 apartment (rental) units. Finding: On the basis of the Infill Environmental Checklist, Community Development Department staff has determined that, based upon substantial evidence, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigation measures adopted in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR), application of uniformly applicable development policies, and incorporation of the following project-specific mitigation measures agreed to by the project proponent. Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Reduce Potentially Significant Environmental Effects to a Less Than Significant Level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne tox.ics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ Dillon Avenue Townhomes and Apartments Page 3 Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC). Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project-related activities that occur during the breeding season could be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1st through August 31st), pre- construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity within 15 days prior to such activities. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and migratory bird nest (up to 250 feet, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project, or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that no bats are harmed or killed as a result of the project. a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of the four homes along Sam Cava Lane, and their associated outbuildings, a pre-construction survey will be conducted to confirm that the existing conditions of the homes have not changed. If existing conditions have not changed, no further surveys will be required. b. If existing conditions have changed and the biologist observes that one or more structures have openings that could provide entry for bats, then a more detailed bat survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all structures that provide potential openings for bats to enter. If no bats are found, then no further mitigations will be required. If roosting bats are found to be present, the following additional measures will be required: c. If a non-breeding bat colony is found within any of the structures, the individuals will be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement of the buildings prior to demolition under the direction of a qualified bat specialist to ensure that no harm or “take” would occur to any bats as a result of demolition activities. d. If a maternity colony is detected in the structures, then a construction-free buffer should be established around the structure as determined by the biologist and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery is no longer active. Demolition should preferably be done between March 1st and April 15th or August 15th and October 15th to avoid interfering with an active nursery. Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ Dillon Avenue Townhomes and Apartments Page 4 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Any person may file a written protest of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration before 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2014. Such protest must be filed at the Community Development Department, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. The written protest should make a "fair argument" that the project will have one or more significant effects on the environment based on substantial evidence. However, please note that certain determinations made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15183.3 are questions of fact to be resolved by the lead agency. August 29, 2014 Signature Date Daniel Fama, Associate Planner City of Campbell Printed Name Agency Encl: Infill Environmental Checklist Form Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CITYOF CAMPBELL Community Development Department DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1 of 2 MitigationMeasureMonitoringPhaseEnforcementAgencyMonitoringAgencyActionIndicatingComplianceVerificationofComplianceInitials Date RemarksAirQualityͲAIRMitigationMeasureAIRͲ1:TheprojectapplicantshallensurethatconstructionplansincludetheBAAQMDBestManagementPracticesforfugitivedustcontrol.Thefollowingwillberequiredforallconstructionactivitieswithintheprojectarea.Thesemeasureswillreducefugitivedustemissionsprimarilyduringsoilmovement,gradinganddemolitionactivities,butalsoduringvehicleandequipmentmovementonunpavedprojectsites(referenceMNDforspecificmeasures).SitePreparationandConstructionCityofCampbellPublicWorksDepartmentandBuildingDivisionPeriodicComplianceReportMitigationMeasureAIRͲ2:TheprojectapplicantshallensurethatconstructioncontractspecificationsincludearequirementthatalloffͲroaddieselͲpoweredconstructionequipmentusedforprojectimprovementsbeequippedwithaLevel3VerifiedDieselEmissionsControl(VDEC).PriortoConstructionCityofCampbellPlanningDivisionPriortoBuildingPermitIssuanceBiologicalResourcesͲBIOMitigationMeasureBIOͲ1:ProjectͲrelatedactivitiesthatoccurduringthebreedingseasoncouldbeconstrainedinthevicinityofanyactivenests.Iftreeremovalorgrounddisturbanceactivitiesarescheduledtocommenceduringthebreedingseason(February1stthroughAugust31st),preͲconstructionnestingbirdsurveysshouldbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologisttoidentifypossiblenestingactivitywithin15dayspriortosuchactivities.AconstructionͲfreebufferofsuitabledimensionsmustbeestablishedaroundanyactiveraptorandPriortoDemolitionorTreeremovalCityofCampbellPlanningDivisionPriortoDemolitionPermitIssuance 2 of 2 MitigationMeasureMonitoringPhaseEnforcementAgencyMonitoringAgencyActionIndicatingComplianceVerificationofComplianceInitials Date Remarksmigratorybirdnest(upto250feet,dependingonthelocationandspecies)forthedurationoftheproject,oruntilithasbeendeterminedthatthechickshavefledgedandareforagingindependentlyfromtheirparents.MitigationMeasureBIOͲ2:Thefollowingmitigationmeasureswillbeimplementedtoensurethatnobatsareharmedorkilledasaresultoftheproject.a. Within30dayspriortothedemolitionofthefourhomesalongSamCavaLane,andtheirassociatedoutbuildings,apreͲconstructionsurveywillbeconductedtoconfirmthattheexistingconditionsofthehomeshavenotchanged.Ifexistingconditionshavenotchanged,nofurthersurveyswillberequired.b. Ifexistingconditionshavechangedandthebiologistobservesthatoneormorestructureshaveopeningsthatcouldprovideentryforbats,thenamoredetailedbatsurveywillbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistwithinallstructuresthatprovidepotentialopeningsforbatstoenter.Ifnobatsarefound,thennofurthermitigationswillberequired.Ifroostingbatsarefoundtobepresent,thefollowingadditionalmeasureswillberequired:c. IfanonͲbreedingbatcolonyisfoundwithinanyofthestructures,theindividualswillbehumanelyevictedviathepartialdismantlementofthebuildingspriortodemolitionunderthedirectionofaqualifiedbatspecialisttoensurethatnoharmor“take”wouldoccurtoanybatsasaresultofdemolitionactivities.d. Ifamaternitycolonyisdetectedinthestructures,thenaconstructionͲfreebuffershouldbeestablishedaroundthestructureasdeterminedbythebiologistandremaininplaceuntilithasbeendeterminedthatthenurseryisnolongeractive.DemolitionshouldpreferablybedonebetweenMarch1standApril15thorAugust15thandOctober15thtoavoidinterferingwithanactivenursery.PriortoDemolitionCityofCampbellPlanningDivisionPriortoDemolitionPermitIssuance RESOLUTION NO. ____ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A TENTATIVE VESTING SUBDIVISION MAP (PLN2013-339) TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 81 IN-FEE TOWNHOME PARCELS, THREE APARTMENT PARCELS (FOR RENTAL PURPOSES), AND ASSOCIATED COMMON PARCELS ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 230, 280, 282, AND 290 (PORTION) DILLON AVENUE; 466, 472, 482, AND 488 SAM CAVA LANE; AND 186 GILMAN AVENUE. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The City Council finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2013-339: Environmental Finding 1. On the basis of the Infill Environmental Checklist, and as supported by substantial evidence, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigation measures adopted in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR), application of uniformly applicable development policies, and incorporation of project- specific mitigation measures agreed to by the project proponent, as specified by the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Evidentiary Findings 1. The proposed project ("project") is a planned residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership), 19 apartment (rental) units, and associated on- and off-site improvements, as well as removal of existing on-site trees. The project includes applications for a Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tree Removal Permit. 2. The project site is a 4 ½ acre assemblage of ten properties, including three associated with the former Biddle Roofing company, two encompassing the Haig Precision machining company, four single-family rental properties, one property developed with a multi-tenant industrial building, as well as a small (less than a quarter acre) portion of the City's corporation yard. 3. The project site is generally located near the southeast intersection of Sam Cava Lane and Dillon Avenue, abutting the Campbell Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard to the south and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the west. 4. The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development) as shown on the Campbell Zoning Map. 5. The project site is designated Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre)as shown on the City Council Resolution Page 2 Approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map File No.: PLN2013-339 Campbell General Plan Map. A portion of the project site is within the boundaries of the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan, as incorporated within the Campbell General Plan Appendix A1-3. 6. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map will allow creation of privately held parcels for fee title ownership as well as common parcels to be improved with private roadways, pedestrian pathways, guest parking spaces, recreational open space, and landscaping. 7. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map may be approved concurrently, and subject to, a Planned Development Permit. 8. The proposed residential land use, at a density of 21 units/gr. acre, is consistent with the allowable land use and maximum density permitted by the Commercial/Med.- High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre)General Plan land use designations. 9. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map has been distributed to local agencies, including Pacific Gas and Electric, West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. None of these agencies raised any concerns about providing services to the proposed lots. Specific comments from local agencies have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval. 10. The provisions of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are necessary to ensure the long-term property maintenance and continued architectural integrity of the project. 11. Prior to recordation of a Tract Map, the applicant shall enter into an Inclusionary Housing Agreement to provide below market rate units in compliance with the City of Campbell Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: 1. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City. 2. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map does not impair the balance between the housing needs of the region and the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. 3. The design of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. 4. The development and uses will be compatible with the General Plan of the City and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. City Council Resolution Page 3 Approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map File No.: PLN2013-339 5. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. 6. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees imposed upon the project and the type of development project. 7. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339) to allow a residential subdivision consisting of 81 in-fee townhome parcels, three apartment parcels (for rental purposes), and associated common parcels, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: APPROVED: Richard M. Waterman, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division: 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339) to allow a residential subdivision consisting 81 in-fee townhome parcels, three apartment parcels (for rental purposes), and associated common parcels in conjunction with a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337), and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191), on properties located at 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466, 472, 482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue. The Tract Map shall substantially conform to the Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (and associated civil sheets), included within the Revised Project Plans, dated as received by the Planning Division on September 9, 2014, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein and as necessary to maintain consistency with the revised site plan configuration pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 6 of the Planned Development Permit. 2. Approval Expiration: The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is valid for a period of two years from the date of final City Council approval unless an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. Recordation of a Tract Map must occur within this two-year period. 3. Indemnity: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director, the applicant shall enter into an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney to indemnify and defend the City of Campbell, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and all actions, liabilities, losses, and torts, including attorney’s fees arising out of or connected unto any challenge to the decision of the City Council on this application. Such agreement shall be executed within the 30 days of the Community Development Director's decision to require it. 4. Traffic Calming: Prior to preparation of off-site improvement plans, the applicant shall discuss with the Public Works Department the potential to install traffic calming measures/devices along Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane (e.g., "speed bumps" or speed warning signs) as may be deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. Should the City determine that traffic calming is warranted, such improvements will be required to be performed by the applicant as prescribed by Condition of Approval No. 29. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 2 5. Planned Development Permit: The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is contingent upon approval of the Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337). A Tract Map may not be recorded if the Planned Development Permit expires or is revoked by the City Council. 6. Park Impact Fee: A park impact fee is due upon development of the site, based on the development density of 21 to 27 units per gross acre, less credit for legally constructed units. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, 75% of this fee is due. The remaining 25% is due prior to issuance of a certificate of building occupancy. The fee is currently set at $7,026 per unit. This fee is subject to change and the fee in effect at the time of payment shall be the fee due. 7. Planning Mitigation Monitoring Fee: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall pay a $2,000.00 deposit to cover the actual staff cost to ensure compliance with the mitigation monitoring. 8. Demolition of Structures: Prior to recordation of the Tract Map the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit for the demolition of all existing structures. The following measures shall be implemented during the demolition process to ensure that bats and bird are not harmed or killed as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project-related activities that occur during the breeding season could be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1st through August 31st), pre-construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity within 15 days prior to such activities. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and migratory bird nest (up to 250 feet, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project, or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of the four homes along Sam Cava Lane, and their associated outbuildings, a pre-construction survey will be conducted to confirm that the existing conditions of the homes have not changed. If existing conditions have not changed, no further surveys will be required. b. If existing conditions have changed and the biologist observes that one or more structures have openings that could provide entry for bats, then a more detailed bat survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all structures that provide potential openings for bats to enter. If no bats are found, then no further mitigations will be required. If roosting bats are found to be present, the following additional measures will be required: Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 3 c. If a non-breeding bat colony is found within any of the structures, the individuals will be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement of the buildings prior to demolition under the direction of a qualified bat specialist to ensure that no harm or “take” would occur to any bats as a result of demolition activities. d. If a maternity colony is detected in the structures, then a construction-free buffer should be established around the structure as determined by the biologist and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery is no longer active. Demolition should preferably be done between March 1st and April 15th or August 15th and October 15th to avoid interfering with an active nursery. 9. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. 10.Below Market Rate Housing: In compliance with CMC 21.24 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance), the developer shall enter into an inclusionary housing agreement ("Agreement") with the City to provide twelve (12) townhome units at below market rate prices to moderate-income households. Six (6) of the units shall be three- bedroom units and six shall be four-bedroom units. However, the four-bedroom units shall be priced as three-bedroom units (assumed 4-person household size).The BMR units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and be comparable to the design of the market-rate units in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality, as determined by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay a fee of $1,229 to cover the staff cost for preparation of the Agreement. The Agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to recordation of the Tract Map. 11.Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R’s): Prior to issuance of recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City a copy of the draft CC&R’s which shall include the following: a. Formation of a Homeowner’s Association to ensure the long-term maintenance of buildings and property. b. Continued architectural controls to ensure the architectural integrity of the project. c. Definition of common areas to be maintained and provision of maintenance for these areas. d. Provision which shall define the rights of use, allowable landscape or open space improvements. e. Provision of a funding mechanism to ensure maintenance and upkeep of common areas. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 4 f. Provision to provide ongoing maintenance of the required private roadways, landscaping, and sound walls as necessary. Graffiti removal from sound walls and fences within a reasonable period of time. g. Provision that requires ongoing maintenance of the landscaped park strip and tree wells in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: trees, lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Trees shall not be pruned in a manner that would not allow the tree to grow to a mature height. h. Provision for regular monitoring and maintenance of the stormwater system, in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. i. Provision for regular monitoring and maintenance of the private sanitary system as described by the designing engineering, and as approved by the City Engineer. j. Provision for the availability of interior garage space for the parking of vehicles at all times. k. Provision to prohibit the use of outside parking spaces for storage purposes, including boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. l. Provision to prohibit vehicle washing, and vehicle repair and maintenance activities in the project site, including, but not limited to garages and common parking areas. m. Provision that requires that all landscaping, including but not limited infiltration plantings, be maintained as depicted on the final landscaping plan. Edible landscaping (e.g., fruit and nut bearing trees and shrubs), as required by the approved Landscaping Plan, shall be provided and maintained. n. Provision guaranteeing equal access to all common facilities and amenities by all residents (renters and homeowners) of the project. o. Provision requiring owner-occupancy for a minimum of one year prior to rental of a unit. The Community Development Director may approve an alternative mechanism to implement this standard as determined appropriate by the City Attorney. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Please note that building permit and grading permit will not be issued until all Public Works Conditions of Approval have been satisfied. These Conditions of Approval are a supplement to the Civil plans dated September 4, 2014 and the Tentative Map dated September 8, 2014 both prepared by Civil Engineering Associates. The plans are not approved for construction. Further plan checking by Public Works will be required post entitlement. 12.Sale of City Property / Lot Line Adjustment / Storm Drain Easement / Maintenance Agreement: Upon submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall concurrently submit the following: Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 5 a. All necessary documentation to facilitate the City’s review and approval of the Purchase Agreement for the sale and transfer of a portion of the City’s Corporation Yard property at 290 Dillon Avenue to the project. b. An application for the lot line adjustment needed to facilitate the sale and transfer of the City property identified in the Purchase Agreement. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall have completed the lot line adjustment process and have it ready to record in advance of recordation of the Final Map. c. All necessary documentation to facilitate the City’s review and approval of the Storm Drain Easement over the City’s Corporation Yard property at 290 Dillon Avenue for the benefit of the project. 13.Response Letter: Upon submittal of the Tract Map, the Street Improvement Plans and the Grading and Drainage Plans, the applicant shall provide an itemized response letter verifying that all the Public Works Conditions of Approval have been met or addressed. 14.Final (Tract) Map: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, the applicant shall submit a Final Map for review by the City and recordation, upon approval by the City Council, pay various fees/deposits and submit the map in a digital format acceptable to the City. 15.Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions: Provide copies of CC&Rs for review by the City prior to recordation of the Final Map and CC&Rs. Maintenance of the stormwater treatment facilities shall be part of the CC&Rs and be the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association. 16.Right-of-Way for Public Street Purposes: As shown on the Tentative Map, with recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall fully complete the process to cause additional right-of-way to be granted in fee for public street purposes along the Dillon Avenue frontage to accommodate the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Dillon Avenue, as well as additional right-of-way on Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane as shown on the Tentative Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 17.Public Service Easement: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall grant the necessary public service easements contiguous with the public right-of-way along the Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane frontages as indicated on the Tentative Map. 18.Private Easements: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall cause private easements to be recorded for private utilities, private storm drains, reciprocal ingress and egress, emergency vehicles, etc. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 6 19.Demolition: Prior to recording of the Final Map the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and remove any nonconforming structures. 20.Monumentation for Final Map: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide a cash deposit for setting all monuments shown on the map. Monuments shall be set per section 20.76.010 of the Campbell Municipal Code including but not limited to setting permanent pipe monuments (three-fourths inch galvanized steel pipe two feet long approximately six inches below finished grade) at each boundary of all lot corners within a subdivision, along the exterior boundary lines at intervals of approximately five hundred feet and at all beginning of curves and ending of curves on property lines, and monument boxes at intersections of all street monument line tangents. 21.Soils Report: Upon submittal of the Final Map, applicant shall provide a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical or civil engineer. 22.Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies based on a ten-year storm frequency, prepare an engineered grading and drainage plan, and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits. Prior to occupancy, the design engineer shall provide written certification that the development has been built per the engineered grading and drainage plans. In addition, a plan review letter will be required of the Geotechnical engineer for the entire grading and drainage system which should include but is not limited to a review of the proposed infiltration. 23.Storm Drainage System: Construction of 48” RCP storm drain main along the northerly property line between the existing manhole in the sidewalk of Gillman Avenue and a new manhole constructed by the applicant before the existing outfall to Los Gatos Creek. 24.Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, currently set at $2,385.00 per net acre, less any previous payments. 25.Utilities: All on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 21.18.140 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of the serving utility companies. Utility locations shall not cause damage to any existing street trees. Where there are utility conflicts due to established tree roots or where a new tree will be installed, alternate locations for utilities shall be explored. Include utility trench details where necessary. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 7 26.Water Meter(s) and Sewer Cleanout(s): Existing and proposed water meter(s) and sewer cleanout(s) shall be relocated or installed on private property behind the public right-of-way line. 27.Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services are to be abandoned, and where new utilities and services will be installed. Joint trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible. 28.Pavement Restoration: Based on the utility coordination plan, the applicant shall prepare a pavement restoration plan for approval by the City Engineer prior to any utility installation or abandonment. Streets that have been reconstructed or overlaid within the previous five years will require boring and jacking for all new utility installations. Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane have not been reconstructed or overlaid in the last 5 years.The pavement restoration plan shall indicate how the street pavement shall be restored following the installation or abandonment of all utilities necessary for the project. 29.Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement, cause plans for public street improvements to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: Dillon Avenue d. Show location of all existing utilities within the new and existing public right of way. e. Relocation of all existing utilities including utility boxes, covers, poles, etc. outside of sidewalk area. No utility boxes, covers, etc. will be allowed in the sidewalk area. f. Removal of existing driveway approaches and necessary sidewalk, curb and gutter. g. Installation of City approved street trees, tree wells and irrigation at 30 feet on center to supplement existing street trees deemed to be in good condition. h. Installation of City standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and ADA compliant driveway approach. Installation of engineered structural pavement section to centerline if damaged during construction. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 8 i. Construction of cul-de-sac at the terminus of the Dillon Avenue as required by the City Engineer. j. Installation of asphalt concrete overlay per street pavement restoration plan for utility installation and/or abandonment, as required by the City Engineer. k. Installation and/or relocation of streetlights, conduits, conductors and related facilities in accordance with the City of Campbell’s Street Lighting Policies. l. Installation of traffic control, stripes and signs. m. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. n. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City. Sam Cava Lane a. Show location of all existing utilities within the new and existing public right of way. b. Relocation of all existing utilities including utility boxes, covers, poles, etc. outside of sidewalk area. No utility boxes, covers, etc. will be allowed in the sidewalk area. c. Removal of existing driveway approaches and necessary sidewalk, curb and gutter. d. Installation of City approved street trees, tree wells and irrigation at 30 feet on center to supplement existing street trees deemed to be in good condition. e. Installation of City standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and ADA compliant driveway approach. Installation of engineered structural pavement section to centerline if damaged during construction. f. Installation of asphalt concrete overlay per street pavement restoration plan for utility installation and/or abandonment, as required by the City Engineer. g. Installation and/or relocation of streetlights, conduits, conductors and related facilities in accordance with the City of Campbell’s Street Lighting Policies. h. Installation of traffic control, stripes and signs. i. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. j. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City. 30.Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the applicant shall have the required street improvements and pavement restoration installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. In the event that construction is phased, the applicant shall have the street improvements needed for each phase completed prior to allowing occupancy for that phase. Prior to allowing occupancy of the final phase, the applicant shall have Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 9 all street improvements and pavement restoration installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 31.Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future Homeowner’s Association are required to maintain the landscaped park strip and tree wells in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: trees, lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Trees shall not be pruned in a manner that would not allow the tree to grow to a mature height. 32.Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate permits for the installation of utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. 33.Additional Street Improvements: Should it be discovered after the approval process that new utility main lines, extra utility work or other work is required to service the development, and should those facilities or other work affect any public improvements, the City may add conditions to the development/project/permit, at the discretion of the City Engineer, to restore pavement or other public improvements to the satisfaction of the City. 34.Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention. Specifically the project must include source control, site design and treatment measures to achieve compliance with Provision C.3. of the NPDES Permit. Measures may include, but are not limited to, minimization of impervious surface area, vegetated swales, infiltration areas, and treatment devices. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay. Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003. Prior to recordation of the Final Map: a. The applicant’s designer or engineer shall submit the required certification indicating that sizing, selection, and design of treatment BMP’s for the project site has been completed to meet the requirements of the City of Campbell’s NPDES permit, No. 01-119, Provision C.3. Conditions of Approval Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map – PLN2013-339 Page 10 b. The applicant shall sign the “Covenants for the Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities” and submit a Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to occupancy: a. A qualified BMP certifier is required to inspect the stormwater management facilities, submit a complete set of as-built drawings to Public Works Engineering, and certify on these drawings that: 1. The stormwater management facilities were constructed in compliance with the approved plans. 2. The as-built drawings show all pertinent constructed dimensions, elevations, shapes, and materials. 3. All variations in construction from the approved design plan have been identified, including omissions to and additions from the approved plan. 4. Any changes are in conformance with local, state, or federal regulations. b. The applicant shall provide security for the operation and maintenance of stormwater pollution prevention measures installed or provided as a part of this project. 35.Traffic: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall contribute $15,000 towards the installation of emergency vehicle preemption equipment and associated conduits and conductors at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue. Install red curbs as described in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report prepared by W-Trans. 36.Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD): Prior to issuance of any permits for grading, landscaping, or building or the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall obtain a clearance from the SCVWD. Exceptions for demolition and associated grading activities may be approved by the City Engineer. 37.State General Construction Activity Permit: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the State General Construction Activity Permit requirements including paying fees, filing a Notice of Intent and providing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the filed Notice of Intent and SWPPP. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 38.Sewer connection: The applicant will be required to abandon all existing sewer connections and construct a new privately maintained sewer system for the new homes. This private sewer system must be designed and constructed to the district’s public sewer standard. Pursuant to district ordinance, code Section 10.130 the applicant is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the issuance of a "Non- Interference" letter for the recordation of the final map. ORDINANCE NO. _____ BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN2013-337) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 81 TOWNHOMES AND 19 APARTMENT UNITS ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 230, 280, 282, AND 290 (PORTION) DILLON AVENUE; 466, 472, 482, AND 488 SAM CAVA LANE; AND 186 GILMAN AVENUE. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE: That this Ordinance be adopted to approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337), incorporating by reference findings made by the Planning Commission, to allow the construction of a residential development consisting of 81 townhomes and 19 apartment units on properties located at 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466, 472, 482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue, subject to the attached conditions of approval (attached Exhibit A). SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published, one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in the Campbell Express, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ___________, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: Richard M. Waterman, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division: 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013- 337) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 81 townhomes and 19 apartment units, in conjunction with, and subject to a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191), on property located at 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466, 472, 482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Revised Project Plans (including architectural, civil, and landscaping sheets), dated as received by the Planning Division September 9, 2014, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein 2. Permit Expiration: The Planned Development Permit is valid for a period of two years from the date of final City Council approval. A building permit must be obtained within this two-year period or the Planned Development Permit shall be void. 3. Tract Map: The Planned Development Permit approval is contingent upon recordation of the Tract Map to divide the subject property. The Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. 4. Final Building Colors: The applicant shall provide final color boards for the townhomes and apartment buildings which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Architectural Refinements: Architectural refinements to the project that would not substantially alter the design as determined by the Community Development Director, including but not limited to the use of front porches and stoops, may be administratively reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as part of the review of construction plans for a building permit. 6. Required Revision to Plans: The construction and on-site improvement plans submitted for building and grading permits shall incorporate the following revisions: a.Site Configuration and Architectural Design:The following revisions are authorized to be administratively reviewed and approved by the Community Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 2 Development Director. If the revisions would result in additional building square footage or substantially alter the design or specifications approved by the site plan the Director shall require a "Modification of a Planned Development Permit" in compliance with CMC 21.12.030.H.3: i. Townhome Building Rows 13 and 12 shall be modified to reduce and break- up building massing through shifting of townhome units and incorporation of smaller/narrower unit models. ii. The four (4) parking spaces at the corner of Sam Cava Lane and Gilman Avenue shall be changed to three (3) perpendicular spaces. iii. Four (4) additional surface (guest) automobile parking spaces and four (4) motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided within the development. b.Conditions of Approval: The conditions of approval shall be stated in full in the construction plans. c.Secondary Access: The floor plans for all townhomes shall not include any form of secondary front door. d.Apartment Floor Plan: The apartment floor plan Sheet 1 shall be corrected to indicate a 25-foot front yard setback from building to new property line (post dedication), consistent with the project Site Plan. e.Sound Wall: The final design for the sound wall shall incorporate stone veneer or landscape plantings ("living wall"), as determined by the Community Development Director. f.Creek Trail Wall: The final design for the creek trail walls shall incorporate stone veneer instead of stucco finish, along the reinforced concrete block section, consistent with the stacked stone wall section. g.Receptacle Storage Area: The floor plans for all garages shall incorporate a designated storage area for a refuse and recycling receptacles that is outside of the required parking stall dimension. h.Good Neighbor Fencing: Prior to any grading or construction, a 6-foot tall barrier (i.e., fence, wall, or green screen) of a design approved by the Community Development Director, shall be installed along the southerly (rear) and easterly (side) property lines of the adjacent single-family residential property (APN 412-08-031) located at 272 Dillon Avenue, to mitigate privacy impacts of the project and dust impacts during construction of the project. i.Parking Signs: The site plan shall indicate installation of "no guest parking" signs at the entrance to "dead-end" streets with the development. Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 3 7. Landscaping Plan: The construction drawings for a building permit shall include a "final" landscaping plan, including irrigation details and associated calculations, in compliance with Chapter 2.7, Division 2, of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations as adopted by the Campbell water-efficient landscape guidelines. All replacement trees required by the Tree Removal Permit shall be noted as such. Edible landscaping (e.g., fruit and nut bearing trees and shrubs) shall be provided and maintained. 8. Equal Access: As codified within the project's CC&Rs, the Home Owners Association shall maintain equal access to all common facilities and amenities by all residents (renters and homeowners) of the project. 9. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: The applicant shall submit a plan prior to installation of the underground PG&E utility (transformer) boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow preventers, indicating the location of the boxes for approval by the Community Development Director. 10. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site in compliance with City of Campbell Lighting Design Standards (CMC 21.18.090). However, lighting along the private roadways shall be of sufficient illumination to ensure the security of the development. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 11. Pad Certification: Following site grading and prior to preparation of individual building pad forms, the following improvements shall be certified by a licensed land surveyor and reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine consistency with the Planning Commission approved plan (grade, pad and drainage). 12. Residential Address Identification: The applicant shall submit a detail sheet showing uniform residential address identification material type and location on the building wall for review and approval by the Community Development prior to the issuance of Building Permits. In order to obtain approval, numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Additionally, number material and color is required to contrast with their background. 13. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris, and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. Any vacant existing structures shall be secured, by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (Section 11.201 and 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code). Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 4 14. Stormwater and Grading Requirements: The project shall comply with City stormwater and grading requirements (CMC Sec. 20.80.020, 21.16.100, and 14.02), as more specifically itemized in the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map. 15. Sound Attenuation: The project shall comply with the City Residential Noise Standards (CMC 21.16.070.E) through incorporation of attenuation measures specified in the project's acoustic analysis. 16. Soil Remediation: Remediation work currently underway to address soil contamination (per CMC 21.18.080.B), shall be completed pursuant to the County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program, as certified the Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, prior to issuance of building permits 17. Cultural Resources: If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel shall be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resources and the City and a licensed archeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. A licensed archeologist or paleontologist shall be retained to inspect the discovery and make any necessary recommendations to evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines prior to the submittal of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the City for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site construction activity. 18. Human Remains: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated in compliance with § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and § 5097.94 of the California Public Resources Code. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a “Most Likely Descendant (MLD).” The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. 19. Construction Activity: The following standards shall apply to construction of the project: x Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 5 a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne tox.ics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. x Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC). x Construction Hours (CMC 18.04.052): Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m. daily, Monday through Friday. Saturday hours of construction shall be nine a.m. and four p.m. There shall be no construction activity on Sundays or National Holidays. x Construction Noise (CMC 18.04.052): No loud environmentally disruptive noise over fifty dbs., such as air compressors without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or radios will be allowed during the authorized hours of construction, Monday through Saturday, where such noise may be a nuisance to adjacent residential neighbors. Such nuisances shall be discontinued. Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 6 x Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to issuance of building permits. Building Division: 20. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for each proposed new townhouse living unit and/or structure. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 21. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 22. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 inches by 36 inches. 23. Plan Preparation: This project requires plans prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. Plans submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person. 24. Soils Report: As required by the CMC Sec. 21.18.130 all new development shall conform to the California Building Code provisions regarding engineering and geotechnical analysis. Two copies of a current soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 25. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details. 26. Foundation Inspections: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. pad elevation b. finish floor elevation (first floor) c. foundation corner locations 27. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 8½ X 11 calculations shall be submitted as well. 28. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 7 submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance with C.B.C Appendix 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter. 29. Non-Point Source Pollution Control: The City of Campbell standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter. 30. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance of the building permit: a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Demolitions Only) d. School District: i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405) ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103) Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the building permit application. 31. P.G. & E.: The applicant is advised to contact P.G. &E. as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays in the approval process. The applicant should also consult with P.G. & E. concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances. 32. Construction Fencing: This project shall be properly enclosed with construction fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the site during construction. The construction site shall be secured to prevent vandalism and/or theft during hours when no work is being done. All protected trees shall be fenced to prevent damage to root systems. FIRE DEPARTMENT 33. Fire Review: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 34. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 8 shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures. Exception: Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and structures that do not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Section 903.2 as adopted and amended by CBLMC. 35. Water Supply Requirement: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 36. Fire hydrants available. The number of fire hydrants available to a complex or subdivision shall not be less than that determined by spacing requirements listed in CFC Table C105.1 when applied to fire apparatus access roads and perimeter public streets from which fire operations could be conducted. Maximum separation for this condition is 500 feet, with maximum distance to any hydrant from any point on the curbs being 250 feet. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in Table C105.1. Exception: The fire chief is authorized to accept a deficiency of up to 10 percent where existing fire hydrants provide all or a portion of the required fire hydrant service. Regardless of the average spacing, fire hydrants shall be located such that all points on streets and access roads adjacent to a building are within the distances listed in Table C105.1 CFC Sec. Appendix C as adopted and amended by CBLMC. 37. Fire Department Access: Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: When approved by the fire code official, where there are more than 30 dwellings units on a single public or private fire apparatus road and all dwellings units Conditions of Approval Planned Development Permit – PLN2013-337 Page 9 are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required. CFC Sec. 503.1.2 as adopted and amended by CBLMC Comment #6: Ground ladder access: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access. CFC Sec. 503 and 1029. 38. Aerial Apparatus Access Roads: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends. Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways with a length in excess of 150 feet. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. CFC Sec. 503.2.2. 39. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505. 40. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 41. Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map: All Conditions of Approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339) shall be implemented and fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. ____ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (PLN2014-191) TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF ON-SITE PROTECTED TREES ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 230, 280, 282, AND 290 (PORTION) DILLON AVENUE; 466, 472, 482, AND 488 SAM CAVA LANE; AND 186 GILMAN AVENUE. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The City Council finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2014-191: Environmental Finding 1. On the basis of the Infill Environmental Checklist, and as supported by substantial evidence, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigation measures adopted in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR), application of uniformly applicable development policies, and incorporation of project- specific mitigation measures agreed to by the project proponent, as specified by the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Evidentiary Findings 1. The proposed project ("project") is a planned residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership), 19 apartment (rental) units, and associated on- and off-site improvements, as well as removal of existing on-site trees. The project includes applications for a Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tree Removal Permit. 2. The project site is a 4 ½ acre assemblage of ten properties, including three associated with the former Biddle Roofing company, two encompassing the Haig Precision machining company, four single-family rental properties, one property developed with a multi-tenant industrial building, as well as a small (less than a quarter acre) portion of the City's corporation yard. 3. The project site is generally located near the southeast intersection of Sam Cava Lane and Dillon Avenue, abutting the Campbell Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard to the south and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the west. 4. A tree survey prepared for the project cataloged 118 trees within and along the project site (including 30 off-site trees along the creek trail within Water District property and six City street trees). The survey identified 25 tree species including a large number of almond, pepper, oak, and redwood trees. Removal of most on-site trees will be required to accommodate the project, although existing live oak trees along the creek trail would not be removed. 5. Approximately 30 trees will require approval of a Tree Removal Permit as the City's Tree Protection Ordinance requires a permit to remove any tree 12-inches in diameter City Council Resolution Page 2 Approval of a Tree Removal Permit File No.: PLN2014-191 or greater (with the exception of fruit and Eucalyptus trees), as indicated on Sheet C-2 (Existing Site Plan and Tree Removal Plan) of the Project Plans. 6. The project includes demolition of all structures and re-grading of the property to the extent that retention of the existing trees would not be feasible or practical. As a result, the removal of trees is necessary for development of the project. 7. The proposed replacement trees will be a sufficient replacement for the trees to be removed and will continue the diversity of tree species found in the community. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: 1. The retention of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property and creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the trees due to the number of site constraints of the infill site. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Tree Removal Permit (PLN20140-191) to allow the removal of on-site protected trees, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: APPROVED: Richard M. Waterman, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Bybee, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. Approved Permit: Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191) to allow the removal of on-site trees as indicated Sheet C-2 (Existing Site Plan and Tree Removal Plan) of the Revised Project Plans, dates as received by the Planning Division on September 9, 2013. This permit shall be valid only in conjunction with the approved Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) and Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339). 2. Walnut Tree: The walnut tree identified as tree #829 on Sheet C-2 shall be retained if determined feasible by the Community Development Director. 3. Time of Removal: The protected trees shall be removed in conjunction with demolition of existing on-site structures, subject to the mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. 4. Replacement Trees: All protected tree shall be replaced at a one-to-one ratio with 24- inch box trees to be noted with the project's "final" landscaping plan. Dillon Project (Robson Homes)Project Location MapMon Aug 11 2014©Copyright Santa Clara County. All rights reserved.THE GIS DATA IS PROVIDED "AS IS". THE COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, REGARDINGTHE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, VALUE, QUALITY, VALIDITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, SUITABILITY, AND CONDITION, OF THE GIS DATA. USERS OF COUNTY'S GIS DATA ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT CURRENT PUBLIC PRIMARY INFORMATION SOURCESSHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. SINCE THE GIS DATA IS DYNAMIC, IT WILL BY ITS NATURE, BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLL FILE PRODUCEDBY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR. ANY USE OF COUNTY'S GIS DATA WITHOUT CONSULTING CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS FOR VERIFICATION IS DONE EXCLUSIVELY AT THE RISK OF THE PARTY MAKING SUCH USE. ITEM NO. 1 CITY OF CAMPBELL ·PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ·September 23, 2014 PLN2013-337 (PD) PLN2013-360 (PMP) PLN2013-339 (TSM) PLN2014-191 (TRP) Robson Homes, LLC Public Hearing to consider the application of Robson Homes LLC for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2013-360), a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 81 townhomes and 19 apartment units on properties located at 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466, 472, 482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue, in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PLN2013-340); 2.Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 3.Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2013-360), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and 4.Adopt a Resolution incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council approve a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION Private (and public) development projects are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, otherwise known as CEQA. The level of review required under CEQA is generally commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposed development. Minor projects are generally exempt from formal review, other than documenting the applicable exemption (e.g., minor land divisions, single-family residences, change of use, etc.). If a project is not exempt, the City must analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. This typically takes the form of an Initial Study, which is a multidisciplinary report that evaluates various potential environmental impacts, including traffic, air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and various community impacts. By and large, projects that undergo an Initial Study result in preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is a statement by the City that the project will not result in negative environmental impacts so long as certain "mitigation measures," designed to minimize potential impacts, are incorporated. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 2 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al To expedite the CEQA process of certain infill projects, the State adopted SB 226 (2011), a new "streamlined" review for qualifying infill projects, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21094.5. An infill project may qualify for streamlined review where a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified (such as for the General Plan or a specific plan) and the project satisfies applicable "performance measures" (such as proximity to a light-rail station). In lieu of an Initial Study, an "Infill Environmental Checklist Form" may be completed (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15183.3). The checklist shares the same basic structure as an Initial Study in that it evaluates a variety of potential environmental impacts. However, this method reduces the need for additional CEQA review for infill projects whose impacts were addressed as a significant impact in a prior EIR or would otherwise be substantially mitigated by "uniform development policies," such as noise or lighting standards. Due to the project's proximity to the Downtown Campbell light-rail station and the urbanized nature of the project site, staff utilized the SB 226 infill streamlining provisions for this project. Based on the findings of the checklist form (reference Attachment 8), staff prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (reference Attachment 9). Although the vast majority of potential project impacts would be addressed by current City standards and requirements ("uniform development policies"), mitigation measures related to air quality (construction-related) and wildlife protection (nesting birds and bats) are necessary to preclude potential environmental impacts. These measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval. As required by law, the "Notice of Intent," draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Infill Environmental Checklist Form was filed with the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office for public review, noticed in the Campbell Express newspaper, posted on the City’s website, and distributed to interested agencies, such as VTA and Santa Clara Valley Water District. The public is invited to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration in writing during the 20-day comment period (September 3rd to September 23rd) and in person at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT DATA Net Lot Area: 4.51 acres (including 0.22 of City property) Gross Lot Area: 4.83 acres (approximate) Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) General Plan: Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) Proposed Units: 100 units (81 townhomes and 19 apartments) Allowable (Max) Units: 130 units Proposed Density: 21 units/gr. acre (100 units / 4.83 gross acres) Allowable (Max) Density: 27 units/gr. acre Unit Sizes: Townhomes: 1,902 sq. ft. to 2,745 sq. ft. Apartments: 610 sq. ft. to 1,444 sq. ft. Building Coverage: 41% (80,432 square-foot building "footprint") Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 3 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1.10 (216,219 square feet of total building area) Building Height: Townhome Rows: 38 feet, 6 inches (from finished grade) Apartment Building 30 feet (from street level) 39 feet (from finished grade) Maximum Height Allowed: 75 Feet (Maximum Allowable within City) Parking Required: Provided Minimum Required Garage Spaces: 195 spaces 195 spaces (1 ½ - 2 spaces per unit) Surface (guest) Spaces: 47 spaces 50 (½ space per unit) DISCUSSION Proposal: The proposed project is a planned residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership, not condominium) and 19 apartment (rental) units (reference Attachment 10 – Project Plans). The townhomes are proposed in 13 buildings, each containing between three to ten individual townhomes. The apartment units are proposed in three buildings containing three, four, and twelve apartments units, respectively. Although the development would encompass a mixture of ownership and rental units, it will function as a single community, with equal access to all common facilities and amenities. This application was originally submitted last year following a Planning Commission study session as a proposal for a 45-unit townhome community on the former Biddle Roofing company properties and a portion of the City's corporation yard. Subsequent to that submittal, the developer acquired additional properties and doubled the scope of the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the expanded project scope at a study session in April. Formally, this application submittal includes requests for a Planned Development Permit with a Parking Modification Permit, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tree Removal Permit. Additionally, to allow for the sale of City property in association with the development, the City Council will consider a purchase agreement (i.e., sales contract) to allow the sale of City property. The proposed project will also tie into a stormwater outfall located within the City's corporation yard, which will be subject to a separate easement agreement with the City. Project Site: The 4 ½ acre project site is an assemblage of ten properties, including three associated with the former Biddle Roofing company, two encompassing the Haig Precision machining company, four single-family rental properties, one property developed with a multi-tenant industrial building, as well as a small (less than a quarter acre) portion of the City's corporation yard (reference Attachment 11 – Location Map). The project site is located near the southeast intersection of Sam Cava Lane and Dillon Avenue within the Planned Development (P-D) Zoning District with a General Plan designation of Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre). Much of the site lies within the boundaries of the South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA), except for the primary parcel (280 Dillon Ave.) of the former Biddle Roofing company site. The developer has also indicated a desire to incorporate additional adjacent properties into the project. Should the developer acquire additional properties in the future, the project would be brought back before the Planning Commission and City Council for a "Major Modification" request (CMC 21.12.030.H.3.b). Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 4 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al ANALYSIS General Plan / Land Use: The Campbell General Plan represents the City’s long term vision for the community and is intended to guide decision-making regarding the City’s physical and economic growth. In this regard, the General Plan provides policies applicable to land use and development and organizes the City into a framework of distinct land use designations (i.e., commercial, residential, industrial, etc.), as codified by the General Plan Land Use Map. The project site extends across two General Plan land use designations (reference Attachment 15). A core component of the project, the largest parcel of the former Biddle Roofing Company, is designated High Density Residential (up to 27 units/gr. acre). The remainder of the project site is designated Commercial/Medium-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre), a mixed-use designation allowing residential and/or a combination of residential and commercial uses. As both of these designations allow for high density residential development up to the City's maximum density, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of land use. Over half of the project site falls within the boundaries of the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan. The SOCA Plan is designed to encourage the orderly transition of the South of Campbell Avenue area from its historic industrial use to a mixed commercial/residential district, as described by the General Plan, below. At a May 2013 study session (for a different development proposal on a portion of the project site), the Commission discussed the desirability of a purely residential development versus a mixed-use or live/work project, as allowed by SOCA. At that time, staff had indicated that the SOCA area need not be viewed as a purely residential area nor should residential be considered the "default" or most preferred land use. At the conclusion of that study session, the Planning Commission determined that a residential project without a commercial component was consistent with the intent of the SOCA Plan. SOCA Description (Pg. LUT-31) The South of Campbell Avenue area is transitioning from a mixture of residential uses and small industrial uses to a commercial/residential mixed-use area that supports and complements Downtown Campbell. The General Plan supports revitalization of the area and the addition of new residential uses to provide additional housing opportunities in close proximity to Downtown, the Los Gatos Creek Trail and along the Vasona Light Rail Corridor. The objective for SOCA is to revitalize Downtown commercial and recreational areas and provide housing opportunities. The intention of the plan is to transition industrial uses to cleaner, non-offensive uses. Any use in the SOCA area that emits dust, fumes, glare, heat, noise, odor, variations or other disturbances is prohibited from the SOCA area. Development of the proposed residential infill project would be consistent with the SOCA policies and strategies provided in the General Plan, as indicated below. These policies encourage high quality development that is oriented to the public street, and which is sensitive of the interface with the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The project orients both towards the public street and the creek trail in such a manner that both interfaces would be "activated". Policy LUT-16.2: Building Orientation: Orient buildings to a public street. Strategy LUT-16.2a: Residential Entries: Locate building entries facing the streets for all residential units located along a public street. Strategy LUT-16.2c: Visibility: Ensure that Residential projects are designed to provide visibility into the core of the project where the project adjoins streets or the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Public parking for trail users is encouraged. Policy LUT-16.3: Building and Site Design: Encourage high quality building and site design in the SOCA Area. Strategy LUT-16.3a: Residential Entries: Design and Landscape screen structures within SOCA area to minimize the perceived mass of the building as viewed from the Los Gatos Creek Trail and to enhance the project’s appearance as viewed from Highway 17. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 5 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Strategy LUT-16.2b: Access to Los Gatos Creek Trail: Ensure the provision of public pedestrian/bicycle access points to the Los Gatos Creek Trail for new development and redevelopment in the SOCA Area. The General Plan also provides land use policies and strategies that encourage an overall "smart- growth" approach to development within the City. This is particularly encouraged as the project site is located within the City's "Priority Development Area" (PDA), the purpose of which, according to the General Plan (Pg. LUT-25) is to "further the development of self-sustaining communities by bringing housing closer to public transit and services in order to reduce automobile traffic resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality." The proposed project would place high density, transit-oriented housing in proximity to the Campbell Light Rail Station and Downtown Campbell, consistent with these policies. Strategy LUT-1.5a: Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage transit-oriented developments including employment centers such as office and research and development facilities and the city’s highest density residential projects by coordinating the location, intensity, and mix of land uses with transportation resources, such as Light Rail. Strategy LUT-2.1l: Public Transit: Coordinate with regional transportation agencies including VTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to improve public transportation service and promote public transit as a viable alternative to driving, particularly within the Priority Development Areas (PDA). Strategy LUT-3.1c: High Density Residential: Allow higher residential densities in the North of Campbell Area (NOCA), South of Campbell Area (SOCA), and areas near the Light Rail stations as an incentive to redevelop older, less intensive uses (see individual plans for allowed densities) accessible to public transit. To ensure that new developments are built at a suitable density in advancement of the City's housing obligation, the Housing Element includes the following policy that encourages residential projects located within ¼ mile of a light-rail station to be developed with at least 75% of the maximum allowable density. Since the project site's General Plan designations both provide a maximum density of 27 units per gross acre, the project site should be developed at a minimum density of 20 units per gross acre. The project satisfies this policy with a density of approximately 21 units per gross acre. This density is achieved by blending a higher density component (apartments) with townhomes, which are a "medium density" housing type. Policy H-4.3: Planned For Densities: To encourage the efficient and sustainable use of land, the City encourages residential development that is proposed near existing light rail stations (within 1/4 mile radius) and/or within the boundaries of the Winchester Boulevard Plan and East Campbell Avenue plan areas, to achieve at least 75 percent of the maximum General Plan Land Use category densities. Zoning District: The project site is located within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Pursuant to CMC 21.12.070A, the purpose of the P-D Zone District is intended to provide a degree of flexibility that is not available in other zoning districts so as to allow developments that are more consistent with site characteristics, while creating an opportunity for good design and open space. It is also utilized to allow development that would not otherwise be allowed under "traditional" zoning, such as townhomes and condominium projects. Development with the P-D Zoning District must be also consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use designation(s) as well as applicable General Plan goals, policies, and strategies. As discussed above, the project would introduce high density residential development in proximity to light rail and Downtown Campbell in a manner consistent with the General Plan. As a result, the project may also be found consistent with the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 6 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Site Configuration: As illustrated on the project site plan (see Sheet 3), the project site is irregularly shaped with limited, non-contiguous street frontage. Although the project is largely confined to the interior, it will include an outward-facing presence along the adjacent public streets; a row of six townhomes and the 12-unit apartment building will front Sam Cava Lane, and Dillon Avenue, respectively. These buildings will be situated with a minimal setback close to the sidewalk to provide an urban presence. However, due to constraints of the lot, the smaller three-unit apartment building further to the south along Dillon Avenue, towards the corporation yard, will face inwards with vehicular access taken from Dillon Avenue, and requiring a 25-foot setback (driveway) from the garage entry. A private roadway system in a "branching" configuration—where a primary road intersects with a series of short connecting roads—will provide vehicular access within the community. Garages will occur at the back of the buildings so that front building elevations will either face internal walkways or orient towards the public street (with the exception of the small apartment building along Dillon Avenue). The private roadway will interface with the public street at the terminus of Dillon Avenue to the south (adjacent to the City's corporation yard) and at Sam Cava Lane to the north. This configuration differs from the concept that was presented during the project's previous study sessions (reference Attachment 12), which utilized a "looping" configuration. The revised roadway network reduces the amount of paved roadway surface and minimizes the amount of roadway that will be fronted by garage doorways. Additionally, the proposed configuration will allow easier integration of the adjacent properties into the project should the developer acquire them. Pedestrian access within the community is planned through an interconnected walkway system. The entries of the interior townhomes and apartments will lead to meandering walkways situated between the townhome rows, alongside the main interior roadway, and parallel with the Los Gatos Creek trail (along the eastern edge of the property). The walkways will allow pedestrians to traverse the development without having to enter the street except to cross it. Pedestrians will be able to access the public sidewalk at several points along Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane allowing convenient access to the Downtown, light-rail, and Campbell Park. However, no direct access to the creek trail is proposed. The Water District has indicated that private access points are not permitted and the developer is unwilling to propose a public connection due to potential liability and security issues that could arise by allowing the general public to traverse through the project. Architectural Design: The project presents two distinct architectural concepts. The townhomes, which make up much of the interior of the site, as well as the units along Sam Cava Lane, are depicted in a traditional design that takes cues from a "small-town" style exhibited by such projects as the Gilman Cottages across the street. These three-story townhomes (38 ½ feet tall) are characterized by use of simple hipped and gabled roof forms, composition roofing, varied wall planes and insets, recessed windows, and smooth stucco walls. The potential color pallets are all earth-tone combinations with an emphasis on tan-to-white body colors with contrasting brown trim (reference Attachment 13). The townhomes will be contrasted with the apartment buildings that are depicted in a contemporary design evocative of the neighborhood's current industrial makeup incorporating standing seam metal roofing, asymmetric vertical massing, and varying articulation. The smaller of the two apartment buildings that will face Dillon Avenue is three stories at a height of 30-feet, while the other larger (and longer building) will be four stories at 39 feet tall. In keeping with the industrial flair, the color concept provided for these buildings (reference Attachment 14) emphasizes a vibrant rust color accented with industrial grays. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 7 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Parking: Since the project is located within a ¼ mile of the Downtown Light Rail Station, it is considered a transit-oriented development (TOD), subject to the parking standard that requires 1 ½ spaces per unit for a studio/1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each unit with 2 or more bedrooms, as well as ½ space per unit as guest parking. Pursuant to this standard, the project is required to provide 195 parking spaces as well as 50 guest parking spaces, for an aggregate total of 245 parking spaces. All 195 parking spaces will be provided within the private garages, both for the townhome and apartment units. Most of the apartment units and nine townhomes (19 units total) will provide parking spaces in a tandem configuration (36 spaces total). Although tandem parking is not encouraged—the Municipal Code indicates that "parking facilities shall be designed so that no parking space blocks the access to another parking space or driveway…" (CMC 21.28.080.B.1)—it may be approved on a case- by-case basis as part of the development permit review process. For instance, the mixed-use development at Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway incorporates an amount of tandem parking (44 of 253 residential parking spaces). Guest parking is located throughout the project site in standard "uni-stall" parking spaces alongside the private roadway, mostly in a parallel or perpendicular configuration. As noted, only 47 guest parking spaces are provided, resulting in a deficiency of three spaces. The applicant contends that this shortfall is compensated by the addition of three new on-street parking spaces created by removal of three existing driveways. However, of the 47 parking spaces, four may not be desirable, potentially resulting in a greater deficiency. As shown on the site plan detail on the previous page, parking spaces #22-25 are located at the "elbow" of the public street, as Sam Cava turns into Gilman. These spaces will require motorists to back up onto right-of-way—into a driveway serving a neighboring property— before entering the street. Arguably this configuration violates the spirit of a standard that requires suitable "on-site maneuvering room so that vehicles do not back out into the street" (CMC 21.28.080.B.2). More importantly, however, from an urban design perspective, parking in front of buildings is discouraged by General Plan policy as it detracts from the streetscape, which should be defined by buildings, not by parking. If these parking spaces were removed, it would allow for additional landscaping and open space, and perhaps the two townhomes (#41 and 42) could be brought closer to the street. If the Commission wishes to remove these parking spaces, a condition of approval would need to be added to allow their removal. Due to the resulting parking deficiency, the application includes a request for a Parking Modification Permit to allow a reduction in the required parking (a loss of 3 to 7 spaces). The Planning Commission may approve a reduction if it finds that the anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the development is less than that required, and would be satisfied by the proposed number of parking spaces. Although the project already benefits from a reduced parking standard by virtue of a being a TOD, a reduction may be supported if the project incorporates a transit incentive, such as participation in the VTA Eco Pass program (reduced-cost transit passes). If the Planning Commission is not supportive of the parking reduction, additional parking may be accommodated through removal of landscaping areas or by loss of a townhome unit. The Planning Commission should discuss the relative benefits of such a trade-off. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 8 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Los Gatos Creek Trail Interface: The Los Gatos Creek Trail runs parallel with the project site's eastern property line. Along this edge, the development's walkway, placed within a landscaped corridor, will create a park-like environment complimentary of the trail. Approximately 10- to 30-feet behind, townhomes will face forward with their entries looking towards the creek trail. Interface with the trail will take two primary forms due to variations in embankment grade. Starting at the north side of the project site, and for about three quarters of the distance, a CMU (concrete masonry unit) retaining wall with a stucco finish, topped with 3 ½ foot tall wrought-iron fencing, as shown on the following section and detail drawings, will meander alongside the property line. The barrier will then transition to a stacked stone base wall topped with 3 ½ foot tall wrought-iron fencing, as shown in the detail to the bottom right. This treatment will encircle an existing tree that is to be preserved, and then connect out to the barrier wall adjacent to the City's corporation yard. Both wall designs will maintain visibility to the creek trail corridor through use of transparent fencing (i.e., the project would not be completely "walled off"). However, the stuccoed CMU wall may appear visually inconsistent facing the creek trail area. Although stacked stone along the entire run may be more visually appealing, the CMU wall serves as a retaining wall, more so than the stacked stone wall, as illustrated by the sectional drawing, below. Instead of a stucco treatment, the CMU wall could incorporate stone veneer to provide an appearance more in keeping with the natural environment of the Los Gatos Creek Trail and more resistant to graffiti and vandalism. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 9 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Grading: The project site exhibits a steep grading differential between the current Biddle Roofing properties and the additional parcel assemblage to the north. This differential, of approximately 12 feet, is evidenced by an existing retaining wall between the properties (reference Attachment 16 – Site Photographs). The project's grading plan proposes to smooth the differential such that the project site will gradually slope up from south to north to create a visually level surface. However, interface with some adjacent properties will require use of retaining walls due to existing grade differentials. This will be most evident around the properties to the west, which sit up at street level (Dillon Ave.), approximately 8 feet higher from the finished grade of the project site. As a result, 7-ft to 8-ft tall retaining walls will surround this edge. Additionally, to bridge the differential between the portion of the project site at street level and the rest of the development, an apartment building will incorporate a split level design that will allow the second floor to be at street level, while the garage below will be eight feet lower, as illustrated below: Open Space: There is no specific open space requirement for residential developments in the Planned Development Zoning District. However, as the purpose section of this zoning district reads in part, "[to create] an optimum quantity and use of open space…", the provision of adequate and usable open space is a necessary component for a successful development. The proposed project will include approximately 33,000 square-feet of open space, or the equivalent of 330 square-feet of open space per unit. This compares to and slightly exceeds the open space requirement found in the City's multiple family zoning districts of 300 square feet per unit. The open space areas are provided in a combination of common areas and private decks. The common space is provided largely in the form of center park space of approximately 9,600 square- feet (as depicted on Sheet L-4). An additional 15,000 square feet is provided within several clusters of open areas throughout the site. Each townhome and apartment unit will also include a small deck of approximately 100 square-feet, which will provide an opportunity for residents to access a modest amount of outdoor area from within their homes. In addition, due to the proximity of both the Campbell Park and the Los Gatos Creek Trail, future property owners will have access to excellent open air amenities that could also be seen as providing a degree of open space. Landscaping: The preliminary landscaping and irrigation plans depict a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the project site, showing planting of trees, ground cover, and shrubs. Specific landscape plantings are noted and illustrated on Sheet L3. These plantings reflect compliance with the State- mandated water efficiency standards (more drought tolerant vegetation) as well as regional guidelines for landscaping near riparian corridors (no invasive plant species). The proposed landscaping plan serves to achieve several goals. Most significantly, the landscaping palate is intended to create an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere complimentary of the project's built environment. For instance, the areas around the meandering walkways will be landscaped with the purpose of creating a park-like experience. Landscaping is also designed to screen and soften the appearance of retaining and sound walls. To provide compliance with stormwater treatment measures Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 10 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), swale areas will be planted with appropriate infiltration vegetation. Lastly, in addition to serving an ornamental and technical function, the landscaping will also serve a recreational purpose by providing a large expanse of usable turf area within the center open space area. Tree Removal: As part of the proposed development, the project will require removal of almost all on-site trees. The trees to be removed are identified on Sheet C-2 of the project plans with an "X" across the tree symbol. A tree survey prepared for the project (reference Attachment 17) cataloged 118 trees within and along the project site (including 30 off-site trees along the creektrail within Water District property and six City street trees). The survey identified 25 tree species including a large number of almond, pepper, oak, and redwood trees. Removal of most on-site trees will be required to accommodate the project, although existing live oak trees along the creek trail would not be removed. Approximately 30 trees will require approval of a Tree Removal Permit as the City's Tree Protection Ordinance requires a permit to remove any tree 12-inches in diameter or greater (with the exception of fruit and Eucalyptus trees). To allow removal, the Planning Commission must find that retention would restrict the economic enjoyment of the property. Additionally, the Planning Commission may take into consideration CMC 21.26.030 and General Plan Policy LUT 10.1a that encourage retention of existing mature trees and vegetation to the greatest extent feasible. However, the project includes demolition of all structures and re-grading of the property to the extent that retention of the existing trees would not be feasible or practical. As a result, the removal of trees is necessary for development of the project. Sound/Screening Walls: In addition to the retaining walls, the project also includes a 10-foot tall wall along the southern property adjacent to the City corporation yard and a 12-foot tall wall along the northern property adjacent to an existing construction business. These walls provide a barrier between the proposed residential community and adjacent industrial uses that may pose a nuisance to future residents. Screening of this type is required by the City's "screening and buffering" standards (CMC 21.18.120) and is intended to limit, but not entirely eliminate, land use conflicts. Additionally, in compliance with the City's noise standard for new residential development (CMC 21.16.070.E.), an acoustic analysis was prepared for the project (reference Attachment 18). The analysis indicates that a 7-foot sound wall is necessary to shield the large open space area within the center of the site from freeway noise, as required by the noise standard. The wall is proposed at the break between townhome units 52 and 53, adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek trail. The massing presence of this wall will be minimized by use of a split design allowing the two halves of the wall to be offset. However, to further minimize the visual presence of the walls, a Condition of Approval has been added that will require the walls to be treated with stone veneer or landscape plantings ("living wall"), as determined by the Community Development Director. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 11 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Lighting: The property site lighting would include residential-appropriate fixtures on the residences and street lighting. The proposed lighting is subject to the City’s Lighting Design Standards (CMC 21.18.090). The most pertinent standard is the requirement for lighting fixtures to be shielded and for lighting not to emit across property lines. The photometric plan (reference Sheet PE) indicates that lighting will be contained within the project site and directed away from the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Resultingly, the project is consistent with the Lighting Design Standards. Final lighting details will be provided during building permit review. Traffic: As required by the regional Congestion Management Program (CMP), the City contracted for preparation of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project (reference Attachment 19). The purpose of this study was to determine what affect the project would have on traffic along adjacent roadways and intersections. For the purposes of anticipating potential additional units, should the developer acquire additional adjacent property, the TIA assumed development of 110 units, not 100 as currently proposed. The traffic study’s trip generation analysis anticipates that the project would generate 581 daily vehicular trips to and from the project site, including 44 trips during the AM peak hour (7:00 – 9:00) and 52 during the PM peak hour (4:00 – 6:00). Accounting for existing traffic trips associated with current businesses on the project site, the total additional trips over current levels (i.e., net increase) would be 406 daily trips, including 17 during the AM peak hour and 24 during the PM peak hour. According to the study, the increase in trips represents an incremental increase in traffic that would not result in a level of service (LOS) reduction at nearby intersections. Similarly, the study’s TIRE (traffic infusion on residential environment) analysis determined that the project would not result in a noticeable change in traffic (this analysis is designed to determine if an increase in traffic would be perceivable to a neighborhood). Inclusionary Housing: The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ("Ordinance") requires that residential development projects with ten or more units provide 15% of the units at below market rates (BMR). The intent of this requirement is to facilitate development of affordable housing in the community, consistent with Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goals and the General Plan Housing Element. As currently written, the Ordinance applies to both rental and ownership developments. However, a 2009 court decision (Palmer / Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles) has found that cities may not apply inclusionary housing requirements to rental developments. As a result, the 15% BMR requirement will only apply to the townhome component of the project. Therefore, of the 81 townhome units, 12 must be made affordable to moderate and low- income households. The Ordinance does not provide a specific breakdown between low and moderate income units for "ownership" projects as it does for rental projects. According to the 2006 Planning Commission and City Council staff reports (for adoption of the Ordinance), this lack of specificity was intentional such that the "actual number of low-income units versus moderate-income units may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis". In years past, the City determined the combination of units largely based on perceived market conditions. However, this decision may also be guided by City policy. Specifically, Housing Element Policy H-3.2 encourages the City to update the Ordinance to achieve greater affordability levels with a goal "to require, where feasible, as determined by the City Council, Very- Low and Low Affordable Units in addition to the Moderate Income Units currently required." The intent of this policy is to further maximize the production of lower income units. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 12 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Similarly, consistency with the City's RHNA's obligation may also be considered. Of the 933 units required in the current 2015-2033 period, 15% (138) are intended to be low-income and 16% (151) moderate income. Due to the near parity between low and moderate income units in the RHNA obligation, staff would support a "50/50" split, with six (6) BMR units provided at low income levels and six (6) BMR units at moderate income levels. However, the applicant has expressed a desire for providing five (5) low income BMR units and seven (7) moderate units. The Planning Commission may consider this request and make its recommendation to the City Council as it deems appropriate. The exact model-type(s) and location of the BMR units will be decided by the Community Development Director as part of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement with the City. Consistent with the Ordinance's location and design requirements, a Condition of Approval will require that the BMR units be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and be comparable to the design of the market- rate units in terms of distribution of model types, number of bedrooms, appearance, materials and finished quality. This means that the BMR units will have to be representative of the market-rate units, so that the developer may not designate only the narrow townhomes with tandem garages as BMR units while maintaining the wider townhomes with side-by-side garages as market-rate. The applicant has indicated that they may request that the City Council consider an alternative means of satisfying the inclusionary requirement by providing apartment (rental) units in lieu of some of the townhome (ownership) units. Pursuant to CMC 21.24.070.A., substitution of rental units for ownership units, may be allowed only if either: (1) the rental units are at least equal in number of bedrooms to the owner-occupancy units which would have been allowed, or (2) any comparative deficiency in bedrooms is compensated for by additional units and/or affordability to households with lower incomes. Since the apartment units are smaller than the townhome units, an increase in number of affordable units and/or an increase in affordability would be necessary. Although the applicant has not formally requested an inclusionary housing alternative at this time (the financial implications are still being considered), the Planning Commission may still discuss the merits of an alternative concept. A discussion on the matter will provide feedback in the written record for the City Council to consider should the applicant offer a proposal subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting. Second Kitchen: In an earlier version of the project plans, the floor plan for 'Unit 3' (Sheet A-3) depicted a secondary kitchen within the ground floor bedroom suite. Pursuant to the City's definition of a "dwelling unit," (CMC 21.72) the addition of a second kitchen results in a de-facto additional unit. Staff had informed the developer that two dwelling units wi thin a single townhome is not permissible because a townhome is intended to be a single dwelling unit (not a duplex). The floor plan has been revised to remove the cooking range, however what remain still resembles a kitchen (see graphic, right) with a sink, countertop, and space for a small refrigerator. The applicant has conveyed that the intent of this configuration is to provide visitors additional privacy and independence. However, this "kitchenette" area, in association with separate door into the living suit is a recipe for an unpermitted secondary unit. As such, staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring that the final floor plans not include a kitchen or kitchenette area. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 13 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al Trash Can Storage: Residential trash service, with individual receptacles, will be provided by the City's refuse contractor. The City's refuse screening (CMC 21.18.110.F.) generally requires that receptacles be screened from public view. In a traditional single-family residential environment, receptacles are screened behind a side gate or by landscaping. In a townhome environment, receptacles are typically stored in the garage. To ensure the garage parking is not obstructed by trash receptacles, a Condition of Approval will require that the final floor plans provide a distinct area within the garage to store receptacles that is outside of the required parking space dimension. Home Owners Association: To ensure proper maintenance and upkeep of the development, a Condition of Approval requires that the applicant submit a draft copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to issuance of building permits. The CC&R’s will include provisions for continued architectural control, long-term maintenance of common property, monitoring and upkeep storm water treatment and irrigation systems, and guarantee of equal access to all common facilities and amenities by the community's apartment residents. Public Improvements: The Public Works Land Development Division reviewed this application and has provided recommended Conditions of Approval that require multiple public improvements. These include the dedication of additional right-of-way (5-feet) along the Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane frontages to achieve a standard 30-foot half street width; granting of public and private easements; installation of an expanded sidewalk with street trees along Sam Cava Lane; removal and/or relocation of existing improvements and utilities including; and partial construction of a cul- de-sac at the end of Dillon Avenue. The applicant will also have to replace an existing 30-inch corrugated metal pipe (for stormwater) with a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe at the northerly portion of the property. Although the physical pipe size will increase, the overall capacity will remain unchanged, as the flow volume is limited by the existing creek outfall that will not modified. On the City's corporation yard property, the project will include installation of a new stormwater connection to City's outfall to the creek. As part of the purchase agreement, the applicant will also provide funding to pay for associated improvements to corporation yard as necessary to reconfigure the parking lot (e.g., striping, paving, installation of curb stops, etc.) Public Outreach: The applicant held a community meeting on May 29th at the Campbell Community Center to discuss the project to the neighborhood (reference Attachment 20 – Meeting Flyer). Staff provided a mailing list for the applicant's use. According to the applicant at least 35 individuals were in attendance. Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee reviewed this application on August 26, 2014. The Committee had the following comments (staff comment in italics) x Massing: Had concerns with the linear appearance of buildings 12 and 13 as viewed from the private street. The SARC felt these buildings were too lengthy and separated from the creek trail, and encouraged consideration of breaking up the building rows into smaller clusters If the Commission as a whole shares this concern, the site plan design could be modified to allow additional break(s) within the townhome rows by shifting some townhome units and/or replacing several of larger townhome units with narrower units (the floor plans with tandem garages). This Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 2014 Page 14 of 15 PLN2013-337, 339, 360 / PLN2014-191 ~ 280 Dillon Ave., et. al change could be conditioned such that the applicant would need to submit for a "minor modification" within a prescribed period of time (e.g., 3 months). Approval authority may granted to the Community Development Director (by default) or to the Commission. x Creekside Walls: Thought that stone veneer would be more attractive than stuccoed CMU. However, if possible, would like to see the stacked stone wall extended as much as feasible along the Los Gatos Creek trail property line. A Condition of Approval has been added to require that the extent of the stacked stone wall versus CMU retaining wall be reviewed further by the Community Development Director and that the CMU wall be treated with stone veneer consistent with the stacked stone wall. x Parking: Expressed concern regarding both the 3-space deficiency and the configuration of the 4 parking spaces at the Sam Cava/Gilman corner. Encouraged parking standard to be met on site. However, no consensus if the four parking spaces at the Sam Cava/Gilman corner should be lost. x Townhome Colors: Generally supportive of the colors, however, a "typical" color elevation of one of townhome rows would be useful to illustrate how the color will be applied. The applicant provided a color elevation for the Commission's reference. x Apartment Colors: Thought the orange rust color was too industrial and asked that final colors be decided upon by SARC or Community Development Director. A Condition of Approval has been added to require that the development's final color pallet (both townhomes and apartment buildings) be reviewed and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. x Sound Wall: Concerned about the plain appearance of a sound wall visible from the creek. Encouraged the wall be too treated with stone to soften its appearance. A Condition of Approval will require that constructions plans for the wall incorporate a stone veneer or landscape plantings (e.g., a "living wall"), as approved by the Community Development Director. x Trash Bin Storage: Wanted to ensure that adequate space is provided in garages for trash bin storage. A Condition of Approval will require that the wall incorporate stone veneer or landscape plantings (e.g., a "living wall"), as approved by the Community Development Director. x Second Kitchen: Agreed that the second kitchen should be removed. A Condition of Approval will require that the townhome floor plans not incorporate include any sort of kitchen or kitchenette. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 2014, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Resnikoff and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Paul Resnikoff Vice Chair: Pam Finch Commissioner: Cynthia L. Dodd Commissioner: Yvonne Kendall Commissioner: Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Commissioner: Michael L. Rich Commissioner: Donald C. Young Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Paul Kermoyan Planning Manager: Aki Honda Snelling Associate Planner: Daniel Fama Associate Planner: Stephen Rose City Attorney: William Seligmann Recording Secretary: Corinne Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2014, were approved as submitted. (7-0) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS Written communications received for Agenda Item #1 and the Study Session Item were distributed. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL REQUESTS Joanne Carroll, Resident on Walnut: x Reminded the Planning Commission that many of her neighbors attended the last meeting when the Dell Avenue Area Plan (DAAP) was discussed. x Said that it is important that she and her neighbors be kept apprised of future meetings of the DAAP. x Questioned why nothing additional has been heard from the City about the DAAP since that last meeting. Audrey Kiehtreiber, Resident on Walnut: x Reiterated the previous comments by Joanne Carroll. x Provided a contact list of neighbors asking to be kept informed on the DAAP. Cristin Reichmuth, Resident on S. First Street: x Reminded that at the September 9th Planning Commission meeting Sergeant Joe Cefalu provided statistics about the number of alcohol serving establishments in the Downtown as well as the increase in police response to calls for service there. It was reported that Police activity jumped from 565 to 905 incidents or by 62 percent. x Added that the occupancy of the Gaslighter location will increase capacity in the Downtown by 40 percent. x Said that she has been in contact with Sgt. Cefalu and has learned that between Thursdays and Saturdays, the police staffing for Downtown Campbell has been between six and seven officers. That number has not increased despite the growth in activity within the Downtown. x Pointed out that there will soon be 100 plus new residents nearby with the proposed Robson project as well as even more residents with the St. Anton’s development under review. x Stated that there are not enough police officers serving the Downtown and parking there is already atrocious. x Requested that the Planning Commission work with Council to recognize that the City has reached a state of over-concentration in regards to the Downtown. x Asked that there be no support for St. Anton’s project at this time due to existing conditions in the area. Director Paul Kermoyan: x Addressed the concerns raised about the DAAP. x Admitted that he was unaware that anyone was expecting to hear from staff. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 3 x Advised that there is nothing new to report about the DAAP at this time. x Added that he had advised Mr. Kiehtreiber that he would be willing to attend one of their community meetings but there didn’t seem to be an interest to schedule something specific at this time. x Added that while he has had no response to his offer, he is still available to meet with these neighbors. Chair Resnikoff announced that he has a campaign conflict and would have to recuse from participation on Agenda Item 1. He turned the gavel over to Vice-Chair Finch and left the dais and chambers. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Acting Chair Finch read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1.PLN2013-337 (PD) PLN2013-360 (PMP) PLN2013-339 (TVSM) PLN2014-191 (TRP) Robson Homes, LLC Public Hearing to consider the application of Robson Homes LLC for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2013-360), Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2013-339), and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014- 191) to allow construction of residential development consisting of 81 townhomes and 19 apartment units on properties located at 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466,472,482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue, in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: October 21, 2014. Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Rich asked for verification that the traffic study took into consideration all existing as well as approved development. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. Commissioner Kendall asked what steps/tools can be implemented to enforce the maintenance of garages for parking use rather than for storage. Planner Daniel Fama replied that the HOA would be required to have CC&R’s, which would mandate that garages be preserved for parking uses. Acting Chair Finch reported that she read through the traffic study and sees an addition of 406 net new trips with this development yet the resulting ranking is “no significant difference.” How is that possible? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 4 Planner Daniel Fama said that he would have the City’s consultant respond to specific traffic study questions. Mark Spencer, W-Transportation, Traffic Consultant: x Advised that he was contracted by the City to perform the traffic analysis. x Explained that the way that 400 net new trips can equate to “no impact” is that these trips are measured on peak hour. Very few new trips will be generated by this development at peak hours. The number is 17 trips in the am peak and 24 trips in the pm peak. x Added that these trips are spaced throughout the day and are absorbed within existing traffic. Four hundred trips are not enough to result in an impact. Thousands of added trips would equate to an impact. Commissioner Kendall asked Mark Spencer if he evaluated all the way out to Salmar, which would be used by some to get to freeway access. She pointed out that making a left off Grant onto Salmar is already quite difficult to accomplish. Mark Spencer x Replied that he did not go that far. He evaluated three intersections along Campbell at Railway, Gilman and Union. The focus of the analysis is nearby traffic, which is what is most likely to be impacted by a project of this size. Once that traffic gets a bit further out, it tends to dissipate rather quickly. Commissioner Rich asked Mr. Spencer to expand on the peak hour trips data as it seems low. Mark Spencer: x Said that his analysis was based on 110 units although the project itself has been reduced to 100 units. From that he subtracts out existing uses such as industrial, manufacturing and four existing homes there now and then adds in net new trips anticipated from this development. x Advised that although 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. equals a.m. peak, other trips occur earlier or later. There are 100 additional trips throughout the entire morning peak. The net change in the highest peak is calculated and the others are spread throughout the day. Commissioner Dodd presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: x SARC reviewed this application on August 26, 2014. x Listed the comments: o Massing - there were concerns about buildings 12 and 13 as being too lengthy. SARC recommended breaking them into smaller clusters. If the Planning Commission as a whole agrees with this point, changes can be made. o Creekside walls - stone veneer will be utilized and stacked stone wall will be extended as much as possible along the Creek Trail. o Parking - SARC was concerned about the three space deficit and parking configuration and suggested the applicant find a way to meet the parking standard on site. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 5 o Colors - SARC was generally supportive and sample color elevations have been provided. One proposed color (orange-rust) was found to be too industrial in appearance. A condition of approval is proposed requiring review and approval of final colors by SARC. o Said that SARC encouraged the use of stone to soften the appearance of the sound wall to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. o Advised that SARC is recommending that trash bin storage space be provided within the garages. o Said that a second kitchen proposed for one model should be removed from any of the units to avoid potential secondary units being created. Acting Chair Finch asked staff for clarification on the trash bin storage issue. Planner Daniel Fama said that a condition of approval has been added requiring trash bin storage space be provided within the garages. Acting Chair Finch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mike Enderby, Representative for Robson Homes: x Reported that Robson has a townhome project currently under construction at Hamilton and San Tomas Expressway. x Said that this proposed project location is well located, next to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, close to the VTA Light Rail station, near Campbell Park and about 2,000 feet from the Pruneyard. There are many amenities within walking distance. x Advised that this project utilizes an assemblage of 10 properties. They are also working to purchase a portion of the City’s Corporation Yard. x Admitted that it is a difficult task to assemble so many parcels but doing so allows them to create a more complete neighborhood and gives better space and access including frontage on Sam Cava Lane. This combination of properties really improves this project and is better within the interior of the site. x Said that the parking requirement for the proposed 100 units is 2.5 spaces per unit. x Stated that this is a mixed-bag neighborhood. There is a nice townhome project located across the street. Dillon Avenue is an industrial area. x Said that they changed the site plan significantly and made it better. They took out a loop road that created way too much exposure and reoriented the development with a main driveway off Sam Cava Lane. There are better views of units and a nice centralized open space area in the middle. x Explained that the 13 buildings will have different color palettes. x Advised that they have addressed SARC’s comments that the view of the buildings as seen along the private street looked too long and linear. They have attempted to address that and will consider reduction from 10-units to 7-units on the end if the entire Commission feels that reduction would improve the appearance. x Said that they have shifted the small parking area further down the road. x Reported that the lot on Sam Cava serves a critical purpose and there are some challenges from a design standpoint. x Said that they will make sure that cars are not backing up onto the sidewalk. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 6 x Admitted that there are concerns about parking in general but three existing curb cuts will be closed along the street. x Added that it is possible to change two parallel spaces into four perpendicular spaces. There is an ability to add motorcycle spaces as four motorcycle parking spaces equates to one vehicle space. x Said that SARC had recommended larger apron spaces although those spaces are not recognized by Code as “real” parking but could still be useable for the residents. x Admitted that there is the potential to add six more parking spaces internally on site. x Reiterated that closure of those curb cuts will help with street parking issues as well by providing more space for street parking. x Said that the Creekside and sound walls are very do-able. Stacked stone can be incorporated but after a certain height they would no longer be able to use stacked stone. Instead a stone veneer could be used as necessary. They are open to alternatives. x Advised that they are okay with the condition to allow the Director to make the final call on proposed colors. They would prefer to work at the staff level rather than through SARC as it is easier and quicker than scheduling for SARC. x Said that the issue of trash bin storage is trickier when it comes to the apartments due to tandem parking. x Assured that they would make sure to be compliant with the requirement to provide indoor storage space for trash containers. x Reported that they would likely take steps to further develop the building elevations to help break up and emphasize the porches. They have plans to request modifications in order to add stoops and other small site modifications as well. x Thanked staff for all their hard work. x Said that the initial requirement is for 12 three-bedroom BMR units. Six are to be moderate-income and six low-income units. However, they would like to propose something they see as a better alternative. That is six moderate-income three- bedroom units and six moderate-income four-bedroom units but sold at the price of the three-bedroom units. That would total 42 bedrooms versus 36 with the initial requirement. x Acknowledged that the kitchen originally included in one plan has been reduced to a wet bar. They understand that the City is concerned about the potential conversion into a secondary living unit if a kitchen were included in that level. Additionally, they are also willing to remove a proposed exterior door from this plan leading directly outside. x Stated that this is a great project for the City. x Reported that they conducted a neighborhood meeting on May 9, 2014, that was well attended and good comments were received over all. x Requested approval. Commissioner Reynolds asked Mike Enderby what their thoughts are about the VTA program. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 7 Mike Enderby replied that it comes with stipulations and they would have to buy a pass for every person living in the development. That is a big undertaking. If there are other alternatives they are open to considering those but they run counter to what VTA wants to provide per their Ecco Program. Commissioner Rich said that this will be a great addition to the community if it goes forward. He asked Mike Enderby what the impact would be with the reduction in units from 10 to 7. Mike Enderby replied 27 units when using a different configuration. Commissioner Rich expressed concern with the deficiency of parking by three spaces and asked Mike Enderby how the project could reach compliance with the parking standards. Mike Enderby: x Said that there are ways to increase on-site parking. They would realize a net gain of two parking spaces by using the perpendicular parking configuration. Four motorcycle spaces equates to one vehicle space. With those changes they would meet the parking requirement on site. x Pointed out that apron parking is also available to the residents and their guests although Campbell does not count those spaces against the parking requirement. Commissioner Rich said that keeping Sam Cava parking at four they would be two above what’s required. Mike Enderby said that they would actually be ahead with the creation of three more on-street spaces by removing existing curb cuts. Commissioner Rich asked how the project might be impacted if the negotiations with the City for a portion of the Corporation Yard are not finalized. Mike Enderby said that the Corporation Yard portion is now included in the proposal. If that portion of land is not incorporated into the project there will have to be some shifting to the site plan and potentially the loss of three units. Director Paul Kermoyan reminded that the Commission will be forwarding its recommendations for this project on to Council. If the negotiations for a portion of the Corporation Yard are not successful, staff would suggest that this be referred back to the Planning Commission as it would result in a pretty big change. Commissioner Kendall asked whether the apron spaces could be used for bicycle parking. Mike Enderby replied probably not as it would block access to the garage. Commissioner Kendall asked if four motorcycle spaces equates to one car space, would bicycle parking for eight equate to one car space as well? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 8 Mike Enderby said that they intend to put bike racks within the project and pointed out that each unit has a garage, which is the safest place to store expensive bikes. However, there will also be surface bike parking areas for visitors. That detail will become a part of the landscaping plan. Commissioner Kendall acknowledged that there is no direct access to the park due to security concerns. There is an access point from the nearby Avalon Apartments so is there any way that these new residents could somehow utilize that access point. Mike Enderby clarified that they are not directly next to Avalon. He admitted that they would love to have their residents have good access to the Creek Trail perhaps with utilization of a locked gate. However, County Parks does not like that idea as they like to control access. Acting Chair Finch reiterated that the elimination of curb cuts equals more parking along the street but the traffic study appears to call for limiting parking within 15 feet of driveways. Mike Enderby said not at all and that new curb parking would be created as a result of this development. Dave Perry, Campbell Chamber of Commerce: x Explained that the Chamber’s job is to attract residents and businesses to Campbell. This project helps achieve that goal. x Stated that he is happy that Robson Homes has decided to select Campbell. Robson is a Chamber member business. x Reported that he spoke with the Chamber’s Board of Directors and can extend their unanimous support for this proposed development. x Pointed out that the development will provide 2.5 parking spaces per unit and is conveniently located within walking distance to the Downtown as well as to Pruneyard. x Stated that “Robson” equals “family” in Campbell. x Concluded that this is a positive project for the community. Liz Gibbons, Resident on Cherry: x Agreed that this is a great project for the community and significantly better than originally proposed. They are close but not quite there. x Listed areas of concern including: Safety (dead end points); circulation for this transit-oriented development as it is not clear when looking at the proposed walkways whether they go somewhere; parking on Sam Cava is odd; and there is a tremendous amount of back-to-back garage frontages. x Said that it is important to create a sense of community and neighborhood. x Suggested postponing action to get some issues resolved. One issue is the retaining wall and its impacts and the need for transit-oriented parking. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 9 Commissioner Reynolds asked Liz Gibbons what she recommends in regards to the dead ends. Commissioner Gibbons said that it is up to the Planning Commission to consider safety. Lisa Harmer, Resident on Briarwood: x Expressed regret that Chair Resnikoff had to recuse from this item. x Stated that she has problems with the traffic assessment as it makes no sense. x Pointed out that you cannot force people to use public transit or to walk. People use cars. Armidia Costello, Resident on Gilman Avenue: x Said that this is a nice project over all. x Said that her main concern is the entrance and egress onto Sam Cava at Gilman. x Reported that this is already a dangerous area and this project will draw additional traffic to Gilman for people to reach Railway. x Pointed out that there are lots of industrial businesses on Gilman and that there are often huge trucks delivering materials to Sunstone. x Concluded that she would like to see this project work for everyone. Gabriel Young, Resident on Dillon Avenue: x Explained that his is the only single-family residence impacted by this project. x Stated that he is happy to negotiate but has a few concerns he’d like to raise: o Disclosure of soil contamination results. What contaminates were identified? How can the residents be protected from them? o Asked that the developer coordinate with the Humane Society to deal with the existing feral cat population that will be displaced by redevelopment of this area. o The Sam Cava dead end. x Explained that the St. Anton’s developer is willing to incorporate a gated entrance at Sam Cave and he’d like the Robson project to do so as well. x Reported that the fence at the south side of his home, near his newborn’s nursery, is adjacent to the Robson project. x Reminded that Dillon Avenue was not meant to be a thoroughfare. x Pointed out that a number of very old growth trees are on the project site. One very large walnut tree is situated at his shared property line and it is slated to be destroyed. He said he highly opposes removal of that tree and asks that it be retained since it offers some privacy screening. x Said that the access way for this proposed development is just feet from their bedrooms. He is concerned about air quality since his wife has asthma. Lee Ann Kuntz, Resident on El Caminito: x Pointed out that there are seven projects in the works right now. x Opined that it is short-sighted not to look at them collectively especially in regards to traffic impacts. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 10 x Said that the City continues to allow reduced parking provisions based on the assumption of potential Light Rail use but she believes that more research needs to be done about actual Light Rail use. Acting Chair Finch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Young: x Said that this is an exciting project. x Stated that there are important issues to consider prior to implementing this project including aging utilities. x Said that he anticipates that utilities would be underground. x Suggested that this development could encourage pedestrians and use of bicycles. x Stated that Police Department input is important in regards to public safety. x Said that discussion should be had on whether to maintain existing trees or replace them. x Said that not including St. Anton’s in this project’s traffic study is scary. x Agreed that the curve at Sam Cava and Gilman needs to be discussed. x Suggested that more time might be required to consider issues raised. Commissioner Rich: x Stated that this is a wonderful project. x Reiterated his preference that this project adheres to the City’s parking requirements without need for any exceptions. x Reminded that the traffic study is based upon projects already approved. x Pointed out that the Commission can only address the project being discussed here. Further traffic studies will be done with future projects. x Suggested that Robson Homes work with the Young Family on the wall separating their single-family home from this development. Additionally, if possible, to preserve the Walnut tree that is important to the Youngs. x Said that he is supportive of this project with issues of parking and traffic being worked out. Commissioner Kendall: x Stated that this is a great project and she is looking forward to seeing it built. x Said that she actually likes the rust color and finds it to be industrial looking. x Advised that she is inclined to nix parking on Sam Cava and instead do other adjustments for the on-site provision of adequate parking. x Said that she grew up on a farm and to the issue of trees, while this site is losing existing fruit and nut trees, new fruit trees will be added back into the development with this project. x Supported retaining the walnut tree for the adjacent neighbor if that is possible and the tree is in good condition. x Suggested some sort of wall and perhaps a “living’ wall to allow the Youngs to enjoy privacy in their backyard. x Stated that bicycles can be stored in garages and she would also like to see electric car charging stations in those garages as well. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 11 x Proposed a condition in the CC&R’s requiring that owners within this development have one year of occupancy prior to converting these units into rentals. x Opined that it doesn’t appear that a three-story structure will overlook the Young home. Additionally, the walnut tree they hope to see preserved acts as a natural barrier. x Suggested a sign on Dillon advising that it is not a through street. x Asked staff if Campbell Police Department has indicated an ability to provide public safety services with this development. Is the sanitation infrastructure adequate? Are the water supplies adequate? x Asked if there is enough information to make a decision on this development tonight? Commissioner Dodd: x Stated her appreciation for the time taken by the developer to follow upon the concerns/suggestions made by SARC. x Expressed concern about on-site street widths in relation to garbage collection. x Said that she worries about the creation of wind tunnels with the heights of these buildings. x Added that she sees dead ends, which allow no egress and therefore are a potential safety concern. She hopes those dead ends are well lit. That is a valid issue for consideration. x Said that despite the traffic study she worries about Gilman Avenue and suggested the inclusion of bumps or dips in the roadway to slow traffic down there. x Reiterated that the traffic study looks at what current conditions are plus anticipated impacts of a development. x Suggested that method equates to a first come/first serve mode and she doesn’t think the City wants to do that. She said it is important to look at the existing infrastructure and consider a bigger picture. x Said that architecture is not what designates a neighborhood but sometimes it is prevalent landscaping that can define an area. Commissioner Reynolds: x Said that there are overall traffic concerns for this project and for the City as a whole. There is a serious traffic problem city-wide so there is potential for impacts with any project. While traffic studies are done, traffic patterns are subject to change. x Stated that what needs to be done is to look at the entire City. Council needs to be more forward-thinking in regards to initiating a city-wide traffic and circulation study. x Added that when the economy goes up traffic also goes up. When the economy is down, so is traffic. x Said that citywide circulation can perhaps be improved with technology to encourage better traffic flow. x Stated that this project has an impact that goes clear up to Salmar. It is a much broader impact. x Said that motorcycle parking is encouraged and reminded that 17 motorcycle spaces will be provided at the development under construction at 1677 S. Bascom. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 12 x Agreed with Commissioner Rich regarding the developer working with the neighbor on the concerns raised, which seem to be reasonable requests. x Cautioned to tread very carefully on the issue of color selection and discussion. x Reported that he has done a little research on this applicant. They are a top developer, as far as quality goes, in the U.S. x Added that people should go to Robson’s current project under construction at Hamilton and San Tomas Expressway. There is a structure in place that is there simply to allow them to test colors, windows and other details to see how they will look installed. This is not a requirement but simply due to the perfectionism of this developer. x Stated that he would not question the applicant on color and window choices. x Pointed out that there will be changes going forward due to this developer’s high expectations. x Said that as to the issue of the wet bar in one plan, he supports the removal of the exterior door and would support keeping the wet bar sink in place. x Reminded that this developer offers amenities in its projects. For instance the Hamilton project includes rooftop patios with gas piped in for barbecues. x Said he is supportive of the project including their proposal for the BMR unit breakdown. Having six four-bedroom units sold at three-bedroom BMR prices is a good option. Buyers will get top quality. x Admitted that security concerns go beyond this project. Campbell is a growing City. x Stated that requiring additional lighting at dead ends is not an unreasonable request. x Agreed that large developments equates to more need for police officers. Council will take that on. x Said that this is a beautiful project for which a lot of thought has gone into. It is good for our City and will be gorgeous and certainly better than what is there today. Commissioner Young said he also supports the project but respects the big-picture concerns being raised by speakers. Commissioner Kendall asked Commissioner Young to be specific as those concerns. Is it the parking of trucks in the road to offload? Commissioner Young stated that business is fluid as well and can change current operations. Perhaps it will be possible to determine if there are ways to limit timing for deliveries. Commissioner Kendall asked staff if double parking to make deliveries is allowed. Director Paul Kermoyan: x Stated that this is a neighborhood in evolution. There are existing land use conflicts when residential and industrial uses have adjacencies. This area is evolving from an industrial area to a residential area. x Reported that staff has seen and heard complaints from new residents about their surrounding pre-existing industrial uses. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 13 x Advised that big 18-wheeler trucks do have to short-term park, much like UPS and FedEx trucks do throughout the community for deliveries. This practice is seen often in the Downtown with deliveries for those businesses. x Stated that over time the problem will go away when current industrial sites are redeveloped with housing. x Added that there will be a 10-foot wall between this project and the Sunstone business location. Sunstone has indicated that they are looking for a new location as they see this area redevelop. Acting Chair Finch re-opened the public hearing for Agenda Item 1. Commissioner Kendall asked Mike Enderby what is at the end of the alley way. Mike Enderby: x Replied that it varies. He said that there is no guest parking down there and they can put appropriate signage up to that effect. x Added that this is not an uncommon design and assured that they have worked with County Fire and they’re satisfied with the site design. There is an emergency vehicle turnaround. x Said that they have incorporated balconies that overlook the alley which provides good surveillance opportunities. Acting Chair Finch re-closed the public hearing for Agenda Item 1. Acting Chair Finch: x Said that she appreciates Ms. Costello’s comments regarding impacts on Gilman. x Admitted that she is concerned about the curve in the road near the proposed entrance and supported the idea of a speed bump or some limits on who can go down that street. x Added that she agrees with the concerns raised by the Young family especially about the disclosures of any ground contaminates. She said that she would also like to see the developer address the issue of feral cats as well. x Agreed that traffic signs can be helpful. x Pointed out that the project had one entrance early on (Dillon) but now has two with one on Dillon and the other on Sam Cava. That makes a huge difference. x Said that overall she is in favor of this project and finds it to be a beautiful development. x Agreed that Robson Homes is a quality builder. x Cautioned that she does not like issuing a blank check regarding changes to any approval. There must be checks and balances for changes either through a return to SARC or via the Director. x Said that she supports the inclusion of four perpendicular parking spaces and the addition of four motorcycle spaces. She is not excited about the Sam Cava parking spaces and if so there are only three. x Admitted that she would prefer to see all parking within the development. People utilizing Campbell Park are already using the street parking along this street. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 14 x Expressed support for the condition that there be a minimum one-year owner occupancy prior to allowing units to become rentals. This may discourage investors from swooping all of the units. x Supported the inclusion of safety features including lighting in dead-end spaces. x Stated appreciation for the efforts taken by the applicant to satisfy SARC’s requirements including their offer to reduce from 10 to 7 units in one building. x Supported the condition requiring the removal of one exterior door on the unit with the wet bar at the bottom level. Director Paul Kermoyan clarified that the originally proposed second kitchen is now a wet bar with sink but no door leading to the exterior. He pointed out that changes to this development will occur and he asked the Commission to what level will architectural changes fall to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Dodd said that given the concerns about parking on site, the potential for creation of a second unit is of concern so these changes will help alleviate the potential of creating a second separate living unit. Commissioner Reynolds said that the Director can and will streamline the processing of minor modifications to the project. Commissioner Dodd asked Director Kermoyan whether he wants to ask SARC to review these anticipated changes. What has been the past practice? Director Paul Kermoyan advised that staff works with the applicant on changes that can be made at staff level. However, anything that impacts form, height, or FAR has to come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dodd asked staff by how much less time does staff level review of modifications take when compared to SARC or the Commission. Director Paul Kermoyan replied “a lot.” He added that it takes between 30 and 45 days to bring an item to either SARC or the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rich said that the spirit of the Planning Commission regarding this development had been clearly communicated to the Director. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kendall, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission took the following actions: x Adopted Resolution No. 4166 recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PLN2013- 337); x Adopted Resolution No. 4167 recommending that the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the conditions of approval as modified: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 15 o Allow provision of twelve (12) moderate-income townhome units to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing requirement including six (6) 3-bedroom units and six (6) 4-bedroom units with all BMR units sold at the 3-bedroom price. o Allow consideration of traffic calming measures (e.g., "speed bumps"). o Provide a restriction in the CC&R's (or comparable instrument) to require owner-occupancy for one year prior to rental. o Provide a restriction in the CC&R's requiring maintenance of all edible landscaping. x Adopted Resolution No. 4168 recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2013-337) subject to the conditions of approval as modified: o Incorporation of SARC's recommendation to modify townhome buildings 12 and 13 to break-up the massing. o Changes to the parking configuration including addition of four additional on-site spaces, removal of one space at the Sam Cava/Gilman corner, and addition of four on-site motorcycle parking spaces. o Provision that the Community Development Director be permitted to administratively review and approve the changes to the building design and site configuration. o Require that final building colors be approved by the Community Development Director. o Provide security lighting down the "dead end" streets. o Provide signage indicating that there is no guest parking available down "dead end" streets. o Allow the wet bar in the ground floor bedroom suites, but prohibit a second exterior (front) door. o Require a barrier/fence between the project and Young Family residence at 272 Dillon Avenue. x Adopted Resolution No. 4169 recommending that the City Council approve a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2014-191) subject to the conditions of approval, except for retention of the Walnut tree adjacent to the Young Family Home if determined feasible by the Community Development Director, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Kendall, Reynolds and Rich NOES: Dodd and Young ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Resnikoff Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for September 23, 2014 Page 16 Acting Chair Finch advised that this item would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of October 21, 2014 for final action. *** Chair Resnikoff returned to the chambers and assumed the gavel for the balance of the meeting. MISCELLANEOUS 2. Mayor’s Roundtable Update Chair Resnikoff advised that there is nothing new to report at this time. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan had no additions to his written report. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. immediately to a Study Session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 14, 2014. SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Paul Resnikoff, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Paul Kermoyan, Secretary CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • FAX (408) 866-5140 • E-MAIL planning@cityofcampbell.com Infill Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: Dillon Avenue Townhomes and Apartments File Number(s): PLN2013-340 (CEQA Review), PLN2013-337 (Planned Development Permit), PLN2013-339 (Vesting Subdivision Map), PLN2013-360 (Parking Modification Permit), and PLN2014-191 (Tree Removal Permit) Project Address: 230, 280, 282, and 290 (portion) Dillon Avenue; 466,472,482, and 488 Sam Cava Lane; and 186 Gilman Avenue Project Sponsor: Santa Clara Development / Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda Santa Jose, CA 95126 Zoning District: P-D (Planned Development) General Plan Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Contact Person: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner (408) 866-2193 | danielf@cityofcampbell.com Date Posted: August 29, 2014 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Use: The project site is an assemblage of ten privately owned parcels totaling 4.34 acres and a small portion of the City Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard. The site is located on the east side of Dillon Avenue, wrapping around over to Sam Cava Lane (reference Page 5,Location Map). The project site consists of three properties associated with the former Biddle Roofing company, two properties encompassing the Haig Precision machining company, four single-family residential properties, and one property developed with multi-tenant industrial building. Much of the site lies within the boundaries of the South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA), except for the primary parcel (280 Dillon Ave.) of the former Biddle Roofing company site. The majority of the project site perimeter (80%) is adjacent to existing commercial, industrial, and/or residential uses. The easterly perimeter is adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Project Information Page No. 2 Project Description: The proposed project is an infill residential development consisting of 81 townhome units (fee title ownership) and 19 apartment (rental) units. The townhomes are proposed in 13 buildings, each containing between three to ten individual townhomes. The apartment units are proposed in three buildings containing three, four, and twelve apartments units, respectively. Although the project is largely oriented to the interior, it will include an outward-facing presence along the adjacent public streets; a row of six townhomes and the 12-unit apartment building will front Sam Cava Lane, and Dillon Avenue, respectively. These buildings will be situated with a minimal setback close to the sidewalk to provide an urban presence. A private roadway system in a "branching" configuration—where a primary road intersects with a series of short connecting roads—will provide vehicular access within the development. The private roadway will interface with the public street at the terminus of Dillon Avenue to the south (adjacent to the City's corporation yard) and at Sam Cava Lane to the north. Pedestrian access within the community is planned through an interconnected walkway system. Pedestrians will be able to access the public sidewalk at several points along Dillon Avenue and Sam Cava Lane allowing convenient access to the Downtown, light-rail, and Campbell Park. The project presents two distinct architectural concepts. The townhomes, which make up much of the interior of the site, as well as the units along Sam Cava Lane, are depicted in a traditional design that takes cues from a "small-town" style exhibited by such projects as the Gilman Cottages across the street. These three-story townhomes (38 ½ feet tall) are characterized by use of simple hipped and gabled roof forms, composition roofing, varied wall planes and insets, recessed windows, and smooth stucco walls The potential color pallets are all earth-tone combinations with an emphasis on tan-to-white body colors with contrasting brown trim. The townhomes will be contrasted with the apartment buildings that are depicted in a contemporary design evocative of the neighborhood's current industrial makeup incorporating standing seam metal roofing, asymmetric vertical massing, and varying articulation. The smaller of the two apartment buildings that will face Dillon Avenue is three stories at a height of 30-feet, while the other larger (and longer building) will be four stories at 39 feet tall. In keeping with the industrial flair, the color concept provided for these buildings emphasizes a vibrant rust color accented with industrial grays. Since the project is located within ¼ mile of the Downtown Light Rail Station, it is considered a transit- oriented development (TOD), subject to the parking standard that requires 1 ½ spaces per unit for a studio/1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each unit with 2 or more bedrooms, as well as ½ space per unit as guest parking. Pursuant to this standard, the project is required to provide 195 parking spaces as well as 50 guest parking spaces, for an aggregate total of 245 parking spaces. The project proposes a total of 243 spaces, with resulting deficiency of three spaces, requiring approval of a Parking Modification Permit. The project site exhibits a steep grading differential between the current Biddle Roofing properties and the additional parcel assemblage to the north. This differential, of approximately 12 feet, is evidenced by an existing retaining wall between the properties.The project's grading plan proposes to smooth the differential such that the project site will gradually slope up from south to north to create a visually level surface. However, interface with some adjacent properties will require use of retaining walls due to existing grade differentials. This will be most evident around the properties to the west, which sit up at street level (Dillon Ave.), approximately 8 feet higher from the finished grade of the project site. As a result, 7-ft to 8-ft tall retaining walls will surround this edge. Project Information Page No. 3 The Los Gatos Creek Trail runs parallel with the project site's eastern property line. Along this edge, the development's walkway, placed within a landscaped corridor, will create a park-like environment complimentary of the trail. Landscape plantings would be compliant with the State-mandated water efficiency standards (more drought tolerant vegetation) as well as regional guidelines for landscaping near riparian corridors (no invasive plant species). Directly behind the walkway, townhomes will face forward with their entries looking towards the creek trail. Interface with the trail will take two primary forms due to variations in embankment grade. Starting at the north side of the project site, and for about three quarters of the distance, a CMU (concrete masonry unit) retaining wall with a stucco finish, topped with a 3 ½ foot tall wrought-iron fencing, as shown on the following section and detail drawings, will meander alongside the property line. The barrier will then transition to a stacked stone base wall topped with 3 ½ foot tall wrought-iron fencing. Both wall designs will provide transparency at the project's grade level that will maintain visibility onto the creek. No direct public or private access to the creek trail is proposed. Project Data Net Lot Area: 4.51 acres (including 0.22 of City property) Gross Lot Area: 4.83 acres (approximate) Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) / South of Campbell Avenue Area (portion) General Plan: Commercial/Med.-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre) and High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) Proposed Units: 100 units (81 townhomes and 19 apartments) Allowable (Max) Units: 130 units Proposed Density: 20.7 units/gr. acre (100 units / 4.83 gross acres) Allowable (Max) Density: 27 units/gr. acre Unit Sizes Townhomes: 1,902 sq. ft. to 2,745 sq. ft. Apartments: 610 sq. ft. to 1,444 sq. ft. Building Coverage: 40% (78,162 square-foot building "footprint") Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1.10 (216,968 square feet of total building area) Building Height Townhome Rows: 38 feet, 6 inches (from finished grade) Apartment Building 30 feet (from street level) 39 feet (from finished grade) Maximum Height Allowed: 75 Feet (Maximum Allowable within City) Parking Required: Provided Minimum Required Garage Spaces: 195 spaces 195 spaces (1 ½ - 2 spaces per unit) Surface (guest) Spaces: 47 spaces 50 (½ space per unit) Project Information Page No. 4 Project Entitlements: Required land use entitlements for the proposed project include a Planned Development Permit (approval of site configuration and architectural design), Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (to create individual townhome lots and commonly owned lots), Tree Removal Permit (to allow removal of "protected trees"), and a Parking Modification Permit (to allow a minor reduction in parking). Prior Environmental Document(s): On November 6, 2001, the City of Campbell adopted the Campbell General Plan and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearing House # 2001042063) for the project. The adopting City Council Resolution (reference Attachment 1 – CC Resolution No. 9940) for the EIR, summarizes the potentially significant environmental impacts that would be mitigated to a level less than significant with the identified mitigation measures as well as those environmental impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s): City of Campbell City Hall, Community Development Department, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Project Exhibits – Location Map Page No. 5 Location Map Project Exhibits – Site Photographs Page No. 6 Site Photographs VIEW OF THE SITE LOOKING NORTHERLY VIEW OF THE SITE LOOKING EASTERLY Project Exhibits – Existing Site Configuration Page No. 7 Existing Site Configuration Project Exhibits – Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map Page No. 8 Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map Project Exhibits – Preliminary Site Plan Page No. 9 Preliminary Site Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Plan Page No. 10 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Plan Page No. 11 Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Plan Satisfaction of Performance Standards Page No. 12 SATISFACTION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Provide the information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the performance standards in Appendix M below. For mixed-use projects, the predominant use will determine which performance standards apply to the entire project. 1. Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain below why it is not feasible to do so. Not applicable. The proposed project is a residential development. 2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project. The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (available at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm), compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, boring and soil sampling conducted as of the project's Phase I Site Environmental Assessment revealed concentrations of lead, arsenic, total petroleum hydrocrbons (TPH), and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), above environmental regulatory screening levels for residential land use and applicable State and Federal standards. The contamination was linked to historic on-site solid waste disposal (rusted can lids, metal pipes, other metal objects, glass bottles, sheet metal, metal conduit and broken chunks of reinforced concrete). The project sponsor has prepared a remediation plan (reference Attachment 2) to excavate and remove the contaminated soil. The remediation is currently ongoing and is being conducted pursuant to the County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program overseen by the Departmental of Environmental Health, which may be tracked through the California Geotracker website. 3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project site is located approximately 300 feet from California Highway 17. As discussed further in the Part 3 (Air Quality) of Environmental Impact Analysis, levels of toxic air containments (TACs) will be below acceptable levels established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As such, no specific measures are necessary to further protection of the public health. Project Information Page No. 13 4. For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attachment 3 - VMT Map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor (reference map below): Consists of 100 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. (Attach evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.) 5. For commercial projects with a single building floor-plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.) Project Information Page No. 14 6. For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ¼ mile of an existing major transit stop. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.) 7. For school projects, the project does all of the following: The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code. The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.) The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters 8. For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both. Not applicable. The project is not a small walkable community project. Environmental Impact Evaluation Page No. 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION This section describes the purpose of this infill environmental checklist. The checklist was developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for general use in implementing the streamlined CEQA review for qualified infill projects as set forth in SB 226, signed by the Governor on October 4, 2011. This new streamlined option recognizes the benefits of infill development projects and provides flexibility in project design by basing eligibility on environmental performance rather than prescribing specific project characteristics. It also allows infill projects to avoid repeating analysis of environmental effects that have already been analyzed at a programmatic level. This streamlined infill review applies to different types and sizes of projects, but the projects must be located within an incorporated city or other qualifying area. Additionally, the projects may include general plan amendments and zoning changes provided that the new effects are analyzed. This checklist is used to determine whether the effects of a specific project have been previously analyzed in a prior EIR for a planning level decision or if additional analysis is required. The following determinations are used in the checklist analysis for each effect. No Impact: A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). Prior EIR Analysis: Analysis of the specific project level contributions to a significant effect previously analyzed need not be repeated. Instead, the checklist analysis shall be limited to: (A) environmental effects specific to the project or project site that were not addressed in the prior EIR or; (B) environmental effects that new information shows would be more significant than previously described (CEQA Guidelines §15183.3(d)(1)). Projects which are determined to have no impact or effects which were adequately analyzed in a prior EIR are exempt from further CEQA review. Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Standards: If an effect of the infill project was not previously analyzed or if an effect would be more significant than previously analyzed, the checklist can reference uniformly applicable development policies or standards which substantially mitigate that effect. Examples of uniformly applicable development policies include regulations governing construction activities, requirements in locally adopted building, grading, and storm water codes, design guidelines, requirements for protecting residents from air pollution sources such as high volume roadways and stationary sources, impact fee programs for public infrastructure and road improvements, requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ordinances that protect urban trees and historic resources. A written finding is required to be adopted supporting this determination of the effect, but the project would be exempt from further CEQA review. Where applicable, specific sections of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) are cited. Less than Significant with Mitigation/Significant Impact: If the infill project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA review. If it is determined that the new specific effect(s) is less than significant or less than significant with mitigation it may result in a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the new specific effect(s) is potentially significant, it may result in an Infill EIR. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Page No. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The infill project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects, which would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral/Energy Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Impact Evaluation – Determination Page No. 17 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA August 29, 2014 Signature Date Daniel Fama, Associate Planner City of Campbell Printed Name Agency Environmental Impact Evaluation – Aesthetics Page No. 18 1. AESTHETICS Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (a-c) – No Impact: The project will alter the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings through demolition of existing structures and eventual development planned residential community. Although the Los Gatos Creek is not identified as a scenic vista, scenic resource, or view-corridor, its importance to the community and it's adjacency to the creek was given special consideration. The project design is intended to compliment and respect to the creek corridor through appropriate building orientation, transparent fencing, and suitable landscape vegetation. As a result, the project would result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or substantially damage scenic resources. (d) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies. The majority of the project site has very limited lighting. New site lighting is anticipated to include down-lit fixtures for new residences and freestanding lighting fixtures along the new public pathway and internal roadways. However, light and glare associated with new site lighting would be substantially mitigated by the Lighting Design Standards (CMC Sec. 21.18.090), which requires lighting to be designed and installed so that light rays are not emitted across property lines. This standard will be implemented through requirement of a photometric plan during building permit plan check. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Agricultural Resources Page No. 19 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Programs of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timblerland zoned Timberland Production? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (a-e) – No Impact: The project site is not currently used for, nor zoned for, farmland or other agricultural or horticultural purpose. Neither the project site nor surrounding properties contain farmland or support agricultural activity that could be impacted by the project. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 20 3. AIR QUALITY Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Note: The following is excerpted from the 'Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum', prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for this project, and has been edited for brevity and clarity. The complete document, included tables and figures, is included as Attachment 3. Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified air basins or portions thereof as either "attainment" or "non-attainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards have been achieved. The California CAA, which is patterned after the federal CAA, also requires areas to be designated as "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the state standards. Thus, areas in California have two sets of (non) attainment designations: one set with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state particulate matter (PMl 0 and PM2.5) standards, and federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional air quality authority in the project area. The most recently adopted air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is the Bay Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 21 Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) is an update to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy to comply with State air quality planning requirements. The 2010 CAP serves as a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2010 CAP also serves as a multi- pollutant air quality plan to protect public health and the climate. The control strategy contained in the 2010 CAP includes revised, updated, and new measures in the three traditional control measure categories, including stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures. In addition, the 2010 CAP identifies two new categories of control measures, including land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. The air quality analysis below uses the previously-adopted 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD (based on court decision), these thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD's 2009 Justification Report and are therefore used within this document. For the purposes of this air quality analysis, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities and land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to ambient air quality. (a) – Less than Significant with Mitigation: The 2010 CAP control strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 CAP also represents the Bay Area's most recent assessment of the region's strategy to attain the State one-hour ozone standard. BAAQMD guidance states that "if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP." As indicated in the discussion below, the project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Construction-related toxic air containments (TAC) and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. Long-term operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, with incorporation of the appropriate mitigation measures. (b) – Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project would result in the generation of criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities. In regards to long-term operations, the proposed project would result in criteria pollutant emissions from sources including on-road vehicles, onsite area and energy sources (e.g., natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products such as hairsprays, deodorants, cleaning products, etc.). However, since the proposed project consists of development of only residential land uses, it would not be a source of substantial TACs. These potential impacts are assessed below. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 22 Construction – Criteria Air Pollutants. The project includes demolition of approximately 26,281 square-feet of existing buildings on-site and construction of the new 81 townhouses, 19 apartments, and associated parking. Project related demolition, soil transport, grading, and other construction activities at the project site may cause wind-blown dust that could generate particulate matter into the atmosphere. Fugitive dust includes not only PMIO and PM2.5 but also larger particles as well that can represent a nuisance impact. For mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD recommends using specific best management practices, which has been a practical and effective approach to control fugitive dust emissions. The guidelines note that individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to more than 90 percent and conclude that projects that implement construction best management practices would reduce fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. To ensure implementation of best management practices (BMPs) they are identified herein as a mitigation measure (AIR-1) Project-related construction would generate air emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, from vehicle trips hauling materials, and from construction workers traveling to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions would be generated from the use of construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and fork lifts. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of asphalt, architectural coatings (i.e., paints) and other building materials would release reactive organic gases (ROG). The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these sources, and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. The CalEEMod model was used to quantify construction emissions associated with off-road equipment, paving, architectural coatings, haul trucks associated with demolition, on-road worker vehicle emissions, and vendor delivery trips. Project construction was assumed to occur from June 2015 through July 2016, based on the default active days in CalEEMod. The estimated emissions consider the following basic construction phases: demolition; excavation/grading; building construction; asphalt paving; and application of architectural coatings. Based on the modeling, the maximum average daily regional emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD daily significance thresholds during construction. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional construction emissions. Construction – Toxic Air Contaminants and PM2.5. Project construction activities would produce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions due to combustion equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and haul truck trips. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. These elevated concentrations could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health impacts. Consequently, a health risk assessment was performed to determine the extent of increased cancer risks and hazard indices at the maximally exposed receptors. The health risk assessment was based on recommended methodology of Office of Environmental of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and adopted by BAAQMD. The cancer risk to nearby residential receptors assumes exposure would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction duration. Additionally, cancer risk estimates also incorporate new age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by OEHHA (2012). This approach provides updated calculation procedures of the BAAQMD that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 23 The maximally exposed receptor would be an adjacent residence to the project on Sam Cava Lane. The ISCST3 model was used to estimate maximum downwind concentrations and potential health risk at sensitive receptors resulting from construction activities. The incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 27 in one million (assuming child risk) would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million without mitigation. With incorporation of mitigation, the project would result in incremental cancer risk of 4 in one million. The unmitigated and mitigated chronic health index would be 0.01 and 0.002 at the MEI (maximally exposed individual), respectively, which would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1. Finally, the maximum annual PM2.5 unmitigated and mitigated concentrations would be 0.27 μg/m3 and 0.041 μg/m3 for the MEl, respectively, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 Project health risk impacts would thus be less than significant after mitigation. Notably, unmitigated demolition activities could result in airborne entrainment of asbestos, a TAC, particularly where structures built prior to 1980 would be demolished. However, these materials would be removed in accordance with the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD's regulations; therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, asbestos would not be emitted to any substantial degree during demolition. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would ensure that project-generated fugitive dust and exhaust (criteria pollutant and TACs) during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operations – Criteria Air Pollutants. Project site development would result in an increase in criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from a variety of emissions sources, including onsite area and energy sources and mobile on-road sources. Exhaust emissions from on-road vehicle traffic associated with the existing land uses on the project site as well as the proposed project development were calculated using the latest version of the CalEEMod program, which includes the updated EMFAC2011 emission factors for on-road vehicles. Project- related net operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less-than-significant impact if the following screening criteria are met (1) The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; (2) the project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and (3) the project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would comply with these screening criteria. Based on the BAAQMD's criteria, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 24 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project approval: x Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne tox.ics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. x Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC). (c) – No Impact: The project would result in the generation of criteria pollutants during short-term construction activities. In regards to long-term operations, the project would result in criteria pollutant emissions primarily from motor vehicles and area sources. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards for Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 25 regional criteria pollutants. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. There are many projects throughout San Francisco Bay area that have been identified as having significant and unavoidable operational and construction-related regional pollutant impacts. Consequently, for assessment of cumulative regional pollutant impacts, BAAQMD has developed a methodology of assessing whether a project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. According to the BAAQMD Justification Report, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD, 2009). As described above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to localized CO. (d) – Less than Significant with Mitigation: Construction and Operations. As indicated in the discussion of above, the project would not result in significant and unavoidable localized air quality impacts associated with TACs, CO, or fugitive dust. Construction TAC and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. The project consists of development of residences and would not be a source of substantial TACs that would affect sensitive receptors in the area. Long-term operational emissions of TACs and CO would be less than significant without mitigation. Land Use Compatibility for Proposed Sensitive Receptors. Unlike ozone and other regional pollutants, TACs are a localized pollution problem. TACs produced at distant locations do not readily combine to create concentrations at any single location that would cause health risks. The BAAQMD method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted sources, railroads, and major streets in the vicinity of a project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet of the proposed new sensitive residential receptors on the project site), then adding the project operational impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions sources throughout San Francisco Bay Area for estimating health risks to new sensitive receptors from existing permitted sources. Highway 17 is approximately 300 feet from the project site. Emissions from locomotives travelling on the nearby railroad were estimated based on EPA emission factors, and future emissions during the project build-out year were estimated based on ARB’s assumption that, because of DPM regulations on locomotives and because of sulfur reductions in the fuel, emissions will decrease by 36% from the base year of 2000. Unlike for a project level assessment, for the cumulative assessment the risks from all sources within 1,000 feet of project sensitive receptors are summed and compared to a cumulative significance threshold. Notably, no onsite stationary sources of TACs are assumed and project- generated traffic would be negligible. The cumulative MEI is assumed to be a proposed residence exposed to maximum risk from all sources, which would be a conservative assessment. Health impacts on the project sensitive receptors from existing sources (permitted sources, railroad, and Highway 17) in the area would have a cumulative impact below the BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 26 The cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 feet of proposed sensitive receptors would be approximately 53 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 100 in one million and would be less than significant. The cumulative hazard index from all such sources would be approximately 0.06, which is well below the significance threshold of 10 and would be less than significant. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration would be approximately 0.3 μg/m3, which would be below the significance threshold of 0.8 μg/m3 and hence is considered less than significant. (d) – No Impact: BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; this is a less than significant impact. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 27 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 28 Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Note: Portions of the following are excerpted from the 'Biological Evaluation of the Dillon Property Project Site", prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., for this project, and have been edited for brevity and clarity. The complete document, included tables and figures, is included as Attachment 4. (a,d) – Less than Significant with Mitigation: According to the California Natural Diversity Database and the City’s General Plan, no species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species, or habitat for such species are known to occupy the project site. However, due to the site's adjacency to the Los Gatos Creek, a biological evaluation was prepared for the project. The evaluation determined that most special status animal species would not occur on the site, or be unlikely to occur on the site, because habitats on the site are not suitable for them, the site is located outside of the species’ known range, and/or there are no known occurrences in the vicinity of the site. However, a few special status species have been documented in the immediate project vicinity, including the California Red-legged Frog (Federally Threatened/State Species of Concern), Western Pond Turtle (State Species of Concern), Cooper’s Hawk, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Pallid Bat and other bat species, tree-nesting raptors and other nesting migratory birds. Of these, California Red-legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle would not be impacted as the project site supports no habitat for these species. As discussed below potential impacts to Cooper's Hawk, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Pallid Bat and other bat species, and tree-nesting raptors and other nesting migratory birds, could occur as a result of the project. Such impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cooper’s Hawk. Cooper’s hawks are known to occur in the project vicinity within the Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor. This species is not a special status species although it, along with all other raptors, is protected under state and federal law and any project impacts that resulted in harm or mortality to individuals, or in nest failure, would be a violation of such laws and would also be considered a significant impact under CEQA. This species likely occurs in the Los Gatos Creek corridor adjacent to the site from time to time and it may occasionally prey on songbirds within the landscaped areas of the site, although the prey base for this species is very marginal on the site due to the high level of development. The project is expected to result in a less-than-significant impact on foraging habitat for this species as this habitat is very minimal on the site and very abundant in the region. Potentially this species may nest in riparian trees adjacent to the site, or in large trees occurring in the landscaped areas of the site. Should Cooper’s hawks, or any raptor species, nest in trees on or adjacent to the site prior to project demolition, tree removal or other project-related activities, those activities could result in nest abandonment and mortality to young, and this would be considered a violation of the law and a significant impact under CEQA. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the potential of harm or mortality to nesting raptors and migratory birds would be precluded. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 29 Tree-Nesting Raptors and Other Nesting Migratory Birds. Many large trees and shrubs occur on and adjacent to the site which could be used by tree-nesting raptors and other migratory birds for breeding, although the likelihood of raptors nesting on the site is considered very low due to the urban environment and lack of suitable prey base. Most nesting migratory birds, regardless of their status, are protected by state and federal laws. Therefore, development activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and other migratory birds (i.e., grading and tree removal) or that result in the mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of state and federal laws. With incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1, such potential impacts would be less than significant. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Pallid Bat and Other Bat Species. Both Townsend’s big-eared bat which is currently a candidate for listing as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act; and pallid bat, a state species of concern, have been documented in the project region in California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and these bats along with other non-special status bat species that occur regionally, may forage within the adjacent Los Gatos Creek corridor as well as on the site from time to time. These bats are protected under the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 2000, 4150, and Title 14), and, in the case of Townsend’s bats, under the California Endangered Species Act while it is under review as a candidate for listing. Although loss of foraging habitat for these species would be a less-than-significant impact of the project under CEQA, several special status and non-special status bat species that occur regionally, are known to roost in vacant buildings. Although currently none of the structures of the site provide habitat for these species; in the future, prior to demolition activities, should the vacant homes along Sam Cava Lane not be maintained in a closed up condition, potentially bats could gain entry and use these dwellings for roosting habitat. If bats are roosting in these homes at the time of demolition, especially if demolition occurs during the winter torpor (hibernation) period, which is generally accepted to be mid-October through the end of February, or during the maternity season, which is generally accepted to be mid-April through the end of August, their demolition during those seasonal periods could result in harm or mortality to these individuals and their young, and this would be considered a violation of the law and a significant impact under CEQA. The other structures on the site, i.e. the commercial and industrial buildings, lack openings and crevices to allow for bat egress, and therefore have no potential as roosting habitat for bats; therefore, demolition of those buildings is not expected to result in any impacts to bats. Mitigation measure BIO-2 would ensure to ensure that no bats are harmed or killed as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project approval: x Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project-related activities that occur during the breeding season could be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1st through August 31st), pre-construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity within 15 days prior to such activities. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and migratory bird nest (up to 250 feet, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project, or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 30 x Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that no bats are harmed or killed as a result of the project. a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of the four homes along Sam Cava Lane, and their associated outbuildings, a pre-construction survey will be conducted to confirm that the existing conditions of the homes have not changed. If existing conditions have not changed, no further surveys will be required. b. If existing conditions have changed and the biologist observes that one or more structures have openings that could provide entry for bats, then a more detailed bat survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all structures that provide potential openings for bats to enter. If no bats are found, then no further mitigations will be required. If roosting bats are found to be present, the following additional measures will be required: c. If a non-breeding bat colony is found within any of the structures, the individuals will be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement of the buildings prior to demolition under the direction of a qualified bat specialist to ensure that no harm or “take” would occur to any bats as a result of demolition activities. d. If a maternity colony is detected in the structures, then a construction-free buffer should be established around the structure as determined by the biologist and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery is no longer active. Demolition should preferably be done between March 1st and April 15th or August 15th and October 15th to avoid interfering with an active nursery. (b-c) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: The Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor occurs adjacent to the site, separated from the site by a cyclone fence and by the Los Gatos Creek trail, a paved recreational trail that is approximately 14 feet wide along the top of the creek bank. The creek in this location is approximately 120 feet wide between the tops of the banks, between 15 and 20 feet in depth, and has been straightened and channelized.. The creek supports mature riparian vegetation including trees, shrubs and an annual grassland understory. Another trail occurs on the opposite side of the creek along the top of the bank, and beyond that is Highway 17, which is approximately 150 feet across and eight lanes of traffic in this location. Native chinook salmon and steelhead, as well as other native fish species are known to occur in the creek. The creek also likely supports several species of common amphibians, such as Pacific tree frogs and western toads; and reptiles such as the western pond turtle, a California Species of Concern. Numerous small mammals also likely occur in the creek corridor from time to time including Virginia opossum, raccoon, and striped skunk. The proposed project will require grading, excavation, and vegetation removal, thereby resulting in the project site becoming vulnerable to sheet, rill or gully erosion. Eroded soil is generally carried as sediment in surface runoff to be deposited in natural creek/river beds, canals, and adjacent wetlands. To avoid or minimize sedimentation to offsite waters, the applicant is required to comply with comply with standard erosion control measures, including preparation of an erosion control plan that Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 31 employ best management practices (BMPs), develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per State Water Quality Control Board Stormwater Permit, conform with City’s stormwater and grading requirements (CMC Sec. 20.80.020 and 21.16.100), and obtain all necessary permits. As a result, potential impacts to downstream waters from erosion and polluted stormwater runoff, that could also affect riparian habitats, will be substantially mitigated. (e) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: As part of the proposed development, the project will require removal of almost all on-site trees. A tree survey prepared for the project identified approximately 125 trees to be removed, of which approximately 30 will require approval of a Tree Removal Permit (reference Attachment 5). The City's Tree Protection Ordinance (CMC 21.32) requires a permit to remove any tree 12-inches in diameter or greater (with the exception of fruit and Eucalyptus trees). The tree survey indicates that the vast majority of the trees are of a fair to poor quality and are insignificant. Existing live oak trees along the creek trail within Water District property, as well live oak and redwood trees on the project site directly adjacent to the creek trail would not be removed. However, as required by CMC 21.32, all "protected trees" must be replaced with at a one-to-one ratio. The preliminary landscaping and irrigation plans depict a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the project site, showing planting of the required trees. As such, the potential tree loss would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies, and would not conflict with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. (f) – No Impact: No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plans apply to the project or the project site. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Cultural Resource Page No. 32 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (a) – No Impact: The project site does not contain known historical resources as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines nor is any property within the project site identified as historically significant or potentially historical significantly by the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). (b-c) – Analyzed in Prior EIR: The Campbell General Plan EIR recognized that construction activity could result in the exposure of undocumented paleontological and archaeological resources (Impact CULT-1, Pg. 150). This potential impact was mitigated to a less than a significant level through incorporation of the following General Plan Strategy (CNR-1.1b). The requirement to properly handle any discovered archeological or paleontological resources will be incorporated into the project's conditions of approval. Strategy CNR-1.1b: Archaeological Resources: In accordance with CEQA and the State Public Resources Code, require the discontinuation of all work in the immediate vicinity and the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a licensed archaeologist if archaeological resources are found on any sites within the City. (d) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: No human remains are known to exist on the project site. However, should human remains be discovered during excavation or construction, such remains shall be handled pursuant to § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and § 5097.94 of the California Public Resources Code. Specifically, in the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether remains are Native American in origin and take such actions as required by law. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Geology and Soils Page No. 33 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Environmental Impact Evaluation – Geology and Soils Page No. 34 (a,c-d) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. According to maps prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, there are no zoned active faults within the City of Campbell. Therefore, ground rupture is not likely to occur at the site. According to the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the project site is not located in any hazard zone and therefore does not have the potential for liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides. However, the nearest major earthquake faults are the Monte Vista Shannon Fault, San Andreas Fault, the Hayward-Rogers Creek Fault and the Calaveras Fault, all of which pose the greatest earthquake threat because of their high quake potential. The project will likely be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause moderate to severe ground shaking during the useful life of the proposed residential buildings. Ground shaking on the site could damage buildings, roads and utilities. As required by the CMC Sec. 21.18.130 all new development shall conform to the California Building Code provisions regarding engineering and geotechnical analysis. This project will require preparation of a geotechnical report, the conclusions and recommendations of which shall become the standards for review of the construction drawings for a building permit. A draft geotechnical report has been prepared for the report. Conformance with the recommendations of the draft geotechnical report for the project (reference Attachment 6) will substantially mitigate the potential for seismic damage and geologic instability and risk to future occupants. (b) – No Impact: The potential for unstable soil conditions and erosion would not be significant because the project will be required to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical analysis, as noted above. Measures to control construction dust, as discussed in Mitigation Measure AIR - 1, will also mitigate for wind-blown erosion. (e) – No Impact: The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 35 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an adopted plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Note: The following is excerpted from the 'Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum', prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for this project, and has been edited for brevity and clarity. The complete document, included tables and figures, is included as Attachment 3. "Global warming" and "global climate change" are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. GHGs naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be enhanced. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD, 2012; CAPCOA, 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 36 of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the state Climate Change Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and non-stationary sources (such as on-road vehicles). As no threshold has been established for construction-related emissions, the operational emissions thresholds are applied in this analysis. The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For non-stationary sources, three separate thresholds have been established: x Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant); or x 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant); or x 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.) The quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e annually proposed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report is applied to this analysis. If the project construction or operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. GHG emissions resulting from the project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Construction emissions were estimated for equipment and truck exhaust and construction worker vehicles. In regards to operations, vehicle trips assumed default trip lengths for urban land uses, which are embedded in CalEEMod. The model makes adjustments for implementation of Pavley vehicle standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Area and indirect sources associated with project operations would primarily result from electrical usage, water and wastewater transport (the energy used to pump water and wastewater to and from the project) and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electrical usage are generated when energy consumed on the site is generated by fuel combustion. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point. Solid waste emissions are generated when the increased waste generated by the project are taken to a landfill to decompose. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 37 (a) – No Impact: Application of BAAQMD’s project-specific GHG emissions thresholds is to include both direct emissions from a project’s vehicle trip generation and onsite water and space heating and other stationary sources, as well as indirect emissions from offsite electrical generation, solid waste generation, and water conveyance and treatment. The following activities associated with the proposed project could contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: x Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O. Methane is also emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. x Solid Waste Disposal Emissions. Resulting emissions associated with waste generation and disposal in landfills are indirect. Landfills emit anthropogenic methane from the anaerobic breakdown of material. x Gas, Electricity, and Water Use. Natural gas use results in the emissions of two GHGs: methane (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. Methane is released prior to initiation of combustion of the natural gas (as before a flame on a stove is sparked), and from the small amount of methane that is uncombusted in a natural gas flame. Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combustion of fossil fuel. GHG emissions associated with treatment and transport of water is also included in the analysis below. x Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, not all of these emissions would be “new” to the region or state since drivers would likely have relocated from another area. To be conservative, however, all vehicle trips predicted to be generated by the project scenarios in the Transportation analysis were assumed to be new trips in this analysis. Construction emissions over the full build-out duration were estimated using CalEEMold and amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction (which is likely low), and added to overall project emissions for comparison to significance thresholds. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 19 metric tons of CO2e. In regards to operations, the CalEEMod model was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance). GHG emissions associated with the project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. This would represent a cumulatively less-than-significant GHG impact. (b) – No Impact: The City of Campbell has not established a GHG reduction plan. However, since the project would result in less than significant GHG emissions, as described above, the project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This would be a less than significant impact. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 38 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 39 Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (a) – No Impact: No routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would be associated with the project. A slight hazardous potential would exist during project construction when materials and construction equipment are at the site, however, long-term hazard risk is very low. Hazard risks during construction and demolition would be regulated by the City’s standard conditions of approval and would be required to be performed in accordance with state and federal hazardous materials regulations and current Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as discussed in Section 2 – Air Quality. The use of toxic chemicals for landscaping (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) will not be above what is generally required for landscape maintenance and is not considered significant. (b-d) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (available at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm), compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, boring and soil sampling taken from the former Biddle Roofing properties, conducted as of the project's Phase I Site Assessment and Phase II Soil Investigation (reference Attachment 7), revealed concentrations of lead, arsenic, total petroleum hydrocrbons (TPH), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), above environmental regulatory screening levels for residential land use and applicable State and Federal standards. Phase I/II reports prepared for other properties that make up the project site (reference Attachments 8 and 9)did not identify any '"recognized environmental conditions"—meeting the standard set forth by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)—that could be considered "significant effect" under CEQA (Guideline § 21068). The contamination on the former Biddle Roofing properties was linked to historic on-site solid waste disposal (rusted can lids, metal pipes, other metal objects, glass bottles, sheet metal, metal conduit and broken chunks of reinforced concrete). As required by the CMC Sec. 21.18.080.B, the project sponsor has prepared a remediation plan (reference Attachment 2) to excavate and remove the contaminated soil, which will substantially mitigate any hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Remediation is being conducted pursuant to the County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program overseen by the Departmental of Environmental Health. As of the date of this Infill Checklist, County staff reports that the environmental excavation work has been completed. Confirmation of soil samples is still pending Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 40 review. Additional work yet to be completed includes removal of construction debris (large pieces of concrete were encountered). Completion of all work will occur prior to issuance of building permits. (c) – No Impact: The project site is not within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. (e-f) – No Impact: The project site is not located within the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission jurisdiction, within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (g) – No Impact: The project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Sufficient emergency access and emergency services staff would be provided for the project site in compliance with the State of California Building Code Standards and requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire and Health Departments. (h) – No Impact: The project site is not located near any wildland areas and would not cause an increase in wildland fire hazard. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 41 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 42 Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (a,c-f) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies: The project would entirely alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site through demolition of all structures and re-grading to accommodate residential development. As discussed below, the project includes advanced stormwater treatment and retention that will prevent erosion, siltation, runoff related flooding, or increases in flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. The changes to the project site as a result of on-site improvements will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the surrounding area, alter the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), (as implemented by CMC Sec.14.02 and 21.16.100), the project incorporates stormwater management measures. The project's stormwater treatment plan indicates use of bio-retention areas (vegetated swales) that allow water to percolate into the ground through a passive (natural) infiltration medium before flowing the public storm drain system or to an existing creek outfall located on the adjacent Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard (accessed through an easement agreement with the City). As the proposed treatment system will treat and contain the majority of the stormwater on-site and it would, therefore, not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted stormwater runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 43 (b) – No Impact: The project will be adequately served by the existing water supplies, as confirmed in written correspondence ("will serve” letter") by San Jose Water Company (reference Attachment 10), the local area water utility. As such, the project will not deplete or otherwise interfere with groundwater supplies. (g-h) – No Impact: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, as amended by a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) indicates the project is located in Zone X (reference Attachment 11), an area determined to be outside the 500-year (.2%) annual chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. (i-j) – No Impact: The project site is located downstream of Lexington Reservoir, in an area defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments as a dam failure inundation area. As the project is not modifying flood protection measures or creating a condition where adjacent properties are exposed to a new significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, no additional exposure to water-related hazards is expected as a result of the project construction or operation. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Land Use and Planning Page No. 44 10. LAND USE and PLANNING Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or, natural community conservation plan? (a) – No Impact: Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community typically include construction that would eliminate formal or informal travel ways through a property. No such pathways or other forms of informal access through the project site currently exist. (b) – No Impact: The project site covers to land use districts as described by the Campbell General Plan. A core component of the project, the largest parcel of the former Biddle Roofing Company, is designated High Density Residential (up to 27 units/gr. acre). The remainder of the project site is designated Commercial/Medium-High Density Residential (14-27 units/gr. acre), which is subject to the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan. The SOCA Plan is designed to encourage the orderly transition of the South of Campbell Avenue area from its historic industrial use to a mixed commercial/residential district, supportive and complementary to Downtown Campbell. Development of the proposed residential infill project would also be consistent with the General Plan land use designations and with the SOCA Plan. The proposed development is also consistent with the General Plan Housing Element, which identified the SOCA Area as an "opportunity site" for new residential development. Lastly, the project would also be consistent with the following General Plan strategies that relate to support for high density residential development, and Policy LUT-16.2: Building Orientation: Orient buildings to a public street. Strategy LUT-16.2a: Residential Entries: Locate building entries facing the streets for all residential units located along a public street. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Land Use and Planning Page No. 45 Strategy LUT-16.2b: Non-Residential Entries: Ensure that all nonresidential developments are required to orient identifiable entryways toward public streets and provide street-level windows and glass front display bays for all street-level office and retail. Strategy LUT-16.2c: Visibility: Ensure that Residential projects are designed to provide visibility into the core of the project where the project adjoins streets or the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Public parking for trail users is encouraged. Policy LUT-16.3: Building and Site Design: Encourage high quality building and site design in the SOCA Area. Strategy LUT-1.5a: Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage transit-oriented development including employment centers such as office and research and development facilities and the city’s highest density residential projects by coordinating the location, intensity, and mix of land uses with transportation resources, such as Light Rail. Policy LUT-2.4: Jobs and Housing Balance: Maintain Campbell’s balance of jobs and housing units to encourage residents to work in Campbell, and to limit the impact on the regional transportation system. Strategy LUT-3.1c: High Density Residential: Allow higher residential densities in the NOCA, SOCA, and areas near the Light Rail stations as an incentive to redevelop older, less intensive uses. Strategy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. Strategy LUT-16.1: Land Use: Allow commercial, industrial and/or residential land use uses in the accordance with adopted plan for each [SOCA] sub-area. (c) – No Impact: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans are applicable to the project site. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mineral Resources Page No. 46 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Conflict with an adopted energy conservation plan or use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (a-c) – No Impact: No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 47 12. NOISE Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (a-b) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies:The City's Noise Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.16.070.E) provides the following noise exposure standards for new residential development: x Noise from stationary sources. New residential development shall conform to a stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and 45 dBA for interior noise levels. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 48 x Traffic-related noise. New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. Acoustical studies are required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources, including all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 60 dBA CNEL. In compliance with this uniformly applicable development policy, an acoustical analysis was prepared for the project (reference Attachment 12). Based on the analysis, the project will be required to incorporate design features to reduce the ambient noise and vibration within the buildings to acceptable levels as defined by the California Building Code (CBC). Outdoor recreational areas will be shielded as necessary to comply with the noise standard. As a result, potential noise- related impacts would be substantially mitigated. (c) – No Impact: Residential developments are classified as sensitive receptors of noise, and to this extent do not themselves generate noise of any appreciable level. As such, the project would not result in increase in ambient noise within the vicinity of the project site. (d) – Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies. Construction will eventually result in temporarily increasing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. However, construction is governed by CMC Sec. 18.04.052, which limits construction activity from 8 AM to 5 PM., Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 4 PM on Saturday, and prohibits construction on Sunday. Additionally, loud environmentally disruptive noise over 50 dBA (e.g., air compressors without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or radios) is prohibited. As such, temporary ambient noise level increases associated with construction will be substantially mitigated. (e-f) – No Impact: The project is not located within the vicinity of an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Population and Housing Page No. 49 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, especially affordable housing and necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (a) – No Impact: The development of 100 residential units is consistent with the planned residential densities of the General Plan and does not represent substantial growth inducing impacts. Stormwater infrastructure that is required to be upgraded (as discussed in Section 17 – Utilities and Service Systems) would not result in increased capacities that would induce substantial population growth. (b-c) – No Impact: The project will require the demolition of the existing residences that has been vacated, and therefore will not result in the displacement of any people or housing units, which would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Public Services Page No. 50 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other public services or facilities? (a) – No Impact: The project will require public services such as fire, police services, schools, open space, and street maintenance; however, these services are currently provided to all other developments in the area. The project will not result in any significant changes to existing services or substantial adverse impacts to public services. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Recreation Page No. 51 15. RECREATION Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (a) – No Impact: The project will result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. However, the increase demand for recreational facilities would not be significant and consistent with the planned density for the project and usage of the facilities. (b) – No Impact: The City’s Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Sec. 20.24) requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee as a condition of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map. The City’s Standard is three acres of open space, parkland and recreational facilities and one acre of school open space and recreational facilities for every 1,000 residents. The City’s Open Space Element prioritizes the acquisition and development of open space sites in neighborhoods which are deficient in open space and park acreage. The City’s access standard is to provide open space, parks, or recreation facilities within one-half mile radii of all City residents. The project site is located within one half-mile of Campbell Park and the Los Gatos Creek Trail; therefore, the residents of the proposed project are anticipated to use the existing facilities and the dedication of on-site parkland will not be required. The project sponsor is required to pay a Park Impact Fee for the development of the project and this fee will be used for the acquisition, improvement and/or expansion of parks and recreational facilities within the City. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation and Circulation Page No. 52 16. TRANSPORTATION and CIRCULATION Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system including, but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation and Traffic Page No. 53 (a-b) – No Impact: As required by the regional Congestion Management Program (CMP), the City contracted for preparation of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project (reference Attachment 13). The purpose of this study was to determine what affect the project would have on traffic along adjacent roadways and intersections. The traffic study’s trip generation analysis anticipates that the project would generate 581 daily vehicular trips to and from the project site, including 44 trips during the AM peak hour (7:00 – 9:00) and 52 during the PM peak hour (4:00 – 6:00). Accounting for existing traffic trips associated with current businesses on the project site, the total additional trips over current levels (i.e., net increase) would be 406 daily trips, including 17 during the AM peak hour and 24 during the PM peak hour. According to the study, the increase in trips represents an incremental increase in traffic that would not result in a level of service (LOS) reduction at nearby intersections. Similarly, the study’s TIRE (traffic infusion on residential environment) analysis determined that the project would not result in a noticeable change in traffic (this analysis is designed to determine if an increase in traffic would be perceivable to a neighborhood). As a result, the project would not conflict with applicable congestion management program or other applicable plans, ordinances or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. (c) – No Impact: The project would not affect any rail, waterborne, or air traffic. (d-e) – No Impact: The TIA reviewed the project's internal vehicular circulation and emergency access and determined it to be acceptable. The Fire Department has also determined the site circulation and roadway configuration would provide adequate emergency access. (f) – No Impact: The proposed project is a transit-oriented development in that it will be located within ¼ mile of the Downtown Campbell light-rail station, as well as Downtown Campbell. The development of a higher density residential infill project in proximity to high quality transit and the City center is consistent with the applicable policies of the Campbell General Plan, below. As such, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Strategy LUT-1.5a: Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage transit-oriented development including employment centers such as office and research and development facilities and the city’s highest density residential projects by coordinating the location, intensity, and mix of land uses with transportation resources, such as Light Rail. Strategy LUT-3.1c: High Density Residential: Allow higher residential densities in the NOCA, SOCA, and areas near the Light Rail stations as an incentive to redevelop older, less intensive uses. Policy H-4.3: Planned For Densities: To encourage the efficient and sustainable use of land, the City encourages residential development that is proposed near existing light rail stations (within 1/4 mile radius) and/or within the boundaries of the Winchester Boulevard Plan and East Campbell Avenue plan areas, to achieve at least 75 percent of the maximum General Plan Land Use category densities. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Utilities and Service Systems Page No. 54 17. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Impact Evaluation – Utilities and Service Systems Page No. 55 (a-b,e) – No Impact: The utilities for the proposed project, including sewage disposal, would require the construction of a private sanitary system that would connect to the existing waste water treatment system, which currently has sufficient capacity to receive the additional waste water generated from the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not impact the ability of the waste water treatment provider to meet its current commitments for service. The project would not generate significant amounts of wastewater, and would therefore not exceed wastewater treatment requirements for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The West Valley Sanitation District has provided written correspondence ("will serve" letter) which indicates that the sewer facilities, with the construction of on- and off-site improvements, are adequate to support the site (reference Attachment 10). (c) – No Impact: As previous noted, the project stormwater runoff generated by the project site would be collected and treated on-site in compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements as discussed in Section 9 (Hydrology and Water Quality). Treated stormwater will directed either to the existing public roadway system within the street or to an existing creek outfall located on the adjacent Public Works Maintenance Corporation Yard (accessed through an easement agreement with the City). In addition, as a condition of approval, the City intends to require replacement of an existing stormwater line that connects from the public street to an existing creek outfall. Based on a City Wide hydraulic study prepared by Barrett Consulting Group in the mid 1990’s, the City will replacing the existing 30-inch corrugated metal pipe to a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe. Although the physical pipe size will increase, the overall capacity will remain unchanged, as the flow volume is limited by the existing creek outfall that will not modified. The installation of the pipe will occur concurrent with project construction and would not (d) – No Impact: The project will be adequately served by the existing water supplies, as confirmed in written correspondence ("will serve" letter) by San Jose Water Company (reference Attachment 10), the local area water utility. (f-g) – No Impact: Existing capacity at local landfills can accommodate the amount of waste generated as a result of project operation. The project would comply with Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No. 56 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Analyzed in the Prior EIR Substantially Mitigated by Uniformly Applicable Development Policies Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (a) – No Impact: Based on the findings of the Infill Environmental Checklist Form, construction and operation of the project, with mitigation, would not substantially degrade the quality the environment; reduce the habitat, population, or range of species; nor eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. (b) – No Impact: The project would not cause any significant cumulative impacts to the following topical issues: Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No. 57 Traffic congestion at study intersections. The Traffic Study prepared for the project evaluated the operating conditions of key study intersections for existing, background, project, and cumulative traffic conditions. Based on the results of the Traffic Study, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels for each traffic condition. Land Use and Planning. The project in combination with any development activity in the vicinity would not induce growth, because the project alone would not induce growth. Geologic Problems. Seismic and soil conditions are site-specific, and will not contribute to cumulative impacts. Water. No other development in the vicinity should cumulatively affect runoff and water quality as no other developments will occur concurrently. Air Quality. The project would not exceed BAQMD thresholds and no other developments would occur in the vicinity of the project during the construction, so cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Construction dust would be handled on a site-specific basis. Biological Resources. Although no other projects would be concurrently constructed in the vicinity, cumulative biological impacts may occur. However, measures to mitigate for project construction impacts on biological resources would also apply for cumulative biological impacts. Energy. The project would have no impact on energy and mineral sources, so it would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Hazards. All hazards discussed are site specific, and will not contribute to cumulative impacts. Noise. Construction activity is substantially mitigated through uniform development policies on a project-by-project basis and therefore cannot result in a cumulative impact. Public Services. Since the project would not make any significant demands on public services, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to public services. Utilities/Service Systems. Since the project would have less than significant or no impacts to public utilities, it would have no cumulative impact. (C) – No Impact: Based on the findings of the Infill Environmental Checklist Form, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (a): Based on the findings of the Initial Study, construction and operation of the project, with mitigation, the project would not substantially degrade the quality the environment; reduce the habitat, population, or range of species; nor eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 58 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Aesthetics: None Required 2. Agricultural Resources: None Required 3. Air Quality: The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne tox.ics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with a Level3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC). Environmental Impact Evaluation – Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 59 4. Biological Resources: The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project-related activities that occur during the breeding season could be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1st through August 31st), pre-construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity within 15 days prior to such activities. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and migratory bird nest (up to 250 feet, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project, or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that no bats are harmed or killed as a result of the project. a. Within 30 days prior to the demolition of the four homes along Sam Cava Lane, and their associated outbuildings, a pre-construction survey will be conducted to confirm that the existing conditions of the homes have not changed. If existing conditions have not changed, no further surveys will be required. b. If existing conditions have changed and the biologist observes that one or more structures have openings that could provide entry for bats, then a more detailed bat survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all structures that provide potential openings for bats to enter. If no bats are found, then no further mitigations will be required. If roosting bats are found to be present, the following additional measures will be required: c. If a non-breeding bat colony is found within any of the structures, the individuals will be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement of the buildings prior to demolition under the direction of a qualified bat specialist to ensure that no harm or “take” would occur to any bats as a result of demolition activities. d. If a maternity colony is detected in the structures, then a construction-free buffer should be established around the structure as determined by the biologist and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery is no longer active. Demolition should preferably be done between March 1st and April 15th or August 15th and October 15th to avoid interfering with an active nursery. 5. Cultural Resources: None Required 6. Geology and Soils: None Required 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: None Required 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: None Required 9. Hydrology and Water Quality: None Required Environmental Impact Evaluation – Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 60 10. Land Use and Planning: None Required 11. Mineral Resources: None Required 12. Noise: None Required 13. Population and Housing: None Required 14. Public Services: None Required 15. Recreation: None Required 16. Transportation and Traffic: None Required 17. Utilities and Service Systems: None Required 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance: None Required Environmental Impact Evaluation – Reference Materials Page No. 61 REFERENCE MATERIALS Attachments (May be viewed online on the City of Campbell 'Public Notices' web page (http://www.cityofcampbell.com/501/Public-Notices) under 'Environmental Notices' or at the Campbell Community Development Department office (70 N First St., Campbell, CA 95008) during normal business hours). 1. City Council Resolution No. 9949, adopted November 6, 2001 2.Remedial Soil Excavation Plan by Weber, Hayes, and Associates, dated August 1, 2013 3.Air Quality and Greenhouse Technical Memorandum by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), dated June 2014 4.Biological Evaluation of the Dillon Property Project Site by Live Oak Associates, Inc., dated April 28, 2014 5.Tree Inventory and Arborist’s Assessment by Richard Gessner, dated May 28, 2014 6.Geotechnical Investigation by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, dated May 16, 2014 7.Phase I Site Assessment and Phase II Soil Investigation (Biddle Roofing Properties)by ENVIRON International Corp., dated July 18, 2013 8.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Soil Investigation (190 Dillon Ave.) by ENVIRON International Corp., dated June 2014 9.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Soil Investigation (Sam Cava Ln. properties) by ENVIRON International Corp., dated May 23, 2014 10."Will Serve" Letters (PG&E, San Jose Water, and West Valley Sanitation District) 11.Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), dated August 7, 2014 12.Draft Environmental Noise Feasibility Study by Charles Salter Associates, Inc., dated May 15, 2014 13.Traffic Impact Analysis for the Dillon Avenue Residential Project by W-Trans, dated June 17, 2014 Reference Documents: 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), June 2010, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), December 2008, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 3. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) California Air Resources Board (CARB), April 2005,Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 4. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) California Air Resources Board (CARB), November 16, 2007, Staff Report: California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Reference Materials Page No. 62 5. California Natural Diversity Database, 2000. 6. California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), June 19, 2008, Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 7. CEQA Guidelines, 2012 version. 8. City of Campbell General Plan. 9. Campbell General Plan EIR. 10. City of Campbell Zoning Code. 11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Map Number 06085C0241H, Effective Date May 18, 2009. 12. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, San Jose West Quadrangle, February 7, 2002. 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2009, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007.