S. Winchester Blvd - GKW Responses 2GKW Architects, Inc.
Gordon Wong, AIA, Architect, LEED GA, CSLB
710 E. McGlincy Lane, Suite 109
Campbell, CA 95008
408-315-2125 | Gordonkwong@Gkwarchitects.com
www.gkwarchitects.com
Gkw Architects, Inc. Responses in blue to plan review
RE:
File No: PLN2019‐39/40/41/42
Site Address: 2575 / 2585 S. Winchester Boulevard
Application: Planned Development Permit, Tree Removal Permit
Status: Incomplete
Dear Mr. Wong:
Thank you for your resubmittal of a development permit application to allow the demolition of two
residential single‐story homes to construct a 48‐foot tall, 15‐unit apartment building with a ground floor
commercial component and at‐grade and underground parking. Based on a review of the application
materials, the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC), and the City of Campbell Uniform Development
Application, your application remains incomplete, pursuant to CMC Sec.
and the California Permit Streamlining Act. The following additional information and revisions to the plans
are needed in order to continue processing of this application:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Context of Review: The subject property has a P‐D (Planning Development) zoning designation
and mixed‐use general plan land use designation of ‘RCPO’ as follows:
‘Residential / Commercial / Professional Office’: There are several areas within the City with this
designation including the NOCA area, several parcels on Hamilton Avenue west of San Tomas
Expressway and areas along the Vasona Light Rail line. The Residential / Commercial / Professional
Office Designation is intended to provide a residential component to traditional commercial and/
or professional office uses. The intent of this designation is to maintain the commercial and office
uses on the ground floor, with residential on the upper floors. Development standards will be
created for these areas regarding minimum lot coverage and floor ratio requirements. The
Development standards will also ensure quality site design (e.g. encouraging building placement
toward the street edge and parking in the rear or underneath).
Under this mixed‐use land use designation, commercial and/ or office uses on the ground floor
are mandatory and for this project would require the ground floor facing Winchester Boulevard
to be commercial and/or office in order to be consistent with the land use designation – and
therefore is considered a completeness comment. Understanding your plans attempt consistency
with the general plan land use designation as well as the development standards of the
Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP) (which also requires ground floor commercial) the
entire ground floor should be converted to commercial use. While live‐work units may be
explored, the size requirements for each space (1000 sq. ft.) and parking requirement (3‐spaces
per unit) in addition to other standards would likely preclude the option.
In short, understanding changes to the plan may be required to provide a commercial and/or
office component on the ground floor facing Winchester Blvd. (such as changing the height of the
building, or mass of the building) – you may need to deviate from the standards of the WBMP to
comply.
This is understood. The project is subjected to mixed‐use development.
2. Screening and Buffering Requirements: Screening between different zoning districts must be
provided pursuant to the requirements of 21.18.120 of the Campbell Municipal Code. If a
fence/wall taller than six‐feet is proposed, please clarify that as part of your permit request as
special findings would need to be made to approve the request.
This is understood.
Regardless of the height proposed, please detail all the fencing/walls proposed on all perimeters
of the project. Please coordinate with adjoining property owners to determine their preferences
and support for any fencing/walls proposed on a common lot line. It is strongly recommended to
document what efforts you make with neighbors as frequently the treatment of boundaries
becomes a discussion point at public hearings.
This is understood.
3. Architectural Consultant Review: The City collected a deposit of $3,000 for third‐party review by
an architectural consultant. Understanding changes to the design will be made to accommodate
a commercial ground level, transmittal of a scope of services to an architectural consultant have
been on hold. Pending receipt of the revised plans – staff will transmit the revised plans to the
architectural consultant for feedback. This consultant report needs to be completed prior to
review of the project by the City’s Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC).
This is understood.
4. Density Bonus & Inclusionary housing Ordinance: As the project has more than 10 units 15% of
the units must be affordable. For a 15‐unit project this equates to a requirement to provide at
least 2 units (2.25 units ~ 2 units after rounding down in accordance with CMC 21.24.040.A. ‐
Percentage requirement.). For rental projects, forty percent of the required 15% (or 6% of the
total units of the residential project) shall be provided at a very‐low income level with the
remainder made available to a low‐income level. For a 15‐unit rental project, this translates to a
requirement to provide one (.9 rounded up) very‐low income unit and one (.6 rounded up) low‐
income unit.
As a density bonus project, your proposal includes a plan to provide 5% very‐low income (15 x 0.5
= 0.75 – 1 unit) and 10% (15*.10 = 1.5‐2 units) low‐income units. Please be advised that this
allocation exceeds the minimum allocation to meet the requirements of a density bonus project
while also satisfying the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. In other words, providing 5%
very‐low, and 5% low‐income units would similarly result in the same reduction in parking
requirements as well as one incentive and concession.
To ensure a proper count, staff seeks clarification if it is intention of the project to provide
affordability beyond that required to maximize the understood benefit per code and state law.
The project materials note that the requested concession is for a reduction in required backup
distance for vehicular parking spaces. For any concession request, the applicant must provide a
cost pro forma demonstrating that the change results in identifiable, finically sufficient and actual
cost reductions to make the project viable shall be required. Further, as the depth of parking stalls
is also inadequate, it may be advisable to position the concession as a request for a reduce stall
depth (rather than a reduced stall depth and driveway backup distance; which would amount to
two separate concessions on paper).
This is understood.
5. Parking: Understanding that project will include a ground floor commercial component, the
project must provide a parking analysis that includes the parking demand for the residential
component (in accordance with density bonus standards) and a separate parking analysis
demonstrating compliance with commercial parking standards taking into account required
accessible and electric vehicle/clean air parking spaces. If a parking management plan is proposed
to address situations where accessible guest parking spaces may double as required accessible
parking for commercial tenant spaces – such a proposal needs to be articulated and reconciled
with applicable requirements. Further, while the parking allocation and even assignment of
residential parking spaces was clear
– it was somewhat ambiguous how the guest parking space and commercial parking relationship
would work – and it may make more ‘sense’ to group two parking spaces together of any given
unit to make transfer of materials between cars easier.
This is understood.
6. 2019 Building Code: The project plans make multiple references to satisfying 2016 Building Code
requirements where the project will be submitted and reviewed under the 2019 Building Code.
Please plan to address 2019 Building Code requirements as part of your resubmittal and
preferably provide an explanation of changes made to the plans to comply which have a material
impact on the building design (interior or exterior) in order to comply with such provisions.
This is understood. All codes referencing under 2016 Building Codes are updated to 2019 Building
Codes.
7. Parcel Map: The revised plans indicate a proposal to submit a parcel map for concurrent review
and approval but a plan for a parcel map (showing easements; like the utility easements proposed
along the rear property line) was not included.
This is understood.
8. Streetscape Standards: Please see public works comments on streetscape standards; the plans
reflect treatments applicable to Winchester Boulevard which should be revised to follow the
standard detail for Winchester established by the Streetscape Standards.
This is understood. Street treatment is revised to follow the standard detail established by
Campbell Streetscape Standards.
9. CEQA Technical Documents: No additional environmental documents have been received at this
time. This comment serves to follow up on the status and submittal progress of the Phase 1
environmental site report; Air Quality Report (which is likely pending the outcome of traffic
counts); Flood Zone Analysis, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Biological Resources
Assessment, Acoustic Analysis etc. – while the project may continue to progress without these
documents up and through review by the City’s Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC)
– an environmental assessment must be concluded prior to progressing to Planning Commission.
Pending on the outcome of these preliminary studies, staff will determine the appropriate level
of environmental review.
This is understood. CEQA technical documents will be provided once they are all completed.
PLAN REVISIONS
Note: A redline copy of the plans has been provided for ease of reference. The following serves to
summarize the majority of those same comments.
10. Coversheet & Information (Sheet A000): The following must be revised:
a. Project Intent: The project intent still indicates that the project ‘aims to propose zoning
amendment’ where no application for a zoning map and/ or zoning code amendment has
been proposed in association with the application. The project is that the project is
comply with current zoning (i.e. P‐D) which preclude future conversion of the project to
condominium units (i.e. C‐PD). If a zoning map amendment is proposed with the permit,
please include this as part of your written request paying fees as appropriate to facilitate
the review.
Instead of indicating the project ‘aims to propose…’ language, consider substituting that
the ‘the project seeks a density bonus in accordance with state law’ which is more
accurate an illustrative of the proposal.
The indication of proposing zoning amendment has been removed. Project intent has
been revised. Please see sheet A000.
b. Project Scope:
i. Parking. The parking table provided does not accurately capture the number and
type of stalls provided. Please be advised that residential parking stalls require a
minimum dimension of 9‐feet by 20‐feet.
Minimum dimension of 9‐feet by 20‐feet does not apply to this project as it’s no
longer strictly a residential project.
ii. Lot Line Adjustment. The project scope includes a proposal for a lot line
adjustment which, while true, would be imposed as a condition on the project.
Alternatively, it is recommended to apply for a parcel map which could be
reviewed/processed concurrently and could serve to resolve several issues at
once – such as a 10‐foot light/air easement generally along the Winchester
Boulevard side of the property, and any required vacations/dedications. See
Public Works department comment letter.
This is understood.
c. Project Information: The project information references following the ‘base district
guidelines’ of the C‐2 and R‐3 zoning districts. This instead should be referencing the
general plan land use designation of ‘RCPO’ – Residential/Commercial/Professional Office
which allows up to 27 units / gr. Acre (not 27 du. / acre).
Project information has been revised to reference the general plan use designation of
RCPO.
d. Floor Area Ratio & Lot Coverage: Please provide a calculation of proposed floor area ratio
and lot coverage where a standard has been provided. While residential floor area does
not count against lot coverage a separate number should.
e. Vicinity Map: You may want to add Safeway and the Winchester Light Rail Station as
points of interest on this map. (Optional)
Safeway and Winchester Light Rail Station are added as points of interest on the map.
11. Architectural Notes and Symbols (Sheet A001): The following revisions are required:
a. General Notes: #10 – Paint Color must be specified pre‐entitlement for this project; please
provide this color and material sheet indicating the proposed exterior colors and
materials with manufacturer specification details (i.e. brand / color code). Note: It is
recommended to provide this color and material board as a separate sheet to be
responsive to this request.
General Notes #10 has been revised. Please see sheet A001.
12. SF Exhibit and Adjacent Land Uses (Sheet A002): The following must be revised:
a. Gross Lot Area: The total gross lot sf analysis is inadequate (roughly approximating the
gross floor area of the project over an assessor’s parcel map without showing how net
and gross areas were calculated.) Please have a surveyor/engineer confirm the net and
gross lot size of the project on one of the civil drawings that also reflects centerline of
street (such as the boundary survey and topographic map; Sheet C‐1). Note: This is still
outstanding; and the measurement depiction should include the triangle to the center of
street (see redlined plans for clarify on this detail).
Please see
13. Project Data, Occupancy, and Egress Analysis (Sheet A004): The following additional details must
be provided.
a. Utilities: Please show the proposed location of any transformer, electrical switchbox, gas
meters, or similar equipment and/or backflow preventers, fire connections, taller than
12‐inches off the ground and/or with a footprint greater than four square feet. Note: This
is still outstanding comment.
Please see proposed utility plan on sheet A019.
14. Parking Analysis (Sheet A009): The following additional details must be provided:
a. Assignment. Please indicate the retail parking space assignment in the parking chart for
grade level and basement level. Please be advised if an inadequate number of commercial
parking spaces are allocated; a separate fee and application for a parking modification
permit may be required.
This is understood. Project will be going for parking modification permit.
b. Required Parking Aisle Width: The proposed width is not adequate; as a concession has
been proposed to address this a cost pro‐forma is required to demonstrate it is financially
supported (i.e. for example a reduced commercial tenant space depth on the ground floor
to achieve compliance would result in lower rent rates etc.).
Parking aisle width has been revised to have adequate width.
15. Onsite Grading and Drainage Plans (Sheet 1 to 11):
a. Sheet 3: DMA‐6 is reflected as a walkway path on Sheet A007. Please check for similar
conflicts. Please also reconcile landscape plans with the bioretention areas and plant
species proposed; if trees/bushes etc. are proposed in a bioretention area it should be
reflected in the bioretention detail to address how that would be accomplished. DMA‐14;
Note: This comment remains outstanding.
Conflicts are resolved. Please see proposed landscape plans.
16. Master Planting Plan (Sheet L1): The following must be revised:
a. The plans note the proposal for several large species of bushes and trees in bioretention
areas where it is more likely that tall grasses would be proposed. Please confirm that the
species selections can be achieved in the planting areas proposed (note that a
horticultural soil report will be eventually required to ensure suitability of the installed
soil). Please check with Public Works if the proposed species could be accommodated
and/or engineered around in bioretention swales. Check with Public Works Department.
Note: This comment remains outstanding.
Please see master planting plan on sheet L1.
17. Hydrozone Plan (Sheet L2): Please update calculations if/when plant species are changed per
changes to Sheet L1. Note: This comment remains a perpetual requirement.
Calculations has been updated. Please see sheet L2.
18. Floor Plan, Level 2 through Level 4 (Sheet A102 through A104): Open space is measured in areas
meeting a minimum dimension of 10‐feet x 10‐feet. It would be helpful to document which areas
satisfy that requirement, separate from other areas. Note: This comment has been addressed,
but it is recommended to separately tally all open space not meeting the 10‐feet x 10‐feet
requirement to have it available as discussion point (to your credit).
This is understood.
19. Sections (Sheet 400): The following must be revised on the cross sections sheet:
a. Include the following height measurement in relative values (feet and inches) as well as
lot specific elevation benchmark (AMSL) levels established by the Grading and Drainage
Plan and Topographic and Demolition Plan:
i. Existing Grade
Please see existing grade & elevation benchmark (ASML) level on sheet A400.
ii. Maximum structure height as measured from existing (natural) grade.
Note: This comment is partially outstanding; detailed measurements in relative
values were provided but without a natural grade note/detail on this page for
comparison there is no relation to the topographic survey to know exactly how
much cut/fill is anticipated to the lots. Please add at least a line indicating natural
grade in relation to these lines with the AMSL level used.
Maximum structure height measured from existing grade is 49’‐9”. Please see
sections on sheet A400.
20. Photometric calculation – exterior (Sheet E1.0): The following additional details must be provided:
a. The provided photometric calculation concludes some light would spill beyond the
property line. Please clarify which lights are the source of this spill and explain why they
cannot be corrected by a taller fence (or by accounting by the fence proposed) and/or
enhanced down shielding of the fixture. It is strongly recommended to revisit this exhibit
to demonstrate no light will extend beyond the property line by making such revisions,
changes, or corrections to the plans.
Updated plan to show the specs for the bollard and the wall mounted fixtures and
included calcs for the area beyond the property line.