06-27-2023 PC Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, June 27, 2023 | 7:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person and virtually via video
teleconferencing (Zoom) in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act. Members of the
public may attend this meeting in person at Campbell City Hall or virtually via Zoom at
https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. The meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the
City's website, and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCampbell.
Written correspondence will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov until 5:00 PM
on the day of the meeting, and thereafter may be delivered in-person at the public hearing.
Written correspondence will be posted to the City’s website and distributed to the Planning
Commission. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of June 13, 2023 (Roll Call Vote)
➢ Meeting Minutes, 6/13/2023 (Regular Meeting)
COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning
Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest
of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits
the Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to
staff for follow-up.
PUBLIC HEARING
Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public
hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of
five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for
closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning
Commission’s consent at the meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda for June 27, 2023 Pg. 2
2. PLN-2022-162 – 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Public Hearing to consider the request of MODULUS for property located at 1940
Hamilton Avenue to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000 square-foot
office building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction
to the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected trees, and
retention of overhead frontage utility lines. The applications under consideration include
Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree
Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance. File No.: PLN-2022-162. Staff is recommending
that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action
is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project
Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Site and
Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal
Permit, and a (Utility) Variance.
3. PLN-2022-44 – 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Public Hearing to consider the request of AU Energy LLC for property located at 570 E.
Hamilton Avenue to allow reconstruction of a Shell gasoline service station with an
expanded convenience store including off-site alcohol beverage sales, a drive-through
carwash, and 24-hour operational hours; associated site, lighting, parking, refuse
collection, and landscaping improvements; and removal of on-site trees. The applications
under consideration include a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review
and Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-44. Staff is recommending that this item be
deemed Statutorily Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel
Fama, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), denying a
Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Architectural Review and a Tree Removal Permit.
4. PLN-2023-65 – 801 W. Hamilton Avenue
Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen
Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held
on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification
or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton
Avenue. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under
CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1) approving a City-
Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65) to the Administrative Planned Development Permit
(PLN-2009-167).
Planning Commission Agenda for June 27, 2023 Pg. 3
NEW BUSINESS
5. Discussion of Community Development Fiscal Year 2024 Workplan
6. Report of the Community Development Director
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2023, at 7:30 PM, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via telecommunication.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available
for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the
meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at ClerksOffice@campbellca.gov or 408-866-2117
in advance of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, June 13, 2023 I 7:30pm
City Hall Council Chamber
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2023 was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chair
Buchbinder, and the following proceedings were had to wit.
ROLL CALL
Staff Members present:
Rob Eastwood, Director
Bill Seligmann, City Attorney
Larissa Lomen Assistant Planner
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of May 23, 2023 (Roll Call Vote)
➢ Meeting minutes approved by Ching, Ostrowski, Kamkar. Krey.
Fields, Buchbinder, Zisser abstained due to being absent during the 5/23/23 PC
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Memo was received by the Department and distributed to the Planning Commission from the
Attorney representing the applicant on Item 4.
Planning Commissioners Present:
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
Alan Zisser, Vice Chair
Davis Fields
Stuart Ching
Maggie Ostrowski
Matt Kamkar
Michael Krey
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning
Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest
of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the
Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff
for follow-up.
Opened and Closed Public Comment
PUBLIC HEARING
Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public
hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five
(5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing
statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning Commission’s
consent at the meeting.
Disclosures: Vice Chair Zisser and Commissioner Krey visited all the sites but did not speak to
anyone at the sites. Commissioner Kamkar went past the site for Item 3. Chair Buchbinder spoke
to applicant and visited the site for Item 4.
Chair Buchbinder read the following public hearing items into record as follows:
2. PLN-2022-110 – 535 West Hacienda Avenue
Public Hearing to consider the request of Alex Ross, Pillars Architecture, for property
located at 535 West Hacienda Avenue to allow a change in exterior materials to existing
balconies and to upgrade existing trash enclosures on a multi-family residential property.
The application under consideration includes a Site and Architectural Review Permit. File
No.: PLN-2022-110. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt
from CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner.
Associate Planner Tam presented the staff report to allow a change in exterior materials to
existing balconies and to upgrade existing trash enclosures on a multi-family residential
property.
Commissioners received confirmation that depth of balconies would not change; that the
support system would have additional support; and clarification on the actual paint colors
of the building.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 3
Chair Buchbinder received clarification that the item is coming before the Planning
Commission because the item required a Site and Architecture review due to the significant
changes to the buildings.
Applicant Alex Ross spoke, and mentioned compliance with SB 721. The prefabricated and
installation approach will have minimal impact on the tenant. Clarified for Commissioners
that paint would not fade on the selected materials and would like to have each building
done in a month.
Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing
Commissioners were in support of the project.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Zisser the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4680, approving a Site and
Architectural Review Permit (PLN-2022-110) to allow for material changes to
existing balconies and to upgrade existing trash enclosures on property located at
535 West Hacienda Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district,
by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Ching, Ostrowski, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Zisser, Fields
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
3. PLN-2023-41 – 1402 Camden Avenue
Public Hearing to consider the request of Vanessa Lau, Innovative Design Architecture, Inc.,
for property located at 1402 Camden Avenue to allow a change of use from an existing
personal services use (beauty spa and hair stylist) to a medical service, clinic use (plastic
surgery) within an existing multi-tenant commercial building. The application under
consideration includes a Conditional Use Permit. File No.: PLN-2023-41. Staff is
recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Planning
Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar
days. Project Planner: Larissa Lomen, Assistant Planner.
Assistant Planner Larissa Lomen presented staff report to allow a change of use from an
existing personal services use (beauty spa and hair stylist) to a medical service, clinic use
(plastic surgery) within an existing multi-tenant commercial building.
Commissioners received confirmation that containment and disposal of medical waste
would be compliant with state and county guidelines .
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 4
Commissioners were informed that the project site is on an arterial transit line and that
approved site plans by Building Official indicated that the site met accessibility
requirements.
John Ha, applicant architect, stated that they will make sure site complies and will upgrade
anything on site to meet ADA accessibility.
Dr. Eric Li, applicant, stated that intent to expand to this office space is to expand and meet
client base. Will be able to provide services and private surgeries in the new office.
Commissioners were informed that the applicant sees about 15 patients per day and that
the applicant is the only practitioner on site.
Question – from Susanna Friedman – asked if applicant would be allowed to do more
invasive procedures than what was mentioned.
Assistant Planner Lomen clarified that they are allowed to do what was listed in the
Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Fields recommended revisiting respective Municipal Codes so that
applicants are not required to bring minor issues before the Planning Commission.
Commissioners in support of project.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Fields, seconded by Commissioner Ching the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4681, approving a Conditional Use
Permit (PLN-2023-41) to allow a change of use from an existing “Personal Services”
se (Beauty Spa and Hair Stylist) to a “Medical Services, Clinic” use (Plastic Surgery)
within an existing multi-tenant commercial building on property located at 1402
Camden Avenue in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, by the following
roll call vote.
AYES: Ching, Ostrowski, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Zisser, Fields
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STUDY SESSION
4. PLN-2023-74 – 35, 655, 675, & 695 Campbell Technology Parkway
Study Session to consider the preliminary proposal of Bay West Development for property
located at 635, 655, 675, & 695 Campbell Technology Parkway for a 334-unit townhome
community on a 17.28 acre, 4-parcel assemblage (Campbell Technology Park), exercising
use of the State "Builder's Remedy" law. The application under consideration is a SB-330
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 5
Preliminary Application. File No.: PLN-2023-74. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior
Planner
Senior Planner Fama presented presentation on Study Session to consider the preliminary
proposal of Bay West Development for property located at 635, 655, 675, & 695 Campbell
Technology Parkway for a 334-unit townhome community on a 17.28 acre, 4-parcel
assemblage (Campbell Technology Park), exercising use of the State "Builder's Remedy"
law.
City attorney stated that the biggest point of contention is the applicability of the
disposition and development agreement. Stated that it is the City’s position that it
continues to be viable, continues to run until 2027, and would prohibit the proposed
development absent some kind of renegotiation. There is some difference between what
is required between the housing crisis act and housing accountability act, so it is possible
that the City could apply some objective or subjective criteria in conditioning the designs
of the units.
Commissioner Krey asked if there were discussions about negotiations between the
Campbell Tech Park owner and the city about trading some of the land for a corporation
yard in exchange for a mixed-used housing site.
Director Eastwood stated there is some capacity building to put into Commissioner Krey’s
question which would involve hiring a Housing Manager to serve as a project manager for
these items.
Commissioners were informed that proposed 20% of affordable units would be distributed
throughout the housing development built; that the Housing Affordability Act is currently
overwriting the General Plan because the City failed to get a Housing Element approved
prior to the January 21st, 2023 deadline; that there are currently no discussions about
improving Edith Morley Park for neighboring communities; and that the site would be
subject to Park in Lieu fess
Chair Buchbinder opened Public Hearing comment
Applicant Tim Pasquinelli stated that he looking to satisfy some of the housing needs for
Campbell. Campbell Tech Park has zero interest in the city’s corporation yard and this is not
a point of discussion. Plan is preliminary but sought input from different developers that
meets the market needs.
Applicant stated that there is no interest in City Corporation Yard site due to the
environmental issues. Also not interested in having the site be a 100% affordable housing
site. Building townhomes because research showed that the market is looking for this type
of housing. Informed Commission that he is not interested in building apartments. It is not
financially viable to build apartments, it is more feasible to build a for-sale product.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 6
Project Architect, Joan Williams, stated that it was possible to integrate ADU’s into the
ground floor units because it is currently very popular among buyers to have these units as
they generate income for home owners. Clarified that JADU doesn’t contribute to count on
units for RHNA numbers and that JADUs are approximately 358 sq. ft.
Chair Buchbinder opened public hearing comments on item.
Debbie Post, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), stated that the
development will impact residential living. Development will create more traffic. Campbell
is a community and not a Mini San Jose.
Patricia Tinto, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), stated that
Paseo de Palomas is resident owned community , with Board of Directors. There are no
rentals in the community and home have owners residing in them. There are assessed like
home owners. The community shares one entry. Concerned about being so late in the
discussion. Paseo de Palomas was built by the same developer that built The Pruneyard.
Wants to make sure the development does not impact Paseo de Palomas residents.
Rita Arbour, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), expressed
concerned about the size of the development and the emergency access and exits within
the site. Asked the Planning Commission to take the Board of Directors from Paseo de
Palomas and residents to review the project.
Josephine Pugsley, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas) stated
that Mcglincy is only two lanes and will handle most of the project. Doesn’t know how the
road will support traffic. Did the developers consider the walkability, traffic, and public
transit of the site.
Chris Coggins, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), stated
Campbell has a balanced economy commercial, industrial, and residential uses yet
residential uses cost more to the City or County than the residents pay. Would like zone to
remain industrial. Concerned about the density and impact to the community. Also
concerned about the easements.
Martha Punol, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), expressed
concern about Edith Morley Park. Does not see more land or space provided for property.
Construction companies park on the border of the property. Very impacted. Shame to see
Edith Morley park be ruined. Parking can be atrocious in a very short time.
Glen Haze, resident of neighboring mobile home park (Paseo de Palomas), stated that he
did not see in presentation the traffic impact to an area that cannot handle the traffic.
McGlincy is packed.
Alicia Amann, resident of West Valley Dr., expressed that there is already a parking crisis in
the neighborhood. Not enough parking and would create an even bigger parking crisis.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 7
Chair Buchbinder allowed applicant to rebuttal
Applicant stated that the City has zoned 13 acres for 600 houses. Does not want more
density.
Senior Planner Fama stated that the Traffic Engineer determined that the project would not
require a full level service analysis because it would result in reduced traffic compared to
the existing research and development park. Expressed to the Commission that the data
used by the Traffic Engineer was pre-covid data.
Chair Buchbinder opened Commission Discussion
Commissioner Fields stated that bill AB2097 restricts parking requirements. Hope
developers look at impact to Paseo de Palomas community.
Commissioner Ching stated that it was great that the City was targeting ambitious density
targets but is in favor of this lower density project. Stated that the area pretty horrible for
traffic and accessibility. Would like to see a focus on public safety in plan. Not sufficient to
evaluate intersection at McGlincy and Campbell Tech Park. Would like to see safety
regarding Campbell Tech Park access road, specifically for children. Actual development
should have included parks or open spaces on site. Would like to see open areas within the
development. Believes there be lots of traffic and possibly people speeding. In this instance,
believes that lower density is better.
Commissioner Ostrowski believers that the applicant has an opportunity to make large
parcels into a great project. Would like to see community type areas within the project so
that there is open space access and community. Safety wise , think about connection points
with property. Would also be nice to have a community garden onsite and that bike racks
on site.
Commissioner Krey expressed that there is need for housing as there is a housing crisis.
Project is good because there will be BMR units included on site and will address the
“Missing Middle.” Conflicted because it would be nice to have more units but overall is in
favor of project.
Commissioner Kamkar directed comments to mobile home residents. Stated that RHNA
requirements and consequences for the City of Campbell are real. In favor of going higher
and have smaller footprint for each unit on the site. Would like to see more units from
developer so that the City can meet its unit requirements. Believes the plan from applicant
is fair.
Commissioner Zisser would have liked to have seen more discussion on the corporation
yard. Believes that the owner is building reasonable square footage per unit. Would like to
see a playground on site in the future. Believes that traffic in the area is a big deal. Would
like to see more green space and asymmetry so that it doesn’t look like cell blocks.
Chair Buchbinder stated he sees that the City and Campbell Tech Park owner could not
come to an agreement on the site. Believes this indicates the need for a citywide bike and
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 8
pedestrian plan so that people can bike and walk everywhere. Likes the idea of having a
common play space and open area to build community on site. Understands that parking
can’t be regulated. Uniform design of buildings is okay as there is a need to build higher
density developments. It is a good thing to have more neighbors.
5. PLN-2023-100 – AB-2097 Study Session
Study Session to present the applicability of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (elimination of
parking requirements near public transportation) in the City of Campbell. Project Planner:
Larissa Lomen, Assistant Planner
Assistant Planner Larissa Lomen presented on the applicability of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097
(elimination of parking requirements near public transportation) in the City of Campbell.
Commission was informed that EV parking and other applicable building and zoning code
requirements are still applicable for projects that propose parking, even when located
within the AB 2097 boundary.
City Attorney clarified that the City can regulate on-street parking within the 2097
boundary,
Commissioners suggested adding prominent language in the Agenda notes to clarify which
projects are subject to Statewide preemptions, such as AB 2097 and the Housing
Accountability Act to get ahead of public frustrations expressed during the public hearing
comment periods.
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Director Eastwood reported the following:
• Applied to MTC ABAG to underwrite the effort of a Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan and that
the City is likely to be awarded $400k with no local match to start the plan. After grant
agreement is finalized the project will start Fall of 2023.
• City Council approved most of the requests from Community Development Department
for staff and department workplan.
Chair Buchbinder discussed possibly standing up a subcommittee to amend the zoning code.
Will discuss during next Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned meeting at 8:32 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday,
June 27, 2023, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via
telecommunication.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 13, 2023 Page 9
PREPARED BY: _______________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED: ______________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: ________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
ITEM NO. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ June 27, 2023
PLN-2021-177
Fenster, D.
Public Hearing to consider the request of Modules for property located at
1940 Hamilton Avenue to modify the site configuration of an approved
8,000 square-foot office building project to allow direct driveway access
from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction to the required number parking stalls,
removal of additional on-site protected trees, and retention of overhead
frontage utility lines. The applications under consideration include Site and
Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit,
Tree Removal Permit, and (Utility) Variance. File No.: PLN-2022-162.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit
Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the determination that this project is Categorically
Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to
construction of up to four (4) commercial buildings with a floor area not exceeding 10,000 square feet
located within an urbanized area on sites zoned for such use if not involving significant amounts of
hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding
area is not environmentally sensitive; and that a categorical exemption as not precluded by an exception,
as specified by Section 15300.2(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, by affirming a previous finding that the
subject property is not a "historical resource" under CEQA (File No.: PLN-2021-33).
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: P-O (Professional Office)
General Plan Designation: Professional Office
Lot Area (Existing): 20,000 square-feet
Lot Area (New): 18,750 square-feet1
Building Height: 27 feet2 35 feet (Max. Allowed)
Building Square Footage:
First Floor: 3,485 square feet
Second Floor: 4,507 square feet
7,992 square feet (Total Size)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 18.5% N/A
1 Per the requirements of the City's Streetscape Standards, the project is required to dedicate land across the property's
frontage to accommodate the required streetscape improvements, which reduces the lot size.
2 As measured to the roof surface, excluding roof structures for elevators and stairways per CMC Sec. 21.58.050.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 42.7% 40% (Max. Allowed)3
Parking: 22 stalls4 36 stalls (Min. Required @ 1/225 SF)
Building Setbacks:5 Proposed Required
Front (north): 36 feet 15 feet
Side (west): 17-feet, 10-inches 17-ft, 9-inches (½ the "wall height")
Side (east): 28-feet, 2-inches 17-ft, 9-inches (½ the "wall height")
Rear (south): 61-feet 13 ½-ft (½ the "wall height")
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is a 20,000 square-foot parcel located along Hamilton Avenue, midblock
between Leigh and Phantom Avenues. The site borders the First Congregational Church of San Jose to
the west and south and duplex residences to the east, as shown, below. The property is currently
developed with a Folk Victorian-style building constructed circa 1890 that was converted to a
professional office under a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission in 2013.
Scope of Review: This application was deemed "complete" under to the Permit Streamlining Act on
April 24, 2023, and therefore is subject to the Zoning Code and General plan in effect at the time
pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.01.050.E. As such, the land use policies and strategies referenced in this
report are from the prior General Plan. Similarly, the above identified development standards are from
the former Zoning Code, prior to the comprehensive update that was adopted in conjunction with the
2040 General Plan / Housing Element in April.
Background: At its meeting of June 14, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use
Permit to allow relocation of the converted office building onto the adjacent First Congregational
Church property and a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow construction of a two-story,
approximately 8,000 square-foot professional office building. The latter approval also granted a shared
parking and site access arrangement with the Church. Subsequently, however, the congregation's
3 Table 2-10 (General Development Standards), provides that the Planning Commission may "increase the F.A.R. for a
specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment." The increased FAR is
solely the result of the City's requirement to dedicate land per Footnote #1.
4 Includes eight (8) motorcycle stalls that are credited as two vehicle stalls per CMC Sec. 21.28.065.
5 Setbacks are per Sheet 0.61 (Setback Diagrams), which provides a specific analysis of the setbacks that is more specific
than the site plan notations.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 3 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
leadership ultimately decided not to finalize the agreement it had with the applicant. As a result, the
approved office building cannot be built as designed because it relied on access to the Church's
driveway and use of some of its parking stalls. The converted office building will also not be relocated
as approved on the Church property, although the applicant has indicated it may be relocated out of
City to a different location.
Proposed Project: The submitted applications for Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification,
Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance, would allow revisions
to facilitate construction of the project without reliance on access through the Church's property,
including a modified site layout, removal of "protected" trees, retention of existing overhead utility
lines, and demolition (or removal) of the existing converted office structure (reference Attachment 2
– Project Plans).
Specifically, the project has been revised to incorporate a new two-way driveway along the easterly
side of the site, with access from Hamilton Avenue, as shown, below. Additionally, the building has
also been shifted westward seven feet to accommodate the new driveway. Pedestrian access has also
been modified to provide a secondary walkway leading to a side exit door with only a single walkway
into the front doors, as compared to two walkways in the approved layout. However, the overall
configuration of the project remains generally intact, with the approved office building situated
towards the front of the property with parking stalls located at the rear of the site.
Approved Site Plan Proposed Revised Site Plan
ANALYSIS
Findings for Approval: To grant a land use approval, the decision-making body must affirmatively
establish that the project meets codified findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary basis
for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval as
necessary to establish the findings. The applicable findings depend upon the type of land use approval
under review. The following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings in italics and how the
proposed project satisfies them.
Church Driveway
New Driveway
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 4 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings
As the office building design has already been approved and is not proposed to be revised with this
application, the following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings as they relate to the
proposed modifications only. The June 14, 2022, staff report (reference Attachment 3) provides the
original findings analysis for the project.
A. The project will be consistent with the general plan.
Yes. The project remains an office building consistent with the General Plan, as originally
determined.
B. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area.
Yes. The project remains harmonious terms of massing and relative height with the First
Congregational Church's sanctuary building and would now be placed further away from the
adjacent non-conforming duplex property to the east.
C. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement,
overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s).
Yes. There are no design guidelines for commercial buildings applicable to this project, nor is
the site subject to any area, neighborhood or specific plan.
Parking Modification Permit Findings
The 8,000 square-foot building requires 36 parking stalls at a ratio of 1 stall per 225 square feet.
Originally ten of these stalls would have been located on the Church property. The revised
configuration will result in the loss of these 10 stalls plus three additional stalls due to the new
driveway, for a new total of 22 stalls (inclusive of eight motorcycle stalls that are credited as two stalls).
As such, the project now has a deficit of fourteen parking stalls, necessitating consideration of Parking
Modification Permit. Note that the project site is located just outside of the ½ mile limit to qualify for
an exemption from parking requirements under AB-2097).
A. Due to the unique nature and circumstances of the project, or special development features, the
anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the use or structure is less than that
required by the applicable off-street parking standard, and would be satisfied by the existing
or proposed number of parking spaces, as supported by review of the applicant's documentation
and/or a parking demand study prepared by a qualified transportation engineer accepted by
the decision-making body;
Yes. The applicant's parking analysis—on Sheet A0.56 of the plans—notes that the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation Manual recommends a ratio of 1 stall per
333 square-feet (3 stalls/1,000 sf) for professional office, which would result in an anticipated
demand of 24 stalls, or just two more than the proposed 22 stalls, suggesting that the City's
standard exceeds industry expectations. Moreover, both the City's and ITE's parking standards
were developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in an enduring reduction
in-person office work. Indeed, the ITE is currently preparing for a revised release of the Parking
Generation Manual in September that aims to account for changes brought on by the pandemic.
As such, staff is supportive of the applicant's request for reduced parking in that it is likely, if
not probable, that the parking standard for professional office will be reduced in the near future,
which constitutes, a unique circumstance applicable to new office uses.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 5 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
B. Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project to ensure the long-term
adequacy of the provided off-street parking.
Yes. Consistent with (2001) General Plan Strategy LUT-11.d, the project will be required to
incorporate Transportation Demand Management measures to encourage cycling and
carpooling. This will include showering facilities and secured indoor bicycle storage, consistent
with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
Strategy LUT-11.d: Transportation Demand Management (TDM): For new employment centers
require TDM site design measures including carpool and van pool parking,
bicycle storage, and discounted public transit programs.
C. Approval of the parking modification permit will further the purpose of this chapter [Parking
and Loading].
Yes. As excerpted, below, the purpose statement of Parking and Loading Chapter is intended
to accomplish multiple aims, foremost ensuring adequate parking, but also encouraging good
design and use of alternative transportation. Allowing a reasonable reduction parking
commensurate with the Institute of Transportation Engineers' standards, and in recognition of
the changing workplace commuting patterns, would facilitate development of this well-
designed project.
This chapter is intended to ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided for
each type of land use in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, support alternative transportation
solutions, improve the urban form of the community, and protect the public safety.
Moreover, the project will incorporate indoor bicycle storage, outdoor bicycle racks, and
motorcycle/scooter parking to encourage alternatives to automobile use, consistent with
Strategy LUT-11.d:
Strategy LUT-11.d: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections in Development: Encourage new or redeveloping
projects to provide logical bicycle and pedestrian connections on site, between parking
areas, buildings, and street sidewalks and to existing or planned public right-of-way
facilities and encourage pedestrian passages between street-front sidewalks and rear-
lot parking areas. Ensure that the bicycle and pedestrian connections interface safely.
Tree Removal Permit Findings
The City’s Tree Protection Regulations (CMC 21.32) provide five findings for consideration when
reviewing a Tree Removal Permit. The permit may be granted when one or more of the findings are
satisfied. In consideration of the project, the following finding may be made:
A. Diseased or danger of falling. The tree or trees are diseased or presents a danger of falling that
cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures
and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal;
Not applicable.
B. Structure Damage. The tree or trees have caused or may imminently cause significant damage to
the existing main structure(s) that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable
modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
Not applicable.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 6 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
C. Utility Interference. The tree or trees have interfered with utility services where such interference
cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable modification/relocation of the utility services
and/or reasonable modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
Not applicable.
D. Overplanting. The tree(s) is crowding other protected tree(s) to the extent that removal is necessary
to ensure the long-term viability of adjacent tree(s); OR
Not applicable.
E. Economic enjoyment and hardship. The retention of the tree(s) restricts the economic enjoyment of
the property or 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 approval authority that
there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). A minor reduction of the potential
number of residential units or building size due to the tree location does not represent a severe
limit of the economic enjoyment of the property.
Yes. The use of the Church's driveway allowed for
preservation of the property's mature trees, such that only
removal of "non-protected" trees (those less than 12-inches
in diameter) was necessary. Unfortunately, the revised
layout would now result in the loss of two "protected" Oak
trees to allow reasonably economic use of the property; the
trees are located within the new driveway serving the site.
Without removal of these trees, the project could not be
constructed, restricting economic use of the property.
Variance Findings
The Zoning Code requires that projects located along non-local streets replace existing overhead
frontage utilities with underground service (image, below). The applicant initially intended to comply
with this requirement when the project was approved last June. However, in preparation construction
plans, furthering engineering revealed that undergrounding would be more challenging than
anticipated, as discussed, in the findings analysis, below. As such, the project now also includes a
Variance request to provide relief from this requirement. Based on the information provided, staff
believes that the findings for a Variance can be affirmatively established, as discussed, below.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 7 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (i.e., size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other properties
classified in the same zoning district;
Yes. The applicant has submitted an examination of the utility configuration prepared by a joint
trench consultant (reference Attachment 4), which was reviewed by the City's engineering
staff. The consultant's analysis indicates that the existing utility configuration of the immediate
area would result in an unusually complex and costly undergrounding effort. Among the
challenges include the need to install additional and larger riser poles, coordination across two
jurisdictions (Campbell and the City of San Jose), delay of up to a year, and the likelihood that
the power service of over five blocks worth of businesses and residences would be affected for
an extend period of time.
Given the property's location along Hamilton Avenue, staff explored whether the
undergrounding requirement could be deferred so that it could be coordinated with the potential
development of the adjacent church site (which is an identified inventory site in the new
Housing Element). However, discussions with PG&E resulted in a clear determination that
"there would not be any economic value to customer(s) in combing work," meaning there are
no economies of scale to be achieved to deferring the work. Moreover, deferral would have also
required City Council action modify the Streetscape Standards. Therefore, it can be found that
the technical complexity, increased delay, and impact to the neighborhood would present
exceptional circumstances that not generally apply to comparable properties.
B. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same
zoning district;
Yes. Strict enforcement of the specified regulation would result in an undergrounding project
costing upwards of $1.5 million dollars (reference Attachment 5 – PG&E letter), which would
substantially limit the feasibility of the project, therefore denying the owner the ability to
develop the property in a comparable matter of other similarly situated properties.
C. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would result
in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
Zoning Code;
Yes. As noted, above, achieving compliance with the City's undergrounding requirements is
technically complex and time consuming, and would impact the utility services of multiple
other property owners unrelated to this project. These outcomes would inhibit development and
project and unreasonably interfere with the use of adjacent properties.
D. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district; AND
Yes. As noted, the basis for this particular Variance reflects the unusually complex utility
configuration which results in an undergrounding project resulting a disproportionate cost. As
such, the basis for this Variance would not generally be applicable to other properties in the
P-O Zoning District, and therefore, would not constitute a grant of special privilege.
E. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 8 of 8
PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Yes. The retention of existing overhead utilities would not interfere with emergency services to
the property or otherwise undermine the public health, safety, or welfare.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC)
reviewed this application at its meeting of May 23, 2023. The SARC was generally supportive of the
proposed changes, generally asking for clarification on parking, tree removal, and landscaping details
and asking of a TDM program would be required.
Public Comment: A letter from the abutting neighbor to the east identified concerns regarding noise,
traffic, tree removal, proximity of the new driveway, and drainage as potential impacts to the owner's
existing duplex (reference Attachment 6). The letter also questioned why a new office building is
being proposed given the shift to work-from-home, as well as the historical status of the converted
folk-Victorian structure. With regard to the primary concerns, as discussed in this report and the prior
June 14, 2022, staff report, the project is not anticipated to have appreciable traffic, noise, or parking
impacts, nor construction impacts (construction is subject to City standards limiting hours and noise).
With regard to the driveway location, the proposed easterly siting maintains a greater distance from
adjacent driveways compared to a westerly placement (ideally driveways should be located at least 50-
feet apart from centerline). Also note that the adjacent duplex is a non-conforming land use—as that
property is also zoned Professional Office—and should, therefore, be redeveloped in a commercial
capacity in the future.
Lastly, with regard to the historical status of the folk-Victorian structure, the Planning Commission
previously found that the structure does not satisfy the eligibility requirements for historic listing based
on an historical assessment that peer-reviewed by the City’s Historical Advisor (reference
Attachments 7 and 8).
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, June 14, 2022
4. Utility Undergrounding Examination
5. PG&E Letter
6. Neighborhood Letter
7. Historical Assessment
8. Historical Advisor Peer Review
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 46xx
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW PERMIT MODIFICATION, PARKING MODIFICATION
PERMIT, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AND A (UTILITY) VARIANCE,
TO MODIFY THE SITE CONFIGURATION OF AN APPROVED 8,000
SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT TO ALLOW DIRECT
DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM HAMILTON AVENUE, A REDUCTION
TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER PARKING STALLS, REMOVAL OF
ADDITIONAL ON-SITE PROTECTED TREES, AND RETENTION OF
OVERHEAD FRONTAGE UTILITY LINES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1940 HAMILTON AVENUE. FILE NO.: PLN-2022-162
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 Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to the approval of a Site and
Architectural Review Permit and Parking Modification Permit:
1.The Project Site is a 20,000 square-foot parcel located along Hamilton Avenue,
midblock between Leigh and Phantom Avenues.
2.The Project Site is zoned P-O (Professional Office) as shown on the Campbell
Zoning Map.
3.The Project Site is designated Professional Office as shown on the Campbell
General Plan Map.
4.At its meeting of June 14, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
4647, approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow construction of a
two-story, approximately 8,000 square-foot professional office building with a rooftop
deck, and associated site, lighting, parking, and landscaping improvements; and a
Parking Modification Permit to allow shared parking and site access arrangement
with the adjacent First Congregational Church of San Jose.
5.Subsequently, the applicant was unable to finalize the shared parking and site
access arrangement with the First Congregational Church of San Jose. As such, the
Approved Project could not be constructed as proposed and must be redesigned.
6.The Proposed Revised Project is a submittal for a Site and Architectural Review
Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility)
Variance, to allow revisions to facilitate construction of the project without reliance on
access through the Church's property, including a modified site layout, removal of
"protected" trees, retention of existing overhead utility lines, and demolition (or
removal) of the existing converted office structure.
Attachment - 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 2 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
7. The application for the Proposed Revised Project was deemed "complete" under the
Permit Streamlining Act on April 24, 2023, and therefore is subject to the Zoning
Code and General Plan in effect at the time pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.01.050.E.
8. The Project Site is currently developed with a Folk Victorian building constructed
circa 1890 that was converted to a professional office under a Conditional Use Permit
approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 4121.
9. In recognition of the age of the existing convert Folk Victorian structure, the previous
consideration for the property's inclusion on the HRI, and in furtherance of its
affirmative obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
determine whether the existing structure may be an historic resource, an Historic
Resource Evaluation was prepared by a qualified historic architect and peer-reviewed
by the City's Architectural Advisor. The evaluation determined that the existing
structure does not satisfy the eligibility requirements for historic listing on a local,
state, or national register and therefore is not a "historical resource" under CEQA.
10. The Proposed Revised Project continues complies with the applicable development
standards of the P-O Zoning District, with exception of the maximum floor area ratio
(FAR), which is proposed at .43 where .40 is the maximum normally permitted.
Pursuant to Section 21.10.030.E, Table 2-8, which provides that "the Planning
Commission shall have the authority to increase the FAR for a specific use at a
specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment." The
Planning Commission has determined that the City's requirement for the applicant to
dedicate property to the City in order to implement the Hamilton Avenue Image Street
improvements constitutes a circumstances that warrants an adjustment in that the
project would otherwise comply with the maximum FAR.
11. The Proposed Revised Project maintains a reduction to the otherwise required five-
foot planter strip along the rear property line as specified by CMC Sec. 21.26.020
Pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.26.050, the Planning Commission may "adjust the
landscaping requirements of this chapter for a specific use at a specific location so as
to require either a greater or lesser amount of landscaping when it determines that
there are unique or special circumstances that warrant an adjustment." The Planning
Commission has determined that a reduction to the rear property line planter strip
dimension to 2-feet warranted in that rear property line abuts a drive-aisle on the
adjacent property that is already landscaped and where additional landscaping would
be redundant. Moreover, the reduction of the rear landscape dimension allows for a
greater quantity of landscaping towards the front of the property.
12. The Proposed Revised Project requires 36 parking stalls at a ratio of 1 stall per 225
square-feet, where 22 parking stalls (inclusive of eight motorcycle stalls that are
credited as two stalls) are proposed, resulting in a deficiency of 14 stalls,
necessitating consideration of a Parking Modification Permit. The number of parking
stalls is commensurate with the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking
Generation Manual that recommends a ratio of 1 stall per 333 square-feet (3
stalls/1,000 sf) for professional office, which would result in an anticipated demand of
24 stalls. Moreover, the City's and ITE's parking standards were developed prior to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 3 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in an enduring reduction in-person
office work, meaning that the actual parking demand will be less than otherwise
anticipated.
13. The Proposed Revised Project maintains an architectural design that incorporates a
combination of materials to create a contemporary appearance including cross
laminated timber, concrete, and expansive window glazing. The result is a purpose-
built office building that provides an enhanced architectural presence that will visually
contribute to the immediate area, in furtherance of the General Plan.
14. Based on trip generation values provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, the Proposed Revised Project would result in less than
100 new AM or PM trips, therefore not requiring preparation of a traffic impact
analysis pursuant to the Congestion Management Program, as specified by the VTA
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
15. The Proposed Revised Project would be consistent with the following General Plan
policies and strategies:
Strategy LUT-12.b: Driveways: Ensure that driveways are a sufficient distance from
intersections.
Strategy LUT-5.3b: Minimal Setbacks: Design commercial and office buildings city-wide to have
minimal setbacks from the sidewalk except to allow for pedestrian oriented
features such as plazas, recessed entryways, and wider sidewalks for
outdoor cafes. Discourage parking areas between the public right-of way
and the front façade of the building.
Strategy LUT-12.c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street
system by providing adequate sized driveways, sufficient queuing and
efficient circulation.
Strategy LUT-5.3h: Parking and Circulation: Provide adequate parking and encourage
circulation patterns to serve commercial districts so as to discourage
commercial traffic into adjacent residential zones.
Policy LUT-10.1: Landscaping: Encourage the retention and planting of landscaping to
enhance the natural and built environment.
Strategy LUT-10.1c: Outdoor Common Areas: Encourage well designed and landscaped
outdoor common areas for eating, relaxing, or recreation for new projects,
and if feasible, when buildings are remodeled or expanded. When
possible, the common outdoor areas should adjoin natural features.
Strategy LUT-10.1e: Landscaping as a Theme: Use similar types of trees and landscaping to
create a theme within districts or neighborhoods. Medians should also be
used to create a theme to distinguish major thoroughfares and prominent
streets.
Strategy LUT-10.1a: Natural Feature Retention: Encourage site design that incorporates or
otherwise retains natural features such as mature trees, terrain,
vegetation, wildlife and creeks.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 4 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design
and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public
spaces and natural resources.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building
materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built
environment.
Strategy LUT-5.3h: Parking and Circulation: Provide adequate parking and encourage
circulation patterns to serve commercial districts so as to discourage
commercial traffic into adjacent residential zones.
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-2.4a: Full Range of Land Uses: Provide for a full range of land uses within the
City, and for mixed-uses within specific development projects
Policy LUT-5.3: Variety of Commercial and Office Uses: Maintain a variety of attractive
and convenient commercial and office uses that provide needed goods,
services and entertainment
Strategy LUT-13.1c: Fiscal Effects of Land Use: Evaluate the fiscal effects of different land
uses on City revenues and services.
16. The Proposed Revised Project includes the removal of two "protected" Oak trees
that are located within the proposed alignment of the new driveway that is now
necessary to service the parking lot and to allow reasonably economic use of the
property.
17. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.18.140.B.2 requires that construction of
a non-residential main structure located along an arterial or collector street—as
identified by the Campbell Roadway Classifications Diagram—include removal of
existing utility poles and associated overhead utility lines located along the abutting
frontage the development site to be replaced with underground utilities. However,
CMC Section 21.18.140.B.2 further provides that a Variance to the linear feet of
overhead utility lines to be replaced underground may be granted in compliance with
Chapter 21.48, (Variances).
18. Hamilton Avenue is "Class I Arterial " street as identified by the Campbell Roadway
Classifications Diagram. The proposed project is, therefore, subject to the frontage
utility undergrounding requirements specified by CMC Sec. Section 21.18.140.B.2.
19. The proposed Variance would allow retention of existing overhead utility lines
pursuant to CMC Section 21.18.140.B.2, in recognition of the unusually complex
utility configuration that would installation additional and larger riser poles,
coordination across two jurisdictions (Campbell and the City of San Jose), delay of up
to a year, and the likelihood that the power service of over five blocks worth of
businesses and residences would be affected for an extend period of time.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 5 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
20. In review of the Proposed Revised Project, the Planning Commission considered
traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, adequacy of landscaping, and the
appropriateness of proposed structures and site layout, pursuant to Campbell
Municipal Code Sec. 21.42.040 (Considerations in review of applications).
21. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the
Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project.
22. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as
currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
Site and Architectural Review Permit Finding (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):
1. The project will be consistent with the general plan;
2. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area;
3. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development
agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s);
4. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the
Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project;
5. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees imposed upon the
project and the type of development project;
6. 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;
Parking Modification Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.28.050.G)
7. Due to the unique nature and circumstances of the project, or special development
features, the anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the use or
structure is less than that required by the applicable off-street parking standard, and
would be satisfied by the existing or proposed number of parking spaces, as
supported by review of the applicant's documentation and/or a parking demand
study prepared by a qualified transportation engineer accepted by the decision-
making body;
8. Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project to ensure the long-
term adequacy of the provided off-street parking;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 6 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
9. Approval of the parking modification permit will further the purpose of the Parking
and Loading Chapter;
Tree Removal Permit Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.32.080.A):
10. The retention of the tree(s) restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or
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
approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
A minor reduction of the potential number of residential units or building size due to
the tree location does not represent a severe limit of the economic enjoyment of the
property;
Variance Findings (CMC Sec. 21.48.040.B)
11. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the Zoning Code;
12. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district;
13. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e. size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same zoning district;
14. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning
district;
15. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area; amd
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
16. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, pertaining to new construction of
small structures which allows up to four (4) commercial buildings with a floor area
not exceeding 10,000 square feet in an urbanized area. Further, an exemption that
is not precluded by an exception, as specified Section 15300.2(f), in that the subject
property is not a "historical resource" under CEQA, based on substantial evidence in
the record.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 7 of 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
1940 Hamilton Avenue
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a Site and
Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal
Permit, and a (Utility) Variance to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000
square-foot office building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue,
a reduction to the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected
trees, and retention of overhead frontage utility lines, on property located at 1940
Hamilton Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLN-2022-162
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 Site and Architectural Review Permit
Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility)
Variance to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000 square-foot office
building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction to
the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected trees, and
retention of overhead frontage utility lines, on property located at 1940 Hamilton
Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as
Attachment No. 2 in the June 27, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as
may be modified by conditions of approval contained herein, and as revised by the
updated architectural rendering depicted in Exhibit B.
2. Permit Expiration: Approval of the Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification,
Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance
("Approval") shall be valid for one (1) year from the effective date of the Planning
Commission action. Within this one-year period a Building Permit for the project must
be issued pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.030.B.1. Failure to meet this deadline or
expiration of an issued Building Permit shall result in the Approval being rendered
void.
3. Previous Conditions of Approval: The previously approved Conditions of Approval
provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4647 (PLN-2021-177) are hereby
void and permanently superseded in their entirety by the Conditions of Approval
specified herein.
4. Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is required prior to Building
Permit final. Construction not in substantial compliance with the approved project plans
shall not be approved without prior authorization of the necessary approving body.
5. Timely Completion: Once under construction it shall be the obligation of the property
owner and contractor to demonstrate continued progress on the project. In the event
the building permit expires, the City may impose fines or exercise administrative
remedies to compel timely completion of work.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 2
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
6. Minor Revisions: Architectural refinements and other minor revisions to the Approved
Project Plans may be administratively reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.060.
7. 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. The transformer shall be screen with
landscaping or artistically painted.
8. Signage: All signage shall require separate approval of a Sign Permit in compliance
with Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) 21.30.080.A
9. General Operational Standards: Occupancy of the approved office building is subject
to the following general operational standards:
a. Land Use Restriction: The approved office building may only be occupied
by "offices, professional" as defined by the Campbell Municipal Code.
Establishment of any other use shall require approval of a Modification to
this Approval by the Planning Commission to consider the continued
appropriateness of the shared parking arrangement.
b. Hours of Operation: Unless otherwise authorized by a Conditional Use
Permit, the hours of operation of any use within the approved office building
is limited to 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, daily.
c. Smoking: "No Smoking" signs shall be posted on the premises in
compliance with CMC Sec. 6.11.060.
d. Noise: Regardless of decibel level, no noise generated within the approved
office building shall obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to
unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the neighboring
residents. In the event verified complaints are received by the City regarding
such noise, the Community Development Director may immediately curtail
the Hours of Operation, pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 12
(Revocation of Permit).
e. TDM Program: The owner/occupant shall submit a transportation demand
management (TDM) program prior to building permit final and implement it
for the life of the approved use.
f. Trash Disposal and Clean-Up: Refuse and recycling receptacles shall be
kept within the trash enclosure except during collection in compliance with
CMC Chapter 6.04 (Garbage and Rubbish Disposal).
g. Loitering: There shall be no loitering allowed on the premises. The business
owner is responsible for monitoring the premises to prevent loitering.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 3
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
h. 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).
i. Landscape Maintenance: All landscaped areas shall be continuously
maintained in accordance with CMC Chapter 21.26. Landscaped areas shall
be kept free of weeds, trash, and litter. Dead or unhealthy plants shall be
replaced with healthy plants of the same or similar type.
j. Outdoor Storage: No outdoor storage is permitted on the subject property,
including the storage equipment, materials, and inoperable vehicles.
k. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be maintained
in compliance with the standards provided in CMC Chapter 21.28 (Parking
and Loading).
10. Landscaping: This project is subject to the updated California Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). This document is available at:
http://www.cityofcampbell.com/DocumentCenter/View/176. The building permit
application submittal shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable MWELO and
landscaping requirements and the City's Streetscape Standards, and shall include
the following:
a. A Landscape Documentation Package prepared by an authorized and
licensed professional demonstrating compliance with the full MWELO
requirements with the following required elements:
1) Project Information per Section 492.3.
2) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet per Section 492.4 (Appendix B of
the MWELO).
i. Include the worksheet within the plan set AND
ii. Provide a separate 8.5x11 hard copy or pdf via email to the
project planner.
3) Soil Management Report per Section 492.5 (unless significant mass
grading is planned, in which case the report shall be submitted prior to
permit final).
4) Landscape Design Plan per Section 492.6.
5) Irrigation Design Plan per Section 492.7.
6) Grading Design Plan per Section 492.8.
Note that a Soil Management Report (if not submitted as part of the
Landscape Documentation Package) and Certificate of Completion will be
required prior to permit final.
b. A completed Landscape Information Form.
c. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning
Final Required. Landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to
final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.”
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 4
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
11. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during
construction:
a. 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 the issuance of
building permits.
b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take
place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building
Official.
c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project
site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition.
d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited.
e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors
and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-
sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses.
f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted
Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell.
12. Revocation of Permit: Occupancy of the approved office building is subject to
Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030 and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code
authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke the Approval if
it is determined that operation a use has become a nuisance to the City’s public
health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Conditions of Approval or any
standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell.
At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the property generates
three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g.,
noise, parking, etc.) within a twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the
City Council may be scheduled, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission,
to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking the Site and Architectural
Review Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings
for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of less than
three (3) complaints if the Community Development Director determines that the
alleged violation warrants such an action. In exercising this authority, the decision
making body may consider the following factors, among others:
a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the
establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of customer
and/or employee actions;
b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners and other
citizens concerning the operation of an establishment regarding parking, noise,
and/or other operational impacts.
c. Violation of conditions of approval.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 5
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
Building Division
13. Permit Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed
project. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when
such work is part of the permit.
14. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover
sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit.
15. Construction Fencing: The property 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 in compliance with the Standards for Tree Protection During Construction.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
16. Construction Drawings: The applicant shall submit the following permit applications
prior to, or concurrent with the main Building permit application:
A. Encroachment Permit for Street Improvement Plans: The frontage
improvements for the project shall be shown on a separate street
improvement plan as detailed here: https://www.campbellca.gov/187/Street-
Improvements
B. Building Permit for On-Site / Grading & Drainage Plans: The on-site
grading, drainage, stormwater, landscaping, ADA and site improvements for
the project shall be shown on a separate building permit plan as detailed
here: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16594
C. Street / Easement Dedication: The street / easement dedication documents
required for this project shall be submitted for review by the City Surveyor
as detailed here: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/430
17. Preliminary Title Report: Upon submittal of the Street Dedication documents, the
applicant shall provide a current (within the past 6 months) Preliminary Title Report.
18. Right-of-Way for Public Street Purposes: Prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits for the site, the applicant shall fully complete the process to cause additional
right-of-way to be granted in fee for public street purposes along the Hamilton
Avenue frontage to accommodate the image street improvements, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall submit the necessary documents
for approval by the City Engineer, process the submittal with City staff’s comments
and fully complete the right-of-way process. The applicant shall cause all documents
to be prepared by a registered civil engineer/land surveyor, as necessary, for the
City’s review and recordation.
19. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for
the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies based on a ten-year storm
frequency, prepare an engineered grading and drainage plan, and pay fees required
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 6
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
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.
20. 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.
Upon submission of the preliminary site/grading plans, the applicant shall calculate
and submit to the City the amount of impervious surface created by the
development including the types of stormwater controls to be used. The applicant
shall submit preliminary sizing and design showing stormwater controls meet the
City’s requirements.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits:
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.
B. The applicant shall sign the “Covenants for the Operation and Maintenance
of Stormwater Facilities” and submit a Stormwater Management Plan.
C. The applicant’s designer shall ensure that none of the regulated on-site run-
off drains directly to the adjacent public frontage improvements (sidewalk,
parkstrip, driveway, etc.). In the event that any walkway or driveway grades
result in drainage directly to the public frontage, those facilities shall be
constructed using pervious materials.
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:
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 7
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
• The stormwater management facilities were constructed in
compliance with the approved plans.
• The as-built drawings show all pertinent constructed dimensions,
elevations, shapes, and materials.
• All variations in construction from the approved design plan
have been identified, including omissions to and additions from
the approved plan.
• Any changes are in conformance with local, state, or federal
regulations.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with
City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a
pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s
Street Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced
pavement restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with
the Street Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website
(https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently
under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements.
25. Hamilton Avenue Resurfacing: The City of Campbell plans to resurface all of
Hamilton Avenue in the summer of 2024. Any pavement cuts taking place after the
City has completed this work will require enhanced pavement restoration above and
beyond the normal trench / pavement restoration requirements. The applicant is
encouraged to accelerate any necessary work in Hamilton Avenue to complete their
work prior to the City starting construction. See https://www.campbellca.gov/1299
for more information.
26. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits:
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 8
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, 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:
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 approach, sidewalk, and necessary curb and
gutter.
D. Installation of a City standard driveway approach per the Image Street
requirements.
E. Installation of City approved street trees, landscaping and irrigation per the
Image Street requirements.
F. Installation of City standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk per the Image Street
requirements.
G. Reconstruction of failed areas of AC pavement along the project frontage.
H. Installation of asphalt concrete overlay per street pavement restoration plan
for utility installation and/or abandonment, as required by the City Engineer.
I. Installation of streetlights, conduits, conductors and related facilities in
accordance with the City of Campbell’s Street Lighting Policies.
J. Installation of traffic control, stripes and signs.
K. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as
necessary.
L. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City.
27. 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.
28. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain
the landscaped park strip 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.
29. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 9
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
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.
30. 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.
31. Trash Enclosure Requirements:
A. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (CRWQCB): C.3.a.i. (7): For all new
development and redevelopment projects that are subject to the Permittee’s
planning, building, development, or other comparable review, but not
regulated by Provision C.3, encourage the inclusion of adequate source
control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff. These
source control measures should include covered trash, food waste, and
compactor enclosures.
B. Campbell Municipal Code 14.02.030 "Stormwater Pollution Control
/Requirements". The code states that no pollutants or water containing
pollutants can be discharged into the City's storm drain system. Trash
enclosures contain pollutants. During a rain event (or during general
cleaning) water washes over and into roofless enclosures, collecting
pollutants and discharging to the City's storm drain system. Applicants are
required to show how new trash enclosures will not discharge pollutants into
the storm drain system. One possible method is to provide a sanitary drain
in the trash enclosure.
C. West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), the local sanitary sewer agency,
will require a roof on the enclosure if the trash enclosure drain connects to
their sanitary sewer system.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
32. Fire Sprinklers 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 shall be
constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without
openings or penetrations. 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. 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. CFC Sec. 903.2 as
adopted and amended by CBLMC. NOTE: The owner (s), occupant(s) and any
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 10
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
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. 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. CFC Sec. 903.2.
33. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition
of NFPA 72. Submit shop drawings (3 sets) and a permit application to the SCCFD
for approval before installing or altering any system. Call (408) 378-4010 for more
information. Requirement of fire alarm subject for further review during building
permit phrase.
34. Fire Department Connection: (As Noted on Sheet 1.21 & 3.0) The fire department
connection (FDC) shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the
building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10)
feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical
difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2-
1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be
such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without
interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow. [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. Show
FDC on site plan.
35. Trash Enclosures: The proposed trash enclosure shall comply with CFC 2016 edition
§ 304.3.3.
36. Required Fire Flow: The minimum require fireflow for this project is 1000 Gallons Per
Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of
automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3] New fire hydrant shall meet the required
fireflow.
37. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: Provide a public fire hydrant at a final location to be
determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum
distance of 500 feet from the building frontage and a maximum of 100 feet from the
FDC, with a minimum hydrant flow of 1000 GPM @ 20 psi residual. Fire hydrants
shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public
streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, Appendix C.
38. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be
provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or
moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with
the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of
the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC,
Section 503.1.1].
39. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with
a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 11
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside,
and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds.
Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications
sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.
40. Fire Lanes Required: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall
be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating
access roadways. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a
fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. Indicate on
the plans how the 20' driveway will be marked as fire lane to provide the 150 ft
distance requirements outlined in Comment #38.
41. Water Supply Requirements: 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). 2019 CFC Sec.
903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
42. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position
that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These
numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official,
address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate
emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical
letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum
stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and
the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or
means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained.
CFC Sec. 505.1.
43. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable
provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7.
Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the
project. CFC Chp. 33.
44. Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved
alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be
installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows
passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue Page 12
PLN-2022-162 – S/A Modification, Parking Mod, TRP, and Variance
Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes,
security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and
hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire
department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4
45. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be
designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California
Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California Fire Code (2016 edition), the California
Building Code (2016 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being
installed, policies, and standards. Other standards also contain design/installation
criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred
to in NFPA 72.
Attachment- 2
ITEM NO. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ June 14, 2022
PLN-2021-177
Fenster, D.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the request of David Fenster, Modulus, for property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue to allow construction of a two-story, approximately 8,000 square-foot professional
office building with a rooftop deck, and associated site, lighting, parking, and landscaping improvements; and a proposed shared parking and site access arrangement with the adjacent First Congregational Church of San Jose located at 1980 Hamilton Avenue. The applications under consideration include a Site and Architectural Review Permit and a
Parking Modification Permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Site and Architectural Review Permitwith a Parking Modification Permit to allow construction of a two-story, approximately 8,000 square-
foot professional office building with a shared parking and site access arrangement with the adjacentproperty.
ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the determination that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to
construction of up to four (4) commercial buildings with a floor area not exceeding 10,000 square feet located within an urbanized area on sites zoned for such use if not involving significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: P-O (Professional Office)General Plan Designation: Professional Office
Lot Area (Existing): 20,000 square-feet Lot Area (New): 18,750 square-feet1
Building Height: 27 feet2 35 feet (Max. Allowed)
Building Square Footage: First Floor: 3,478 square feet Second Floor: 4,507 square feet 7,985 square feet (Total Size)
1 Per the requirements of the City's Streetscape Standards, the project is required to dedicate land across the property's
frontage to accommodate the required streetscape improvements, which reduces the lot size. 2 As measured to the roof surface, excluding roof structures for elevators and stairways per CMC Sec. 21.58.050.
Attachment - 3
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 2 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 42.7% 40% (Max. Allowed)3
Building (Lot) Coverage: 17% N/A
Parking: 25 stalls4 35 stalls (Min. Required @ 1/225 SF)5
Building Setbacks: Proposed Required Front (north): 28 feet 15 feet Side (west): 25-feet 17 ½-ft (½ the "wall height") Side (east): 20-feet 17 ½-ft (½ the "wall height")
Rear (south): 72-feet 13 ½-ft (½ the "wall height")
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is a 20,000 square-foot parcel located along Hamilton Avenue, midblock between Leigh and Phantom Avenues. The site borders the First Congregational Church of San Jose to
the west and south and duplex residences to the east, as shown, below. The property is currently
developed with a Folk Victorian-style building constructed circa 1890 that was converted to a professional office under a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission in 2013. As noted in the materials for PC Item No. 1 (PLN-2021-33), this building is proposed to be relocated onto the church property to allow the proposed development on the project site.
Proposed Project: The submitted application for a Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Parking Modification Permit would allow construction of an approximately 8,000 square-foot two-story
professional office building with a roof deck, shown in a modern architectural style (reference Attachment 2 – Project Plans). This proposal was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission as a pre-application at an October 13, 2020, study session. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposal, providing feedback on the architectural design, site layout, parking, tree preservation, privacy, and relocation of the existing structure, as noted in the meeting minutes (reference
Attachment 3).
3 Table 2-10 (General Development Standards), provides that the Planning Commission may "increase the F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment." The increased FAR is solely the result of the City's requirement to dedicate land per Footnote #1. 4 Includes four (4) motorcycle stalls that are credited as a single vehicle stall per CMC Sec. 21.28.065. All parking values
are rounded down per CMC Sec. 21.28.040.F. 5 The project proposes to utilize off-site parking on the adjacent church property pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.58.050.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 3 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
ANALYSIS
Consideration in Review of Applications: In review of a Site and Architectural Review Permit, the
Zoning Code (CMC Sec. 21.42.040) directs the Planning Commission to consider certain design and
layout aspects of the proposal prior to rendering a decision, referenced to as "considerations". The following identifies these considerations and application consistency.
A. Considerations relating to traffic safety, traffic congestion, and site circulation:
Traffic Congestion: The proposed office building did require a traffic study per the thresholds
established by the VTA Congestion Management Program; therefore the project will not have
a discernable effect on traffic congestion in the area. Additionally, since the project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review under CEQA, a Vehicles-Miles-Traveled (VMT) analysis is not required under the City's VMT policy.
Traffic Safety and Site Circulation: The project
proposes use of the adjacent driveway on the church
property to provide vehicular access to the rear parking lot. Shared use of driveways is encouraged where possible by CMC Sec. 21.28.080.B.5, which provides that "applicants for nonresidential uses shall provide
shared vehicle and pedestrian access between adjacent
nonresidential properties for convenience, safety and efficient circulation, as practical," subject to "a joint access agreement guaranteeing the continued availability of the shared access between the
properties…" The joint use of the driveway prevents
creation of an additional curb-cut onto Hamilton Avenue, which enhances the safety of the corridor in furtherance of General Plan Strategies LUT-12.b and LUT 12.c.
Strategy LUT-12.b: Driveways: Ensure that driveways are a
sufficient distance from intersections.
Strategy LUT-12.c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street system by
providing adequate sized driveways, sufficient queuing and efficient circulation.
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
The project site would be completely re-landscaped in compliance with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO). In total, the project would result in a landscape area of approximately 8,000 square-feet or 44% of the site's net lot area, far exceeding the City's minimum 12% requirement for the P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District. However, the
project includes a reduction to the rear landscaping dimension from 5-feet to 1 ½ feet pursuant
to CMC Sec. 21.26.050, which allows the Planning Commission to "adjust the landscaping requirements of this chapter for a specific use at a specific location so as to require either a greater or lesser amount of landscaping when it determines that there are unique or special circumstances that warrant an adjustment."
Church Driveway
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 4 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Staff believes that this reduction is supportable in that the rear property line abuts a drive-aisle on the church's property that is already landscaped and where additional landscaping would be
redundant. Moreover, the reduction of the rear landscape dimension allows for a greater
quantity of landscaping towards the front of the property. In all, the proposed landscaping scheme can be seen to further General Plan Policy LUT-10.1 and its applicable supporting strategies, as provided below. The overall intent is to utilize landscaping treatment as a means to improve the aesthetic quality and functional use of new development projects.
Policy LUT-10.1: Landscaping: Encourage the retention and planting of landscaping to enhance the
natural and built environment.
Strategy LUT-10.1c: Outdoor Common Areas: Encourage well designed and landscaped outdoor
common areas for eating, relaxing, or recreation for new projects, and if feasible, when buildings are remodeled or expanded. When possible, the common outdoor
areas should adjoin natural features.
Strategy LUT-10.1e: Landscaping as a Theme: Use similar types of trees and landscaping to create a
theme within districts or neighborhoods. Medians should also be used to create a theme to distinguish major thoroughfares and prominent streets.
Tree Preservation: With regard to tree preservation, the preliminary plans originally reviewed in 2020 had indicated removal of most of the mature Deodar Cedar
trees located at the front of the property to accommodate the building and a new driveway. However, the proposal to share the church's driveway will allow preservation of these trees. As a result, the project will include removal of only "non-protected" trees (those less than 12-inches in
diameter), as shown in the tree removal list, to the right. This approach would be consistent with CMC Sec. 21.26.030.K, which specifies that "new development shall retain or incorporate existing mature trees and vegetation into the proposed site plan to the greatest
extent feasible" and General Plan Strategy LUT-10.1a, which similarly, encourages retention of mature trees
Strategy LUT-10.1a: Natural Feature Retention: Encourage site design that incorporates or otherwise retains natural features such as mature trees, terrain, vegetation, wildlife and
creeks.
C. Considerations relating to structures and site layout:
Structure Design: The proposed building would be constructed around use of cross-laminated timber (CLT). This material is a prefabricated engineered wood product made by gluing layered boards together to create rigid panels suitable for construction. The material is considered sustainable if the wood is sourced from trees that are reforested and is gaining increasingly
popularity in the United States. Use of CLT is consistent with General Plan Strategy LUT-9.3,
which encourages "the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment."
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 5 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
With regard to building's architecture, the design has changed over the last two years. The original version reviewed by the Planning Commission in October 2020 was most characterized
by a prominent glass rainscreen. The formal submittal reviewed by SARC in April replaced this
element with a horizontal louver system that would have create slatted openings for sun exposure. Unfortunately, due to increasing construction cost and supply chain issues, the applicant submitted a revised design following the SARC meeting which removed this feature, as well as the rooftop skylights (reference Attachment 4 – Revised Architectural Rendering).
However, the overall "look and feel" of the building would remain since it would still be
anchored by use of the CLT material.
Pre-Application (Oct. 2020)
SARC Reviewed (April 2022)
PC Review Revised (May 2022)
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 6 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Despite the most recent design changes, the proposed building would remain distinct within the City, which does not have examples of CLT construction nor a design this contemporary.
Nonetheless, the design would be in furtherance of General Plan Policy LUT-9.3 which
promotes "high quality, creative design." However, what constitutes attractive building is subjective and context specific. For this reason, the General Plan LUT-5.3a, had called for the preparation of commercial design guidelines, which unfortunately have never been prepared. Lacking such guidance, the Planning Commission must exercise its judgment in determining
whether the architectural approach is appropriate
Strategy LUT-5.3a: Commercial Design Guidelines: Establish commercial and mixed-use design guidelines to ensure attractive and functional buildings and site design, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. [Not yet adopted]
Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment.
Site Layout: General Plan Strategy LUT-5.3b encourages new buildings to have minimal setbacks so that they can be brought close to the public sidewalk and allow parking to be placed at the rear. The intent of this strategy, as with much of the General Plan, is to provide an emphasis to the pedestrian-experience. The proposed site plan depicts a plaza shieled from
traffic by a raised berm and side entryways that are intended to provide a visual and physical
connection to the public street, with parking located behind the building, consistent with the General Plan.
Strategy LUT-5.3b: Minimal Setbacks: Design commercial and office buildings city-wide to have minimal setbacks from the sidewalk except to allow for pedestrian oriented features such as plazas, recessed entryways, and wider sidewalks for outdoor cafes. Discourage parking areas between the public right-of way and the front façade of the building.
Strategy LUT-5.3h: Parking and Circulation: Provide adequate parking and encourage circulation patterns to serve commercial districts so as to discourage commercial traffic into adjacent residential zones.
Findings for Approval: To grant a land use approval, the decision-making body must affirmatively establish that the project meets codified findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval as necessary to establish the findings. The applicable findings depend upon the type of land use approval
under revie. The following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings in italics and how the
proposed project satisfies them.
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings:
A. The project will be consistent with the general plan.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office. As described
by the General Plan, below, this designation is intended to accommodate administrative,
professional and research uses, such as the proposed office building. The Professional Office also serves to act as a buffer between residential and commercial/industrial uses. In this case, the proposed office building represents a transitional land use from the arterial traffic of
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 7 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Hamilton Avenue and the residential neighborhood located to the east of the project side, down Phantom Avenue.
The Professional Office land use designation permits administrative, professional and research uses that
may provide a customer service or be more corporate in nature. Office uses are dispersed throughout the City, since they are permitted in most non-residential zoning districts. Because office uses generally have
a less intense impact on adjacent land uses than other commercial uses, they often provide a buffer between residential and commercial or industrial uses. Location and design of office developments should
include proximity to transit lines and connections to light rail as well as bicycle routes.
In addition to consistency with the various General Plan policies and strategies noted
throughout this report, the proposed project may also be found consistent with the following General Plan polices and strategies. The project would provide new "Class A" office space, which would facilitate creation of additional jobs, improving the City's jobs/housing balance, providing a better balance of land uses, and incurring a positive fiscal impact on the City in
terms of additional tax generation:
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-2.4a: Full Range of Land Uses: Provide for a full range of land uses within the City, and for mixed-uses within specific development projects
Policy LUT-5.3: Variety of Commercial and Office Uses: Maintain a variety of attractive and convenient commercial and office uses that provide needed goods, services and entertainment
Strategy LUT-13.1c: Fiscal Effects of Land Use: Evaluate the fiscal effects of different land uses on City revenues and services.
B. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area.
In terms of massing and relative height, the proposed office building would not be notably taller
or larger than First Congregational Church's sanctuary building, maintain visual harmony between the two sites. Although the building would be taller than the adjacent duplexes, these properties are non-conforming in that they designated as Professional Office and will eventually be replaced with buildings of comparable size.
C. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s).
As noted, there are no design guidelines for commercial buildings applicable to this project, nor
is the project site subject to any area, neighborhood or specific plan.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 8 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Parking Modification Permit Findings
In addition to shared access with the Church, a shared parking arrangement is also proposed. The 7,985
square-foot building requires 35 parking stalls at a ratio of 1 stall per 225 square-feet. The site plan
shows 25 parking stalls (inclusive of four motorcycle stalls that are credited as a single stall), which results in a deficiency of 10 stalls. As part of the shared access agreement, the office tenant would also be able to utilize up to 11 of the church's 157 parking stalls in addition to the 25 on-site parking stalls.
A. Due to the unique nature and circumstances of the project, or special development features, the
anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the use or structure is less than that
required by the applicable off-street parking standard, and would be satisfied by the existing
or proposed number of parking spaces, as supported by review of the applicant's documentation and/or a parking demand study prepared by a qualified transportation engineer accepted by the decision-making body;
The requested parking reduction is based on the ability of the Church property to provide
sufficient off-site parking, which represents a unique circumstance that functionally reduces the need for on-site parking for the proposed office building. This arrangement is possible due both to the quantity of parking on the Church property and the relationship between the two uses; church assemblies occur on Sunday mornings and do no conflict with normal weekday (8-5)
business hours.
The Church already has a similar shared parking arrangement with the Springbridge International School, a private elementary school that operates out of the Church's existing classroom facilities pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2019-141) approved in 2019. The School's use of the property occurs during weekday mornings and afternoons, avoiding conflict with Sunday Church
services. Currently, the School utilizes 74 of the Church's 157 stalls during the weekday daytime
hours, which still leaves sufficient capacity to allow sharing of an additional eleven stalls for the office building.
B. Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project to ensure the long-term adequacy of the provided off-street parking.
A condition of approval would require recordation of a shared parking/access covenant, as well
as preparation of a parking management plan to formalize the relationship between the two properties. This is consistent with CMC Sec. 21.28.080.A, which specifically allows an off-site parking arrangement, subject to recordation of a covenant.
C. Approval of the parking modification permit will further the purpose of this chapter [Parking
and Loading].
As excerpted, below, the purpose statement of Parking and Loading Chapter is intended to accomplish multiple aims, foremost ensuring adequate parking, but also encouraging good design and use of alternative transportation. With shared use of the church's parking, the proposed parking supply adequately serve the proposed use.
This chapter is intended to ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided for
each type of land use in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, support alternative transportation solutions, improve the urban form of the community, and protect the public safety.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 9 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Moreover, proposed shared site access and parking arrangement is also supported by General Plan Strategy LUT 12.c and 5.3h, by minimizing the impact to the street system and by ensuring
adequate parking:
Strategy LUT-12.c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street system by providing adequate sized driveways, sufficient queuing and efficient circulation.
Strategy LUT-5.3h: Parking and Circulation: Provide adequate parking and encourage circulation patterns to serve commercial districts so as to discourage commercial traffic into adjacent residential zones.
With regard to bicycle parking, the site plan indicates installation of bicycle racks outside of the westerly front entry. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) will also
require some form of long-term parking within or adjacent to the building. Pedestrian access to the building would be provided at two points, at the easterly and westerly corners of the building. In combination, these features are consistent with Strategy LUT-11.d:
Strategy LUT-11.d: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections in Development: Encourage new or redeveloping projects to provide logical bicycle and pedestrian connections on site, between parking areas, buildings, and street sidewalks and to existing or planned public right-of-way facilities and encourage pedestrian passages between street-front sidewalks and rear-lot parking areas. Ensure that the bicycle and pedestrian connections interface safely
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) reviewed this application at its meeting of April 26, 2022. Commissioner Buchbinder had the following comments (Commissioner Zisser was absent):
Appreciates the use of the cross laminated timber (CLT) as a building material.
Supportive of the shared driveway with the church.
Asked whether all of the parking could be shared with the church.
Likes the roof deck; it's a good amenity.
Public Comment: A letter from the adjacent property was received and included as Attachment 5.
Additionally, a field representative with the Carpenters Union Local 405 provided verbal comment
when the public hearing for this item was opened on May 24, 2022 regarding the union's position on implementing labor and workforce requirements. Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans 3. PC Meeting Minutes, dated October 13, 2020 4. Revised Architectural Rendering 5. Public Comment
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2022 Page 10 of 10 PLN-2021-177 ~ 1940 Hamilton Avenue
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
[CORUSCANT]
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA
2023.01.30
EXAMINATION OF PROPOSED UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES
M O D U L U S
Attachment- 4
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
PROJECT SITE
SITE
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF PROJECT SITE(EXISTING POLES AT BOTH NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS)
NORTHWEST POLE
NORTHEAST POLE
[Existing poles have primary risers and overhead service with transformers]
[Existing poles with primary riser and overhead service]
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF PROJECT SITE(EXISTING POLES AT NORTHEAST CORNER)
NORTHEAST POLE
WITHIN CITY OF
SAN JOSE
[Existing pole has overhead lines going east, west, and north across Hamilton Avenue,
connecting to a neighborhood within the City of San Jose]
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
TERMINOLOGY
TYPICAL PG&E TERMS
•Distribution –Utilities serving multiple customers
•Service –Utilities serving a single customer
•Primary –High voltage (e.g., 12,000V) electric power for distribution•Secondary –Low voltage (e.g., 120/240V) electric power for service to individual residences
•Transformer –Electrical device for converting primary voltage to secondary voltage
•Riser –Conduit which runs down the side of a pole to transition from overhead to underground
•Guy Wire –Cable and anchor installed at the terminal pole of an overhead-to-underground
transition to counteract the tension of the overhead lines
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
PG&E ICA SITE MAP
PG&E ICA MAP OF EXISTING UTILTIES
NORTHWEST POLE
NORTHEAST POLE
Existing pole with primary riser and
overhead service with transformer
SITE
Existing pole
Existing pole with primary riser and
overhead service with transformer
Existing pole = Existing pole with overhead lines
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF PROJECT SITE(EXISTING POLES AT BOTH NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS)
NORTHWEST POLE
NORTHEAST POLE
[Existing poles have primary risers and overhead service with transformers]
When transitioning from overhead to underground, PG&E
needs to use a new or existing
pole free from any existing
equipment (such as a transformers, switches or primary risers) to place a new riser, with sufficient space for a lineman to
climb safely.
The pole on the Northeast property line is currently occupied by primary risers and connects
across Hamilton to users within
the City of San Jose.
[Existing poles with primary riser and overhead service]
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
VARIOUS APPROACH ANALYSIS AND IMPACT
ANALYSIS CONSIDERED
•Approach 1: Undergrounding of overhead utilities along project frontage
o Not preferredoWould require two new riser poles to be installed inline
o Given the weight of the power lines, the pole diameters would be substantially larger than the existing poles
o The configuration would likely require PG&E to add guy wires and anchors to counteract the tension of the
remaining overhead lines in the vicinity.
o Requires temporary disruption in electric service to a large number of properties along both sides of Hamilton Avenue as well as perpendicular street (Norman Avenue) which is not within Campbell but within San Jose
o There are at least 5 blocks of properties that will be affected by this and without power for a significant
period of time.
o PG&E estimates that this will cost in excess of $1,000,000 and likely closer to $1,500,000 (more than 50% of the
cost of the entire 1940 Hamilton construction project)o The undergrounding process will significantly delay the project likely up to one year given there must be coordination with the City of San Jose as the power lines that run to the two poles at either end of the subject
property are connected to the City of San Jose’s power across Hamilton Avenue (This means that San Jose will
have to participate in this process and may require undergrounding of the lines running across Hamilton)
•Alternate Approach 1A:
o The existing poles would remain in place to service the existing lines, including those on the other side of Hamilton
Avenue, and new poles would be installed next to the existing ones to hold the wires for the undergrounding. This
would result in each location having two poles instead of one.
•Approach 2: Serve proposed project from existing system
o Preferred by PG&E
o Least disruptive
o No additional poles required
o No existing properties affectedoPad-mount a transformer on the west side of the property
o Leaving the power poles and lines as they are and tapping off of the power pole on the west side of the property
should suffice to minimize the amount of sidewalk taken up by the power poles
IMPACT
•2 New poles added•New guy wires added effecting existing sidewalks and driveways
•Effects over 5 blocks of businesses
and residences for extended period
•Crosses 2 jurisdictional boundaries (Campbell and San Jose)•Cost between $1 –1.5million
•Project delay roughly 1 year
•Major impacts to Hamilton Avenue
for street cutting and repairs
IMPACT•No New poles added•No New guy wires
•No Effects to adjacent businesses
and residences
•No jurisdictional impact•Cost between $100,000 –$150,000•No project delay to construction
•No impacts to Hamilton Avenue
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
PG&E DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
POLE PLACEMENT DIAGRAM
If undergrounding were to take place, two new riser poles would be required to be installed inline (one at each side of the development site)
Additional guy wire and anchors will be required by PG&E to counteract the tension of the remaining overhead lines in the vicinity.
The existing Northeast power pole with pole mounted transformer has to remain as it is serving other properties across Hamilton Avenue.
The end result will be adding more poles in order to serve the tract as we cannot rise on a pole that has a transformer or primary riser; beside keeping the continuation of the overhead primary run on the Northwest pole farther down Hamilton Avenue.
New guy wire
Underground
New pole
Overhead to be removed
To underground the wires would address ~150’ of line
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
LETTER FROM PG&E REGARDING UNDERGROUNDING
1940 HAMILTON AVENUE . CAMPBELL . CALIFORNIA
NEW SITE CONDITIONS
Existing pole to remain
Existing pole to remain
Existing service lines
to be removed
New underground to new transformer
NEW PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING AND SITE
2023.01.30
M O D U L U S
July 28, 2022
Trevor Zink1940 Hamilton, LLC
1940 Hamilton Ave
San Jose, CA 95125
Re: 1940 Hamilton Ave
Trevor,
I have reviewed the proposal to have the owner of 1940 Hamilton Ave underground the
utilities between the two poles on the east and west sides of the property. I strongly suggest
against this due to the extent of the work that will be involved and the impact it will have on
PG&E’s ability to quickly address any power issues that may arise in the future.
Given the way that the power is connected on Hamilton Ave, there is a connection between
the power lines running on both sides of the street, including areas of San Jose. It is not
possible to simply underground the power lines in front of 1940 Hamilton. This will require
trenching across Hamilton Ave and undergrounding the power lines that are crossing the
street at that location. Whenever the power lines are underground, it makes PG&E’s work
much more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. This can result in a negative impact on
the public due to longer power outages and higher costs.
PG&E’s standard is to pad-mount the transformer. This allows for ease of access when
issues arise. Additionally, should this undergrounding take place, the poles on each side of
the property will approximately double in diameter due to the weight of the power lines they
will be required to hold. There would also need to be large vaults installed at the front of
the property.
In addition to the above issues that directly impact PG&E and the public, there is also the
issue of cost to the owner. The cost of undergrounding the power for this project will likely
exceed $400,000. While this does not directly affect PG&E, we believe that it is important
for the City and owner to be aware of the financial implications that a project like this will
entail. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Danny Miller
Danny Miller
Project Manager
Pacific Gas & Electric Co
Danny.Miller@pge.com
F R O M T H E D E S K O F D A N N Y M I L L E R – S E R V I C E P L A N N I N G P R O J E C T M A N A G E R
S A N J O S E D I V I S I O N
P H O N E : 4 0 8 . 2 9 9 . 1 1 1 0 • E-M A I L D R M R @ P G E . C O M
Attachment - 5
Attachment - 6
Page 1 of 11 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell CA 95008
P1. Other Identifier: 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell CA 95008
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2.Location: ¨ Not for Publication x Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West, CA Date 2015 T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c.Address 1940 Hamilton Avenue City Campbell Zip 95008
UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S, 37.29409°N / -121.92133°E
d.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate)
Assessor’s Parcel Number 288 24047
*P3a. Description:
1940 Hamilton Avenue is a one-story-over-raised-foundation, Folk Victorian-style building located on the south side of Hamilton
Avenue between Leigh and Phantom avenues in Campbell, California. The wood frame building has a 1,659 square foot
generally rectangular footprint and is situated at the northwest portion of a 20,000 square foot lot. The building was constructed
as a dwelling and has been converted to commercial use. All facades are clad in stucco and the building is capped with a flat-
peaked hipped roof with an intersecting front gable. All windows are contemporary replacement vinyl or painted wood-clad
vinyl unless otherwise noted.
The primary (north) façade faces onto a front yard planted with grass, and the building is accessed from the street by a
contemporary cobblestone walkway. A low wood picket fence marks the front lot line at the left and right portions of the front
yard. The primary facade (Figure 1) is asymmetrically arranged around the primary entrance, a contemporary wood door with
a fixed transom set within a shallow paneled recess. The primary entrance is sheltered by a porch which spans the right side
of the façade and is accessed from grade by a short straight concrete stair with pipe handrails. The porch has wood floorboards
and is ornamented with wood details including turned posts, scrollwork brackets, and a wood handrail with flat scrollwork
balusters (Figure 2). The porch is capped with a low-pitched hipped roof. (See Continuation Sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes) HP3– Multiple
Family Property
*P4. Resources Present:
x Building x Structure Object
Site District Element of District
Other
P5b. Description of Photo:
Figure 1: 1940 Hamilton Avenue,
primary (north) façade, view facing
south, taken 01/07/2020 by Stacy Farr
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: x Historic Prehistoric
1889 (San Jose Mercury News,
December 1,1889)
*P7. Owner and Address:
1940 Hamilton LLC
1940 Hamilton Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008 *P8. Recorded by: Stacy Farr,
Historic Resource Consultant
3823 Clarke St., Oakland, CA 94609
*P9. Date Recorded: 02/19/2020
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.") none
*Attachments: NONE Location Map x Continuation Sheet x Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
Attachment - 7
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 2 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
*P3a. Description (continued):
Right of the primary entrance there is a pair of double-hung windows. Left of the primary entrance, the façade projects
outward approximately six feet and there is a large fixed window with a fixed upper lite, trimmed with simple surrounds
and ornamental wood shutters. There is a circular vented opening at the gable peak, and the gable peak and the rest of
the primary façade terminates with a compound cornice composed of a flat scalloped molding, stepped brackets
interspersed with paneled molding, and projecting eaves.
The east side façade faces onto a paved parking area, beyond which the east lot line is marked with a vertical board fence.
The raised foundation includes a wood utility box at far right and one rectangular vented opening. Fenestration at the first
floor (Figure 3) includes, from right to left, a horizontally-oriented multi-lite leaded wood window; paired double-hung
windows with decorative wood shutters; and, at left, four horizontally-oriented double-hung windows. All windows are
trimmed with simple surrounds and the majority of the façade terminates with the same compound cornice as described
at the primary (north) façade, while the far-left portion of the façade reflects a shed-roof addition at the rear (south) façade
and terminates with a slight eave overhang.
The rear (south) façade faces onto a paved parking area and a multi-car garage. The rear facade includes two additions
and is asymmetrically arranged (Figure 4). A shed-roof addition spans the width of the façade, the right side of which
includes a double-hung window and a half-glazed pedestrian entrance door. At the left half of the rear façade, a front-
gable addition projects out approximately 10 feet and includes double-hung windows at its east- and south facets. The
right side of the rear façade is spanned by a deck of dimensional lumber accessed via a short stair and a wheelchair lift.
Above the slope of the shed-roof addition, the south façade terminates with the same brackets found at the front and east
facades. The shed-roof addition terminates with a slight eave overhang with exposed rafters, and the gable-front addition
terminates with three pipe vents at the gable peak and a plain facia board and, on the sides of the addition, exposed
rafters.
The west side façade faces onto a landscaped side yard with a contemporary cobblestone paved walkway, a gravel
pathway and sitting area, planted areas, and mature trees, beyond which the west property line is marked with a vertical
board fence. At the raised foundation there is one rectangular vented opening. Fenestration at the first floor (Figure 5)
includes, from left to right, paired double-hung windows; four double-hung windows; and, at far right, one horizontally-
oriented double-hung window at the shed-roof addition and one horizontally-oriented double-hung window at the gabled
addition. The majority of the west façade terminates with the same compound cornice found at the front, east, and rear
facades, while the shed-roof and gabled additions terminate with a slight eave overhang with exposed rafters.
At the south portion of the lot, behind the dwelling, there is a one-story, multicar garage, clad in stucco and capped with a
double front-gable roof. The primary (east) façade of the garage (Figure 6) includes three vinyl roll-up auto doors, and the
façade terminates with slightly projecting gable roofs with plain fascia boards. The north façade includes a contemporary
paneled wood door at left, and two double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, and terminates with a slight eave overhang
with exposed rafters. The rear (west) façade (Figure 7) includes three double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, and
terminates with slightly projecting gable roofs with plain fascia boards. The south façade is flush with the south lot line,
which is marked with a vertical board fence, and was not observed during a site visit.
At the southeast portion of the lot there is a fenced-in garden, currently planted with grass, ornamental plans and mature
trees, enclosed by a low wood fence with areas of baluster that match that of the front porch, and accessed via an opening
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 3 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
framed by wood posts and a wood trellis (Figure 8). The garden also includes platforms and benches of dimensional
lumber, and walkways of contemporary cobblestone paving.
1940 Hamilton Avenue is located in a mixed residential and commercial area (Figures 9-11). East of the subject property
there are two Ranch-style dwellings on the south side of Hamilton Avenue west of Phantom Avenue, constructed c. 1960.
West of the subject property, the Expressionist-style church at 1980 Hamilton Avenue is surrounded by mature trees and
associated buildings and parking areas, which extend into the area south of the subject property. On the north side of
Hamilton Street, across from the subject property, there is a mixture of residential and commercial buildings, including the
Craftsman-style dwelling at the northwest corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues, and the Modern-style commercial
building at the northeast corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues. Overall the area reflects a broad mixture of construction
dates and architectural styles and appears unlikely to potentially qualify as a historic district for any reason.
Figure 2. Primary (north) façade, porch detail.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 4 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 3. East façade, view facing northwest.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 5 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 4. Rear (south) façade, view facing northwest.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 6 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 5. West façade, view facing northeast.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 7 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 6. Primary (east) façade of garage, view facing west.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 8 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 7. Rear (west) façade of garage, view facing southeast.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 9 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 8. Garden at southeast portion of the lot, view facing northeast.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 10 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 9. Ranch style dwellings directly east of the subject property, view facing southeast.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 11 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update
Figure 10. Expressionist-style church at 1980 Hamilton Avenue, west of the subject property, view facing west.
Figure 11. Modern-style commercial building at the northeast corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues, view facing
northeast.
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Ave., Campbell CA *NRHP Status Code 6Z
Page 1 of 28
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Sketch Map. Source: Santa Clara County Assessor
B1. Historic Name: none
B2. Common Name: 1940 Hamilton Avenue
B3. Original Use: single-family dwelling B4. Present Use: commercial building
*B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Original construction: 1889 (based on completion announcement, San Jose Mercury News, December 1, 1889).
Permitted alterations: Installation of installation of two clean out lines to the main sewer lateral (San Jose Permit No.
P9950552, issued January 8, 1999).
Additional alterations: see Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? xNo Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: garage in back yard; fenced garden in back yard.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Designer/Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Area none
Period of Significance none Property Type residential Applicable Criteria none (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
Historic Context: Development of Campbell
The first inhabitants of what is today the Santa Clara Valley were several bands of the Ohlone or Costanoan Native Americans,
who congregated in concentrations of small villages related by kinship ties. Primarily hunter-gatherers, these bands settled
near dependable water sources and constructed dwellings of tule rushes fastened to willow poles. Native habitation was
severely impacted by the arrival of Spanish explorers in 1769 and the subsequent establishment, in 1777, of Mission Santa
Clara de Assis and the associated civil settlement of El Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe. At the Mission, native persons were
converted by the Catholic Church and compelled to labor to support the mission population, including farming, ranching, and
crafts work including leatherwork, soapmaking, ropemaking, and others. Colonial pueblo settlers farmed corn, beans, wheat,
hemp, flax, vineyards, and orchards, and worked in early industries such as gristmilling, making wine and brandy, processing
hemp, and making soap. The area that eventually became Campbell was part of Mission Santa Clara’s grazing lands,
supporting over 30,000 head of cattle and sheep by 1827. (See Continuation Sheet.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
See continuation sheet.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Stacy Farr, Architectural Historian
*Date of Evaluation: 02/19/2020
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 2 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
*B6. Construction History (continued):
With the exception of the 1999 plumbing permit, there are no building permits on file for 1940 Hamilton Avenue at the
City of Campbell Building or Planning departments; the San Jose Building or Planning departments; the Santa Clara
County Building or Planning departments; in the Santa Clara County Archives: General index of Property Records; or in
the San Jose Building Permit Index for Physical Permits, 1920s-1940s or the Permits on Microfilm, 1940s-1980, which
are held in the collection of the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
Alterations that were observed during a site visit to the property on January 7, 2020 include the following:
• Application of stucco cladding, either replacing or covering original wood cladding and associated wood
moldings at corners and windows;
• Removal of original windows at the left side of the primary (north) façade and replacement with a reconfigured
large picture window with a fixed upper lite;
• Removal of all original double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs and replacement with contemporary
painted vinyl or wood-clad vinyl double-hung windows;
• Removal of original primary entrance door and replacement with a contemporary door;
• Two rear additions, including a shed-roof addition that spans the width and almost the height of the rear
façade, and another gable-roof addition that projects out from the shed-roof addition;
• Reconfiguration of the shape of three original window openings on the east façade, from vertical to horizontal
orientation;
• Removal of some original wood porch components, including the stairs and the floor, and replacement with
concrete;
• Installation of a non-historic scalloped molding at the lower perimeter of the cornice;
• Changes to the setting including subdivision of the historic parcel from 9.75 acres to its current 0.54 acres;
associated loss of barn and agricultural use; asphalt paving at the east side of the lot; construction of a multicar
garage at the south side of the lot; and contemporary landscaping and paving at the north side of the lot, in
front of the building.
Additionally, while interiors of privately-owned buildings are not subject to historic evaluation, the property was
constructed as a single-family dwelling and has been extensively renovated at the interior for use as a multi-office
commercial building.
*B10. Significance (continued):
Following the change of governmental control from Spain to Mexico in 1822, missions were secularized and vast swaths
of land were granted to private landholders in an effort to stimulate colonization. Thirty-eight land grants were issued
between 1833 and 1846 in the Santa Clara Valley, including three within the boundaries of what is today Campbell
(Archives and Architecture, 3). Each land grant, or rancho, included a small settlement composed of the main rancho
residence, laborers’ housing, cattle corrals, a grist mill, tannery, and other utilitarian buildings, and was surrounded by
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 3 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
vineyards, cultivated fields, and grazing land. In the late 1820s, immigration increased, and foreigners started to settle
in California, often marrying into the families of local landholders. By 1835, of the 700 people who lived in the pueblo
of San Jose, 40 were foreigners, mainly Americans and Englishmen (Archives and Architecture, 4). The first overland
American settlers arrived in California in 1841 and by 1845 the population of the San Jose area had increased to 900.
New settlers established various types of industries and stores, and shifted the character of the area from a small
Mexican village to a bustling American town. In 1846 California was occupied by American military forces and Mexican
rule came to an end.
William and Agnes Campbell arrived from Missouri to the Santa Clara Valley in 1846, with their family of nine, including
19-year old son Benjamin Campbell. William Campbell surveyed the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara in 1847,
establishing an urban framework that replaced the earlier rancho model and shaped future residential and commercial
development. San Jose was on the southern route to the Sierra Nevada mountains and developed rapidly after gold
was discovered there in 1848. Many prospectors, arriving hopeful from the East Coast and Europe and finding no gold
in the mountains, settled in the Santa Clara Valley and developed lucrative agricultural and industrial sites.
In 1851, Benjamin Campbell bought 160 acres and planted it with hay and grain: this acreage later became Campbell’s
central downtown area. Hay and grain were massively profitable crops, as they supplied the cattle and dairy industry,
which remained dominant in the valley from the 1850 through the 1890s. (Archives and Architecture, 7). Benjamin
Campbell married his wife Mary in Missouri in the fall of 1851, and returned to California with a wagon train of 36 adults
and children, all related by marriage or birth: most of this party settled what is now the City of Campbell, including John
Bland, Peter Keith, Archibald Johnson, Zeri Hamilton, A. M. and J. B. Hess, and N. H. Hicks.
Transportation, both for people and saleable goods, increased during these decades, as what is now Winchester
Boulevard was declared a public road in 1850, Bascom Avenue to Santa Cruz was surveyed in 1856, the railroad line
between San Francisco and San Jose was completed in 1864, and the line connecting San Jose to Niles and the
Transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. In 1877, Benjamin Campbell granted South Pacific Coast Railroad
Company right of way through his property for a rail line that connected San Jose and Santa Cruz. Anticipating the
development of a thriving town, Benjamin and Mary Campbell subdivided their property and laid out the town of
Campbell in 1885. In 1886, a rail stop station was constructed near the Campbell family’s ranch house, and in 1888 the
Campbells began selling residential lots. While as devout Methodists, the Campbells required the new town be free of
saloons, by 1895 the settlement of Campbell had become a thriving village (Archives and Architecture, 10).
Horticulture had been present in the Santa Clara Valley since the 1850s, and in the 1880s much of Campbell was planted
with orchards and vineyards. These crops were dried, packed, and later canned in early industrial facilities, the largest
of which included the J.C. Ainsley Packing Company, Hyde Cannery, and Payne Cannery. Campbells Station was integral
in the shipping and distribution of these products. Cooperative facilities for production such as the Campbell Fruit
Growers’ Union also developed during these decades. As wheat was replaced by horticultural products, large farms
were subdivided into smaller 10- and 20-acre orchards, often at high profit, leading to increased density of settlement
in the Campbell area. Residential settlement and rail transportation increased during these decades as well, with the
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 4 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Interurban Railroad establishing a line from San Jose through Campbell to Los Gatos in 1905 (Archives and Architecture,
10). Automobile travel increased after the turn of the twentieth century, and trucks became an important part of the
horticulture industry, both in production and distribution. Additional amenities, both municipal and private, were
established including water, electrical, and telephone service. By 1918, Campbell boasted a newspaper, bank, hotel,
markets, shops, and specialty shops (Archives and Architecture, 11).
Following World War I, the population of Campbell continued to grow, and many orchards and vineyards were replaced
by residential developments. This effect was even more dramatic during World War II, as thousands of military
personnel traveled through the San Francisco Bay Area on route to the Pacific front. After the War, a huge new influx
of residents arrived to work on contracts for the defense department, aerospace engineering, and other high-tech
industries. in the second half of the twentieth century. Campbell was officially incorporated as a city in 1952, and
between 1950 and 1975, the population of Santa Clara county exploded form 95,000 to over 500,000 (Archives and
Architecture, 12). At Stanford University and other defense industry firms in the Santa Clara area, advancements
associated with the war effort laid the groundwork for the development of the technology industry that shifted the
Santa Clara Valley to “Silicon Valley.” As the horticulture industry waned, most of Campbell’s remaining orchard land
was sold and replaced by business and research parks and housing developments. The canneries that historically
packaged the valley’s fresh fruit were also demolished during this era, and Campbell has grown from a small farming
center to a progressive community with a population of over 38,000.
Site History
Prior to construction of the subject property, the area where the subject property was later constructed (“subject
site”) was first owned by Zeri Hamilton, who arrived in California in 1851 and took possession of a homestead site
described as “on what is now known as the Meridian road, near the eastern terminus of Hamilton Avenue, two and
one-half miles southwest of San Jose” (Foote, 463). (Biographical information about all known owners of the subject
site and subject property is included in the following section of this report.) The Zeri Hamilton Partition was established
several years after Zeri Hamilton’s death in 1871 and spanned the north and south side of Hamilton Avenue, east of
what is now Leigh Avenue and east and west of Meridian Avenue (Figure 1). Research has not uncovered any evidence
that Zeri Hamilton or his family developed the subject site in any way, although it is possible the subject site was used
for agricultural purposes during this era.
On January 31, 1882, Zeri Hamilton’s son David A. Hamilton sold an “about 10 acres” lot of the Hamilton tract to William
F. Groves for $1,450 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Jose Herald, January 31, 1882). Groves’ ownership of the subject
site is depicted in an 1888 map of Santa Clara County, with the full historic boundaries of the 9.75 acre squared site
bounded by Hamilton Avenue at the north, what is today Leigh Avenue at the west, what is today Phantom Avenue at
the east, and a southerly line approximately 650 feet south of Hamilton Avenue (Figure 2).
Groves and his wife Agnes may have lived at a temporary building at the subject site after they purchased it in 1882,
or they may have lived elsewhere for several years while Groves planted an apricot orchard on the parcel, the fruits
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 5 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
of which Groves was selling by 1887 (“Local Brevities,” San Jose Mercury News, August 11, 1887). The December
1,1889 edition of the San Jose Mercury News announced the completed construction of “the new and lovely
residence of W. F Groves, on Hamilton Avenue near the Willows.” While research has not uncovered original building
permits or other documentation that would conclusively date the subject property’s date of construction, based on
the architectural style of the house and information gathered through newspaper research, it appears strongly likely
that the subject property is the house described in this 1889 announcement. An 1899 map of Santa Clara County
records the footprint of two structures at the subject site, likely the subject property and a barn, located southeast
of the subject property (Figure 3).
Research has not uncovered any historic photographs of the subject property that would provide conclusive
information about the property’s historic appearance. Despite the establishment in 1905 of an interurban railroad
line that travelled from San Jose along Hamilton Avenue through Campbell to Los Gatos, the 1915 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Map did not record the area of Hamilton Avenue west of Meridian Avenue in detail, indicating that the area
was not developed to a degree that warranted mapping for fire insurance purposes.
An aerial photograph taken by Fairchild Photography in 1931 is the earliest image available of the subject property
(Figure 4). While the resolution of the photograph does not provide much specific information about the subject
property, the photograph shows the 9.75-acre site fully planted with orchard trees, and a barn and several
outbuildings located southeast of the house. There was also a U-shaped driveway in front of the house. More
broadly, the 1931 photograph shows the subject property surrounded by similar agricultural properties, including
houses, barns, outbuildings, and orchards.
An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1948 has higher resolution and
provides additional information about the subject property that year (Figure 5). As in 1931, the 1948 photograph
shows the 9.75-acre site fully planted with orchard trees, and the barn and outbuildings still located southeast of
the house. The U-shaped driveway is still visible in front of the house. A one-car garage had been constructed behind
the house, which is still in place but has been expanded. The photograph also suggests a volume at the east façade,
close to the back of the house: this area currently includes non-historic, horizontally-oriented windows, which may
have been installed when this volume was removed. More broadly, the 1948 photograph shows the subject property
was largely still surrounded by similar agricultural properties and orchards, although residential development had
increased east of the subject property, and new streets including Norman and Grace avenues had been constructed.
Despite ongoing increased development, Hamilton Avenue where the subject property is located was not recorded
on the 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. A survey map of the subject property drawn by Santa Clara County Civil
Engineer Frank E. Pisano in August of 1953 provides some information about the subject property that year (Figure 6).
While Onofrio Sciortino appears to have continued to own the full 9.75-acre site, the .54-acre site that now
encompasses the whole of the subject site was divided out from the larger site. Widening of Hamilton Avenue by 30
feet appears to have eliminated much of the property’s front lawn. Also by this year, Phantom Avenue was in place,
precipitating the construction within the following few years of dwellings alongside what had been the east
perimeter of the 9.75-acre parcel. According to the “History” section of the website of the First Congregational
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 6 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Church of San Jose, located directly west of the subject property, the church purchased its current site in 1953,
suggesting that Onofrio Sciortino sold the majority of the historic 9.75-acre parcel to the church shortly after the
survey map was drawn. Both Onofrio Sciortino and his brother Carmelo had farmed the orchard at the subject
property: it appears that the brothers, both in their sixties by 1953, decided to sell off the majority of their
landholdings, likely to support themselves and their sister in their old age, and provide financial support for the
younger generations of their family.
An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1960 shows the dramatic changes to
the subject site as a result of the sale of most of the historic 9.75-acre site (Figure 7). In addition to reflecting its
current .54-acre size, the subject property appears by 1960 to have the footprint it retains today, including the gable
roof addition at the rear (south) façade, and without the volume at the east façade that was visible in the 1948
photograph. The garage had been expanded to the double-gabled roof footprint it retains today, and was accessed
via a paved driveway east of the house, with the remainder of the east side of the lot unpaved. The U-shaped
driveway in front of the house was still in place, despite the widening of Hamilton Avenue in the 1950s. On the land
that had been historically part of the 9.75-acre subject site, west of the subject property, the classroom wings and
fellowship hall of the First Congregational Church were complete, although a portion of the property surrounding
that building remained planted with orchard trees. East of the subject property, ranch-style houses had been
constructed along Hamilton and Phantom avenues. More broadly, the 1960 photograph shows some agricultural
properties and orchards remained, but the area was largely developed by this year with single family residential
buildings.
An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1968 shows the subject property
unchanged from the 1960 photograph, with the exception of maturation of trees and the installation of a fence at
the west property line (Figure 8). On the land that had been historically part of the 9.75 acre subject site, the First
Congregational Church had constructed its dramatic Expressionist sanctuary in 1966, and paved a parking area
behind the subject property and an access driveway directly west of the subject property. More broadly, the 1968
photograph shows that all of the agricultural properties and orchards that had once characterized this area had been
removed and replaced by residential and commercial development.
An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1981 shows the subject property
unchanged from the 1968 photograph, with the exception of maturation of trees (Figure 9). More broadly, the 1981
photograph shows no notable changes to the surrounding area, which was completely characterized by this time by
residential and commercial development.
The subject property was recorded on a State of California DPR A form in 1999, as part of a survey inventory for the
City of Campbell (Dill, 1999). The photograph of the subject property shows alteration that remain in place, including
stucco cladding, reconfigured windows at the left side of the primary (north) façade, and several horizontally-
oriented windows at the east façade (Figure 10). The U-shaped driveway remained in place, and the east side of the
lot appears to have remained unpaved beyond a driveway that provided access to the rear of the lot. The 1999
photograph shows a flat-roof structure in the back yard of the house which is not discernable in earlier aerial
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page Page 7 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
photographs and is no longer present at the property: no additional information about this structure is available.
The text of the 1999 DPR form notes alterations to the property including stucco finish over earlier wood siding;
alterations to the primary front window to include a single fixed picture window with a five-lite transom (since
removed and replaced with a single-lite transom); an addition to the rear façade; and modifications to the site. The
DPR form concludes that the “while the original fabric of the structure is generally intact, the visual integrity is partly
compromised due to the stucco cladding, window changes, and the character of the site” (Dill, 1999).
One permit for work at the subject property is on file with San Jose Building Department, for installation of two clean
out lines to the main sewer lateral (San Jose Permit No. P9950552, issued January 8, 1999). The permit was issued to
property owner Dorothy Oliviere, and the property was described as a single-family dwelling.
Research has not uncovered any historic photographs of the subject property that would provide conclusive
information about the property’s historic appearance. Based on the property’s date of construction, its architectural
style, and a comparison with other well-preserved residential properties constructed in Campbell around the same
era, it can be inferred that the subject property was originally clad in wood, most likely horizontal wood clapboard
or flush board-and-batten, with vertical corner moldings, and may have included plain or shaped wood shingles in
the gable peak at the primary (north) facade. All of the building’s original windows were most likely vertically-
oriented, double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, indicating that the large fixed window with a fixed upper lite
at the left side of the primary (north façade), potentially the horizontally-oriented multi-lite leaded wood window at
the right side of the east façade, and the smaller, horizontally-oriented double-hung windows at the left side of the
east façade, the right side of the west façade, and the rear (south) facade, are not original. Additionally, while small,
shed-roof volumes were a common feature of Folk Victorian-style buildings constructed prior to 1900, and usually
included a kitchen and/or bathroom, the shed-roof volume at the rear (south) façade of the subject property is larger
(in height and width) than was historically common, and the gable-front addition was constructed between 1948
and 1960, based on aerial photographic evidence. Finally, some historic features of the subject property have been
replaced by non-historic materials, including the concrete steps to the porch and porch floor, vinyl or painted wood-
clad vinyl windows, and flat scalloped molding at the cornice, which may mimic the presence of an older molding
but appears to date from the mid-twentieth century and was potentially installed when the stucco cladding was
applied. Changes to the setting have been detailed in the preceding narrative, and include a reduction of the size of
the historic parcel from 9.75 to .54 acres; loss of the property’s historic barn, outbuildings, and orchard;
reconfiguration of the front yard from a U-shaped driveway to its current contemporary landscaping; paving of the
east side of the lot; and construction of a multi-car garage behind the house. Additionally, the use of the subject
property has changed from a single-family dwelling to a multi-office commercial building.
Owners and Occupants
Zeri and Jane Hamilton – owners of subject site prior to construction of subject property, 1851-1882
The first known owner of the subject site was Zeri Hamilton, who traveled from Missouri to California in 1851 with
his wife Jane as part of Benjamin Campbell’s wagon train (Foote, 463). Upon arrival in the Santa Clara Valley, the family
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 8 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
took possession of a homestead site described as “on what is now known as the Meridian road, near the eastern
terminus of Hamilton Avenue, two and one-half miles southwest of San Jose.” They constructed a home immediately
upon arrival that had been originally constructed in Maine and shipped around Cape Horn (Ibid.) The Hamiltons had
nine children, and, following Zeri Hamilton’s death in 1871, Jane Hamilton fought a protracted legal battle over land
rights to the family’s homestead, eventually receiving a decree of the Secretary of the Interior to get the title to the
property confirmed to her children (Ibid.). The resulting subdivision was called the Zeri Hamilton Partition and spanned
the north and south side of Hamilton Avenue, east of what is now Leigh Avenue and east and west of Meridian Avenue
(see Figure 1). Parcels in the Hamilton Partition were mostly sold by the children of Zeri and Jane Hamilton. Jane
Hamilton died in 1895 (“A Pioneer Dead,” San Jose Herald, November 1, 1895). It does not appear that the Hamilton
family constructed any buildings at the subject site during the time that they owned it, although the area may have
been in agricultural use at that time.
William F. Groves and Agnes Groves – owners, 1882-c.1898; constructed subject property in 1889
On January 31, 1882, David A. Hamilton sold an “about 10 acres” lot of the Hamilton tract to William F. Groves for
$1,450 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Jose Herald, January 31, 1882). William F. Groves was born in Ireland c. 1844
and immigrated to the United States in 1866 (U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current; 1910 U. S. Federal Census). In
1874 he married Agnes Finley in Santa Clara County (California, County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-
1980 for William Groves). Agnes was also born in Ireland, in 1852 (1880 U. S Federal Census). The couple had no
children. Like many others in the area, William F. Groves was a fruit grower: a small announcement in the San Jose
Mercury News on August 11, 1887 states that the staff of the paper was, “indebted to W. F. Groves for a box of
Moorpark apricots, as large and fine as ever the longing eye of a man looked upon. They are of the first cop, the trees
being three years old. The ranch is on Hamilton Avenue” (“Local Brevities,” San Jose Mercury News, August 11, 1887).
An 1888 map shows W. Groves as the owner of a 9.75 acre site where the subject property is now located (see Figure
2).
The December 1, 1889 edition of the San Jose Mercury News announced the completed construction of “the new
and lovely residence of W. F Groves, on Hamilton Avenue near the Willows [historic name of the area near the
intersection of Hamilton and Meridian avenues].” The short article describes a festive Thanksgiving and
housewarming party in the new home hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Groves and attended by about a dozen area residents.
While research has not uncovered original building permits or other documentation that would conclusive date the
subject property’s date of construction, based on the architectural style of the house and the information gathered
through newspaper research, it appears strongly likely that the subject property is the house described in this 1889
housewarming announcement. W. F. Groves was listed as a fruit dealer in the 1890 and 1891 San Jose City
Directories, residing on Hamilton Avenue.
In March of 1894, the Groves’ fates turned sour: Agnes filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery, and William F.
Groves was accused of attempted murder against a former employee at Groves’ Hamilton Avenue ranch who was
set to testify in the divorce proceedings (“He Shot to Kill,” San Jose Herald, March 12, 1894). Groves does not appear
to have been convicted, and the outcome of the divorce proceedings was not uncovered through research. However,
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 9 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
on November 4, 1895, William F. Groves sold property to Agnes Groves for $2,000 and later that year petitioned to
be employed as a fire department engineer, suggesting that he intended to leave his apricot ranch, the subject
property, and his marriage behind (San Jose Herald, November 4, 1895; Ibid, December 10, 1895). William F. Groves
moved into downtown San Jose and worked as an engineer for the last years of his life: he died in San Jose in 1912
(William Groves in the California, Death Index, 1905-1939). Research has not uncovered any additional information
about Agnes Groves.
Charles C. Cragin and Alice E. and Albert T. Cragin – owners and occupants, 1899-c.1913
Although research has not uncovered the exact date Agnes Groves sold the subject property, in 1899 Charles C.
Cragin was listed in the San Jose City Directory residing on Hamilton Avenue near Leigh Avenue. Charles Chester
Cragin was born in 1842 in Providence, R. I. and was educated at Brown University and later Beloit College in
Wisconsin (“Rev. C. C. Cragin Called by Death,” [Santa Rosa] Press Democrat, August 31, 1917). Following military
service in the Civil War, he was called to ministry at a number of large Congregational churches around the United
States. Prior to moving to the subject property, Charles C. Cragin lived in Solano County with his wife Hannah and
children Alice, born 1874, and Albert, born 1884 (1900 U. S. Federal Census).
Rev. Charles C. Cragin and his family lived at the subject property for about six years, during which time he was listed
in City Directories as both a minister and an orchardist. His wife Hannah died in 1905, after which Charles C. Cragin
moved to Sonoma to serve as the pastor of the Congregational church (California, Death and Burial Records from
Select Counties, 1873-1987 for Hannah E. Cragin).
Alice and Albert Cragin continued to live at the subject property after their father’s move to Sonoma. Alice Cragin,
who graduated Stanford University, worked as a teacher, and Albert Cragin farmed the orchard on the subject site.
The 1910 U. S. Federal Census described Alice and Albert Cragin as both single, and Alice was no longer teaching.
Albert T. Cragin died in April of 1911, and his ownership stake in the subject property, still a 9.75 acre parcel
described as the north half of lot 7 of the Hamilton Partition, transferred to his father and sister (Albert T. Cragin in
the California, Death Index, 1905-1939; San Jose Mercury News, April 23, 1911). Alice E. Cragin died in June of 1912
after a protracted illness (“Miss Alice E. Cragin was Buried Yesterday,” San Jose Mercury News, June 19, 1912). At
the time of her death, Charles C. Cragin had returned to live at the subject property and worked as the pastor of the
Congregational church in Sunol. Following Alice E. Cragin’s death, her share of ownership of the subject property
transferred to her father (San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1912). Charles C. Cragin retired from ministry shortly
after Alice’s death, and moved to Santa Rosa. He died in 1917 while visiting his brother in Washington ([Santa Rosa]
Press Democrat, August 31, 1917).
Although research has not uncovered the exact date that Charles C. Cragin sold the subject property, real estate
advertisements published between 1908 and 1913 suggest that portions of the 9.75 acre site historically identified
as the north portion of Lot 7 of the Hamilton Partition may have been sold in smaller parcels.
Research has not uncovered the owners or occupants of the subject property for the eight years between Cragin’s
death in 1917 and 1925. The San Jose City Directories published during these years do not include street numbers
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 10 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
for residents on Hamilton Avenue. Likewise, the U. S. Federal Census for 1920 does not include street numbers for
residents on Hamilton Avenue: an attempt to cross-reference the names of residents on Hamilton Avenue between
Johnson (now Bascom) Avenue and Meridian Avenue in the 1920 census with the City Directory of that year and
local newspaper archives uncovered no conclusive information. Similarly, a broad search of local newspaper archives
for sale information for the parcel or residents associated with Rural Route 1, Box 334 (a known historic address of
the subject property), uncovered no conclusive information. Finally, neither the City of Campbell, the City of San
Jose, or the County of Santa Clara holds any historic building permits that would provide information on owners or
occupants of the property during these years.
Harry M. and Susie Richmond – occupants, c. 1925-1939
Starting in about 1925, the subject property was rented by Harry M. Richmond (1925 San Jose City Directory). Harry
M. Richmond was born in Illinois in 1869. By 1917 he had moved to San Jose and was married to Susie Richmond.
The 1930 U. S. Federal Census describes Harry M. Richmond as a 60-year-old orchard farmer renting the subject
property with his wife Susie Richmond (the subject property is unaddressed, but listed as the first residence east of
Leigh Avenue; the Richmonds’ residency at the subject property was confirmed through cross-referencing City
Directories). The Richmonds remained at the property through 1939, which was addressed in the City Directories
during those years as “RR 1, Box 334.” By 1940, Harry M. and Susie Richmond had moved to Humboldt County (1940
U. S. Federal Census).
Onofrio and Carmelo Sciortino and Vicenza Oliviere – owners and occupants (including descendants), c. 1939-2013
The Sciortino family moved to the subject property between 1939 and 1942, and they retained ownership of the
property through the remainder of the historic era (ie, more than 50 years ago) until 2013, then the property was
purchased by the current owner. Onofrio Sciortino was born in Bagheria (Sicily), Italy in 1891 and immigrated to the
United States in 1907 (“Sciortino,” San Francisco Examiner, September 13, 1959; 1930 U. S. Federal Census). He was
followed by his older brother Carmelo Sciortino in 1909, and younger sister Vicenza Oliviere in 1910: Vicenza brought
a daughter Mary with her from Italy, and had two more daughters, Rose and Dorothy, after she arrived in the U. S.
(1930 U. S. Federal Census). The Sciortino family arrived in California around 1919, and by 1930 lived in San Jose at
a property they owned on Willow Street, where Carmelo and Onofrio ran a grocery store and Vicenza, who was
widowed, raised her three children. Through the 1930s, the brothers operated a bakery, also on Willow Street,
described in the City Directory as Sciortino Brothers bakery and later as the Italian American Bakery.
Both Carmelo and Onofrio Sciortino registered for the draft in 1942 and listed the subject property as their home,
at that time addressed as Hamilton/Rural Route 1, Box 334. Neither man was married. Onofrio Sciortino described
himself as self-employed at the Livermore Cheese Factory on Holly Drive in Tracy, California. Carmelo Sciortino
described himself as self-employed at the subject property, suggesting that he farmed the land.
In 1953, First Congregational Church of San Jose purchased the land directly west of the subject property,
presumably from Onofrio Sciortino, who was listed as the owner of that land on a 1953 survey map drawn by Santa
Clara County (www.first ccsj.org ; see Figure 6). Based on map research laid out in the previous section of this report,
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 11 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
it appears that Onofrio and Carmelo Sciortino, both in their sixties by 1953, decided to sell off the majority of their
landholdings, likely to support themselves and their sister in their old age, and provide financial support for the
younger generations of their family.
Carmelo Sciortino died in 1955, and Onofrio Sciortino died in 1959 (California, Death Index, 1940-1997; Carew & English,
Inc., 1959). After their deaths, Vicenza Oliviere continued to live at the subject property with her daughters Rose and
Dorothy Oliviere, her daughter and son-in-law and John B. and Mary A. Tripoli, and her grandchildren Peter, Vincent,
and Johnny Tripoli (Carew & English, Inc., 1959). On June 3, 1961, Vicenza Oliviere conveyed a portion of the subject
lot to Santa Clara County, presumably for road widening.
While research has not uncovered when Vicenza Oliviere died, she lived at the subject property through at least
1977 (1977 Pacific Telephone Street Address and Telephone Directories). Ownership of the subject property passed
to her daughters prior to 1996: in January of that year, Rose Marie and Dorothy Ann Oliviere granted the property
to the Rose M. and Dorothy A. Oliviere Living Trust. In 1999 the subject property was owned by Rose Oliviere (Dill,
1999). Ownership passed to a third generation of the family in January of 2007 when the John O. Tripoli Trust and Rose
M. Oliviere Trust transferred ownership of the subject property to John O. and Peter C. Tripoli. On June 27, 2013,
John O. Tripoli and the Peter C. Tripoli Trust sold the subject property to current owner 1940 Hamilton LLC (Santa
Clara County Assessor).
Style: Folk Victorian
1940 Hamilton Avenue is designed in the Folk Victorian style. As described by architectural historian Virginia Savage
McAlester, the development of national rail transportation after 1850 led to standardization of previously-diverse
regional building traditions, and once dimensional lumber could be easily moved along rail routes, wooden dwellings
with light balloon or braced framing covered by wood sheathing became nearly ubiquitous in American housing
(McAlester, 135). A ready supply of redwood enabled Bay Area builders and architects to push the boundaries of
Victorian architectural styles including Italianate, Stick/Eastlake and Queen Anne, which are characterized by
picturesque massing and extensive use of wood ornament. However, the Folk Victorian style developed concurrently
in the last decades of the nineteenth century, starting in about 1870, as a lower-cost alternative to these larger and
more elaborate Victorian styles. The Folk Victorian style was a good match for the rapidly growing residential population
in the Bay Area, as it was small, inexpensive to build, and widely adaptable, due to the availability of mass-produced
wood ornament.
Folk Victorian style buildings are characterized by their small size and simple massing. They are usually one story in
height with a square or rectangular footprint and a gable or hipped roof. Cladding is wood clapboard or board-and-
batten, although wood shingles were also used. “Victorian” detailing is then applied to this “folk” structure. Folk
Victorian buildings can have a symmetrical or asymmetrical primary façade, and asymmetrical examples generally
include a front-facing gable. Almost all examples will have a single-story front porch, which is generally the focal point
for decorative wood ornament including turned and/or chamfered posts and balusters, spindlework, and intricately cut
spandrels, friezes, and decorative brackets. The cornice, overhanging eaves, and gable-ends are trimmed with bands of
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 12 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
decorative millwork. Windows are generally undivided double-hung wood, and window and door moldings are
restrained and usually limited to a simple header pediment. Folk Victorian style buildings can sometimes include
elements also found in larger Italianate and Queen Anne style buildings, such as patterned wood shingles in gable-
peaks, canted or squared bay windows, and divided lite windows.
Folk Victorian style buildings are sometimes described as working-class versions of the Italianate, Stick/Eastlake, and
Queen Anne Victorian styles designed by architects for wealthier homeowners. The style’s popularity began to wane
by 1910, when other small house styles such as Craftsman and Neoclassical Bungalows began to emerge.
Evaluation of Significance: California Register
The California Register is the authoritative guide to significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in
the State of California. The evaluation criteria used by the California Register are closely based on those developed by
the National Park Service for the National Register. In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property
must be demonstrated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history.
Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield
information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
Criterion 1 (Event): Research has not uncovered any association between the subject property and any specific,
discrete significant events. Regarding significant patterns of events, the subject property appears through research
to have been constructed in 1889 and was therefore not part of the earliest settlement of this general area, which
took place between 1851 and 1871 and was done by Zeri Hamilton and his immediate family. The subject property
appears to have been constructed as the residence of William F. Groves and his wife Agnes; Groves either planted
or acquired an apricot orchard through purchase of the subject site in 1882, which historically encompassed 9.75
acres. Horticulture had been present in the Santa Clara Valley since the 1850s, and in the 1880s much of Campbell
was planted with orchards and vineyards that were smaller in size – often between 10 and 20 acres – than earlier
agricultural holdings and homesteads. Groves appears to have been a participant in this trend towards smaller-scale
horticultural production, but research does not indicate that his orchard – or its associated residential property –
were particularly early or otherwise influential in the development of the area. Additionally, the residential property
alone would not be able to convey the historic character of the horticultural development in the area, as these
properties were characterized by the presence of a complex of buildings, usually including a farmhouse, barn(s),
equipment shed(s), drying yards, and in some cases fruit processing buildings, none of which, besides the residence,
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 13 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
remain at the subject property (Archives and Architecture, 16). Nor does the subject property appear to have been
associated with any later historically significant patterns of events that characterize the development of Campbell,
such as urban development or post-War residential and industrial expansion. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton
Avenue is not associated with any events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to local or
regional history and is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 (Event).
Criterion 2 (Person): Research has not uncovered any association between the subject property and persons that
have played a significant role in local, state, or national history. Although the subject site was first owned by Zeri
Hamilton, who was influential in the early development of the area of Campbell around the subject property, as
previously introduced, research does not indicate that Hamilton or his immediate family developed the subject
property beyond potentially using it for agricultural purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who
constructed the subject property and farmed the subject site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the
development of Campbell or the broader area; additionally, they lived at the subject property for only about five
years before the dissolution of their marriage, moving away, and sale of the property. Next owner Charles C. Cragin
was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several congregations during the time that he owned the
subject property, and does not appear to have been a significant figure in the religious development of Campbell.
(According to the “History” section of the website of the First Congregational Church of San Jose, located directly
west of the subject property, the church purchased its current site in 1953; research does not indicate that there is
any connection between Cragin’s ownership of the subject property, which ended c. 1913, and the current location
of the First Congregational Church of San Jose. [www.first ccsj.org,]) Cragin’s children Alice and Albert likewise do
not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader
area. Likewise, later occupants and owners including Harry M. and Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the
Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development
of Campbell or the broader area. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not eligible for the California Register
under Criterion 2 (Persons).
Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in
1889, and is designed in the Folk Victorian style. The property includes some of the distinctive characteristics of this
style, including relatively small size, one-story height, and simple rectangular massing; an asymmetrical primary façade
with a front-facing gable; a single-story front porch with decorative wood ornament including turned posts, scrollwork
brackets, and a wood handrail with flat scrollwork balusters; bands of decorative millwork at the cornice, including
stepped brackets interspersed with paneled molding; and vertically-oriented double-hung windows. However, the
property lacks other distinctive characteristics of this style, either through original design choices, such as the use of a
flat-peaked hipped roof rather than a gable or hipped roof, or, more prevalently through alterations, such as the
removal or covering of original wood clapboard or board-and-batten siding, including vertical corner and window
moldings and replacement with stucco cladding; removal of the original windows at the left side of the primary (north)
façade, which were likely paired vertically-oriented double-hung windows or may have been a canted bay window, and
replacement with a single large fixed window with a fixed upper lite; removal of some original vertically-oriented
double-hung windows on the east façade and installation of smaller, horizontally-oriented fixed and double-hung
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 14 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
windows; removal of the original wood material of all vertically-oriented double-hung windows with ogee lugs and
replacement with vinyl or painted wood-clad vinyl double-hung windows; removal of the original primary entry door
and replacement with a contemporary door; installation of a construction of a large shed-roof addition and a gabled
addition at the rear (south) façade; alterations to the window surrounds, likely in the process of installing stucco
cladding; and application of an ahistoric band of flat scalloped molding at the cornice, also likely in the process of
installing stucco cladding. Additionally, the historically agricultural setting of the property has been significantly altered,
through the reduction of the original size of the subject site, loss of the property’s historic barn and orchards,
construction of adjacent properties, paving at the east side of the subject property, and removal of the original U-
shaped driveway in front of the house and replacement with contemporary landscaping. Overall, while the subject
property retains some characteristics of the Folk Victorian style, a variety of alterations have diluted its ability to
accurately convey its original appearance and the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Folk
Victorian style to a degree that it would be eligible for the California Register. If this property were the sole remaining
example of this style in Campbell, it is possible that despite alterations, it could still be historically significant, but there
are several other properties in Campbell constructed around the same era that retain a greater degree of material
integrity and are able to convey the Folk Victorian style, including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive
(b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894). While research has not uncovered any architect or builder associated with the
property it is not likely to be the work of a master architect, as Folk Victorian style houses were generally built for
working-class persons, either by the owners themselves or by builders, using widely available plans and mass-produced
wood ornament. Additionally, due to its modest architectural style and aforementioned alterations, the property does
not possess high artistic values. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not eligible for the California Register under
Criterion 3 (Design/Construction).
Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Evaluation of 1940 Hamilton Avenue under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is
beyond the scope of this report. This criterion is generally applied to sites of potential archeological importance.
Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Structure of Merit
Within the City of Campbell, a resource will be eligible as a Structure of Merit if it does conform with the following
Designation Criteria:
Criterion A. The proposed resource is associated with events that have made an important contribution to the
broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage;
Criterion B. The proposed resource is associated with the lives of persons important to our history;
Criterion C. The proposed resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory
or history;
Criterion D. The proposed resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style,
period, or method of construction;
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 15 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Criterion E. The proposed resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder;
Criterion F. The proposed resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic
character of the neighborhood, community, or city.
Criterion A. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 as the residence of
William F. Groves and his wife Agnes. Groves was an orchardist who purchased the 9.75 acre site which historically
encompassed the subject site from David A. Hamilton in 1882. The parcel was part of the Hamilton Partition, the
subdivided homestead of Zeri Hamilton, one of the first settlers in the area. In this way, the subject site is associated
with the period in which large farms, usually farming wheat, were subdivided into smaller 10- and 20-acre orchards,
leading to increased density of settlement in the Campbell area. However, as detailed in the City of Campbell historic
context statement prepared by Archives and Architecture, these new subdivided farms were characterized by the
presence of a complex of buildings, usually including a farmhouse, barn(s), equipment shed(s), drying yards, and in
some cases fruit processing buildings (Archives and Architecture, 16). Over the course of the past 70 years, the subject
site has been completely denuded of its historic horticultural uses and all of the buildings and structures and objects
(such as fruit trees) that would enable the property to convey its historic use. Solely the residence remains, which in
itself is not able to convey the era of horticultural development in Campbell: the building has no innate characteristics
that enable it to identify the horticultural history of the site. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure
of Merit under Criterion A.
Criterion B. 1940 Hamilton is not associated with any persons important to the historic development of Campbell. As
previously introduced, first owner Zeri Hamilton, who was influential in the development of the area of Campbell
around the subject property, did not develop the subject property beyond potentially using it for agricultural
purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who constructed the subject property and farmed the subject
site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Next owner
Charles C. Cragin was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several congregations during the time that
he owned the subject property, and does not appear to have been a significant figure in the religious development
of Campbell. Cragin’s children Alice and Albert do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions
to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Likewise, later occupants and owners including Harry M. and
Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to have made any historically significant
contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as
a Structure of Merit under Criterion B.
Criterion C. While a full evaluation of 1940 Hamilton Avenue for its potential archeological importance is beyond the
scope of this report, based on above-ground buildings, structures and objects at this subject site, there is no indication
that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of Campbell. For
these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion C.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 16 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Criterion D. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in
the Folk Victorian style. As previously introduced, while the property includes some of the distinctive characteristics
of this style, specifically at its massing, porch and cornice, both through original design choices and more prevalently
through alterations it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style to a degree that it
would be described as a representative example of the style. Additionally, while remaining examples of Folk Victorian
properties are comparatively rare in Campbell, there are several other Folk Victorian style properties in Campbell that
were constructed around the same era as the subject property that retain a greater degree of material integrity,
including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive (b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894), meaning that the
subject property is not the last or most unique or rare example of this style in Campbell. For these reasons the property
is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion D.
Criterion E. Research has not uncovered any architect or builder associated with 1940 Hamilton Avenue. The property
it is not likely to be the work of a notable architect, as Folk Victorian-style houses were generally not designed by
architects but were rather built for working-class persons, either by the owners themselves or by builders, using widely
available plans and mass-produced wood ornament. There is no indication that 1940 Hamilton Avenue varies from this
typical method of conception and construction. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit
under Criterion E.
Criterion F. 1940 Hamilton Avenue was designed in the Folk Victorian style, which is sometimes described as a working-
class version of the Italianate, Stick/Eastlake, and Queen Anne Victorian styles used in more elaborate structures from
the same era. In this style, “Victorian” detailing is then applied to a “folk” structure. While the subject property does
retain some of the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style, including its massing and the more “Victorian”
detailing at the porch and cornice, both through original design choices and through alterations, the property can not
be described as possessing significant artistic value, such that it materially benefits the historic character of the area.
Additionally, as previously introduced in the discussion of Structure of Merit Criterion A, the “historic character” of the
area surrounding the subject property is one of 10- to 20-acre horticultural properties, established in the 1870s-1880s
and characterized by the presence of a complex of buildings that supported agricultural uses. In this way, the residential
building at 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not independently able to convey the “historic character” of the area. For these
reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion F.
Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Local Landmark
Within the City of Campbell, a resource will be eligible as a Landmark if it does conform with the following Designation
Criteria:
Criterion A. The proposed resource represents a unique, rare, or extraordinary example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type;
Criterion B. The proposed resource identifies with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the
history, culture, or development of the city, the state or the nation; or
Criterion C. The proposed resource represents the site of a significant historic event.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 17 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Criterion A. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in
the Folk Victorian style. As previously introduced, while the property includes some of the distinctive characteristics
of this style, specifically at its massing, porch and cornice, both through original design choices and more prevalently
through alterations it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style to a degree that it
would be described as an extraordinary example of the style. Additionally, while remaining examples of Folk Victorian
properties are comparatively rare in Campbell, there are several other Folk Victorian style properties in Campbell that
were constructed around the same era as the subject property that retain a greater degree of material integrity,
including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive (b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894), meaning that the
subject property is not the last or most unique or rare example of this style in Campbell. For these reasons the property
is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion A.
Criterion B. As previously introduced, first owner Zeri Hamilton, who was influential in the development of the area
of Campbell around the subject property, did not develop the subject property beyond potentially using it for
agricultural purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who constructed the subject property and
farmed the subject site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the development of Campbell or the
broader area. Next owner Charles C. Cragin was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several
congregations during the time that he owned the subject property and does not appear to have been a significant
figure in the religious development of Campbell. Cragin’s children Alice and Albert do not appear to have made any
historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Likewise, later occupants
and owners including Harry M. and Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to
have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. For these
reasons, the property is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion B.
Criterion C. Research does not indicate that any significant historic events have taken place at 1940 Hamilton Avenue,
and for this reason the property is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion C.
Conclusion
1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in the Folk
Victorian style. It was initially part of a 9.75-acre horticultural property constructed by first-owner William F. Groves.
Later owners included Rev. Charles C. Cragin and his adult children, Harry M. and Susie Richards, and, from 1942
through 2013, the Sciortino/Oliviere family. These later owners also worked the land through approximately 1953
when most of the original 9.75-acre parcel was sold down to its current .54-acre size. None of the owners of the
subject site made significant contributions to local, state, or national history, and for these reasons the property is
not eligible for the California Register under Criterion B; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criterion B,
or as a City of Campbell Local Landmark under Criterion B.
The subject property retains some architectural details that characterize the Folk Victorian style, but has undergone
alterations that dilute its ability to convey that style, primarily complete recladding in stucco and reconfiguration of
windows at the primary (north) façade. For these reasons, the property is not eligible for the California Register
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 18 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
under Criterion C; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criteria D, E, or F, or as a City of Campbell Local
Landmark under Criterion A.
The property was constructed during a period in Campbell when larger farms were being subdivided into smaller 10-
to 20-acre orchards. However, when constructed, the subject property also included a barn, outbuildings, and
apricot trees, among other outbuildings. Over the course of the past 70 years, the subject site has been completely
denuded of its historic horticultural uses and all of the buildings and structures and objects (such as fruit trees) that
would enable the property to convey its historic use. Solely the residence remains, which in itself is not able to convey
the era of horticultural development in Campbell. For these reasons the property is not eligible for the California
Register under Criterion A; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criteria A or F; or as a City of Campbell Local
Landmark under Criterion C.
In sum, due to alterations to the subject property and changes to the historically agricultural setting and use of the site,
the subject property is not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources; as a City of Campbell Structure of
Merit; or a City of Campbell Local Landmark. The property would therefore not be considered a historic resource for
the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Preparer’s Qualifications
Stacy Farr is an architectural historian and cultural resources planner with 10 years’ experience evaluating historic
resources in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Farr has an undergraduate degree in the History of Art and Architecture
from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a Masters degree in the History of Architecture and Urbanism from
the University of California, Berkeley, and meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for
Architectural History and History.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 19 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
References
Archives and Architecture. Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell. Submitted to the
Department of Community Development, Planning Division: City of Campbell, 1996.
Dill, Leslie A. G. State of California DPR A form, 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell. Submitted to the Department of
Community Development, Planning Division: City of Campbell, 1999.
Foote, Horace S., editor. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World, or, Santa Clara County, California. Chicago: The
Lewis Pub. Co., 1888.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf, 2015.
All historic newspaper articles were accessed through the California Digital Newspaper Archive, managed by UC
Riverside’s Center for Bibliographical Studies and Research, www.cndr.ucr.edu.
All biographical historical records, including U.S. Federal Census records, California Death indices, World War II draft
registration records, and others, were accessed through Ancestry, www.ancestry.com.
San Jose City Directories were accessed in the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
All aerial photographs are in the collection of the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
Research assistance was provided by staff of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, staff of the Campbell Historical
Museum, and staff of History San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 20 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Maps and Images
Figure 1. Official map of the County of Santa Clara, California: compiled from U.S. surveys, county records, and
private surveys and the tax-list of 1889, by order of the Hon. Board of Supervisors. Edited by author, Hamilton
Partition outlined in red, and the subject site marked by a red star. Source: Library of Congress.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 21 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 2. 1888 Map of Santa Clara County, edited by author, with the outline of the historic boundaries of the
subject site outlined in red. Source: Brainard Agricultural Atlas, in the collection of San Jose Public Library.
Figure 3. 1899 Map of Santa Clara County, edited by author, subject site outlined in red. Source: USGS Map in the
collection of www.oldmapsonline.org.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 22 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 4. 1931 Fairchild Photography aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red.
Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 23 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 5. 1948 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California
Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 24 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 6. 1953 Santa Clara County Survey Map showing the property of Onofrio Sciortino. Source: Santa Clara
County Surveyor Record Index.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 25 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 7. 1960 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red, as well as former
boundaries of the historic 9.75 acre lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library,
San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 26 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 8. 1968 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California
Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 27 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 9. 1981 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California
Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Page _____ of _____
Page 28 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell
*Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨
Figure 10. 1999 photograph of 1940 Hamilton included in the DPR form prepared by Leslie A. G. Dill. Source:
Campbell Historical Society.
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 1
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404
Corte Madera, California 94925
Peninsula and South Bay Region
Phone: 650.941.8048
Fax: 650.941.8069
San Francisco, Marin and
North Bay Region
Phone: 415.924.7059
Fax: 415.924.7629
msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3/17/20
TO: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
PROJECT NUMBER: MSA-2003-01-C
FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA
REGARDING: 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Review of Applicant’s Historic Evaluation
___________________________________________________
PROJECT DOCUMENTS
Documents provided include both the PRIMARY RECORD (DPR 523A) in
addition to CONTINUATION SHEETS (DPR523L) forms consisting of 11 pages in total; BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (DPRB)
along WITH CONTINUATION SHEET(DPR523L) forms consisting of 28
pages in total, updated 9/2013. All documents prepared by STACY FARR, HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANT, 3823 Clark Street, Oakland CA 94609. No drawings were included as part of this review.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property located at 1940 Hamilton Road is situated on the south side of Hamilton Avenue between Leigh and Phantom Avenues in the city of
Campbell. An older wood-framed building originally designed in the Folk
Victorian style, along with a detached three-car garage structure, occupies the site. Both structures are clad in a stucco finish. It is theorized at this time
that the stucco finish may have been applied over the dwelling’s original wood sheathing.
The footprint of the main structure is generally rectangular in shape and appears to have been constructed sometime in 1889 as a dwelling, but now
has been converted for commercial use. It is unclear when the garage
structure or the addition placed at the rear of the building was constructed, but neither is original to the property.
The primary north façade is asymmetrically arranged, with the building’s entrance placed beneath a sheltered porch that spans the right side of the
façade. The building is capped with a peaked roof which terminates at a
smaller rectangular flat roof above, with an intersecting front gable roof facing the street. The porch has wooden floorboards and ornamental wood details,
Attachment - 8
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 2
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
which include turned posts, scrollwork, brackets, and wood handrails with band-sawn decorative flat balusters. The porch is capped by a low-pitched
hip roof under the frieze of the main roof. At the rear of the building, an
addition has been constructed with an elevated wood deck with handicap lift. Wooden stairs with wooden railings provide access to the rear entrance from
the parking lot. The footprint of the addition is asymmetrical, with its longer
axis extending the entire length of the rear façade, from which a small room extends perpendicularly from the left. The addition is capped by a low-pitched
shed roof with an intersecting gable below the frieze of the original structure’s
roof.
Most of the original windows have been replaced by either vinyl or painted wood-clad windows. The windows and fenestration openings found within the rear addition of the structure are not original.
The main building located on this property faces onto a front yard with grass
and shrubbery. It is accessed from the street sidewalk by a contemporary
walkway. A low picket fence delineates the front yard near the property line and extends toward the west, terminating at a redwood fence approximately 6
feet tall that runs along the west property line. To the east, the structure faces
a paved parking lot that extends around toward the rear of building, where a detached three-car garage structure runs perpendicular to the southern
property line. The structure is capped by two gable roofs that run east to
west. This structure looks out past the rear paved area toward a low picket-fenced garden area beyond. Behind the garage structure is a narrow side
yard which runs parallel to south property.
Evaluation of Historic Resources Framework
There are three separate levels of designation of historic resources: Local (City of Campbell Structure of Merit), State (California Register), and Federal
(National Register of Historic Places). Each designation level detailed below may differ in its criteria for the overall importance and significance of a
historic resource. The methodology applied to determine a historic resource’s
eligibility closely parallels the criteria developed by the National Park Service by which every property is nominated to the National Register and is to be
judged. This same evaluation criterion is also designed to help guide state
and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Under the Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, ʺA project that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.ʺ It
further states under Section 5023.1, ʺ [projects] are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 3
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, not
included in a local requester of historic resources, or deemed significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subsection (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an
historical resource for purposes of this section.ʺ
THE THREE LEVELS OF DESIGNATION FOR A HISTORIC RESOURCE
City of Campbell Structure of Merit is a historic resource that has been
designated by resolution of the City Council, as possessing outstanding aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering historic value. Structures of merit do not include landmarks or historic districts.
Landmark is a historic resource that has been designated as a landmark by
ordinance of the City Council as having exceptional historic significance in
Campbell’s history, architecture, engineering, and culture.
The California Register (CRHR) is the authoritative guide to the State's
historical and archeological resources. It also includes all locally designated properties and all properties listed in the National Register.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is a list of buildings and sites of local, state, or national importance. This program is administered by
the National Park Service through the California Office of Historic
Preservation.
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE: STRUCTURE OF MERIT AND LANDMARK
Designation Criteria for a Structure of Merit: For a resource to be eligible as a Structure of Merit it must be reviewed for conformance with the following
criteria:
a. The proposed resource is associated with events that have made an
important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural
heritage;
b. The proposed resource is associated with the lives of persons
important to our history;
c. The proposed resource yields, or has the potential to yield,
information important to our prehistory or history;
d. The proposed resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction;
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 4
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
e. The proposed resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder; or
f. The proposed resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood,
community, or city.
Designation Criteria for a Landmark: For a resource to be eligible as a
Landmark a resource must be reviewed for conformance with the following
criteria:
a. The proposed resource represents a unique, rare, or extraordinary example of an architectural design, detail or historic type;
b. The proposed resource identifies with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the history, culture, or development of the
city, the state or nation; or
c. The proposed resource represents the site of a significant event.
THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER (CRHR)
The California Register was created by the State Legislature in 1992 and is
intended to serve as an authoritative listing of significant historical and archeological resources in California. Additionally, the eligibility criteria for the
California Register (codified in PRC § 5024.1 and further amplified in 14 CCR
§ 4852) are intended to serve as the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to be eligible for a listing in the California Register a property must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
Criterion 1 (Event): The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the
cultural heritage of California or the United States; or Criterion 2 (Person): The resource is associated with the lives of persons
important to local, California, or national history; or
Criterion 3 (Design): The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
Criterion 4 (Information): The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area,
California, or the nation.
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 5
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
NATIONAL REGISTER (NRHP)
A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level,
under one or more of the following four criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history
INTEGRITY
In addition to the above requirements historic properties must also retain
integrity. Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its
significance. To be listed in the either the California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a property must not only be
shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must
have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical
features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or
they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criterion recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define
integrity.
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually
most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is
paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing
why, where, and when the property is significant. The following sections
define the seven aspects and explain how they combine to produce integrity.
Seven Aspects of Integrity
• Location
• Design
• Setting
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 6
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
• Materials
• Workmanship
• Feeling
• Association
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The applicant’s historic consultant has provided much evidence to
demonstrate that the property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue does not meet the threshold of any the four criteria required for listing in either the
California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These criteria are summarized below.
(CRHR) Criterion 1 and (NRHP) Criterion A (Event): As pointed out in the property’s historic evaluation, the subject property does not appear to be
directly connected with any significant historical pattern or event that
contributed to the development of the local community or to an important moment in our either state or national history. In addition, the subject property
has been completely transformed by urban expansion, removing all traces of
its historic horticultural past. The sole residence that remains cannot adequately convey the era of the horticultural development of the Campbell
or its past history, which is necessary to be found eligible for either register listing under this criterion.
(CRHR) Criterion 2 and (NRHP) Criterion B (Person): The various persons
connected with this property, from the first owners Zeri and Jane Hamilton (1851–1882), who may have been somewhat influential in the early
development of the immediate area around the subject property, do not seem to have developed the property beyond using it for agricultural purposes. The next series of owners and occupants, William F. and Agnes Groves, who
actually constructed the house on the subject property (reportedly sometime around 1889), Charles C., Alice E., and Albert T. Cragin (1899–1913), Harry
M. and Susie Richmond (1925–1939), Orofirio and Carmelo Sciortino and
Vicenza Oliviere (1939–2013), all appear through the archival research presented not to have made significant contributions to the development of
either Campbell or the broader region, which is needed to be found eligible
for either listing under this criterion.
(CRHR) Criterion 3 and (NRHP) Criterion C (Design/Construction): The building located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue, which appears to have been built around 1889, meets both the 50 years of age threshold and does appear to
have retained some of its distinctive Folk Victorian architectural style
characteristics, but because of the many remodeling alterations and room additions performed over the years to this structure (originally constructed as
a residential dwelling but now used for commercial purposes), it has lost its overall integrity and historic value. Coupling this fact with the property’s urban
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum
Date: 3/17/20 Page: 7
145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com
www.msandovalarchitects.com
Architecture - Historic Preservation - Design
setting, it no longer conveys its original era of development, architectural character or significance, which is all necessary to be found eligible under the
above criterion.
(CRHR) Criterion 4 and (NRHP) Criterion D (Information Potential):
Although the applicant’s consultant did not provide evidence regarding this
criterion, evaluation of this kind generally does not include such research. Such research is usually reserved for cultural landscapes of potential
archeological importance and significance. Without evidence to the contrary,
it is highly doubtful that this property alone could meet the eligibility threshold required under the above criterion.
Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Structure of Merit or
Landmark: Since the property in question is not listed on the city’s historic
resource inventory nor appears eligible for either the California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), for the sum of
these reasons, it is not eligible under Criteria A–F to be listed as Structure of
Merit or under Criteria A–C to be listed as a Landmark.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preponderance of evidence presented in the material provided
by the applicant, it is difficult to support the notion that the property located at
1940 Hamilton Avenue could possibly meet any of the minimum threshold eligibility requirements needed to be listed on the California Register of
Historic Resources or as a local historic resource by the city as either a
Structure of Merit or a Landmark property.
ITEM NO. 3
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ June 27, 2023
PLN-2022-44
AU Energy LLC
Public Hearing to consider the request of AU Energy LLC for property
located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue to allow reconstruction of a Shell
gasoline service station with an expanded convenience store including off-
site alcohol beverage sales, a drive-through carwash, and 24-hour
operational hours; associated site, lighting, parking, refuse collection, and
landscaping improvements; and removal of on-site trees. The applications
under consideration include a Conditional Use Permit with Site and
Architectural Review and Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-44.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), denying a Conditional Use Permit w/Site and
Architectural Review and a Tree Removal Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Statutorily Exempt under
Section 15270(a) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: C-2 (General Commercial)
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Lot Area: 26,284 square-feet (current) | 25,491 square-feet (post-dedication)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .161 0.40 (Max. Allowed)
Building Height:
Convenience Store: 26 ½ feet
Fueling Canopy: 19 ½ feet
Carwash Tunnel: 20 ½ feet
Trash Enclosure: 9 ½ feet
Building Square Footage
Convenience Store: 2,387 square-feet
Fueling Canopy: 3,002 square-feet
Carwash Tunnel/Equipment: 1,493 square-feet
Trash Enclosure: 166 square-feet
7,048 square-feet (Total Building Area)
1 Does not include the fueling canopy since this is an unenclosed structure.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Parking: 11 stalls 0 stalls (per AB 2097)
Building Setbacks Proposed Required
Front (north): 10 feet 10-feet
Sides (west): 10 feet 10-feet
Sides (east): 26 feet 5-feet
Rear (south): 5 feet 10-feet2
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is a 26,000 square-foot parcel located at the southwest corner of the
Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 intersection, within the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District and
surrounded by the Staples office supply store and its parking lot to the west and south. The property is
developed with a Shell service station constructed pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit (UP 83-06)
approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 1983. This approval was modified by the
Planning Commission at its meeting of January 12, 2016, to formalize 24-hour operation of the station.3
Scope of Review: This application was deemed "complete" under the Permit Streamlining Act on
January 17, 2023, and therefore is subject to the Zoning Code and General Plan in effect at the time
pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.01.050.E. As such, the land use policies and strategies referenced in this
report are from the prior General Plan. Similarly, the above identified development standards are from
the former Zoning Code, prior to the comprehensive update that was adopted in conjunction with the
2040 General Plan / Housing Element in April.
If this application had been submitted under the current 2040 General Plan (or withdrawn and resubmitted),
new General Plan Action CD-3.f would discourage approval until the City adopted a new Gateway policy
(to supersede the existing 2001 General Plan policy still in effect) or April 2025, whichever came first.
Action CD-3.f: Discourage development of nonresidential uses at Gateway locations until the City Gateway
Policy or Ordinance is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan,
whichever is less.
2 CMC Sec. 21.10.050, Table 2-10 allows the Planning Commission to reduce the rear setback.
3 The service station was a non-conforming use for lack of a Conditional Use Permit that specifically allowed late-night
activity (defined as activity occurring between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM). Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 2002,
such non-conforming uses had to secure City approval for late-night activity within two years or cease late-night hours.
Since this action did not affect the physical configuration or appearance of the service station, the Planning Commission
found the CUP modification consistent with the General Plan
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 3 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Proposed Project: The submitted application for a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural
Review would allow reconstruction of the Shell service station and a Tree Removal Permit to allow
removal of six trees. The new station would incorporate four (double-sided) fueling dispensers
underneath a rectangular canopy, a drive-through carwash, a 2,400 square-foot convenience store, and
associated parking, site, and landscaping improvements (reference Attachment 2 – Project Plans). The
Project Description (reference Attachment 3) states that the rebuilt station would operate 24 hours a
day and that the convenience market would carry alcoholic (beer and wine) beverages.
Background: A preliminary proposal of this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a
study session held on November 9, 2021 meeting (reference Attachment 4 – Meeting Minutes), where
individual Commissioners provided preliminary feedback on the proposal, including:
• Acknowledged inconsistencies within the General Plan but recognized the ultimate goal of the
Gateways policy.
• Expressed misgivings about denying the expansion of a long-standing business.
• Emphasized the importance of Campbell's identity and recommended adherence to the existing
General Plan.
• Discussed the possibility of a multi-story building, compatibility of architecture, potential
traffic flow issues, and the possibility of adding ChargePoint stations.
• Concerns were raised about the proposed carwash due to existing issues with a nearby carwash
overflowing its traffic queue onto the public street.
ANALYSIS
Findings for Approval: To grant a land use approval, the decision-making body must affirmatively
establish that the project meets all codified findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary
basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval as
necessary to establish the findings. The applicable findings depend upon the type of land use approval
under review. The following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings in italics and how the
proposed project satisfies them. Based on this analysis, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission deny the application.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit
approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell
Municipal Code;
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 4 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Yes. The project site is located within the General Commercial (C-2) Zoning District. According
to the Zoning Code, this district is "intended to provide a wide range of retail sales and business
and personal services primarily oriented to the automobile customer and accessible to transit
corridors". Since the C-2 Zoning District caters to commercial uses that need exposure to high
volumes of automobile traffic (e.g., shopping centers, service stations, and restaurants), it is almost
exclusively found along the City's major arterial roadways, including Hamilton, Bascom, and
Camden Avenues, and the southerly portion of Winchester Boulevard.
Consistent with its purpose, the C-2 Zoning District allows the widest array of permitted and
conditional land uses. The proposal would include the following six distinct land use components,
all of which are conditionally allowable in this zoning district: (1) "gasoline station"; (2) "motor
vehicle - cleaning, washing, and detailing"; (3) "outdoor active activities" (the drive-through
component of the carwash); (4) "late night activities" (24-hour operation); (5) "liquor store" (to
allow off-site alcoholic beverage sales); and (6) a "convenience market/store".
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;
No. The former 2001 General Plan land use designation for the project site is General Commercial.
This land use designation supports uses that require high vehicular and pedestrian exposure in order
to sustain the success and viability of the City’s retail and business centers. Establishment of a
gasoline service station with the above-described associated uses along a major commercial
corridor with convenient access to Highway 17 would generally be considered consistent with
purpose of the General Commercial land use designation. However, the proposal to reconstruct and
intensify an existing service station, in this particular location, conflicts with various General Plan
policies and strategies, as discussed, below.
Gateway Policy: The project site is located at the Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 intersection, which
is identified by the former General Plan as a city entry "gateway." The following excerpt from page
LUT-28 of the 2001 General Plan explains the importance of these gateways and ensuring that they
provide a strong "sense of arrival" into the City of Campbell. In staff's assessment, this project fails
to satisfy the gateway policies in that a gas station with a convenience market and drive-through
car wash simply cannot be designed to create a "sense of arrival" into the City. This inability to
comply with the gateway policies is inherent with these land uses such that it is not possible for
the project to be redesigned in a way that could achieve consistency.
Gateways / City Boundaries [Pg. LUT-28]
Gateways and Boundaries are the primary locations
where people enter and leave the city. Gateways
provide initial impressions of Campbell and convey a
“sense of arrival.” Currently the City is lacking
Gateways at its boundaries and to most of its districts
and neighborhoods.
This General Plan Update encourages Gateways at the
city boundaries on major streets and intersections and
at entries to special districts, such as Downtown.
Gateways should be appealing and distinctive, evoking
a positive city or district image. Gateways can be
identified through special architecture, landscape,
and artwork. Uniform signs for the city’s gateways can
also help define the city’s boundaries.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 5 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
The General Plan's vision for entry
gateways is effectuated through Goal LUT-
6 and its supporting policy and strategies,
as excerpted, left. Strategy LUT-6.1b
identifies the need to anchor gateway
intersections with "landmark buildings"
with "distinct architectural character" that
"face and frame" the intersection.
The proposed project fails to achieve these
goals because a service station/
convenience market cannot be sufficiently
designed as a landmark building. A service
station / convenience market lacks the
necessary building scale and potential for
architectural exceptionalism envisioned for
landmark gateway buildings. Fundamentally, a service station cannot fulfill the architectural or
place-making aspirations for a major City gateway as envisioned by the General Plan.
This conflict is notably more significant at the Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 Gateway as it is one
of the most visually prominent and highly trafficked gateways to Campbell. The sightline off the
highway 17 offramp renders the project site particularly visible to motorists entering the City,
further supporting the need to construct a landmark building rather than allowing reconstruction of
a service station.
Transit Supporting Policy: The gateway policy notwithstanding, the proposed continued use of the
property as a service station is also in conflict with General Plan policy pertaining to
complementing land use with the regional transportation system and allowing higher intensity
development near light rail, as stated by Policy LUT-1.5 and Strategy LUT-1.5a, and Strategy LUT-
1.5d, respectively, and within the Priority Development Areas (PDA) per Strategy LUT-2.11.
Policy LUT-1.5: Land Use Planning and the Regional Transportation System: Support land use planning that
complements the regional transportation system.
Strategy LUT-1.5a: Transit-Oriented Developments: 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-1.5d: Higher Floor Area Ratios (FARs): Develop provisions for allowing higher FARs in new
projects that provide a mix of uses, maintain a jobs/housing balance or are located within
proximity to Light Rail.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 6 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Strategy LUT-2.11 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).
The project site is less than ¼ mile from the Hamilton Light Rail Station, and is surrounded by the
City's Priority Development Area (PDA). As such, consistent with the applicable policies and
strategies, the nature of land use development or redevelopment of the property should focus on
transit-oriented development and take advantage of its proximity to light-rail and Downtown
Campbell. This outcome is also strongly supported by the regional Plan Bay Area 2050, which
encourages local jurisdictions to focus on the development of housing, job centers, and mixed-use
developments near transit stations to promote walkability, reduce car dependency, and improve
overall transportation efficiency. In total, allowing significant reinvestment into the property as a
service station use would undermine fulfillment of the vision articulated by Campbell General Plan
as well that of Plan Bay Area 2050.
Design and Architecture Policies: In addition to the project's inconsistency with the General Plan's
gateway and transit-supporting policies, the design approach of the station also presents conflicts
with the General Plan’s design policies, as discussed, below.
Building Placement/Orientation: The General Plan's discussion on building placement at
intersections, excerpted, below, highlights the design imperative to properly orient buildings at
intersections so that they contribute to the creation of a "sense of place". Orienting buildings towards
the street is also supported by Strategy LUT-9.3d as a means to improve the pedestrian experience.
Building Placement at Intersections [Pg. LUT-32]
Major intersections are often the first and most lasting impression of the community. Street intersections create
focal points that can enhance or detract from the image of a community. This highly visible position deserves
special design consideration. Well- designed buildings that frame intersections help define a space and reduce the
expanse of asphalt. Incorporating prominent entries, windows, design details, and landscape oriented to the
intersection creates “a sense of place.” Well-designed and strategically placed buildings can provide a more
positive image of the community.
Strategy LUT-9.3d: Building Design: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces by orienting the
building to the street, including human scale details and massing that engages the pedestrian.
Following the 2021 study session, the applicant revised the site plan to move the convenience store
towards the intersection in attempt to satisfy the referenced General Plan policy. However, as
illustrated by the streetscape rendering (reference Attachment 5), the functional rear of the building
would face the street, with only an exit door along the Hamilton Avenue frontage. Although the
design includes a corner glass element—ostensibly intended to provide the building with an
architectural anchor at the intersection—this feature would be a mere artifice. As depicted in the
floor plan, the corner would operate as a storage room. As a result, the building would be oriented
inward, with its back facing the street, in a manner that contradicts the General Plan's guidance.
Utility room
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 7 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Building Materials: The General Plan's narrative on building and site design speaks to the need to
construct "high quality" buildings, as excerpted, below. This direction is reiterated by Policy LUT-
9.3, and supported by Strategy LUT-9.3e, which encourages the use of "long-lasting, high quality
building materials on all buildings".
Building and Site Design [Pg. LUT-32]
New developments, especially “infill” projects (i.e. new development that primarily takes place by remodeling
existing buildings or by removing an existing structure to accommodate a new structure), require careful attention
to building scale, architectural design, landscaping, and placement and screening of loading areas and mechanical
equipment. With proper encouragement and direction, new development can have a positive affect on
surrounding development and enhance the quality of life for residents, employees, and visitors to Campbell.
The General Plan encourages new developments, including major remodels, which are designed to complement
existing development. New development and improvements can be compatible with surrounding development if
careful attention is paid to scale, materials, colors, building height and form, and design details. Franchise
establishments sometimes employ a generic “corporate architecture” that is garish and repetitive. Corporate
architecture is more difficult to blend with existing development, does not accommodate other commercial land
uses easily and becomes dated quickly. Therefore, corporate architecture is discouraged. The General Plan
encourages high quality building designs that are architecturally attractive and are compatible with or enhance
the surrounding development.
Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning
that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all
buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment.
The elevation and color/material sheet (reference Attachment 6) drawings portray a building
covered in brick with metal accents. However, the project plans and material sheet specify the use
of "thin brick," a veneer material typically ½" or ¼" thick. Due to the flimsiness of this material, it
would not achieve the tactile depth nor durability of a genuine brick. Consequently, the building
would fall short of meeting the design expectations outlined in the General Plan.
Fuel Consumption: General Plan Policy LUT-1.2c directs the City to support Federal, State, and
local legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption in the region:
Policy LUT-1.2c: Regional Vehicle Emissions, Noise and Fuel Consumption Reduction: Support Federal, State,
and local legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption in the
region.
The Federal government and the State of California are committed to transitioning away from
gasoline-fueled motor vehicles in the effort to combat the climate crisis. Of particular relevance,
Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20, which directed the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) to develop regulations to mandate that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars
and trucks are zero-emission by 2035. In response, CARB adopted the "Advanced Clean Cars II"
rule to effectuate the Governor's order last August, which will rapidly accelerate the transition away
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 8 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
from gasoline vehicles. The purchase of electric vehicles will also be incentivized through new tax
credits approved as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. As such, allowing new investment
into the continuation of a gasoline station would be inconsistent with the purpose and trajectory of
State and Federal policy.
C. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls,
landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in
order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area;
Yes. Under the recently adopted State Law AB-2097, the City "shall not impose or enforce any
minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development
project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit." As this property is within 1/2
mile of the Hamilton Light Rail station, it is no longer subject to a parking requirement.
Nonetheless, the project would provide eleven (11) parking stalls. With regarding to fueling trucks,
the project plans show a unidirectional path from eastbound Hamilton Avenue through the site onto
southbound Salmar Avenue that would provide adequate circulation.
D. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate;
Yes. The proposal would result in a negative trip generation due to the fewer number of pumps and
assumptions for a multi-use service station found of the ITE Trip Generation Manual such that
traffic study was not required under the VTA Congestion Management Program. Additionally,
since the project site is within ½ mile from the Hamilton Light-Rail Station, a Vehicles-Miles-
Traveled (VMT) analysis was also not required per the City's VMT policy.
E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with
the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; and
No. Although not applicable to the project, the newly adopted
2040 Campbell General Plan identified this site and surrounding
properties for inclusion within a new Hamilton Avenue Precise
Plan. As effectuated through new Goal LU-9, right, the 2040
General Plan aims to transform the Hamilton Avenue area into a
vibrant, transit-oriented, mixed-use district with safe and
convenient multi-modal connectivity. New uses are anticipated
to be upper-level residential units (apartments and
condominiums) with pedestrian -scale retail, restaurant, and
personal-service businesses on the ground-level intended to
serve the local community. Reconstruction of a service station in
the heart of the Precise Plan area would present an inherent
conflict with these future uses. For this reason, the 2040 General
Plan includes a policy discouraging new non-residential projects
until the City adopts the precise plan so that new development
may further this vision. Approval of the project could potentially
undermine this position since it would result in an intensified
vehicle-oriented activity near a light-rail station in contradiction
of accepted transit-oriented development (TOD) principles.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 9 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
F. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not
be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.
Yes. Although this site has had some history of nuisance and criminal activity, this was reflection
of the prior operator and there are no active code enforcement or police investigations regarding
the property. Use of the property as its current form and as proposed would not impair the public
health or safety.
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):
A. The project will be consistent with the general plan.
No. See the response for Conditional Use Permit Finding 'B,' above.
B. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area.
No. See the response for Conditional Use Permit Finding 'F,' above.
C. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement,
overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s).
Yes. There are no design guidelines for commercial buildings applicable to this project, nor is the
project site subject to any area, neighborhood, or specific plan.
Tree Removal Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.32.080)
The application includes the proposed removal of all on-site
trees, as noted in the table, right, as they would physically
conflict with the proposed construction. Traditionally, this
occurrence may allow for consideration of approval of a Tree
Removal Permit under the "economic enjoyment and hardship"
finding, noted, below. However, since the findings for approval
of the overall project cannot be established, there is not an
economic basis to remove the trees. As such, this finding cannot
be established, and the other findings are inapplicable.
A. Diseased or danger of falling. The tree or trees are diseased or presents a danger of falling that
cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures
and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal;
B. Structure Damage. The tree or trees have caused or may imminently cause significant damage to
the existing main structure(s) that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable
modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
C. Utility Interference. The tree or trees have interfered with utility services where such interference
cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable modification/relocation of the utility services
and/or reasonable modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
D. Overplanting. The tree(s) is crowding other protected tree(s) to the extent that removal is necessary
to ensure the long-term viability of adjacent tree(s); OR
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 10 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
E. Economic enjoyment and hardship. The retention of the tree(s) restricts the economic enjoyment of
the property or 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 approval authority that
there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). A minor reduction of the potential
number of residential units or building size due to the tree location does not represent a severe
limit of the economic enjoyment of the property.
Consideration in Review of Applications: In addition to the findings for approval, the Zoning Code
(CMC Sec. 21.42.040) directs the Planning Commission to consider certain design and layout aspects
of the proposal prior to rendering a decision, referenced to as "considerations". The following identifies
these considerations and application consistency.
A. Considerations relating to traffic safety, traffic congestion, and site circulation:
See the response for Conditional Use Permit Finding 'D,' above.
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
The project site would be completely landscaped in compliance with the State's Model Water
Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO). In total, the project would result in a landscape area
of approximately 3,717 square-feet or 14% of the site's net lot area, exceeding the City's minimum
10% requirement for the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. However, the project includes
requested reductions to the minimum landscaping dimensions, including: (1) a reduction from 10-
feet to 5-feet along Salmar Avenue, (2) a reduction from 5-feet to 2-feet along the rear property
line, and a reduction from 5-feet to 3-feet along the interior side property line.
CMC Sec. 21.26.050 allows the Planning Commission to "adjust the landscaping requirements of
this chapter for a specific use at a specific location so as to require either a greater or lesser amount
of landscaping when it determines that there are unique or special circumstances that warrant an
adjustment." The applicant has indicated that site constraints and the driveway locations necessitate
the requested adjustments and would be offset by an increase to the overall quantity of landscaping
from 10% to 14%.
C. Considerations relating to structures and site layout:
See the response for Conditional Use Permit Finding 'B,' above, pertaining to "Design and
Architecture Policies".
Special Use Provisions: Some types of land uses have special provisions that govern their operation.
This includes "off-site alcoholic sales establishments" (i.e., "liquor stores"), as provided in CMC Sec.
21.36.110. The following identifies these provisions and application consistency. Note that the existing
convenience market already is licensed to sell beer and wine products.
A. Conditional use permit required. Off-site alcoholic sales establishments shall be allowed by
conditional use permit, in compliance with Chapter 21.46, (Conditional Use Permits), and
subject to all of the restrictions of the applicable zoning district.
An application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted and is under consideration by the
Planning Commission.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 11 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
B. Plans. Plot plans, landscaping and irrigation plans, and floor plans shall be subject to the
approval of the planning commission.
The applicant submitted project materials consistent with the requirements of the applicable
application checklist.
C. Proximity to sensitive receptors. All off-site alcoholic sales establishments, except grocery
stores, shall be separated from a park, playground, or school a minimum distance of 300 feet
measured between the nearest property lines.
There are no parks, playgrounds, or schools within 300 feet of the project site.
D. Proximity to other establishments. All off-site alcoholic establishments, except grocery stores,
shall be a minimum of 500 feet from another such use, either within or outside the city.
The nearest off-site alcohol establishments are Garden City Liquors and the Rotten Robbie
service station, both of which are over 800 feet away from the project site.
E. Additional conditions. The planning commission may add additional conditions required to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
Since staff is recommending denial of the application, no conditions are proposed.
F. Proximity to payday lenders. All off-site alcoholic establishments, except grocery stores, shall
be a minimum of five hundred feet from any payday lender, either within or outside the city.
There are no payday lenders within 500 feet of the project site.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC)
reviewed this application at its meeting of April 11, 2023. The SARC had the following comments:
➢ Agreed with staff on the design issues, particularly with regard to the building backing-up onto
Hamilton Avenue and the materials not being high quality.
➢ Expressed concern about the larger convenience store and additional traffic.
➢ Expressed concern that the project could result in a "lose-lose" situation.
Public Comment: No public comment has been received on this application.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, this project is misaligned with the strategic vision and policy directives articulated by the
former 2001 General Plan. It would fail to establish a "sense of arrival" into a prime City gateway,
lacking the aesthetic and design characteristics necessary for a landmark building. It likewise would
undermine the City’s efforts to align land use and transportation to encourage a sustainable urban
growth pattern in the area. Moreover, allowing additional investment in a gasoline service station,
particularly in this location, would conflict with State and Federal policy objectives aimed at reducing
motor vehicle emissions. In consideration of these factors, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission reject this application.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 12 of 12
PLN-2022-44 ~ 570 E. Hamilton Avenue
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant has indicated that a long-term lease will require use of the property for gasoline sales
until 2046 and that if the application is rejected, the property would remain in its current state until
then. However, market forces in the next decade may alter the economic considerations between the
applicant and the property owner in a manner that could facilitate appropriate redevelopment of the
property in the future. This may be particularly true if State and Federal policies result in a precipitous
drop in gasoline consumption, which may reduce the profitability of older gas stations without modern
amenities, resulting in their closure. Indeed, some cities are beginning to consider formally prohibiting
the construction of new gasoline service stations in recognition of this shift. As such, the applicant's
assertions need not be taken at face value.
Ultimately, there will be a number of properties in this area—in addition to the project site—that will
be developed during the next development cycle, including the Fry's Electronics, Elephant Bar, and
Staples sites, as well as the small professional office building immediately to the south (which had been
subject to formal application for a hotel). All of these properties are generational opportunities to
reimagine the urban form of this critical entry into the City; a future in which a gasoline station has no
place.
ALTERNATIVE
If the Planning Commission wishes to favorably consider the application, the public hearing should be
continued to a date uncertain to allow staff to prepare an environmental document as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), allowing the project to be considered for approval. The
Commission should also articulate how the project complies with the General Plan so that staff may
prepare draft approval findings for the Commission's consideration.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Project Description
4. PC Meeting Minutes, dated November 9, 2021
5. Streetscape Rendering
6. Color/Material Sheet
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. ____
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING WITH PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT WITH SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO
ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
WITH AN EXPANDED CONVENIENCE STORE INCLUDING OFF-
SITE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES, A DRIVE-THROUGH
CARWASH, AND 24-HOUR OPERATIONAL HOURS WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE, LIGHTING, PARKING, REFUSE COLLECTION,
AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS; AND A TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF ON-SITE TREES, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 570 E. HAMILTON AVENUE. FILE NO.:
PLN-2022-44
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 Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File Number PLN-2021-43:
Evidentiary Findings
1.The Project Site is an approximately 26,000 square-foot parcel located at the southwest
corner of the Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 intersection and 0.20 mile from the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Hamilton Light Rail Station.
2.The Project Site is designated by the Campbell Zoning Map as C-2 (General Commercial)
and by the Campbell General Plan Land Use Diagram as General Commercial.
3.The Project Site is surrounded by the Staples office supply store and its parking lot to the
west and south and is across the street from a retail center to the north across Hamilton
Avenue and the former Fry's Electronics store to the east across Salmar Avenue.
4.The Project Site is currently entitled with a Conditional Use Permit (UP 83-06) approved
by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2227, as amended by Resolution No. 4269
(PLN2015-22), allowing 24-hour operation of a service station and convenience market
with off-sale of beer and wine products.
5.The Proposed Project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit with Site and
Architectural Review and Tree Removal Permit (PLN-2022-44) to allow reconstruction of
a Shell service station with an expanded convenience store including off-site alcohol
beverage sales, a drive-through carwash, and 24-hour operational hours. The specific
conditional uses of the Proposed Project include a (1) "gasoline station"; (2) "motor vehicle
-cleaning, washing, and detailing"; (3) "outdoor active activities" (the drive-through
component of the carwash); (4) "late night activities" (24-hour operation); (5) "liquor store"
(to allow off-site alcoholic beverage sales); and (6) a "convenience market/store".
6.The application for the Proposed Project was deemed "complete" under the Permit
Streamlining Act on January 17, 2023, and therefore is subject to the Zoning Code and
General Plan in effect at the time pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.01.050.E.
Attachment - 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 467_ Page 2 of 6
570 E. Hamilton Avenue – Shell Service Station
Denial of a Conditional Use Permit w/ S&A Review (PLN-2021-43)
7. Chapter 21.46 of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) requires application for a
Conditional Use Permit for certain prescribed land use activities so that the City may
evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis relative to site specific considerations for the
following reasons:
• Conditional uses are those that have a special impact or uniqueness so that their
effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance of the use
being proposed for a particular location.
• The process for reviewing Conditional Use Permit applications is intended to
protect the integrity and character of the residential, commercial, industrial, and
mixed use areas of the city, consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses, and implementation programs of the General Plan.
• The Conditional Use Permit process also provides for adequate review and input
for development projects that potentially impact the community, and adequate
review to ensure that development in each zoning district protects the integrity of
that district.
• A project requiring Conditional Use Permit approval is reviewed as to its location,
design configuration, and potential impacts by comparing the project to established
standards as to determine whether the permit should be approved by weighing the
public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the project, against any impacts
it may cause.
8. The City’s exercise of the Conditional Use Permit process furthers the intent of the Zoning
Code as specified by CMC Section 21.01.30 (Purpose), including but not limited to the
implementation of the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, to
maintain community character and to avoid congestion.
9. In review of the Proposed Project, the Planning Commission considered the compliance
of all applicable development standards provided by the Zoning Code, consistency with
the goals, policies, and strategies of the General Plan, and the entirety of the
administrative record including staff reports, public testimony (verbal and written), and
technical analyses.
10. The General Plan prescribes that “in making land use decisions, the City’s decision
makers must consider which land uses will best serve the public interest, while allowing
property owners reasonable property use.” (Page LUT-3).
11. The Project Site is located at the Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 intersection, which is
identified by the Campbell General Plan as a city entry "gateway." Page LUT-28 of the
General Plan describes the gateways, as follows:
Gateways and Boundaries are the primary locations where people enter and leave the city. Gateways
provide initial impressions of Campbell and convey a “sense of arrival.” Currently the City is lacking
Gateways at its boundaries and to most of its districts and neighborhoods….This General Plan Update
encourages Gateways at the city boundaries on major streets and intersections and at entries to
special districts, such as Downtown. Gateways should be appealing and distinctive, evoking a positive
city or district image. Gateways can be identified through special architecture, landscape, and
artwork. Uniform signs for the city’s gateways can also help define the city’s boundaries.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 467_ Page 3 of 6
570 E. Hamilton Avenue – Shell Service Station
Denial of a Conditional Use Permit w/ S&A Review (PLN-2021-43)
12. The General Plan's vision for entry gateways is effectuated through Goal LUT-6 and its
supporting policy and strategies, below. The Proposed Project fails to achieve the
objectives established by Goal LUT-6 and its supporting policy and strategies in that an
expanded gasoline station, convenience market, and drive-through carwash cannot
adequately anchor a gateway intersection with "landmark buildings" with "distinct
architectural character" that "face and frame" the intersection. This conflict is notably more
significant at the Hamilton/Salmar/Highway 17 Gateway as it is one of the most visually
prominent and highly trafficked gateways into the City.
Goal LUT-6: Strong and identifiable City boundaries that provide a sense of arrival into the
City and its districts to reinforce Campbell’s quality small town image.
Policy LUT-6.1: Entries to the City and Special Districts: Identify entries to the city and special
districts (Downtown, San Tomas Neighborhood, and others) with special
features.
Strategy LUT-6.1a: Identification Signs: Install city identification signs including distinctive
landscaping and lighting or other markers at community gateways to signify
entry.
Strategy LUT-6.1b: Landmark Gateway Buildings: Anchor gateway intersections with landmark
buildings that incorporate distinctive architectural character. Orient landmark
buildings to face and frame the corners of intersections.
Strategy LUT-6.1c: Gateway Intersections: Develop major gateway intersections such as Highway
17 / Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway / Winchester Boulevard
with signage, lighting and abundant landscaping, using tall trees and under-
planting.
13. The Project Site’s prominent location with proximity to CA Highway 17 and Hamilton Light
Rail Station supports a higher and better use of land than the Proposed Project which
does not maximize the development capacity of the subject property as evidenced by the
.16 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and single-story design where a 0.40 FAR and a 75-foot height
limit are specified by the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District.
14. Moreover, the vehicle orientation of the Proposed Project conflicts with General Plan
policies and strategies pertaining to complementing land use with the regional
transportation system and allowing higher intensity development near light rail, as stated
by Policy LUT-1.5 and Strategy LUT-1.5a, and Strategy LUT-1.5d, respectively, and within
the Priority Development Areas (PDA) per Strategy LUT-2.11, since the project site is less
than ¼ mile from the Hamilton Light Rail Station, and is surrounded by the City's Priority
Development Area (PDA).
Policy LUT-1.5: Land Use Planning and the Regional Transportation System: Support land use
planning that complements the regional transportation system.
Strategy LUT-1.5a: Transit-Oriented Developments: 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 467_ Page 4 of 6
570 E. Hamilton Avenue – Shell Service Station
Denial of a Conditional Use Permit w/ S&A Review (PLN-2021-43)
Strategy LUT-1.5d: Higher Floor Area Ratios (FARs): Develop provisions for allowing higher FARs in
new projects that provide a mix of uses, maintain a jobs/housing balance or are
located within proximity to Light Rail.
Strategy LUT-2.11 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).
15. For the above reasons, the Proposed Project is also in conflict with Plan Bay Area 2050,
which encourages local jurisdictions to focus on the development of housing, job centers,
and mixed-use developments near transit stations to promote walkability, reduce car
dependency, and improve overall transportation efficiency.
16. Notwithstanding inconsistency with the General Plan's gateway and transit-supporting
policies, the Proposed Project also fails to satisfy the design expectations established by
the General Plan pertaining to Building Placement/Orientation, as described of Page LUT-
32, and effectuated by Strategy LUT-9.3d, in that the building would be oriented inwards,
with the functional rear of the building facing the Hamilton Avenue frontage.
Major intersections are often the first and most lasting impression of the community. Street intersections
create focal points that can enhance or detract from the image of a community. This highly visible
position deserves special design consideration. Well- designed buildings that frame intersections help
define a space and reduce the expanse of asphalt. Incorporating prominent entries, windows, design
details, and landscape oriented to the intersection creates “a sense of place.” Well-designed and
strategically placed buildings can provide a more positive image of the community.
Strategy LUT-9.3d: Building Design: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces by
orienting the building to the street, including human scale details and massing that
engages the pedestrian.
17. The Proposed Project also fails to satisfy the design expectations established by the
General Plan pertaining to design and materials, as described on Page LUT-32, and
effectuated by Policy LUT-9.3 and Strategy LUT-9.3e, in that the proposed use of "thin
brick"—a veneer material typically ½" or ¼" thick—would not achieve the tactile depth nor
durability of a genuine brick. Consequently, the building would fall short of meeting the
design expectations outlined in the General Plan.
New developments, especially “infill” projects (i.e. new development that primarily takes place by
remodeling existing buildings or by removing an existing structure to accommodate a new structure),
require careful attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping, and placement and
screening of loading areas and mechanical equipment. With proper encouragement and direction,
new development can have a positive affect on surrounding development and enhance the quality of
life for residents, employees, and visitors to Campbell.
The General Plan encourages new developments, including major remodels, which are designed to
complement existing development. New development and improvements can be compatible with
surrounding development if careful attention is paid to scale, materials, colors, building height and
form, and design details. Franchise establishments sometimes employ a generic “corporate
architecture” that is garish and repetitive. Corporate architecture is more difficult to blend with existing
development, does not accommodate other commercial land uses easily and becomes dated quickly.
Therefore, corporate architecture is discouraged. The General Plan encourages high quality building
designs that are architecturally attractive and are compatible with or enhance the surrounding
development.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 467_ Page 5 of 6
570 E. Hamilton Avenue – Shell Service Station
Denial of a Conditional Use Permit w/ S&A Review (PLN-2021-43)
Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site
planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and
natural resources.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building
materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment.
18. General Plan Policy LUT-1.2c directs the City to support Federal, State, and local
legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption in the region.
Approval of the Proposed Project would be in contradiction to Federal and State policies
to reduce gasoline fuel consumption, including Executive Order N-79-20, which directed
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations to mandate that 100%
of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are zero-emission by 2035, which was
effectuated by CARB "Advanced Clean Cars II" rule adopted in August 2022, which will
rapidly accelerate the transition away from gasoline vehicles. Moreover, the purchase of
electric vehicles will also be incentivized through new tax credits approved as part of the
federal 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Policy LUT-1.2c: Regional Vehicle Emissions, Noise and Fuel Consumption Reduction: Support
Federal, State, and local legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and
fuel consumption in the region.
19. Future uses in the vicinity of the Project Site are anticipated to be upper-level residential
units (apartments and condominiums) with pedestrian-scale retail, restaurant, and
personal-service businesses on the ground-level intended to serve the local community.
20. Rejection of the Proposed Project does not deny the property owner reasonable use of
the property as the current service station and convenience store may continue to be
operated consistent with the approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 83-06/ PLN2015-22).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.46.040 and Section
21.46.050 and in consideration of the entire administrative record, and in weighing the public
need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the project, against any impacts it may cause,
the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan;
2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible
with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property;
Site and Architectural Review Permit Finding (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):
3. The project will not be consistent with the general plan;
4. The project will not aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area;
Tree Removal Permit Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.32.080.A):
5. The tree or trees are not diseased or presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled
or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and
practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 467_ Page 6 of 6
570 E. Hamilton Avenue – Shell Service Station
Denial of a Conditional Use Permit w/ S&A Review (PLN-2021-43)
6. The tree or trees have not caused or may imminently cause significant damage to the
existing main structure(s) that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable
modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
7. The tree or trees have not interfered with utility services where such interference cannot
be controlled or remedied through reasonable modification/relocation of the utility services
and/or reasonable modification of the tree's root or branch structure;
8. The tree(s) is are not crowding other protected tree(s) to the extent that removal is
necessary to ensure the long-term viability of adjacent tree(s);
9. The retention of the tree(s) does not restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or
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 approval authority
that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). A minor reduction of the
potential number of residential units or building size due to the tree location does not
represent a severe limit of the economic enjoyment of the property; and
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
10. The action to deny the project is Statutorily Exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resource Code Section
21080(b)(5).
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies with prejudice a
Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow reconstruction of a
gasoline service station with an expanded convenience store including off-site alcohol
beverage sales, a drive-through carwash, and 24-hour operational hours with associated site,
lighting, parking, refuse collection, and landscaping improvements; and a tree removal permit
to allow removal of on-site trees, for property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue, subject to
the prohibition of the same or substantially similar development proposal being submitted
within twelve months pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.56.080.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
Attachment - 2
Written Project Description for:
Shell Gas Station, Convenience Store
570 E. Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, CA
On behalf of our Client A U Energy, LLC., we are submitting this written description for the
reconstruction of the Shell gas station at the above referenced site. The project scope of work
consists of removing all structures on site and installing a new 2,387 sf. convenience store and a
959 sf. self-service drive-through carwash tunnel w/ attached 267 sf. equipment room and 267 sf.
storage. The proposed gas station includes a fuel canopy with (4) multi product fuel dispensers
and (2) 20K gallon underground storage tanks. The site improvements include: parking stalls,
accessible path of travel to the right-of-way, masonry trash enclosure, site lighting, landscaping &
self-service air/water & vacuum units. The following are items to be considered in this project:
ITEMS TO BE SOLD AT THIS FACILITY: The gas station will sell gasoline, the convenience
store will sell pre-packaged food items, sundry items, some automobile accessories (i.e.- air
fresheners, cell phone accessories, anti-freeze, motor oil, etc.) self-service beverages, fresh
and/or pre-packaged pastries & can and/or bottles of soda, water, sports/energy drinks and
alcoholic beverages (Beer & Wine). The carwash will provide self-service, drive-through
carwashes. There will be NO carwash employees on duty.
EMPLOYEE: There will be (4) full time employees per shift, (1) manager and (1) assistant
manager. There will be (3) shifts per day. Total employee is (14) full time employees five
days a week and (12) part-time employees two days a week.
HOURS OF OPERATION: The current hours of operation of the gas station and snack shop
are: 24 hrs. / day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year and will remain the same. The carwash
hours of operation will be: 24 hrs. / day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year
FUEL DELIVERY: The fuel delivery truck will make deliveries 7 times / week.
RECYCLED CARWASH WATER: Prior to discharge to the public sewer system, the used
carwash water runs through (2) types of treatment tanks the first tank is the sand/oil
separator. This tank includes (2) compartments. The sand oil separator intercepts the sand
in the first compartment and the oil in the second compartment. The access water then
leaves the san /oil separator tank to the clarifier tank. The clarifier tank consists of (3)
compartments to clear the water for the reuse by the carwash equipment. The percentage of
the recycled water to be re-used in the carwash will be controlled by the reclaim system.
SITE LIGHTING: The exterior lighting levels will be enough to ensure the safety of the
facility, but to not provide glare or excessive light spillage onto adjacent properties or the
public right-of-way
REDUCE REAR SETBACK: Per CMC section 21.10.050.E., Table 2-10, we are requesting
a reduction in the rear setback along the south property line for the following reasons: A) To
accommodate a carwash tunnel with a separate carwash equipment room, we need to
reduce the rear setback to 5 ft. Please note that the project provides 14% landscape area.
the landscape area provided is grater that the required landscape area which is 10%. B)
Moving the carwash building north to accommodate the 10 ft. set back will impact the fuel
canopy circulation and the fuel delivery truck path. C) Moving the carwash building north to
accommodate the 10 ft. set back will push the proposed driveway on Salmar Ave. closer to
the street intersection. D) Moving the carwash building north to accommodate the 10 ft. set
back will reduce the carwash stacking lane length.
REDUCE THE FRONTAGE PLANTER: We are requesting to reduce the frontage planter on
Salmar Ave., to 6 ft. & 5ft. The reason for this request is as follow: A) To allow the fuel
canopy to have a passing lane adjacent to the fueling line on Salmar Ave. frontage. B)
Muthana Ibrahim
Architect
President
Telephone :
(925) 287-1174
Facsimile:
(925) 943-1581
Cell:
(925) 878-9875
Email:
muthana@miarchitect.com
Website:
www.miarchitect.com
M I A r c h i t e c t s, I n c. A C a l i f o r n i a C o r p o r a t i o n
A R C H I T E C T U R E . P L A N N I N G . M A N A G E M E N T . D E S I G N
2 2 2 1 O L Y M P I C B L V D. , S U I T E 100 , W A L N U T C R E E K , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 5 9 5
Attachment - 3
Page 2 of 2
11/4/2022
Mr. Darin Goon
S:\1-Projects\20-50120 570 E Hamilton, Campbell\Doc's\Campbell Written Statement-10-18-22.doc
Widen the planter to 10 ft. on Salmar Ave. frontage will impact the length of the proposed
carwash tunnel & equipment room.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. I can be reached at
(925) 287-1174 x1.
Sincerely, Muthana Ibrahim
Architect, President
M I Architects, Inc.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Action Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
NOVEMBER 9, 2021 REMOTE ON-LINE ZOOM MEETING
The Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2021, was called to order at 6:38 p.m. by Acting Chair Stuart Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Maggie Ostrowski (arrived 6:53 p.m.)
Vice Chair: Stuart Ching Commissioner: Adam Buchbinder Commissioner: Matt Kamkar Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin
Commissioner: Alan Zisser
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Community Development
Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Daniel Fama Senior Planner: Stephen Rose City Attorney: William Seligmann
Recording Secretary: Corinne Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner
Buchbinder, the Planning Commission action minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2021, were approved as submitted. (5-0-1-1; Chair Ostrowski was absent for this vote and Vice Chair Ching abstained)
Attachment - 4
Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 9, 2021 Page 4
Chair Ostrowski advised that this item would be considered by the City Council for final action.
***
STUDY SESSION 1
2.PLN-2021-169 Study Session to consider a Preliminary Application (PLN-2021-169) to review the proposed reconstruction of an existing service station (Shell) with a new convenience market and drive-through carwash on property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner.
Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, provided the staff report.
Chair Ostrowski asked if there were Commission questions for staff.
Planner Daniel Fama advised that the current General Plan calls for more intensive development. However, the existing use can stay as it is. The reinvestment of this scale is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Kamkar asked if this upgrade proposal is consistent with the current General
Plan. Just not with the new General Plan currently being updated.
Planner Daniel Fama said that the current General Plan polices were adopted 20 years ago and are consistent with the Land Use diagram.
Commissioner Kamkar pointed out that there are inconsistencies within the General Plan, but he understands the ultimate goal.
Planner Daniel Fama restated that these General Plan polices being referenced were adopted 20 years ago.
Commissioner Buchbinder asked what date of compliance this current use is at with respect to the General Plan
Planner Daniel Fama replied a 1983 Conditional Use Permit approval.
Commissioner Zisser admitted to having misgivings in denying this expansion of a long-standing business.
Director Rob Eastwood:
•Reiterated that the existing General Plan established the Gateways policies.
•Added that the City Council has been favorable with the development of a Specific Planfor this area as part of the Envision General Plan Update.
•Concluded that the PC should consider the existing General Plan when considering thisproject.
Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 9, 2021 Page 5
Chair Ostrowski:
• Reminded that this service station use was approved in 1983.
• Added that with the General Plan adopted 20 years ago, the City’s entry points were to be considered Gateways. There was an idea of what the City wanted at these Gateways but there is/are no Gateway(s) in place now.
• Agreed that it is important for Campbell to have its own sense of identity.
• Concluded that she supports the staff recommendation.
Chair Ostrowski opened the meeting to allow public comment.
Muthana Ibrahim, Architect/Applicant:
• Reported that a new 25-year lease is in place for this site serving as a gas station
• Advised that they are open to any style of architecture requested by the City. Sunny Goyal, Property Owner:
• Reported that his company has 40 locations of Loop, which is a convenience store.
Loop is a high-end market with healthy options. Commissioner Rivlin suggested use of compatible Downtown architecture and materials.
Vice Chair Ching asked why there are no ChargePoint stations.
Sunny Goyal said there is room to accommodate them at the front of the property. Commissioner Kamkar asked if they have considered a multi-story building on this site.
Sunny Goyal replied yes. This is a smaller site. A two-story with a mezzanine or with offices above could be considered. The limiting factor is parking requirements to support the uses. Commissioner Kamkar expressed concern about the traffic flow and site circulation.
Rob Lopez pointed out that there already is a car wash just down the street on Hamilton Avenue that regularly overflows its traffic queuing onto the public street. This is not a great location for this kind of business (carwash).
Chair Ostrowski closed the public comment period and asked for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Zisser pointed out that a new 25-year lease means this service station will be on this location for the next 25 years. He said that it is a nice-looking gas station as it is. He is loathe to reject this business that was established some 35 plus years ago at this site.
Said he likes the inclusion of a better market and inclusion of a second floor to the building
might be good. He said he is leaning toward being in favor of moving this proposal forward with a formal application. Commissioner Krey said he liked the presentation provided by the architect and property
owner. This is a successful business, but the staff report advises that there is a conflict with
expansion of this use per the existing General Plan that requires this area be treated as a
Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 9, 2021 Page 6
Gateway. Questioned whether a more appropriate development of this property would include a service station at all.
Planner Daniel Fama replied not in staff’s position.
Commissioner Krey said that for a long-time successful business this is not a minor issue. He is on the fence.
Vice Chair Ching thanked staff for their report. Encouraged the Commission to see the
housing crisis in the State of California. This site is just five minutes from the Light Rail station although there are a number of practical concerns. It seems this request is inconsistent with the current and future General Plans. There remains an opportunity to do something special here.
Commissioner Buchbinder said having a two-story building on this site is a great idea. Perhaps with the inclusion of a roof deck. Agreed with Mr. Lopez about the overflow at the current carwash located on Hamilton Avenue. That could be a problem here.
Commissioner Rivlin said the question to ask is what Campbell looks like in 20, 30 or even
50 years from now that can help make this site a Gateway. Chair Ostrowski reiterated that as proposed this project is not consistent with either the current or future General Plans. As leaders, it is our role to implement the General Plan
and create a vision on what we want our community to look like. It would take a lot of work
in order for this proposal to meet the guidelines of the existing General Plan. Commissioner Kamkar said he would go with the staff on this one, but he doesn’t want to drive away a good business from our city. However, this is the wrong location to intensify
for such a use. A convenience store does not make much sense. It is clear that this is not
the right place for intensification of this use. Chair Ostrowski told the applicant and property owner that she hopes the feedback and guidance provided will help them determine how to move forward.
Director Rob Eastwood said that there is no formal action to take tonight on this item. (8:09 p.m.)
*** STUDY SESSION 2 (Will start no sooner than 7:30 p.m.) 3. PLN-2021-12 Study Session to review Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing
Opportunity Site Methodology and Selection. Presentation by
Housing Consultant (M-Group) & City Staff. Director Rob Eastwood:
• Introduced the consultants from M-Group, Geoff Bradley, David Hogan, and Christabel
Soria Mendoza.
Attachment - 5
Attachment - 6
ITEM NO. 4
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ June 27, 2023
City-Initiated Compliance Evaluation and Revocation/ Modification of
Negeen Restaurant PLN 2023-65
Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing
restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton
Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a City-Initiated Modification
(PLN-2023-65) to the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the
operation and permitting of existing facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located along West Hamilton Avenue, west of San Tomas Expressway. The
site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, west, and south, a residential apartment community (Park Town Place) to the north, and a residential condominium community (Alvin’s Corner at Penny Lane) to the northeast. The subject liquor establishment1 and restaurant, Negeen Restaurant ("Negeen"), is located
within an existing shopping center (“The Redwoods Shopping Center”). Other tenants of the Redwoods Shopping Center include restaurants (Tapsilong Bistro and Sushi Zono), bank and
1 "Liquor establishments" means a retail activity that is primarily devoted to the selling of alcoholic beverages as a
stand-alone bar or tavern, or in conjunction with a restaurant or nightclub facility, for consumption on the premises. A “Restaurant” is defined as establishments whose primary business is the sale of food and beverages to customers for their consumption within the restaurant or restaurant patio area. Customarily at least fifty percent of the total gross floor area is used for the seating of customers. The restaurant may be open for breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner.
Alcoholic beverages and carryout food service are allowed if they are incidental to the primary purpose of consumption of food and beverages in the restaurant. The definition of a ‘liquor establishment’ and ‘restaurant or
café’ may be seen to conflict with each other given that alcoholic beverages are allowed under the definition of restaurant when ‘incidental to the primary use’. CMC 21.02.020.E. (Conflicting requirements) provides that in the event of a conflict, the most restrictive requirement shall control.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
financial services (Wells Fargo) and retail uses (Pets and More, Elona Foods). The establishment occupies the approximately 2,160 square foot corner tenant space and is accessed directly from a
parking lot.
Figure 1: Project Location BACKGROUND
A Type 47 On-Sale General Eating Place liquor license was issued by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) on May 13, 1992 for the subject site. The alcohol sales is considered to be a non-conforming use due to lack of a Conditional Use Permit. Currently, the municipal code requires a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales. There has not been any disciplinary actions found by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) or any calls for service to the Campbell Police Department related to the alcohol sales.
On November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2093 that required an Administrative Planned Development Permit issued by the Community Development Director for new and existing late-night activities pursuant to the Non-Conforming Uses section.
On April 9, 2010, an Administrative Planned Development Permit was issued by the Community Development Director to allow a late night activity in conjunction with an existing restaurant use (Negeen Restaurant). The approved business hours were restricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 PM to 2:00 AM Fridays and Saturdays. The operational
hours (for staff) was restricted to 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM
to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 3 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
The Administrative Planned Development Permit acknowledged the existing valid Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license (Type 47) for alcohol sales. A Type 47 ABC license authorizes
the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption at the business. The business must
maintain suitable kitchen facilities and make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption at the business. Generally, this requires cooking facilities beyond a microwave or ovens, in which food is merely warmed and served. The food generally must be prepared on the premises.
The Administrative Planned Development Permit also included four relevant conditions of approval, provided below: Condition of approval #9: Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall
have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject
business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject
property in front of the subject property. Condition of approval #11: Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as
part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey,
karaoke, and dancing.
Condition of approval #18: Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable barbeques, is permitted on the subject property.
Condition of approval # 19: Noise:
a. Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing
capacity from any residential property. Public address systems of all types are
strictly prohibited.
b. Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or finds against the business.
Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or
revocation of the City issued business license.
c. Front, Side and Rear Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position during business hours.
In March of 2022, city staff was informed of an upcoming special event planned for the subject
property and determined that Negeen Restaurant did not obtain proper permits (e.g. a live entertainment permit issued by the Police Department) and the event activities would violate the conditions of approval of the previously issued Administrative Planned Development Permit. City staff contacted the owner of the business, Parvid Sahbaee, informing him of the notice of
intent to cite should the event occur without the benefit of proper permits.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 4 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
On March 15, 2022, the event proceeded without proper permits from both the City and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Police Department visited the property and
documented the event. It was noted by the Police Department that the event included an outdoor
barbeque and a disc jockey booth. Shortly after the event, a code enforcement citation of $1,000 was issued due to violating the conditions of approval. The code enforcement citation was paid and the code enforcement case was closed.
In March of 2023, the Police Department received an anonymous phone call reporting loud
music and a stage at the subject property. Officers responded to the call and spoke to the private security team who informed the officers that permits were not obtained, and the event would continue. Later that evening, officers drove by the subject property and noted approximately 200 people in the parking lot with a live band, and outdoor grill.
In April of 2023, the Code Enforcement Division notified the business owner of the code enforcement violation, and a citation of $1,000 was issued. The code enforcement citation has been paid.
In June of 2023, city staff emailed the business owner notice and sent a letter by USPS certified
mail informing the business owner of the date, time, and purpose of this Planning Commission meeting. On June 16, 2023, an attorney representing Negeen Restaurant met with city staff to discuss the violations, possible resolution to the issues, and the Planning Commission public hearing.
DISCUSSION
The City is conducting a compliance evaluation to evaluate Negeen Restaurant’s compliance with the following conditions of approval, in response to unpermitted events occurring at the subject site:
Condition of approval #9: “Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall
have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject property in front of the subject property.”
Condition of Approval #11: “Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as
part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing.”
Condition of Approval #18: “Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable
barbeques, is permitted on the subject property.”
Condition of Approval #19: “Noise: a) Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio
sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to a
person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. Public address systems
of all types are strictly prohibited, b) Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 5 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
fines against the business. Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or revocation of the City issued business license, c) Front, Side, and Rear
Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position
during business hours.” Based on the information collected by the Police Department, summarized in the background section of this report, operations of the unpermitted live events has violated the above four
conditions of approval.
Although the city has used code enforcement actions to cite the business owner, this has not deterred the owner from conducting additional events in violation of the conditions of approval.
The current Administrative Planned Development Permit does not contain conditions of approval
that allow the Community Development Director to make modifications to the use permit conditions (such as a modification in the hours of operation) that address any documented violations. The City has applied conditions of this nature to other establishments in the city, such as bars and other liquor establishments.
Therefore, staff is recommends the Planning Commission amend the conditions of approval through this city-initiated modification/revocation hearing to add a condition that authorizes the Community Development Director the ability to take immediate corrective action by reducing the hours of operation on a temporary basis in the instance there is a documented violation of the
Administrative Planned Development Permit. This proposed condition of approval is provided
below and in Attachment A (Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval): “Revocation of Permit: Operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030, and 21.68.040 of the Campbell
Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke
an Administrative Planned Development Permit if it is determined that business operations has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell.
At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates two (2) verifiable complaint related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise, litter, outdoor cooking, etc.) or has conducted any unpermitted entertainment / special event at the subject site within twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the
Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or
revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of one (1) complaints if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may
also at such time immediately restrict the establishment’s Hours of Operation to 12:00
AM to address noise complaints in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision-making body may consider the following factors, among others:
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 6 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
a) The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of business owner
actions;
b) The number of complaints received from residents, business owners, and other citizens concerning the operation of the establishment;
c) Unpermitted events occurring at the subject site; and
d) Violation of conditions of approval.
To legalize these unpermitted events, a Conditional Use Permit and a Temporary Use Permit
(required on an annual basis) would be required. The Conditional Use Permit would be required to modify the conditions of approval in the Administrative Planned Development Permit to allow, in limited instances through issuance of a Temporary Use Permit, outdoor cooking and live entertainment for special events. The Conditional Use Permit could also address the non-
conforming alcohol sales. The Temporary Use Permit is required for short and intermediate term
activities, such as special events, occurring on private property. The Temporary Use Permit will allow staff the ability to set parameters in how these events shall operate. The Planning Commission may consider an alternative action other than allowing the
Community Development Director to temporarily restrict the hours of operation. This includes –
a) Modifying hours of operation to establish a closing time of 12:00 AM. If the Commission believes there is sufficient evidence to permanently reduce the hours of operation to 12:00 AM, the Commission may modify the Administrative Planned
Development Permit at this hearing.
b) Revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. If the Commission believes there is sufficient evidence to revoke the Administrative Planned Development Permit to remove the ability for late night activity2, the Commission may revoke the
Administrative Planned Development Permit at this hearing. The business would still be
allowed to operate but without the late night hours.
ANALYSIS
Findings Required for Permit Revocation / Modification: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.68.030
and 21.68.040 (Permit modification), a land use permit may be revoked or modified by the
appropriate decision-making body, if any one of the following findings can be made: A. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no
2 Pursuant to Section 21.72.020(L), a “late night activity” is defined as land use activities operating between the
hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, including but not limited to, the provision of goods and services to the public and all ancillary activities such as property maintenance, janitorial services, street and parking lot sweeping, deliveries,
and similar activities. “Late night activities” do not include the lawful, reasonable and customary use of residential uses or professional offices in a manner that does not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of other properties.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 7 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the revocation or modification.
An Administrative Planned Development Permit was granted by the Community
Development Director on April 9, 2010 to allow for the continuance of late night operations. As determined by the Campbell Police Department, Negeen Restaurant had held live events at the subject site which resulted in three noise complaints. These cases document that business operations affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety
of welfare and require modification to the Administrative Planned Development Permit. B. The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit.
This finding does not apply as there is no evidence that the permit issued in 2009 was issued on the basis of a misrepresentation in the application or the applicant’s testimony. C. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been
violated.
As discussed in the Background section of the report, condition of approval #9, 11, 18, and 19 have been violated in 2022 and 2023 by the hosting of live events outside the parameters of the Administrative Planned Development Permit and failure to obtain proper city approvals.
D. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law,
ordinance, regulation, or statute of the City, State, or Federal governments.
This finding does not apply.
E. The improvement or use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body.
As documented in this report, the Campbell Police Department received calls for service for
Negeen Restaurant related to noise during the unpermitted events. Allowing the Community
Development Director to take immediate action in reducing the hours of operation may result in compliance with the Administrative Planned Development Permit. SUMMARY / STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Due to past violations occurring at the subject site related to Negeen’s Restaurant involving
unpermitted events, staff is bringing forth a compliance evaluation in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response.
Staff recommends an amendment to the conditions of approval through this city-initiated
modification/revocation hearing to include a condition of approval allowing the Community Development Director to administratively reduce the hours of operation on a temporary basis.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 8 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”)
Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval
B. Administrative Planned Development Permit C. June 6, 2023 Letter to Parvid Sahbaee D. Code Enforcement Letters
Prepared by: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CITY-INITIATED MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN2009-167), AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT/LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT
(NEGEEN RESTAURANT) WITH LATE-NIGHT ACTIVITIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 801 W. HAMILTON AVENUE. FILE NO.: PLN-2023-65
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 Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to file numbers PLN-2023-65:
1.The subject property is located on the along West Hamilton Avenue, west of San TomasExpressway. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, west, and south, aresidential apartment community (Park Town Place) to the north, and a residentialcondominium community (Alvin’s Corner at Penny Lane) to the northeast.
2. The existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) and liquor establishment is located withinan existing shopping center (The Redwoods Shopping Center). The establishmentoccupies a 2,160 square foot corner tenant space and is accessed directly from theparking lot.
3.The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and is designated with a General
Commercial land use designation by the General Plan.
4.On April 9, 2010, an Administrative Planned Development Permit was issued by the
Community Development Director to allow a late night activity in conjunction with an
existing restaurant use (Negeen Restaurant). The approved business hours wererestricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 PM to 2:00 AMFridays and Saturdays. The operational hours (for staff) was restricted to 6:00 AM to11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays.
5.The Administrative Planned Development Permit included four relevant conditions ofapproval related to littering (condition of approval #9), live entertainment (condition ofapproval #11), outdoor cooking (condition of approval #18), and noise (condition ofapproval #19).
6.In March of 2022, city staff was informed of an upcoming special event planned for thesubject property and determined that Negeen Restaurant did not obtain proper permits(e.g. a live entertainment permit issued by the Police Department) and the event activitieswould violate the conditions of approval of the previously issued Administrative Planned
Development Permit. City staff contacted the owner of the business, Parvid Sahbaee,
Attachment A
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit
informing him of the notice of intent to cite should the event occur without the benefit of proper permits.
7. On March 15, 2022, the event proceeded without proper permits from both the City and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Police Department visited the property and documented the event. It was noted by the Police Department that the event included an outdoor barbeque and a disc jockey booth. Shortly after the event, a code enforcement
citation of $1,000 was issued due to violating the conditions of approval. The code
enforcement citation was paid and the code enforcement case was closed. 8. In March of 2023, the Police Department received an anonymous phone call reporting loud music and a stage at the subject property. Officers responded to the call and spoke
to the private security team who informed the officers that permits were not obtained,
and the event would continue. Later that evening, officers drove by the subject property and noted approximately 200 people in the parking lot with a live band, and outdoor grill. 9. In April of 2023, the Code Enforcement Division notified the business owner of the code
enforcement violation, and a citation of $1,000 was issued. The code enforcement
citation has been paid. 10. Based on the information collected by the Police Department, summarized in the background section of the staff report and contained within this resolution, operations of
the unpermitted live events has violated the four conditions of approval.
11. Although the city has used code enforcement actions to cite the business owner, this has not deterred the owner from conducting additional events in violation of the conditions of approval.
12. The current Administrative Planned Development Permit does not contain conditions of approval that allow the Community Development Director to make modifications to the use permit conditions (such as a modification in the hours of operation) that address any documented violations. The City has applied conditions of this nature to other
establishments in the city, such as bars and other liquor establishments.
13. The modified condition of approval will provide the Community Development Director to immediately and ministerially restrict the hours of operation to 12:00 AM.
14. In review the City-initiated modification, the Planning Commission considered the
proposed project's traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, landscaping, structure design, and site layout. 15. The Planning Commission's review of the City-initiated modification further
encompassed zoning and General Plan land use conformance, noise impacts, parking,
property maintenance, odors, security and enforcement, and neighborhood impacts. 16. The Planning Commission also weighed the public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the City-initiated modification, against any impacts it may cause.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit
17. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the City-initiated
modification, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval,
will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
Modification Findings (CMC Sec. 21.68.040):
1. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the modification;
a. An Administrative Planned Development Permit was granted by the Community
Development Director on April 9, 2010 to allow for the continuance of late night operations. As determined by the Campbell Police Department, Negeen Restaurant had held live events at the subject site which resulted in three noise complaints. These cases document that business operations affect the public convenience,
health, interest, safety of welfare and require modification to the Administrative
Planned Development Permit.
2. The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit;
a. This finding does not apply as there is no evidence that the permit issued in 2009 was
issued on the basis of a misrepresentation in the application or the applicant’s testimony.
3. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated;
a. As discussed in the Background section of the report, condition of approval #9, 11,
18, and 19 have been violated in 2022 and 2023 by the hosting of live events outside the parameters of the Administrative Planned Development Permit and failure to obtain proper city approvals.
4. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law,
ordinance, regulation, or statute of the city, State, or Federal governments; or
a. This finding does not apply.
5. The improvement or use allowed by the permit has is no longer detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit
a. As documented in this report, the Campbell Police Department received calls for service for Negeen Restaurant related to noise during the unpermitted events.
Allowing the Community Development Director to take immediate action in reducing
the hours of operation may result in compliance with the Administrative Planned Development Permit.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
6. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to minor alterations to an existing private
structure, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a City-initiated Modification to a previously Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-
2009-167) amending the conditions of approval for an existing restaurant/liquor
establishment (Negeen Restaurant) with late-night activities on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue, subject to the attached Revised Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL City-Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65)
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. 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a City-initiated Modification to a previously
approved Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167) amending the Conditions of Approval for an existing restaurant and liquor establishment with late-night activities. The configuration of the approved restaurant and liquor establishment shall continue to substantially conform to the revised project plans stamped on December 21, 2009, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval contained herein.
2. Approval Expiration: The Modified Administrative Planned Development approved herein
(hereon "Approval") shall be valid in perpetuity on the property subject to continued exercise of this Approval and maintenance of a Type 47 (On-Sale General License for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) Liquor License issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), except upon revocation pursuant to Condition of
Approval No. 23 (Revocation of Permit). Discontinuation of alcohol service for a
continuous period of twelve months, as evidenced by surrender or revocation of the Type 47 License, shall void this Approval.
3. Previous Conditions of Approval: The previously approved Conditions of Approval provided in the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2009-167) are hereby
void and permanently superseded in their entirety by the Conditions of Approval specified
herein.
4. Administrative Planned Development Permit Approval Expiration: The Administrative Planned Development Permit approval shall be valid in perpetuity with continued operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment. Abandonment, discontinuation, or
ceasing of operations for a continuous period of twelve months shall void the Administrative Planned Development Permit approved herein.
5. Violations: Operation of the use in violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell shall be grounds for consideration of a fine, suspension or revocation of the City issued business license
or Administrative Planned Development Permit.
6. Hours of Operation: Unless modified by Condition of Approval #23 (Modification or Revocation of Permit), the hours of operations are as follows:
a. Business Hours: The business hours of operation shall be restricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:30 AM through 2:00 AM Fridays and
Saturdays. Business hours are the hours the business is open to the public.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 2 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit)
b. Operational Hours: The hours of operation shall be restricted to 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays. The
allowed hours of operation includes the time employees may be on site for
preparation and clean up. At no time shall employees, other than the business owner during an emergency, arrive before 6:00 AM or remain on site after 2:30 AM.
c. Restaurant Seating: As the City of Campbell’s record for the project site show only a 72 seat capacity since 1976, any increase in seating would require a modification of the
previously approved Planned Development Permit (PD73-2). The maximum number of
seats for the restaurant shall be limited to 72 seats.
d. Property Maintenance: The owner/operator of the subject property shall maintain all exterior areas of the business free from graffiti, trash, rubbish, posters and stickers placed on the property. Exterior areas of the business shall include not only the
parking lot and private landscape areas, but also includes the public right-of-way
adjacent to the business.
e. Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject property in front
of the subject property.
f. Signage: No signage is approved as part of the development application approved herein. All signage shall be installed and maintained consistent with the provision of the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 21.30 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
g. Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the development
application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing.
h. Liquor License: The applicant shall maintain a Type 47 (On-Sale General License for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in order to continue serving alcoholic beverages.
i. Food Service: Food service shall be required at all times alcoholic beverages are served.
j. Loitering: There shall be no loitering allowed outside the business. The business owner is responsible for monitoring the premises to prevent loitering.
k. Location of Mechanical Equipment: No roof-mounted mechanical equipment (i.e. air conditioning units, ventilation ducts or vents), shall be added to the existing building without providing screening of the mechanical equipment from public view and
surrounding properties. The screening material and method shall be architecturally
compatible with the building and requires review and approval by the Community Development Director and Building Division prior to installation of such screening.
l. Outdoor Storage: No outdoor storage is permitted on the subject property. No equipment, materials or business vehicles shall be parked and/or stored outside the building or within
the parking lot.
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 3 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit)
m. Outdoor Seating: No outdoor seating is approved with this development application.
n. Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable barbeques, is permitted on the
subject property.
o. Noise:
a. Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds, and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to person of normal hearing
capacity from any residential property. Public address system of all types are strictly
prohibited.
b. Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or fines against the business.
Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or revocation
of the City issued business license.
c. Front, Side, and Rear Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position during business hours.
p. Trash & Clean Up: All trash, normal clean up, carpet cleaning, etc. shall be done
between the hours of 11:00 AM and 11:00 PM. At no time shall noise generating cleanup, including the dumping of trash and/or recyclables occur between 11:00 PM and 11:00 AM.
q. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be maintained in compliance with the standards in Chapter 21.28 (Parking & Loading) of the Campbell
Municipal Code.
r. Modification or Revocation of Permit: Operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030, and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke an Administrative Planned Development Permit if it is
determined that business operations has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell.
At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates two (2) verifiable complaint related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise,
litter, outdoor cooking, etc.) or has conducted any unpermitted entertainment / special event at the subject site within twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval
upon the occurrence of one (1) complaint if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may also at such time immediately restrict the establishment’s Hours of Operation to 12:00 AM to
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 4 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit)
address noise complaints in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision-making body may consider the following factors, among others:
a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the
establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of business owner actions;
b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners, and other citizens concerning the operation of the establishment,
c. Unpermitted events occurring at the subject site; and
d. Violation of conditions of approval.
Attachment B
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • E-MAIL planning@campbellca.gov
via USPS certified mail June 6, 2023
Negeen Restaurant
Parvid Sahbaee 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Campbell, CA 95008
Re: File No: PLN-2023-65
Address: 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Application: Revocation/ Modification of the Administrative Planned Development Permit
Dear Parvid Sahbaee,
Negeen Restaurant has been issued two citations (dated March 21, 2022 and April 10, 2023) for
violating the conditions of approval for your Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2009-167) and failing to obtain proper city approvals for the entertainment events held at the subject property. Pursuant to Section 21.68.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code, the Community Development Director is scheduling a public hearing for noncompliance and to consider
revocation / modification of your Permit.
This letter is to inform you of an upcoming Planning Commission public hearing concerning the Administrative Planned Development Permit for Negeen Restaurant. Due to continued violations of the conditions of approval and continued unpermitted activity occurring at the property related to Negeen Restaurant, the City is scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission to
consider modifying or revoking the previously approved Administrative Planned Development
Permit. The Planning Commission meeting details are as follows:
•Planning Commission: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 – 7:30 PM
The meeting agenda, staff reports, and resolutions will be published online and available to you
by Friday, June 23rd, 2023 at the following website: https://www.campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter.
You are encouraged to read through the materials.
It is highly recommended that you attend this meeting. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 871-5103 or by email at tracyt@campbellca.gov.
Sincerely,
Tracy Tam Associate Planner
Attachment C
City of Campbell
CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
SUBJECT: Municipal Code Violation
LOCATION: 801 W HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
CASE NUMBER: CE-2022-60
Dear Hamilton Square LLC,
The Code Enforcement Division of the City of Campbell has received a complaint that the above referenced property
is in violation of one or more Municipal Code regulations. The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the
condition of your property is a public nuisance and to request your immediate action to resolve these conditions are
required.
The violation(s) to date are as follows:
Hamilton Square LLC
1142 S Winchester Blvd
San Jose, CA 95128
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CITE
Declaration of Public Nuisance
Date 03/15/2022
Violation: Business operations are in violation of Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval. Live entertainment
is not permitted at this property.
Codes: CMC § 21.03.020, Conditions of approval: the use of land and/or structure shall comply with any applicable
conditions imposed by any granted land use permit or other approval.
Required Correction:
1) Cease operating out of required conditions listed on the CUP; including but not limited to:
PLN2009-167 Conditions of Approval 11. Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the
development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing.
(Revised Conditions of Approval for File No. PLN2009-167 enclosed)
Attachment D
Randy Sweet - CEO-04
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Campbell
(408) 866-2760
randys@campbellca.gov
encl: Additional Information on Procedures and Penalties
Photos of violations
Please be advised that fines and enforcement costs of a $1,000.00 a day for each violation(s) until they have been
resolved may be assessed WITHOUT FURTHER WARNING if compliance with the above listed code
violation is not achieved no later than 14 days from the date of this notice.
Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. If you feel that this notice was sent in error or have information
that indicates corrective action has been taken, please contact me at using the contact information listed below. Thank
you for your anticipated cooperation.
Failure to respond to this notice may result in further actions, including but not limited to criminal prosecution,
civil suits, administrative proceedings or filing of notice of special assessment lien on your property. See
attached Additional Information on Procedures and Penalties for further explanation.
ITEM NO. 5
City of Campbell -- Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Planning Commission Date: June 27, 2023
From: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Community Development Department Workplan – Fiscal Year 2024
The purpose of this discussion item before the Planning Commission will be to present the
Department’s adopted FY 24 Workplan (per the FY 24 Budget adopted by Council on June 20,
2023) and discuss expected timelines and touch-points for Planning Commission review and
any opportunities for Planning Commission support, if desired (through an ad-hoc subcommittee
or other means)
The following workplan is excerpted from the FY 24 Budget and also found here – https://city-
campbell-ca-budget-book.cleargov.com/10950/budget-overview/executive-overview
Color shading represents references to the City Council priorities as follows:
Long-Term Land Use Planning and Housing
Sustainability
Financial Stability
Community Development
101.550 (Administration)
• In coordination with the Finance Department, City Council, key stakeholders, and outside
consultants (as needed), develop funding strategies and options to support Housing
Element programs. CO-LEAD DEPARTMENTS - Finance and Community
Development [Council Priorities – Financial Stability and Long-Term and Land Use
Planning and Housing]
• Upgrade permit tracking system to create greater efficiencies and increase performance
in permit processing. [Operational Need]
101.551 (Policy Development)
• Prepare a Citywide Climate Action Plan (Spring 2023) [Council Priority –
Sustainability]
Director’s Report for October 11, 2022 Page 2
• Complete update to Zoning Ordinance and objective standards for single family
residential in conformance with state laws. [Council Priority – Long - Term Land Use
Planning and Housing]
• In coordination with the Public Works Department, start preparation of Hamilton Avenue
Precise Plan [Council Priority – Long - Term Land Use Planning and Housing]
• In coordination with the Recreation and Community Services and Public Works
Departments, prepare a Citywide Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan [Council
Priority – Long - Term Land Use Planning and Housing]
• In coordination with the Public Works Department, preparation of a Citywide Multimodal
plan with bicycle and pedestrian improvements [Council Priority – Long - Term Land
Use Planning and Housing]
101.554 (Building)
• Expand capacity to provide plan check and inspection services to support volume of
existing and future permit applications [Operational Need]
233.557 (Housing Assistance)
• Implement BMR Housing program improvements as identified in Housing Program audit
in association with Housing Element implementation [Council Priority – Long - Term
Land Use Planning and Housing]
• Prepare nexus studies to consider modifications to the City's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and creation of a Commercial Linkage Housing Fee to support Affordable
Housing production [[Council Priority – Long - Term Land Use Planning and Housing]
• Prepare Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to support affordable housing
development [Council Priority – Long -Term Land Use Planning and Housing]
• Conduct feasibility studies for potential development of corporation yard for affordable
housing [Council Priority – Long Term Land Use Planning and Housing]
• Expand homelessness programs including development of a Homekey project and hiring
of an unhoused coordinator [Council Priority – Long - Term Land Use Planning and
Housing]
101.556 (Economic Development)
• Complete Update to Economic Development Plan & Short-Term Strategic Plan [Council
Priority – Financial Stability]
• In coordination with the Public Works Department, complete implementation of downtown
Semi-Permanent Parklet Program [Operational Need]
City of Campbell -- Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Planning Commission Date: June 27, 2023
From: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
I. June 20, 2023 Council Meeting
At the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Fiscal Year 2024
Budget
The FY 24 Community Development Department workplan will be discussed with the Planning
Commission under a different agenda item. The FY 24 Budget identifies funding for the following
projects, programs, and staffing needs:
Projects
• MGO Project Manager - $60,000; Description/Notes: Special limited-term contractual
Project Manager to assist with MGO permit system build outs for the department across
all divisions.
• Citywide Mulitmodal Transportation Plan - $78,000;; Description/Notes: City grant match
shown. Full cost $650,000. Staff recommends to defer if not awarded. Grant may pay for
88% (to be announced late summer 2023).
• Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan - $208,000; Description/Notes: City grant match shown.
Full cost $400,000. Grant to be announced summer 2023. Staff recommends City funding
(ARPA or General Fund) if grant not approved.
• Climate Adaptation Plan - $300,000;; Description/Notes: City was not awarded grant to
pay for 50% of costs. Nevertheless, added per Council direction received at the June
6th Budget Introduction and majority consensus.
Staffing
PLAN CHECK ENGINEER - Description/Notes: Vacancy reclass from Sr. Bldg. Inspector
based on operational needs. Current plan check volume is high and is expected to grow
with development build out under the Housing Element. Currently performed by Building
Official and the Inspection team - which prevents them from focusing on their primary job
duties.
Director’s Report for October 11, 2022 Page 2
• SR. BLDG. INSPECTOR - Description/Notes: Proposed reclass of current employee
based on operational need for a Sr. Bldg. Inspector that oversees and manages special
projects in the Inspection section of the Building Office, including oversight of the stop
work program assistance with plan checking, and other special duties.
• PRINCIPAL PLANNER - Description/Notes: Proposed reclass of current employee
based on operational needs. Currently there is no mid-level manager that manages the
Planning Division and the Community Development Director is directly managing five
Planning staff.
• HOUSING MANAGER - Description/Notes: Request as a result of recently completed
Housing Program Audit Recommendation to be presented in near future. Needed to
oversee implementation of 6th cycle of Housing Element and ongoing housing program.
ARPA funding proposed for two fiscal years with costs shifted back to Housing Fund in
FY 2026
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS SPECIALIST - Description/Notes: Will manage the
preparation and subsequently implementation of the Climate Action Plan; anticipated to
take 1-2 years to prepare. The Plan will likely identify subsequent programs that require
implementation following the Plan adoption. No existing staff capacity to support. Limited-
term for two fiscal years to develop Climate Action Plan.
• PERMIT TECHNICIAN - Description/Notes: To support existing/increased permit volume
and expected growth with development build out under the Housing Element.