05-24-2022 - Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Packet AssembledREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup.
After registration, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to
speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss.
May 24, 2022 7:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers
AGENDA
NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of
the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.
This Regular Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person with the Commissioners meeting at City Hall, Council Chambers, as well as via telecommunication (Zoom) being available for members of the public. The meeting is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. This Regular Planning Commission meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide
public comment at this meeting virtually are asked to register in advance at https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting via Zoom. Members of the public may attend
the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers. If attending in person, face coverings and physical distancing will be required until further notice.
Public comment for the Planning Commission meetings will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the PC. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate
in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES May 10, 2022 – PC Regular Meeting May 4, 2022 – PC Special Meeting April 26, 2022– PC Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022 - PC Regular Meeting
COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL REQUESTS This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda for May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 2
STUDY SESSION
1.
PLN-2021-196 Study Session to consider a request of Bert Garland, for property located at 95 Dot Avenue for a proposed expansion of an existing private school (d.b.a. Saniuku School) for up to
420 children. The application under consideration is a Preliminary Review. File No.: PLN-2021-196. Project Planner:
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PLN-2018-202 Public Hearing to consider the request of Nick Leone of
Raintree Campbell LLC, for property located at 601 Almarida Drive to add a three-story (60-unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at- and below-grade parking and the removal and replacement of a leasing
office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool and spa, six (6) on-site trees. The project also includes a request for a Density Bonus to allow an approximately 19% increase in the allowable density, use of transit-oriented density bonus parking standards, concessions to allow a reduced setback
between structures and a reduction in required open space
area, and waivers to the maximum allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage. The applications under consideration include a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2018-202. 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:
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
3. PLN-2021-157 Public Hearing to consider the request of T Square Consulting Group, for property located at 65 W Hamilton Ave to allow the establishment of a new commercial day care center and associated site improvements including a new playground area, trash enclosure, and reconfiguration of the existing
parking lot. The application under consideration includes a Conditional Use Permit. File No.: PLN-2021-157. 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 4.
PLN-2021-33
NOTE: This item will be continued to June 14, 2022. Public Hearing to consider the request of Brad Cox, Architect,
Inc. to allow relocation of an existing office building (converted Folk-Victorian residence) from 1940 Hamilton Avenue to 1980 Hamilton Avenue for use as an administrative office for the First Congregational Church of San Jose and removal of four protected trees. The applications under consideration include a
Planning Commission Agenda for May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Conditional Use Permit and a Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2021-33. 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 5. PLN-2021-177 NOTE: This item will be continued to June 14, 2022.
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 Parking Modification Permit File. No.: PLN-2021-
177. 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
6.
PLN-2022-41 Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for citywide projects for consistency with the Campbell General Plan. Staff is recommending that the project be deemed exempt
under CEQA. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 21, 2022. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going face covering and social distancing).
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 Community Development Department, at planning@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2739.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY May 10, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday May 10, 2022, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Ching
and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Stuart Ching Vice Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Daniel Fama
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Deputy City Clerk: Andrea Sanders APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Development Director Eastwood noted the written correspondence from the
Audoban Society which was forwarded to the Commission.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 10, 2022 Page 2 Approval of the April 26, 2022 meeting minutes was deferred to a future meeting.
ORAL REQUESTS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Ching asked if any of the Commissioners had any disclosures. Commissioner Rivlin stated he had spoken to the appellant for Item No. 2.
Commissioner Buchbinder stated that he lives approximately 1600 feet from the appellant of Item No. 2. Commissioner Kamkar stated that he had email communication with the appellant for Item No. 2.
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:
Senior Planner Daniel Fama presented the staff report dated May 10, 2022. He stated that the proposal is to allow the sale of beer and wine with the existing restaurant. The Planning Commission must make additional findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with approvals of similar projects.
The Commission asked general questions related to liquor license approval and related restaurant processes. Chair Ching opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Seeing no one wishing to speak Chair Ching closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the item and stated support for the proposal. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Zisser, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4641
approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23) to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine beverages (“Liquor2) in association with an
1. PLN-2022-23 Public Hearing to consider the request of Jose R. Rosales Palos for property at 136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine
beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in association with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos Taqueria). The application under consideration includes a Conditional Use Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-23. 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.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 10, 2022 Page 3 existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos Taqueria) by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Rivlin, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Ching NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows:
Senior Planner Fama presented the staff report dated May 10, 2022. The property located at 705 El Patio Drive was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) as a Structure of Merit in 2012. The appellant submitted an application last year for an addition to his home,
that was then scheduled for review by the Historic Preservation Board. Prior the HPB review
it was brought to staff’s attention that unpermitted alterations were made to the home. Following discovery of these alterations staff required a historic analysis by the City’s architectural advisor to ascertain whether the structure could be reverted to its historic appearance and if it would still retain sufficient historic integrity to remain on the HRI. The
consultant determined the loss of historic integrity does not satisfy the criteria for a Structure
of Merit. Staff is supportive of removing the property from the HRI list and recommends a fee in-leu of having the property restored of $45,000. Staff believes the imposition of the fee in-leu would further the City’s obligation under the certified Local Government program to enforce appropriate State and local legislation for the designation and protection of
historic properties. It would also support General Plan policies and strategies, in terms of designating and protecting historic buildings from unpermitted alterations and demolition. Senior Planner noted this request was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board who recommended removal of the home from the List and a fee in-leu of $5,000.
The Commission asked general questions related to the alterations done to the home, the methodology of the in-leu fee and possible outcomes of remaining on the HRI list. Chair Ching opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Homeowner Nicholas Key stated that having a home on the HRI is not a benefit to the homeowner. He purchased the property with the intention to provide a nice aesthetic to the neighborhood and add value to the neighborhood. He went to the City for a permit for the driveway and had spoken to staff regarding permission to build a fence around the property. He was not aware that he needed a permit to replace the stucco on the house or for the
fence. He noted at the time alterations were done to the home he was unaware that permits were required for said alterations. Had he known permits were required he would have complied with City requirements. He is requesting removal of the property from the Historic
2. PLN-2021-70 Public Hearing to consider request of Nicholas and Andrea Key for property at 705 El Patio Drive to rescind
the listing of a designated Structure of Merit from the
Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). File No.: PLN-2021-70. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 21, 2022. Project Planner.
Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 10, 2022 Page 4 Resource Inventory. He stated the recommended $45,000 fee was inflated and did not feel
that it was an accurate cost.
The Commission asked homeowner Key general questions. Seeing no one else wishing to speak Chair Ching closed the public hearing.
Chair Ching asked the Commission if they were supportive of removing the property from the HRI and what was their recommendation for the fee in-leu. Vice Chair Buchbinder was supportive of rescinding the property from the HRI and
supportive of a $5,000 fee.
Commissioner Krey was supportive of the property from the HRI. He was okay with the HPB recommendation of $5,000 but would be agreeable to discussing a higher fee. He noted that it is important to modify the Code to prevent this situation from occurring again.
He recommended providing HRI homeowners information with the requirements of having
a historic home. Commissioner Kamkar was concerned with the issue of this setting a precedent. He was supportive of removing the home from the HRI, thought the fee should be higher than
$5,000 and recommended a fee of $40,000. Commissioner Rivlin was supportive of rescinding the property from the HRI. He thought the staff recommended fee of $45,000 was too high and advised a fee of $5,000.
Commissioner Zisser was supportive of removing the property from the HRI list and a $5,000 fee. He noted it was important for staff to implement a codified method to address this type of situation and to have a strong deterrence in the future. Chair Ching noted that all Commissioners were supportive of rescinding the property from
the List. He echoed the Commission comments that modifications should be made to the Code to prevent this from occurring in the future. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Rivlin, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4642 recommending that the City Council rescind the designation of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory, subject to payment of a $5,000 fee in-lieu of property restoration and all applicable permit fees by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rivlin, Zisser, Krey, Buchbinder, Ching NOES: Kamkar ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Eastwood reported the City Council met to review the housing element with Planning Commission recommendations. This concludes this portion of the Housing
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 10, 2022 Page 5 Element process. Staff will now put everything into a Draft Housing Element that is
anticipated to be published at the end of the month. It will then go out for a 30-day public
review and comment period, after which it will be sent to the State for a 90-day review period. Additional adjustments to policies and programs will be then made based on that feedback.
Director Eastwood noted there is an October Planning Commission training from the
League of California Cities, and he will work with staff to set that up if there is any Commissioner interest in attending. Director Eastwood noted the fall California Chapter APA conference will be occurring in
person in Anaheim if Commissioners are interested in attending.
ADJOURNMENT The Regular Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. to the next Regular
Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, at City Hall, Council Chambers,
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. PREPARED BY: Andrea Sanders, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
6:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY May 4, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
The Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Stuart Ching Vice Chair: Adam Buchbinder Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski – Arrived Late (6:37PM) Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Stephen Rose (Via Zoom)
Attorney: Darcy Pruitt
Deputy City Clerk: Andrea Sanders APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Development Director Eastwood noted the desk item that went out on May 3,
which will be discussed as part of the presentation. He also noted Vice Chair Buchbinder’s
email with information relating to agenda Item No. 1. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 4, 2022 Page 2 None
ORAL REQUESTS None
PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Ching noted Vice Chair Buchbinder’s email and requested the topic be agendized for a future meeting with a presentation. Commissioner Kamkar volunteered to work on the presentation with Vice Chair Buchbinder.
M/S: Rivlin/Krey – to agendize the “Missing Middle” housing presentation for a future meeting. The motion was approved by way of voice vote with Commissioner Ostrowski abstaining.
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:
Director Eastwood introduced M-Group representatives Geoff Bradley and Brittany Bendix. Director Eastwood provided an outline of the presentation which consisted of a summary of the April 20 City Council Meeting; objectives, policies and programs; affordable housing; reducing governmental constraints; and Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing-Outreach. He
stated the purpose of the meeting is to facilitate feedback on housing policies and programs to be incorporated into the draft Housing Element in early May. Brittany Bendix, M-Group representative, discussed the feedback received at the April 20, City Council meeting. Ms. Bendix highlighted key changes which consisted of removing 1.F
- ADU Ordinance Updates, 2.A – Rent Control Ordinance, with staff crafting a future rent control ordinance specific to BMR units, and 5.X – ADU Incentives for Special Need Populations. 1.K – Strategically Interface with State Legislature was added. Eight items were added to higher priority. Items at a higher priority will be addressed in the first five years.
The Commission asked general questions related to the information provided on City Council feedback. Ms. Bendix reviewed the five goals that frame policies and programs for the Housing
Element. The five objectives are: 1. Improve housing affordability in Campbell and encourage the production of affordable housing. 2. Preserve existing housing and affordable housing stock. 3. Remove government constraints to housing. 4. Resilient Housing Policies. 5. Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing and address special needs.
1. PLN-2021-12 Review and provide recommendations to the City Council on the modified and refined Objectives, Policies, and Programs, to be included in the Draft “Campbell’s
Plan for Housing” to be published later in May 2022.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 4, 2022 Page 3 Ms. Bendix reviewed the Desk item that was submitted where Exhibit A addressed new
policies and programs to bolster affirmatively furthering fair housing after additional
outreach as well as carry-over policies and programs from the 5th Cycle Housing Element, some with updated language. She also noted that staff is proposing rent control provisions only for Below Market Rate
programs. Ms. Bendix provided information relating to the improvement of housing affordability in Campbell.
Senior Planner Stephen Rose presented information to the draft Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) which is reflected in program H-1c. Ms. Bendix presented information related to Average Maximum Unit Size reflected in Affordable Housing Program H-1d and information related to reducing Government
restraints. She stated that Staff is supportive of reducing parking standards which is reflected in Program 5-3a. Ms. Bendix reviewed policies and programs that affirmatively further fair housing. Specifically, how Campbell can address special needs groups. Outreach efforts for Housing programs was also reviewed.
After Commission questions, Chair Ching opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Enrique Navarre of the Santa Clara County Association of Realters offered his feedback on the presented objectives. It is his general disposition that inclusionary ordinances
increase the cost of all housing projects and make market rate housing more expensive. Second, in relation to renter protections, it is his position that although it means well, it adversely affects housing providers who strive for healthy tenant relationships. Giulianna Pendelton, Environmental Advocacy Assistant for the Santa Clara Valley
Audoban Society spoke of reducing excess artificial light at night and requested outdoor lighting guidelines in the Housing Element in order to reduce light pollution and create a healthier environment for humans and wildlife. For more information, email advocate@scvas.org. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Kamkar, Ms. Pendelton stated that data provided was obtained from the recommendation by the
International Dark Sky Association. Kalisha Webster, Senior Housing Advocate at Housing Choices, requested that when creating policies to promote accessibility for people with disabilities the City must recognize there are other types of disabilities beyond physical disabilities and the barriers to housing
access can vary based on the type of disabilities. Their organization advocates for accessibility to coordinated on-site services and integration for typical affordable housing for populations that have historically been segregated in residential living facilities. With no one else wishing to speak, Chair Ching closed the public hearing.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 4, 2022 Page 4 Community Development Director Eastwood reviewed discussion topics related to AHOZ,
Average Unit Size or Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking, affirmatively furthering fair housing,
and outreach. The Commission discussed the topics reviewed by Director Eastwood.
Regarding Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Commission feedback included,
considering improving the benefits offered and/or include more sites (i.e., Home Church, San Tomas Plaza) and; consider incentivizing onsite amenities (i.e., daycares) and projects which offer some form of community benefit (i.e., public space, plazas.)
Regarding Maximum Average Unit Size, Commission feedback included using bedroom
counts instead of max. avg. unit size as a means of controlling project density or the size of projects. Regarding an Inclusionary Ordinance, the Commission feedback included consideration of
triggering impact fees on single-family homes unless paired with an ADU.
Regarding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing / Outreach the Commission suggested creating and distributing a “Know Your Rights” flyer for renters.
Director Eastwood reported that staff will provide Planning Commission areas of consensus and general feedback to the City Council at a May 9, 2022 Special Meeting. All the provided feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council will be included in the Draft Housing Element which is scheduled for May 20 to be available for public review. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR None ADJOURNMENT The Special Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.
PREPARED BY: Andrea Sanders, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY April 26, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Stuart Ching Vice Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser
Commissioners Absent: Maggie Ostrowski
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood
Senior Planner: Daniel Fama
Associate Planner: Tracy Tam City Attorney: William Seligmann Exec. Assist. to the Com. Abby Jones Development Director:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Buchbinder, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of April
12, 2022, were approved as submitted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Ostrowski was absent) COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 2 None
ORAL REQUESTS
None OLD BUSINESS
Chair Ching asked if there were any disclosures from the Commission. Commissioner Zisser reported that he visited the site and he spoke to the owner and had a conversation about the tree.
Vice Chair Buchbinder stated he also visited the site. Commissioner Kamkar stated he also visited the site but did not speak to the resident.
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN-2021-95 Public Hearing to consider the application (PLN-2021-137) of Brad Cox for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new veterinarian clinic and animal hospital use within an existing
building located at 2020 South Bascom Avenue Suite C, D, and
E. 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
Associate Planner Tracy Tam gave background on the property and what the applicant is proposing.
The Commissioner’s asked general questions related to the staff presentation. Chair Ching opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak. Brad Cox, Project Architect stated that he is here on the owner's behalf to take any
questions the Commission or public may have. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Ching closed the public hearing. Commissioner Zisser stated support for the project.
Commissioner Rivlin stated he is in support and would like to see something in the area. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Rivlin, the Planning Commission adopted revised Resolution No. 4638
approving a Site and Architectural Permit to legalize an increased wall height for an existing substandard side-yard setback in association with an under-construction remodel, including the desk item No. 1.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 3 Motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Rivlin, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Ching NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN-2021-137
Public Hearing to consider the Appeal by of the Community Development Director’s denial of a Tree Removal Permit
(PLN2021-137) to remove one (1) Redwood tree with a diameter of 47 inches located in the side/rear yard of property located at 1240 Abbott Avenue. 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: Tracy Tam,
Associate Planner Associate Planner Tracy Tam presented the background information on the tree removal application and the scope of the appeal. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Community Development Director’s denial of a Tree Removal Permit. The Commissioner’s asked general questions related to the tree.
Chair Ching opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak. Owner Paul Huang gave a presentation on the appeal and stated they’ve experienced storms that scared them, and the tree was swaying and falling. Mr. Huang mentioned the tree is too big. They cannot park in the driveway because they are afraid of the tree falling
onto the car. Mr. Huang shared a video of the tree. Mr. Huang stated another tree in the area was removed and requested the same. Commissioner Kamkar asked the owner if there were other reasons to remove the tree other than safety.
Mr. Huang stated he would like to appeal the denial and remove the tree. It’s a large tree and not suitable for a house. He is willing to put another tree in place if the appeal was granted.
Jack Banfield, Campbell resident, stated he’s lived in the house near Mr. Huang since 1975 and the tree has been contentious for some time. He stated both homes are small, so the tree looks bigger than he remembers and it’s too big for the area. He stated he’s seen branches come off into the neighbor's yard. He supports Mr. Huang in his efforts to try to have the tree removed.
Meera Sankaran, Campbell resident, are in support of the tree removal, they have small kids and have seen huge branches fall into the yard. They avoid structure damage to their
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 4 property by not parking there at all. She stated that the tree is a danger. The previous
homeowners have had maintenance done to the tree. The last few windstorms have been
wild and she urges the Commission to consider the granting the appeal. Randy Kunselman stated the tree does not pose a threat to them, but they have witnessed branches come off the tree. If lightening were to hit the tree it will go through someone’s
home. If the tree were to fall, they would reach the power lines.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Ching closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kamkar stated when he visited the site the tree goes straight up and leans
on the Abbott Ave side of the house. He suggested replacing it with two 36-inch trees.
Commissioner Zisser stated there are many redwoods in the city. He understands the safety concern. Objectively say don’t remove the tree and maybe the reason it may be affected by the wind is because it sits so high.
Commissioner Rivlin stated the municipal code ordinance is written to protect the tree. He is sympathetic but cannot see a way to overturn the decision and will be in favor of denial. Chair Ching stated he is supportive of denying the appeal.
Commissioner Zisser stated if the appeal is denied he would encourage the applicant to appeal the decision with the City Council. Vice Chair Buchbinder requested more clarification from the City Council on this issue. The
current city code does not provide for any kind of hazard other than danger of the tree falling. After discussion among the commission on the possible threats the tree may pose, they motioned the following:
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Zisser, seconded by Commissioner Rivlin, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4639, denying the Appeal (PLN-2021-137) and upholding the Community Development Director’s denial of Tree Removal Permit (PLN-2021-137) for the removal
of one (1) Redwood tree with a diameter of 47 inches on the subject property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rivlin, Ching, Zisser, Buchbinder
NOES: Kamkar, Krey
ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows:
3. PLN-2022-2 Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2022-2) of
Michelle Ciabattoni for a Site and Architectural Permit to legalize an increased wall height for an existing substandard side-yard
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 5 setback in association with an under-construction remodel of an
existing single-family residence on property located 1830 Montemar Way. 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
Senior Planner Daniel Fama provided his report to legalize a substandard setback for property located at 1830 Montemar Way. The proposal is to increase the building by 2 feet. It will normally need a setback of 11 ft and the current setback is 5. Less than 1 ft it’s still worse than non-conforming situation that can't be maintained. The zoning code does
allow the Planning Commission through approval of a signed architectural review permit to effectively grant reduction to setback. Staff is in support of the applicants request to legalize the existing increased building wall height. Chair Ching asked if there were any Commission questions.
In response to an inquiry, Senior Panner Fama stated due to staffing constraints,
applications have been waiting longer than normal to have a hearing.
Commissioner Kamkar asked if the applicant would have to take the entire roof down or just enough of the roof to meet the required setback.
Senior Planner Fama stated the building has a level ridge line they can bring it down but it’s probably not an option they’d choose. Commissioner Rivlin asked if there anything in upcoming housing work or General Plan
adjustments that enable this to proceed in the future. Senior Planner Fama replied that in the future this is probably a type of request that would no longer be appropriate. This is an entirely subjective determination and in the future the idea would be to have objective criteria. If in the future you would have differing setback
requirements, when those setback requirements apply would need to be objectively based so you would not need to have a public hearing well the objective basis is the height of the building isn't that objective correct but even an exception. Chair Ching opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Homeowner Steve Ciabottoni had no knowledge of the setback, they used an architect for the project, and got City approval. Neighbor is aware and they are in support of the increase of height.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Ching closed the public hearing. Commissioner Zisser was supportive of allowing the variance. Commissioner Rivlin stated he cannot make the findings to allow it and would rather see
the applicant make the change.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 6 Director Rob Eastwood stated that this item is not a variance and clarified that it is a Site
and Architectural Permit and there are findings to justify that.
City Attorney Seligmann clarified that the side setback will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or comfort or general welfare of persons in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Krey stated he would be supportive of the extra 2 feet and what is being
proposed. Commissioner Kamkar stated he is supportive of the additional height.
Vice Chair Buchbinder stated support for the proposal. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4640 Resolution (reference Attachment 1). Approving a Site and Architectural
Permit to legalize an increased wall height for an existing substandard side-yard setback in association with an under-construction remodel. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rivlin, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Ching
NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR
Director Rob Eastwood reported that the department work backlog is decreasing due to
the new staff hired onboard. Associate Planner, Tracy Tam and Assistant Planner,
Larissa Lomen are collectively helping to get queue times down.
Director Eastwood reported that staff is in the final stages of recruiting for a Planning
Technician which will also help the department in reviewing building permits. A new
Administrative Analyst position for the department has opened, they will work on grant funding, fee studies, managing consultants and supporting Planning and Building Tech staff.
The City is open for both in-person and virtual appointments, we do highly encourage the
public to make virtual appointments but walk-in’s are also welcomed. Council Items: The City Council approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to
perform an Objective Standards update, with the work scheduled to start in June. Staff’s
goal is to have the Objective Standards adopted close to final adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – April 26, 2022 Page 7 Director Eastwood provided a Parklet update stating staff is in the process of converting
the semi-permanent parklet program to a permanent parklet program with up to 30
parklets, scheduled for completion by this winter. Director Eastwood reported that the Cal/Poly Students and Team will return to the Planning Commission May 31, 2022 to give their presentation.
ADJOURMNENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m., to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N.
First Street, Campbell, CA. PREPARED BY: Abby Jones, Executive Assistant
CITY OF CAMPBELL Planning Commission Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
March 22, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2022, was called to order at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Vice Chair Buchbinder and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Vice Chair: Adam Buchbinder Commissioner: Matt Kamkar Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski
Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser Commissioners Absent: Stuart Ching
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Stephen Rose Senior Planner: Daniel Fama
Associate Planner: Tracy Tam
City Attorney: William Seligmann Executive Assistant: Abby Jones
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 2
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission action minutes of the meeting of March 8, 2022, were approved as submitted. (7-0)
COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
ORAL REQUESTS
None Vice Chair Buchbinder asked if there were any disclosures from the Commission.
There were none. Vice Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN-2021-187 Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-187) adding new Chapter 21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to implement Senate
Bill No. 9 (SB-9) and amending various other sections of the
Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs); an Amendment to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan and a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference
the proposed SB-9 implementation provisions. Staff is
recommending that this item be deemed Statutorily Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 2, 2022. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Senior Planner Daniel Fama, provided the staff report on the SB-9 Ordinance and Neighborhood Plan Amendments. Senior Planner Fama mentioned that under SB-9 Plan flag lots would now be allowed within Campbell Village. The Plan currently prohibits those as flag lots allow for a greater likelihood that an existing dwelling can be retained as part
of a subdivision whereas a traditional land division provides a property line right down the middle which generally would require demolition of a house, allowing flag lots can further allow implementation of SB-9. The Planning Commission needs to make certain findings in order to recommend the draft ordinance and amendments to the city council. Staff does believe those findings can be found and recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance and the associated area plan amendments.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 3
Vice Chair Buchbinder asked if there were any questions from the Commission. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Krey, Senior Planner Fama stated there are
less than 30 homes within the flood zone and approximately 6 homes on the earthquake
fault line. There have been no SB-9 applications and confirmed the setbacks are being measured from the wall. Senior Planner Fama stated Objective Standards remove any discretion from the City,
applicants must comply, or the application would not be approved. The City will need to
work on current subjective standards found in the San Tomas Plan to make them more objective. In response to inquiries from Commissioner Kamkar, Senior Planner Fama stated that
the FAR for SB-9 units is 45%. The larger the lot the larger the home can be. Senior
Planner Fama explained that building heights are still subject to the existing height maximums of the applicable zoning district which does vary a fair amount within the San Tomas area.
In response to inquiries by Commissioner Ostrowski, Senior Planner Fama replied that
similarly to the Campbell Village Neighborhood plan, the R-1-8 lots have a rear setback that is the lesser of 20ft or 15% of the lot depth. Senior Planner Fama stated that the 40/60 ratio came from SB-9 and State laws. It's a very stringent requirement and does not allow a lot that is less than 40 percent of the size of the existing lot.
Director Eastwood stated that SB-9 is an exception to Campbell’s existing standards. A very large lot that had a minimum lot size of 6,000 or 8,000 square feet, don't have the 40% that’s required, would just go through the normal subdivision process.
Senior Planner Fama stated that although there are some lots that are technically large
enough to meet the minimum lot size, they may be too narrow to meet our current normally applicable lot width requirements. The new lot width requirement is 25 ft. from 60 ft.
In response to inquiries from Commissioner Zisser, Senior Planner Fama stated this would allow some buildings to go outward, and allow reductions when you have a property that's up against a non-resident non-residentially zoned property.
Senior Planner Fama stated, if the Commission preferred to allow reductions or to relax
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), they could recommend that to the City Council. Vice Chair Buchbinder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Seeing no one, the public hearing was closed.
After discussion, the Planning Commission made the following motion:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 4
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Zisser, seconded by Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission adopted resolution 4635 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to add new
Chapter 21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill No. 9 (SB-9) and amending various other sections of the Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs); an Amendment to the Campbell Village Neighborhood
Plan and a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference the proposed SB-9 implementation provisions, including a recommendation for report back from staff six months to one year following adoption to address the status of implementation, by the following roll call vote :
AYES: Rivlin, Zisser, Krey, Buchbinder NOES: Ostrowski, Kamkar ABSENT: Ching ABSTAIN: None
The Commission took a brief recess at 8:58 p.m.
Vice Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows:
STUDY SESSION
1. PLN-2022-11 Study Session to consider a Preliminary Application (PLN-2022-11) to review a proposed 7-story mixed-use building containing ground floor commercial uses and up to 56
residential units on upper floors located at 125 E. Campbell
Avenue. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Associate Planner Tracy Tam presented a staff report stating that the purpose of this proposal is to allow early review of significant development proposals for the Planning
Commission, city staff and the public. To inform the applicant of Planning Commission, city staff, or members of the public’s comments, prior to the formal submittal of the application. Associate Planner Tam highlighted the following key topics for discussion:
• Purpose of pre-application
• Project Site
• Applicant's Preliminary-Proposal (100% Affordable Project)
• Proposed Preliminary Site design and elevation
• Project Data
• General Plan
• Downtown Development Plan & Standards
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 5
• Zoning
• State Law: Senate Bill 35
• State Law: Density Bonus Law
• State Law Breakdown
• Planning Commission Focus Associate Planner Tam stated that density should be considered with the existing residential units and even though there are some combination of market rate units
currently on the site, under the provisions of state law the preliminary proposal is
considered a 100% percent affordable housing project. For this preliminary application the applicant is able to use the streamlined provisions in SB-35 and use the provisions in state density bonus law.
In response to an inquiry, Associate Planner Tam stated the maximum height is 45 feet.
For the state density bonus section, without using an incentive or concession a project is
allowed to increase the height three additional stories or 33 feet. The developer could
choose to use one of their incentives or concessions to get more height.
City Attorney Seligmann clarified that the City does have a maximum city-wide height limit
that was adopted by initiative of 75 feet, however the state requirements would likely
override that.
In response to an inquiry, Associate Planner Tam confirmed that the parking portion of the C-3 Zoning district code does require the project to provide 131 spaces. This is based on the number of units and the square footage of the ground floor commercial.
Associate Planner Tam stated the C-3 zoning district primarily applies to the downtown
area of the city.
Vice Chair Buchbinder opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Owner/Applicant Abbas stated he hopes to work with staff to come up with a design that
is acceptable. This site is one of the housing opportunities sites. The proposed units are
small and affordable. He will do a prefab design. Retail space is finished with dark wood
and windows around the building.
Neil Locke, Campbell resident stated he opposes the proposed location of the 56-unit
low-income development on 125 East Campbell Avenue. He stated he supports low-
income housing and as a downtown Campbell homeowner, realizes how blessed his
family has been to live here for 29 years, as housing in the Silicon Valley is expensive
and scarce. He stated this development will go up into an area that is ill-suited for it.
David Blinn, Campbell resident stated affordable housing is a good thing, but 7 stories is huge, there are plenty of other spaces where this can be built.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 6
Mrs. Blinn, Campbell resident stated this is not what the downtown needs and feels the
project is too big. She is not opposed to affordable housing but doesn’t think this is the
right area for it to happen.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Buchbinder closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rivlin supports adding more affordable housing to Campbell and thinks the applicant is bringing a viable and beneficial project. There's an opportunity to put solar
on this and provide reduced power consumption for the users of the building who are also
in a situation where they'll be moderate income salaries. He would like to see a more parking. Commissioner Zisser thanked the owner for proposing affordable housing and expressed
concerns about the height. He stated support for 45 ft. Commissioner Zisser stated that
he would not want a monumental building in the downtown area because it will not fit at the gateway of downtown. He loves the look and feel of the Stacks building and stated many tenants will have a car, not having more spaces will be a problem. Would like to see some level of parking. Commissioner Zisser stated He would be fearful of this project
at this time due the size and suggested the owner reconsider the plan.
Commissioner Ostrowski stated this is an opportunity to provide housing and have to think about what we want. Commissioner Ostrowski proposed bike rack structures and enjoys the wood look.
Commissioner Kamkar agreed with Commissioner Ostrowski. He stated it is not easy building affordable housing especially when it’s non-profit and gave suggestions giving amenities to accommodate living in a small space. Overall, he is supportive.
Commissioner Krey stated that a new housing plan and the need is for housing is crucial.
Commissioner Krey felt this is the wrong place for this project. He stated concerns with the size and lack of parking. Vice Chair Buchbinder stated the roof is a great place for a small café or bike locker. He
is suggesting additional uses for space. He was supportive of the project.
Commissioner Ostrowski suggested city art that can make it a monument to the city and encourages the applicant to speak to the Civic Improvement Commission.
Vice Chair Buchbinder called a 3-minute recess at 10:46 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Vice Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 7
3. PLN-2021-12 Report regarding an update on Campbell’s Plan for Housing (2023-2031 Housing Element) and overview of next steps related to public outreach and stakeholder engagement,
development of goals, policies, and strategies aimed at producing, protecting, and affirmatively furthering fair housing in Campbell and addressing key housing issues facing the community. Presentation by M-Group and City Staff (Rob Eastwood and Stephen Rose).
Director Rob Eastwood gave a brief overview, gave an update on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and introduced Brittany Bendix with the M-group team to present. Brittany Bendix, Planner with M-group presented the update report and outlined the 5
objectives as follows:
• Improve Housing affordability in Campbell- encourage the production of affordable
housing.
• Preserve existing Housing/Affordable housing stock.
• Remove Government Constraints to Housing.
• Resilient Housing Policies
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and addressing special needs groups.
Ms. Bendix stated the process started with a base plan of 3300 units to meet required
housing. In January the number increased and now there are over 131 sites. It is
scheduled to return April 12 for policy recommendations. It is then scheduled for May 20
to be released to public for 30 days. From now until Jan 2023 the focus is on policy and
engaging with community-based organizations.
Director Eastwood stated that there is a need to update the zoning ordinance to implement the new general plan designations . A lot of housing opportunity sites were
concentrated around three light rail stations using principles existing in the General Plan
and the City is working with Cal Poly on transit-oriented development vision plans for these areas. Vice Chair Buchbinder opened the hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished
to speak, seeing no one he closed the public hearing.
Director Eastwood replied to an inquiry from Vice Chair Buchbinder stating the intent was to settle most of what was proposed in the General Plan back in September. The Commission had a chance to review the plan and go to council, and the intent was to
have a lot of those issues settled and then focus on the Housing Element.
Kwon Sung, M-Group representative stated that they are managing a few sites in other cities in the Bay Area.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2022 Page 8
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR None
ADJOURMNENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N.
First Street, Campbell, CA.
PREPARED BY: Abby Jones, Executive Assistant
To: Chair Ching and Planning Commissioners Date: May 24, 2022
From: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Preliminary Application (PLN-2021-195) ~ 95 Dot Ave
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study session is for the Planning Commission to consider and provide feedback on a pre-application with a conceptual plan to allow for a private afterschool program serving grades K-9 at 95 Dot Avenue. Proposed site improvements include the demolition of an existing two-story building, the construction of eight buildings and associated site improvements
including new outdoor areas and restriping of a parking lot.
This is an opportunity for the applicant to receive and consider the feedback by staff, Planning Commission, and the public on the proposal. Review by the Planning Commission is required as specified by Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.41 (Pre-Applications) as the pre-application involves over 2-acres and 20,000 square feet of building area.
Since the pre-application process does not constitute a formal application review, comments are considered advisory recommendations for the use of the applicant. Moreover, comments are not binding upon the decision-making body (Planning Commission) as to any future determination made on a formal application. In that regard, staff’s review of the preliminary project plans is limited to the overall project design concept and is not considered a substitute for formal project
review.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning District: P-F (Public Facilities)
General Plan Designation: Institutional
Net Lot Area: 92,030 square feet (2.11 acres)
Gross Lot Area: 94,444 square feet (2.17 acres)
Hours of Operation: Operational/staff: 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Monday through
Thursday, and 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Friday
Business/public: 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM Monday through Thursday
Proposed Requirement
Building Height1: 21-feet, 4 inches The maximum height of a building
shall be equal to that required in
1 Building height is measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the building’s highest roof surface.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
the most restrictive abutting zoning
district. The planning commission
may allow higher structures provided that one-half foot shall be added to each yard for each foot that the structure exceeds the
maximum height.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.542 0.403
Parking: 58 parking spaces Elementary/junior high: 1.5 spaces for each classroom, plus 1 space for each 75 square feet of assembly area
Total: 15 parking spaces for the classrooms plus 65 parking spaces for public assembly areas = 80 parking spaces
Building Setbacks (front, sides, rear):
Front: 22-feet, 11 inches
Side: 5-feet
Rear: 5-feet, 7 inches
The minimum front yard, side yards, and rear yard required in this zoning district shall be equal
to those required in the most
restrictive abutting zoning district. The planning commission may modify such setbacks when it is found to be necessary to maintain
the purpose of the P-F zoning
district.
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is an approximately 2.17-acre parcel located at 95 Dot Avenue. The project area spans several properties, including 531 W. Rincon Avenue and 600 W. Hamilton Avenue. The proposed buildings for the afterschool program are located at 95 Dot Avenue and 531 W. Rincon Avenue, however, it is the intent of the afterschool program to share the surface
parking with the existing church (located at 600 W. Campbell Avenue). 95 Dot Avenue was
previously occupied by West Valley Christian School. The adjacent property at 600 W. Campbell Avenue is the Campbell Seventh-Day Adventist Church property. All properties are owned by the same property owner.
The property at 95 Dot Avenue is currently developed with an existing two-story building with a
surface parking lot facing Dot Avenue. The surrounding properties include residential uses (to
the north, south, and east) and properties owned by the church (north, south, and west). The adjacent residential uses are a combination of apartments and condominiums.
2 The basement does not appear to meet the definition of a basement as the finished floor directly above the space is greater than two feet, therefore, the basement is included in the F.A.R. calculation.
3 The planning commission shall have the authority to increase the F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment.
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 3 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
Figure 1: Project Site
Applicant’s Proposal: The preliminary plans (reference Attachment 1) depict a new private school comprised of eight buildings, open areas, and a basement for parking, a library, and administrative offices. Of the eight buildings, five of the buildings are intended for classrooms (totaling ten classrooms), two buildings will be restrooms, and the remaining building will be for
meetings rooms, bathrooms, and storage.
The applicant is also proposing an outdoor area comprised of an open court, landscaping, and amphitheater seating. The outdoor area with amphitheater seating will be screened and buffered from adjacent properties by the proposed classroom buildings, to limit potential impacts to surrounding residences. The open court and amphitheater area is proposed to be approximately
65-feet from the closest residential property line. Fencing has not been identified on the site plan.
95 Dot Ave
600 W. Campbell Ave
531 & 541 W. Rincon Ave
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 4 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
Figure 2: Enlarged Proposed Site Plan
Per the project description (reference Attachment 2), the school is currently operating at a facility in San José and it is the intent to relocate the entirety of the school to 95 Dot Avenue. The proposal includes a request to allow up to 420 students at the project site, where 375
students are present at the facility in San José. The proposed hours of operation for teachers are
9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Thursday, and 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Friday. The hours of operation for the students are from 3:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Thursday and the parents are expected to drive to this facility for drop-off and pick-up, as there are not any busing services provided. The drop-off and pick-up will occur on the subject property. There are no
afterschool programs offered on Fridays.
Students can attend this afterschool program two times a week (either Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday) and approximately half of the students (maximum of 210 students) will attend the Monday/Wednesday program and the other half (maximum of 210 students) will attend the Tuesday/Thursday program. There are no afterschool programs offered on Friday.
More information on the project details can be found in Attachment 2.
Background: The site was previously occupied by West Valley Christian School. A Use Permit (U63-05) was granted by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1963 for the construction and use of a multi-purpose school building. The Use Permit was approved, subject to conditions
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 5 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
requiring additional parking spaces, street dedication and improvement of Dot Avenue, payment of a storm drain fee, and requirement for a fire alarm system.
In 2014, the City received complaints regarding negative impacts to surrounding residential neighbors including noise and property damage associated with soccer tournaments operated by
the previous tenant. The City requested the operator work with adjacent neighbors regarding their concerns.
General Plan:
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Institutional. This General Plan land use designation is intended to provide for civic, social service, educational, cultural or charitable
uses operated by a government or private agency serving the public. This can include facilities
owned or operated by a private organization, such as a private school or religious organization, as well as facilities owned or operated by a public entity, such as public buildings and grounds.
The General Plan includes the following Policies and Strategies that are applicable to the proposed use:
Services Within Walking Distance:
Policy LUT-11.2: Encourage neighborhood services within walking distance of residential
uses.
Strategy LUT-11.2a: Encourage neighborhood serving commercial and quasi-public uses, such as churches, schools, and meeting halls to locate within walking distance of
residential uses.
The project further the above policy and strategy by providing a school within walking distance of residential uses. The proposed private school is situated in a residential area and is primarily surrounded by residential uses.
Zoning Code Compliance:
Zoning District: The project site is located within the P-F (Public Facilities) Zoning District. The P-F Zoning District is intended for the construction, use, and occupancy of educational, governmental, and public utility structures and facilities, and other uses compatible with the semipublic character of the zoning district. A “schools other than public” use is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in
this zoning district.
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 6 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
Figure 3: Zoning Map
Setbacks:
The minimum front, side, and rear setbacks of the P-F Zoning District shall be equal to those required in the most restrictive abutting zoning district. The Planning Commission may modify such setbacks when it is found to be necessary to maintain the purpose of the P-F zoning district. The project site is surrounded by Planned Development (P-D) zoned properties. Planned
Development zoned properties do not have standard and consistent development standards and
instead, are evaluated on a project-by-project basis.
The surrounding P-D zoned properties contain the following setbacks:
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 7 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
P-D #1 (563 – 583 W.
Rincon Ave):
P-D #2 (543 – 549 W.
Rincon Ave):
P-D #3 (115 Dot
Ave et. al.):
P-D #4 (77 – 81 Dot Ave):
P-D #5 (51 – 69 Dot
Ave:
P-D #6 (47 - 49 Dot Ave):
P-D #7 (532 - 544 W. Campbell):
Front setback: 15-feet 15-feet, 6 inches 15-feet 16-feet 15-feet 78-feet 16-feet, 8 inches
Side setback: 10-feet 8-feet 12-feet 7-feet 5-feet 13-feet, 8 inches 11-feet, 6 inches
Rear setback: 11-feet 10-feet 12-feet 7-feet 34-feet 12-feet 11-feet
P-D #1
P-D #3
P-D #4
P-D #7
P-D #2
P-D #5
P-D #6
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 8 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
Per the project plans (Attachment 1), the applicant is proposing the following setbacks:
Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback
22-feet, 11 inches 5-feet 5-feet, 7 inches
The Planning Commission has three options to providing feedback on the setback requirements:
a. Use the most restrictive front, side, and rear setbacks of the P-D zoned properties. For example, per the P-D setback table above, the most restrictive front setback is 78-feet, the
most restrictive side setback is 13-feet, 8 inches, and the most restrictive rear setback is 34-feet.
b. Create new front, side, and rear setbacks as there is no consistency between the abutting P-D zoned properties and they do not represent a uniform residential setback to reference.
c. Use a combination of setbacks established by the P-D zoned properties on specific
property lines. To elaborate, a setback for the project would match the setback of the abutting P-D for a specific property line. For example, the abutting P-D zoned property has a side setback of 12-feet, and therefore, the side setback for the project on that particular property line would be 12-feet.
Staff recommends a combination of option B and C as this will allow the project to be sensitive
and better relate to the surrounding context, while also allowing the applicant the flexibility to use different setbacks for different property lines. Staff recommends that all property lines except for the property line abutting Dot Avenue utilize option C while the Dot Avenue setback is set at a greater distance to allow for proper queuing on the project site. Staff has prepared a diagram below to illustrate this option and this can be found in Attachment 3.
The Planning Commission should consider providing feedback to the applicant on the proposed setbacks.
Height:
The maximum building height of the P-F Zoning District shall be equal to that required in the most
restrictive abutting zoning district. The Planning Commission may allow higher structures
provided that one-half foot shall be added to each yard for each foot that the structure exceeds the maximum height. The project site is surrounded by Planned Development (P-D) zoned properties. Planned Development zoned properties do not have standard and consistent development standards and are evaluated on a project-by-project basis.
The surrounding P-D zoned properties contain the following maximum heights:
P-D #1 (563 –
583 W. Rincon Ave):
P-D #2 (543 –
549 W. Rincon Ave):
P-D #3 (115
Dot Ave et. al.):
P-D #4 (77 – 81
Dot Ave):
P-D #5 (51 - 69
Dot Ave):
P-D #6 (47 - 49
Dot Ave):
P-D #7 (532 - 544 W.
Campbell:
Maximum height: 27-feet 29-feet 28-feet 26-feet 19-feet, 6 inches 32-feet, 6 inches 22-feet
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 9 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
Per the project plans (Attachment 1), the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 21-feet and four inches.
Similar to the setback requirement, the Planning Commission has two options to providing
feedback on the maximum height requirements:
a. Use the most restrictive maximum height of the P-D zoned properties. The most restrictive height is 19-feet, 6 inches.
b. Allow higher structures than the most restrictive maximum height provided that one-half foot shall be added to each yard for each floor that the structure exceeds the maximum
height.
Staff recommends option A as this will allow the project to be sensitive to the surrounding context.
Parking:
The parking requirement for an elementary/junior high school is 1.5 spaces for each classroom,
plus 1 parking space for each 75 square feet of assembly area. Based on ten classrooms and approximately 4,845 square feet of public assembly area (which is comprised of approximately 2,645 square feet for the meeting rooms and approximately 2,200 square feet for the library), the anticipated parking requirement is 80 parking spaces to satisfy the Campbell Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing 58 parking spaces and therefore, is deficient by 22 parking spaces. 28
parking spaces are proposed in the basement and 30 parking spaces are proposed in the surface parking lot fronting Dot Avenue.
With the anticipated deficiencies in parking, it is likely that a Parking Modification Permit would be required for the formal application to allow for either the decrease in parking spaces or a shared parking situation with the existing church. Per the applicant, there is an existing agreement
between the church and the school, however, this will need to be formalized through the Parking Modification Permit.
Should a Conditional Use Permit be filed, the City would request a full Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) with a parking study component. The TIA would also need to confirm whether a Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is required. The TIA is warranted given the proposed 420
children at this proposed facility.
Site Layout and Design:
The proposed buildings are set back from the street and oriented to surround the outdoor area and create a buffer between the outdoor area and the existing residential properties. The buildings are also setback from the street which can allow for better vehicular stacking.
Although the project site at 95 Dot Avenue may appear as part of the larger church property, 95 Dot Avenue is a separate parcel. The site plan currently illustrates the property line, but it appears that these property lines are inconsistent with Santa Clara County records. Furthermore, it is not clear whether property lines are proposed to be removed. The buildings are proposed to cross property lines, which is not permitted. The formal application should clarify the property
lines and indicate whether property lines will be shifted to ensure there are no conflicts with proposed buildings.
Vehicular access to the site is provided in three different locations. There are three existing driveways on W. Campbell Avenue, W. Rincon Avenue, and Dot Avenue. It is unclear at this
Planning Commission Study Session—May 24, 2022 Page 10 of 10 PLN-2021-195 ~ 95 Dot Ave
time how and where the children will be dropped off and picked up and where parents may enter the site from.
SUMMARY
Based on the discussion points raised in this memorandum, staff requests comment and direction from the Planning Commission on the following items:
1. Setbacks and building placement
2. Maximum building height
Prepared by:
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Attachments: 1. Preliminary Plans
2. Preliminary Project Description
3. Staff recommended setbacks
CS01121DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
6$1,.8*$.8,16$17$&/$5$-$3$1(6(6&+22/ '27$9( 531 WEST RINCON AVE&$03%(//&$/,)251,$ $31 305-28-009APN: 305-28-014ZONING DISTRICT: PUBLIC ZONE / INSTITUTIONAL6(&21'68%0,77$/6(7DATE: JAN. 5, 20229,&,1,7<3/$1&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPSaniku Gakuin Santa Clara Japanese School provides the highest quality Christian education for students. We nurture the harmoniousdevelopment of our students' physical, mental, and spiritual powers. We lead students to grow in their personal relationship with Godand to develop Christ-centered characters.6$1,.8&29(56725<THE NEW MISSIONThe church and school exist on the same premises and spread the gospel together. When both become one, the mission can beaccomplished effectively and efficiently.THEIR GOALWith divine foresight and a burden for the Japanese, banking consultant and businessman Yuma Tsuchiya knew in the early 1970s thatSilicon Valley's computer industry was about to explode attracting Japanese companies and a heavy influx of Japanese nationals. Inaccordance with customary business practices, young Japanese professionals would work overseas for 3 to 5 years, then return toJapan with their young families. Children would then transfer back into the intensely competitive Japanese educational system.Endeavoring to meet the needs of the Japanese, Tsuchiya searched for medical and educational leadership. When he found anestablished Japanese language school in Los Angeles, he traveled there to recruit its head. Then, as chair of the pastoral searchcommittee, Tsuchiya invited Timothy Iwahashi to pastor of the Mountain View Japanese Seventh-day Adventist Church, MVJAC, anddo educational outreach among the Japanese.Once established in Silicon Valley, Pastor Iwahashi was asked by the Japanese community to provide language instruction to theirchildren. In 1982, MVJAC responded to this expressed need by establishing Saniku Gakuin, then known as the MVJAC JapaneseSchool. When the Central California Conference asked the Japan Union Conference to send a Japanese teacher to Mountain View,Principal/Teacher Kazuko Iwamoto was sent from Japan. She began school in the Youth Hall at MVJAC with four students in the firstclass. Two years later, veteran teacher and vice-principal Toshiko Yoshimura began her work at Saniku. Under her leadership, Sanikuexponentially grew to a peak of 545 students in 1998. With the blessing of God and the work of dedicated, talented, and industriousteachers and staff, Saniku has flourished to become an established Japanese educational institution and cultural center of the SiliconValley Japanese community.THE SCHOOL HISTORY1982.04MVJAC Japanese School began in the Church YouthHall.1982.06Kazuko Iwamoto became the first Saniku principaland teacher.1982.07School renamed Tozai Gakuen (East-West JapaneseSchool)1984.01Saniku moved to Miramonte Elementary School inLos Altos.1984.04Kindergarten also moved to Miramonte ElementarySchool.1984.05Toshiko Yoshimura arrived to teach and serve asvice-principal.1984.08Name changed to Saniku Gakuin Los Altos JapaneseSchool.1985.04Junior high School began.1988.03Move to De Anza School in Sunnyvale.Name changed to Saniku Gakuin SunnyvaleJapanese School.1992.04Junior high school reopened.2000.06High rent necessitates move to Curtis & LutherSchools in Santa Clara.Name changed to Saniku Gakuin Santa ClaraJapanese School.2000.10Kindergarten moved to Cupertino.2001.08Elementary and Junior High moved to StrawberryPark School in West San Jose.New mobile classrooms leased from ChallengerSchool.Higher rental fees passed on to the students causedsome to leave.Global economic downturn forced many to return toJapan.2002.04Japanese classes for non-native speakers ofJapanese began on Fridays.New scholarship program for students whose parentsare in financial instability.2002.04New English class for parents called “English throughthe Bible”2002.07Began giving the Japan Ministry of Education officialEnglish Proficiency and Kanji Tests 2003.07 1stschool reunion at Tokyo Central SDA Church2006.08Moved to Latimer School in West San Jose.2007.04Date and time changed for 3 and 4-year old classesfrom 4 days to 2 days a week.2011.04Date changed for Japanese classes on Fridays toMonday through Thursday.2012.04Started new combined classes for 3 and 4-year-oldstudents.SANIKU HISTORY TIMELINE2013.02Initiated a meeting for children and parents interestedin kindergarten.2014.05Saniku closed Japanese classes.2014.05Began a yearly retreat for Saniku Staff, Saniku Board,and their family members.Guest speaker from Japan was Pastor TsutomuSensaki.2015.033-year-old classes close due to changes in childcarelaws2015.05Second retreat, Speaker: Pastor Masataka Fujita2015.08Population increase caused reopening of LatimerSchool, thus forcing Saniku out to newly modernizedEasterbrook Elementary School in West San Josewith beautiful renovated classrooms, a spaciousplayground, a Media Center, and ample storagespace. However, due to limited parking spaces andthe problematic neighborhood traffic, Sanikudiscontinued the popular Bazaar and Undokai/SportsDay. The Children’s Olympic is heldoff-campus at another school.2015.09Saniku started Family Camp at Wawona for Sanikufamilies, staff, and board members.2016.01Received Heritage School Status. Applied to open aDay Care Center.2016.04Saniku Choir was formed by current and formerSaniku parents.2016.05Second Annual Family Camp at Wawona2016.077th Saniku School Reunion at Tokyo Central SDAChurch2017.04Saniku Preschool started with official license andaccepted 4-year-old students.2017.05Third Annual Family Camp at Wawona2017.10Saniku Preschool started accepting 3-year-oldstudents.2018.04Started to accept Interns(Up to two interns every 6months)2018.05Fourth Annual Family Camp at Mt. Hermon(Wawonawas not available.)2019.09Decided to close preschool in 2020 for the directorleaves.2020.03 Closed the preschool.2020.04Started remote learning due to the COVID-19Canceled Children’s Olympic, Christmas programs,and Mochi-pounding event.2020.10Started accepting Tanpopo students in October.The current enrollment is 375 students and would be expected to increase to 420 students with the new Dot Avenue Campus. Only onehalf of the students attend class on each day, so the maximum student load, on any given day, should not exceed 210 students, lessthan the West Valley Christian School had at its peak enrolment.There will be the same 13 full time teachers and office workers with 8 parttime office workers and teacher assistants. The school doesnot provide any busing of students, as the parents carpool to drop of the children around 3:30 PM and pick them up at about 7:00PM,Monday through Thursday.The Campbell Adventist Church has its main services on Friday night and Saturday providing the perfect occupancy partner for theschool, and not burden their operations.Currently, Saniku has a waiting list, however, is unable expand, because of limited number of classrooms. Given the impendingMoreland School District lease expiration and rental increases, at the current school site, Saniku is strongly motivated to permanentlyrelocate, to the Campbell Site and having already taken over the operation of the West Valley Christian School and signed a 35-yearlease agreement at the Campbell location.The current proposal is to substantially remodel the existing unusable 9,000 SQ FT Two Story to allow for Earthquake Safety and a FullFire Sprinkler System for the administration and meeting room building. The applicant will also propose remodel the existing one-storypreschool building that front on Rincon Avenue, to continue their existing use as classrooms.There will be a new semi-subterrain garage structure proposed, that will ease the parking strain for the Church, as well as for theschool. To accommodate new classroom spacing requirements, the applicant would propose to locate Five New Modular ClassroomDuplex buildings, for the addition of 10,000 SQ FT of new classroom, to be located on the top of the parking garage. This uniquedesign provides a playground, amphitheater, and sound barrier for the neighboring properties. The new parking structure will add 30 offstreet workforce housing, while improving the safety and enjoyment of the staff and the studentsWhile there is an existing Conditional Use Permit in place of the operation of the West Valley Christian School, at the Dot Avenuelocation, the city planning staff has suggested the applicant complete a new CUP, which would be more consistent with the newoperational plan and the proposed site plan.The applicant has agreed to do so.THE VISION FOR THE FUTURE1.1982 - MVJAC Youth Hall, Mountain View2.1984 - Miramonte Christian School, Los Altos3.1991 - De Anza Elementary School, Sunnyvale4.2000 - Curtis and Luther Elementary Schools, Santa Clara5.2002 - Strawberry Park Elementary School, West San Jose6.2006 - Latimer Elementary School, West San Jose7.2015 - Easterbrook Elementary School, West San Jose8.PresentThe Moreland School District Elementary School SitePAST SANIKU SCHOOL SITES352326(''(9(/230(176&+22/)5217$*($57,67
6,035(66,216&$/(176&6&2857<$5'6,'($57,67
6,035(66,216&$/(176&6&/$6652206,'($57,67
6,035(66,216&$/(176&6SCOPE OF WORK:PROPOSED JAPANESE SCHOOL WITHIN EXISTING CAMPUS SITETOTAL OF 10 CLASSROOMS- NO MODIFICATION ON EXISTING PARKING LAYOUT- NO CHANGE IN USE, SQUARE FOOTAGE, OR OCCUPANCY$'0,1%/'*6,'($57,67
6,035(66,216&$/(176&6
CS022DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM:GROUNDSNOWLOAD0 PSFWINDSPEED110 MPHW/ 3 SEC.GUSTSEISMICDESIGNCATEGORYDWINDPRESSURE20 PSFFROSTLINE30 IN.MODERATETO HEAVYSLIGHT TOMODERATETERMITEDECAYWINTERDESIGN13°FICE SHIELDUNDERLAYMENTYESAIRFREEZING300MEAN ANNUALTEMPERATURE55°F%8,/',1*,1)250$7,21=21,1*$1$/<6,6OWNERPROJECT NAMEDESCRIPTIONAPPLICABLE BUILDING CODEBUILDING TYPEOCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONNUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADESPRINKLERSMOKE DETECTORFIRE ALARMFIRE EXTINGUISHERSCARBON MONOXIDE DETECTIONADA ACCESSIBILITYCENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATIONOF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS(JEFF CISNEROS)SANIKU GAKUIN SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOLYESYESYESYESYESTBD1GROUP ENUMBER OF STORIES BELOW GRADE1CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE, CHRISTIAN, K-8(ELEMENTARY-MIDDLE) SCHOOLHEIGHT OF BUILDING< 20 FEET1BIBC 2018, UMC 2018, UPC 2018, IFC 2018CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE, REVISED:2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODEPARKINGTOTAL PARKING SPACESSTANDARD SPACESACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACESREQUIREDPROVIDEDPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONPERVIOUS AREA-PUBLIC SPACE-ONSITENON PERVIOUS AREA-RIGHT OF WAY-WALKWAY-OUTDOOR PARKING1.5 SPACES/CLASSROOM+ 1 PER 75 SQ FT OFASSEMBLY AREA58562N/A16,342 SQ FT4,414 SQ FT9,080 SQ FT1 PER 25 PARKING SPACES--OPEN SPACE14,350 SQ FTTOTAL30,692 SQ FT-15,484 SQ FT-----TOTAL28,978 SQ FT=21,1*&20387$7,21GROSS LOT SIZEBUILDING LOT COVERAGELANDSCAPING COVERAGEREAR YARDSIDE YARDOPEN COURTHEIGHTSTORIESF. A. R.SQUARE FOOTAGESBASEMENT FLOORGROUND FLOOREXISTING96,444 SQ FTPROPOSEDNO CHANGESTANDARD-NOTES1 + BASEMENT28,978 SQ FTNET LOT SIZE92,030 SQ FTNO CHANGE28,066 SQ FTTOTAL19'-10"10,000 SQ FT68%5'-7"5'-0"5'-0" MINIMUM5'-0" MINIMUMFRONT YARD22'-11"20'-0" MINIMUM6,000 SQ FTMINIMUM EQUAL TOABUTTINGZONINGDISTRICT (R2)0.40 MAXIMUM35' MAXIMUM2 12 STORIESMAXIMUM12% NET SIZEAREA EQUAL TOABUTTINGZONINGDISTRICT (R2)0.4815,891 SQ FT43,957 SQ FT12&200(5&,$/'(6,*13$5$0(7(56&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRP$%%5(9,$7,216*(1(5$/&216758&7,21127(6AFFACTALUMABAPPROXAD@BYNDBFBLKBDBOBOTBRKBLDGBURCPTCLGCEMCCCTCLCOLCOMPCMPCMUCONSTCONTCJCONVCGCUDFDIAMDIMDNDRDWGEAELECELELEVEPEQEQUIPEXHEXISTEXPEXTFABFTFINFGFPFLFDFLUORFTGFDNFAIGALVGAGYPABOVE FINISH FLOORACOUSTIC CEILING TILEALUMINUMANCHOR BOLTAPPROXIMATEAREA DRAINATBEYONDBACK FILLBLOCK OR BLOCKINGBOARDBOTTOM OFBOTTOMBRICKBUILDINGBUILT UP ROOFINGCARPETCEILINGCEMENTCENTER TO CENTERCERAMIC TILECLOSETCOLUMNCOMPOSITECOMPACTEDCONCRETECONCRETE MASONRY UNITCONSTRUCTIONCONTINUOUSCONTROL JOINTCONVENTIONALCORNER GUARDCUBICDRINKING FOUNTAINDIAMETERDIMENSIONDOWNDRAINDRAWINGEACHELECTRICELEVATIONELEVATORELECTRICAL PANELEQUALEQUIPMENTEXHAUSTEXISTINGEXPOSEDEXTERIORFABRICATEFEETFINISHFINISH GRADEFIREPROOFINGFLOORFLOOR DRAINFLUORESCENTFOOTINGFOUNDATIONFRESH AIR INTAKEGALVANIZEDGAUGEGYPSUM WALL BOARDKPKITLAMLAVLBLPMACHMHMOMAT'LMAXMECHMEMBMTLMFDMRDMINMIRCONCMISCMLDGMTGMTDNATNOMNNICNTSNOOFFOCOCCOPNGOPPOAOHPTDPARTPASSPLASPLAMPLPTPLYWDPOLPVCPSIPBKICK PLATEKITCHENLAMINATELAVATORYPOUNDSLOW POINTMACHINEMANHOLEMASONRY OPENINGMATERIALMAXIMUMMECHANICALMEMBRANEMETALMETAL FLOOR DECKMETAL ROOF DECKMINIMUMMIRRORMISCELLANEOUSMOULDINGMOUNTINGMOUNTEDNATURALNOMINALNORTHNOT IN CONTRACTNOT TO SCALENUMBEROFFICEON CENTEROCCUPANT(S)OPENINGOPPOSITEOVERALLOVERHEADPAINTEDPARTITIONPASSENGERPLASTERPLASTIC LAMINATEPLATEPRESSURE TREATEDPLYWOODPOLISHEDPOLYVINYL CHLORIDEPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPUSH BUTTONHDWRHDWDHTHPHMHRIDININSULINTINVJCJTHARDWAREHARDWOODHEIGHTHIGH POINTHOLLOW METALHOURINSIDE DIAMETERINCH(ES)INSULATIONINTERIORINVERTJANITOR'S CLOSETJOINTQTRADRETNGREINFREFREQ'DREVRDRMROSECTSERVSHTHNGSIMSBSDSPECSSQSFSQFTSSSTGRDSTDSTLSTRUCTSUSPTELTGTERRTHTOCTOSLTOSTTOTBDTYPULUNFURUTILUTLSUONUNOVBVERTVESTVVCTVBVOLWCWCBNTWICWLCVWFWPWWFWWMWDWGLW/WDWFDQUARRY TILERADIUSRETAININGREINFORCINGREFRIGERATORREQUIREDREVISIONROOF DRAINROOMROUGH OPENINGSECTIONSERVICESHEATHINGSIMILARSINK BASESOAP DISPENSERSPECIFICATIONSSPRAY FIREPROOF-INSUL.SQUARESQUARE FEETSQUARE FEETSTAINLESS STEELSTAGGEREDSTANDARDSTEELSTRUCTURALSUSPENDEDTELEPHONETEMPERED GLASSTERRAZZOTHICKNESSTOP OF CURBTOP OF SLABTOP OF STEELTREADTOP OFTO BE DETRMINEDTYPICALUNDERWRITER'S LABORATORYUNFINISHEDURINALUTILITYUTILITY SHELFUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVANITY BASEVERTICALVESTIBULEVINYLVINYL COMPOSITION TILEVINYL BASEVOLUMEWATER CLOSETWALL CABINETWALK-IN CLOSETWALL COVERINGWALL FABRICWATERPROOFWELDED WIRE FABRICWELDED WIRE MESHWINDOW DIMENSIONWIRE GLASSWITHWOODWOOD FOLDING DOORSF-INS1.THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE DRAWINGS MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO CONFORMWITH EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. IN CASES WHERE CHANGES IN DETAILS ARE NECESSARY, THESE DRAWINGSSHALL BE USED TO SHOW THE DESIGN INTENT ONLY.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIELD CHECKS AND THE VERIFICATION OF ALL DIMENSIONSCONCERNING ALL WORK, AND ALSO INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THE PERMIT DRAWINGS. IN CASES WHEREDISCREPANCIES OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH EITHERFABRICATION OR INSTALLATION OF THE WORK. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECTIMMEDIATELY SHOULD EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PROHIBIT EXECUTION OF THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS.ANY ADDITIONAL WORK, DEMOLITION AND/OR REMOVAL AS A RESULT OF FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE AT THECONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.3.THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANNER OR METHOD OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONSOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO EXERCISE THE UTMOST CARE FOR PROTECTION OF PROPERTYAND PERSONNEL. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTION HOURS SHALL ONLY BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:MONDAYS TO FRIDAYS ............... 8 AM TO 5 PMSATURDAYS .................................. 9 AM TO 4 PMNO CONSTRUCTION ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS4.RESTRICTION AND CONTAINMENT OF DUST AND DEBRIS GENERATED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THERE SHALL BE PROVISION OF TEMPORARY BARRIERS AND NETTING,AS REQUIRED, DURING CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE OF PROPERTY OR PERSONNEL INJURY. THECONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO PROVIDE TEMPORARY WATER/WEATHER PROOFING, AS REQUIRED, TO PROTECT THEBUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.5.ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION(S) OF THE LOCAL UNIFORM STATE WIDEBUILDING CODE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BOCA NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, PLUMBING CODE & MECHANICALCODE, NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (NEC) AND NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION CODE (NFPA) STANDARDS, AMERICANSWITH DISABILITIES ACT) AND ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR THIS JURISDICTION.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE WORK (UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE).7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND VERIFY EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BID OR START OF WORK.8.ALL STUDS, CEILING FURRING AND FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE PLACED AS TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITHLOCATIONS OF CASEWORK, RECESSED LIGHTING FIXTURES, PIPING, DUCT WORK AND THE LIKE.9.ALL CUTTING AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A NEAT AND WORKMAN-LIKE MANNER. ANY FINISHESDISTURBED OR DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED TONEW-CONDITION OR REPLACED WITH THE SAME QUALITY.10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SURFACES PRIOR TOOCCUPANCY OF THE SPACE BY THE OWNER. THIS INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF ALL TRASH, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS,TOOLS, ETC.11.ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AND COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALSSPECIFIED, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. NO PRODUCT THAT EXCEEDS CALIFORNIA'S MAXIMUM LIMITS ONVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) SHALL BE USED.12.ALL AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A MINIMUM 6-FOOT-HIGH PERIMETERFENCE AS MANDATED.13.ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH FLOORS OR FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH SLEEVES, FIREPREVENTIVE MATERIAL AND CAULKING TO MATCH THE FIRE RATING OF THE RESPECTIVE FLOORS AND/OR WALLS.14.THE MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ARE NOT OF THE EXACTSCALES AND DIMENSIONS. REFER TO THE ENGINEERED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR THE DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OFCONSTRUCTION.15.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE ENGINEERED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALLSTRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS.DETDETAILW11A12WALL TAGPLAN DETAILSECTION DETAILCRUSHED STONECONCRETEWINDOW OPENINGAEARTHDOOR LANDING CLEARANCEDOOR OPENING60"48"60"
MIN. CLR.
48"
MIN. CLR.FLOOR CLEARANCE30"12" IF DOORIS EQUIPPEDW/ LATCH CLOSER18" INT.24" EXT.WINDOW TAG NO.DOOR TAG NO.':W1D1A1FLOOR ELEVATIONCEILING HEIGHTROOM TAGA072EXTERIOR ELEVATIONA11INTERIOR ELEVATIONS1234SHEET #ELEVATION #SHEET #ELEVATION #6<0%2/6/(*(1'6+((7,1'(;COVER SHEETSCS01CS02ARCHITECTURAL SHEETSA01A02A03A04A05A06SITE PHOTOGRAPHY SHEETPROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANPROPOSED ROOF PLANPROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONSCOVER SHEETBUILDING INFORMATIONPROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN$33529$/ARCHITECT/DESIGNERCIVIL ENGINEERBERT GARLANDLARRY LANGFIRE CODE ANALYSIS SHEETSF01F02F03PROPOSED SITE FIRE PROTECTION PLANPROPOSED BASEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANPROPOSED GROUND FLOOR FIRE PROTECTION PLANPLUMBING SHEETSP01PROPOSED STORM WATER DRAINAGE PLAN
FF-1FF-1FF-1FF-1
WF-1
13234521965127843645LOT 1LOT 9LOT 14WF-1A013DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
6,7(3+272*5$3+<6+((76&$/(176$12&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPSITE DRONE SHOTA - VIEW FROM PARKING LOT TO EXISTING BUILDINGB - VIEW FROM PARKING LOT TO EXISTING SHACKC - VIEW FROM EXISTING BULDING TO OPEN LOT(ALLEY SIDE)D - VIEW FROM PERIMIETER LINE TO OPEN LOTE - VIEW FROM PERIMITER LINE TO EXISTINGPLAYGROUND$%'(&
19'-1"13234521965127843645 =74°07'26"R=50.00'L=64.69'N 03°32'10" W 408.13'N41°35'21"E 213.53'N 07°58'15" E 122.33'N 14°58'15" E 73.81'N 80°46'49" E 96.65'N 89°04'00" E 282.64'N 11°28'00" W 103.01'S 80° W 106
' - 3"N 09°49'00" W 272.10'N 89°56'42" E 211.59'N 05°8'30" W 150.00'N 8° E 141' - 3"N 8° E 51' - 9"N 89°04'00" E 196.32'S 83°33'59" W 67.21'N 89°49'59" E 36.44'S 09°24'20" E 814.38'RINCON AVEDOT AVESAN TOMAS EXPY
CLCLCL 5'-0"2,200 SQ FT2,200 SQ FT10,573 SQ FT2,200 SQ FT(N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTEXISTINGPARKING AREAFUTURE DEVELOPMENT17 FT WIDE RD.PARCEL APROPOSEDDROP-OFF AREABASEMENTPARKING EXITENTRANCE TOBASEMENT PARKINGPROPERTY LINEWALKWAY
PARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) LANDSCAPING(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) STAIR(N) ADMIN BLDG2-STORYTYPE 1B(N) KINDERGARTENCLASSROOM1-STORY(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY2,200 SQ FT(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY2,240 SQ FT(N) REG. CLASSROOMS1-STORYTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1B(
N) BLEACHERS
(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(N) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(E) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(N) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(E)SI
DEWALK(N) STAIR(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"(N)RESTROOMS223 SQ FT(N)RESTROOMS223 SQ FT40'-0"30'-0"EXISTINGPARKING AREAEXISTINGPARKING AREA20'-0" (E) OUTDOOR PARKING14 FT WIDE RD.(N) STAIRRESERVED FORFUTURE DEVELOPMENTSA024DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
12&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPSITE DEVELOPMENT PLANPROPOSEDSCALE1/40" = 1'0"A021SITE NOTES1. FOR TYPICAL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS, SEE SHEETS C01 - C02.2. FOR THE EXACT LOCATION AND SPECIFICATIONS OF EXISTING VEGETATION (TREES,SHRUBS, ETC.), SEE SHEET A-02 (SITE PLAN).2. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTEDACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULLBOXES,TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THELOCATION OF THE HOOKUP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANYPOWER LINES - WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURETO COMPLY MAY CAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.3. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL AS INDICATED ON PLAN IS A BARRIER-FREE ACCESS ROUTEWITHOUT ANY ABRUPT LEVEL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" IF BEVELED AT 1:2 MAX SLOPE, ORVERTICAL LEVEL CHANGES NOT EXCEEDING 1/4" MAX, AND AT LEAST 48" IN WIDTH.SURFACE IS STABLE FIRM AND SLIP RESISTANT. CROSS SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2% ANDSLOPE IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IS LESS THAN 5% UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF OVERHANGINGOBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM, AND PROTRUDING OBJECTS GREATER THAN 4"PROJECTION FROM WALL AND ABOVE 27" AND LESS THAN 80".4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT ALL BARRIERS ON THE INDICATED PATH OF TRAVELHAVE BEEN REMOVED.5. IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONS BE SCALED FROM PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN PLANS. ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OR MISSINGDIMENSIONS FOR CORRECTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK.6. ALL DIMENSIONS TO METAL/WOOD STUD WALLS/PARAPET ARE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.7. ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE OR CMU WALLS AREFACE OF CONCRETE OR CMU, U.N.O."CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.8. DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIMENSIONED ON THEPLANS. WHERE DOOR IS LOCATEDNEXT TO A WALL, THERE SHALL BE A 3-1/2" CLEARANCE BETWEEN WALL FINISH SURFACEAND FACE OF DOOR IN A 90° OPEN POSITION, U.N.O.9. ELECTRICAL (SUB-) CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING ELECTRICAL FIXTURESTO REUSE/RELOCATE. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURE COVER SHALL BE NEW.10. EXISTING BUILDING IDENTIFIERS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH AN UPDATED AND APPROVEDADDRESS NUMBERS. BOTH EXISTING AND NEW SIGNAGES SHALL CONFORM TO THESPECIFICATIONS AND/OR STANDARDS SET BY THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.LINE OF PROPOSED FENCELAMP POSTPROPERTY LINELANDSCAPED AREAAC PAVINGCLLEGENDCENTER LINE OF ROADCONCRETENOT IN SCOPE AREAROOF DRAINACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVEL (ADA)SITE ENTRANCE SIGNFIRE HYDRANTELECTRICAL POLE22,450.43 SF28,065.69 SF5,615.26 SF11,039.38 SF15,890.64 SF15,129.13 SFGROSS FLOOR AREABASEMENT FLOORDESCRIPTIONADMIN BLDG.PARKING & UTILITY RMSTOTALGROUND FLOORADMIN BLDG.CLASSROOM UNITS (5)TOTALOPEN AREA (exc. SIDEWALK)AREA4,851.26 SFPARKINGON SITE PARKING LOT (EXISTING)PROVIDEDSTANDARDACCESSIBLEAT BASEMENTPROVIDEDSTANDARDACCESSIBLE116 (verify on site)28262110 (verify on site)6 (verify on site)ON SITE PARKING LOT (NEAR DOT AVE.)PROVIDED30
22'-0"30'-9"30'-9"36'-0"11'-2"17'-11"17'-10"69'-11"38'-1"32'-6"119'-6"35'-5"
38'-5"
62'-9"
15'-0"60'-6"75
°
5
8
°5'-8"9'-11"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"20'-0"
11'-0"10'-7"11'-2"W1W2W2W2W1W2W2W2W2W1W1W2W2W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W3W3W3W3W3W3W4W2W4W4W7W6W5W6W6W5W6W6W6W4W6W6W4W4W2W4W6CBA'8312345678910111213$&&7*2)),&(935,12)),&(0((7,1*5220)$&8/7<5220$'0,1((507($&+(5
6/281*(&28162)),&(81,6(;87,/&/2&23<5220+$//:$<678'<$5($/,%5$5<35,1&,3$/
62)),&(5(67505$03832 8 ' WI DE
DRI
VEWAYSTORAG
E /
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
OM5
2
"
W
AL
K
WA
Y4 8 " WA LKWAY
5$03'15$03835$0383D33D3DD30$,17(1$1&(52200$,1((%$6(0(173$5.,1*(175$1&(
:,'( %$6(0(173$5.,1*(;,7
:,'( '''7D'''''''''''5(675081,6(;81,6(;5(6750'6(59(550:::::::::::::::::::: : : ::::: : : : : : : : : : : ::::A2A3A7A8A10A11A12A13A14A15A16A17A18A19A20A1A4A5A21A6A9----A061----A062$$$$$$$ $$ $ $17,&,3$7('(/(9$72563$&(6/23(6/23(5$035$03(175<5$03(;,75$03
67$,56/23(6/23(123$5.,1*123$5.,1*123$5.,1*11214CB1A'345678101213C'A'9DEAFGHIJKLMNQRO2'3'4'1'PB'B'C'A035%$6(0(17)/2253/$1352326('6&$/(
$12/(*(1'W11A12WALL TAGPLAN DETAILSECTION DETAILWINDOW OPENINGADOOR LANDING CLEARANCEDOOR OPENING60"60"
MIN. CLR.
48"
MIN. CLR.FLOOR CLEARANCE18" INT.24" EXT.12" IF DOORIS EQUIPPEDW/ LATCHCLOSERWINDOW TAG NO.DOOR TAG NO.W1D1A1FLOOR ELEVATIONCEILING HEIGHTROOM TAGA072EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHEET #ELEVATION #ACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVELPORTABLEFIRE EXTINGUISHERPROPOSED EXIT DOORS,PROVIDE EXIT SIGN (GREEN)NOTE:ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS SHALL BELOCATED AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLYINDICATE THE DIRECTION OF EGRESSTRAVEL. ADDT'L EXIT SIGNS MAY BEREQUIRED AT TIME OF FIELD INSPECTION.8.5" WALL6" PARTITION WALL4" PARTITION WALL12mm THK. GLASS WALL10" CONC. WALL8" CONC. WALLHVACLAMP POSTROOF DRAIN&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRP )/2253/$1127(61.IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONSBE SCALED FROM PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN PLANS.ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURALAND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OR MISSINGDIMENSIONS FOR CORRECTION BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH WORK.2. ALL DIMENSIONS TO METAL/WOOD STUDWALLS/ PARAPET ARE TO FACE OF STUDS,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE OR CMUWALLS ARE FACE OF CONCRETE OR CMU,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.4. DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIMENSIONED ON THE PLANS. WHERE DOORIS LOCATED NEXT TO A WALL, THERE SHALLBE A 3-1/2" CLEARANCE BETWEEN WALLFINISH SURFACE AND FACE OF DOOR IN A90° OPEN POSITION, U.N.O.5.ELECTRICAL (SUB-)CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY EXISTING ELECTRICAL FIXTURES TOREUSE/RELOCATE. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURECOVER SHALL BE NEW6. FINISH SCHEDULE ON A02.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
43'-4"
5'-4"12'-8"12'-8"12'-8"73'-11"12'-4"12'-8"28'-7"-0"
42'-7"-0"5'23'-11"42'-7"-0"16'-8"68'-4"55'-7"7'-11"15'-8"
38'-5"
20'-8"
10'-9"23'-11"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"5'-8"49'-3"11'-7"12'-8"12'-8"11'-7"49'-3"11'-7"12'-8"12'-8"11'-8"
11'-0"10'-7"11'-2"11'-8"11'-8"12'-8"12'-8"42'-7"-0"23'-11"49'-3"11'-7"12'-8"12'-8"
1
1
'
-
7
"42'-7"-0"23'-11"49'-3"11'-7"12'-8"12'-8"11'-7"A22A24A26A27A29A30A31A32A33A34A35A36A38A39A40A41A42A43A44A45A46A23A34A34A37A25A28----A061----A062CBDEAFGHIJKLMNQRO2'3'4'1'PDCBAE5$03'1'1'1'1'1
5$03'172%$6(0(17/(9(/5$03'1
12345678910111213141
2
34567891011121314
12345678910111213141516171819202122'123:::55 0 55 ) 0((7,1*5220678'(17
:,'(+$//:$<6&,(1&((48,350&21752/500((7,1*52206
(
$
7
,
1
*
$
5
(
$72,5(*8/$5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$665220%$6(0(173$5.,1*(;,7
:,'( '.,1'(5&/$665220 0 72,'.,1'(5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$66522055 0 55 ) 5(*8/$5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$6652205(*8/$5&/$6652206+2:(550'11234567891011121413D7''''''''' ''::: :: : : : : : : : : : : : ::::::6725$*(5220678'(17/281*((;+,%,7+$//5(6750678'(176+2:(550 ) CBA7e5d4d3d2d1d5a4a3a2a1a5b4b3b2b1b5c4c3c2c1c1e4e2e3e5e6e$17,&,3$7('(/(9$72563$&(A046*5281')/2253/$1352326('6&$/(
$12/(*(1'W11A12WALL TAGPLAN DETAILSECTION DETAILWINDOW OPENINGADOOR LANDING CLEARANCEDOOR OPENING60"60"MIN. CLR.48"MIN. CLR.FLOOR CLEARANCE18" INT.24" EXT.12" IF DOORIS EQUIPPEDW/ LATCHCLOSERWINDOW TAG NO.DOOR TAG NO.W1D1A1FLOOR ELEVATIONCEILING HEIGHTROOM TAGA072EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHEET #ELEVATION #ACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVELPORTABLEFIRE EXTINGUISHERPROPOSED EXIT DOORS,PROVIDE EXIT SIGN (GREEN)NOTE:ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS SHALL BELOCATED AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLYINDICATE THE DIRECTION OF EGRESSTRAVEL. ADDT'L EXIT SIGNS MAY BEREQUIRED AT TIME OF FIELD INSPECTION.8.5" WALL6" PARTITION WALL4" PARTITION WALL12mm THK. GLASS WALL10" CONC. WALL8" CONC. WALLHVACLAMP POSTROOF DRAIN)/2253/$1127(61.IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONSBE SCALED FROM PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN PLANS.ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURALAND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OR MISSINGDIMENSIONS FOR CORRECTION BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH WORK.2. ALL DIMENSIONS TO METAL/WOOD STUDWALLS/ PARAPET ARE TO FACE OF STUDS,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE OR CMUWALLS ARE FACE OF CONCRETE OR CMU,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.4. DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIMENSIONED ON THE PLANS. WHERE DOORIS LOCATED NEXT TO A WALL, THERE SHALLBE A 3-1/2" CLEARANCE BETWEEN WALLFINISH SURFACE AND FACE OF DOOR IN A90° OPEN POSITION, U.N.O.5.ELECTRICAL (SUB-)CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY EXISTING ELECTRICAL FIXTURES TOREUSE/RELOCATE. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURECOVER SHALL BE NEW6. FINISH SCHEDULE ON A02.&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
171'-6"32'-9"CBDEAFGHIJKLMNQRO2'3'4'1'PDCBAECBA----A061----A0626/23('1
$&&8$&&8$6((7<3/('*('(7$,/6/23('16/23('16/23('1 6/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('1 6/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('1 6/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('1 6/2
3
(
'
16/23('16/23('16/23('1
6
/23
(
'16/23('16/23('16
/2
3
(
'16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('16/23('1
6/23('1
6/23('16/23('16/23('1522)29(5$'0,1%/'*522)29(55(*8/$5&/$6652206 522)29(55(*8/$5&/$6652206 522)29(55(*8/$5&/$665220
6
522)29(55(*8/$5&/$6652206 522)29(5.,1'(5*$57(1&/$6652206 $$6/23('16/23('17e5d4d3d2d1d5a4a3a2a1a5b4b3b2b1b5c4c3c2c1c1e4e2e3e5e6eA057522)3/$1352326('6&$/(
$12/(*(1'W11A12WALL TAGPLAN DETAILSECTION DETAILWINDOW OPENINGADOOR LANDING CLEARANCEDOOR OPENING60"60"MIN. CLR.48"MIN. CLR.FLOOR CLEARANCE18" INT.24" EXT.12" IF DOORIS EQUIPPEDW/ LATCHCLOSERWINDOW TAG NO.DOOR TAG NO.W1D1A1FLOOR ELEVATIONCEILING HEIGHTROOM TAGA072EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHEET #ELEVATION #ACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVELPORTABLEFIRE EXTINGUISHERPROPOSED EXIT DOORS,PROVIDE EXIT SIGN (GREEN)NOTE:ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS SHALL BELOCATED AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLYINDICATE THE DIRECTION OF EGRESSTRAVEL. ADDT'L EXIT SIGNS MAY BEREQUIRED AT TIME OF FIELD INSPECTION.8.5" WALL6" PARTITION WALL4" PARTITION WALL12mm THK. GLASS WALL10" CONC. WALL8" CONC. WALLHVACLAMP POSTROOF DRAIN&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRP 522)3/$1127(61.IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONSBE SCALED FROM PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN PLANS.ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURALAND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OR MISSINGDIMENSIONS FOR CORRECTION BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH WORK.2. ALL DIMENSIONS TO METAL/WOOD STUDWALLS/ PARAPET ARE TO FACE OF STUDS,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE OR CMUWALLS ARE FACE OF CONCRETE OR CMU,U.N.O. "CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALLBE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.4. DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIMENSIONED ON THE PLANS. WHERE DOORIS LOCATED NEXT TO A WALL, THERE SHALLBE A 3-1/2" CLEARANCE BETWEEN WALLFINISH SURFACE AND FACE OF DOOR IN A90° OPEN POSITION, U.N.O.5.ELECTRICAL (SUB-)CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY EXISTING ELECTRICAL FIXTURES TOREUSE/RELOCATE. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURECOVER SHALL BE NEW6. FINISH SCHEDULE ON A02.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
*5281')/225))/&/$665220&(,/,1*7232)3$5$3(7&/$665220))/1*/%$6(0(17))/*5281')/225))/1*/$'0,1%/'*&(,/,1*7232)3$5$3(7$'0,1%/'*))/%$6(0(17))/A093A092
DDDDDEEEEEFFFFF('&%$5(7$,1,1*:$//7+.$/80,1805$,/,1*6(($$/80,1803$1(/6(($7+.0*2%2$5'$/80,180648$5(78%(7+.0*2%2$5'0*2(;7(51$/:$//7+.0*2%2$5'0*2(;7(51$/:$//0*2(;7(51$/:$//0*2(;7(51$/:$//$/80,1803$1(/W6W6W6W1W6W6W6W6W1W1W6W3D1W6W6W6W6W3W3W6W6W7W1W1$/80,180648$5(78%($/80,180648$5(78%(*5281')/225))/1*/&/$665220&(,/,1*7232)3$5$3(7&/$665220))/%$6(0(17))/5(7$,1,1*:$//0*2(;7(5,25:$//A093A092
DDDDDEEEEEFFFFF$&'(%%%&$/80,180648$5(78%($/80,180648$5(78%($/80,1803$1(/6(($$/80,180648$5(78%($/80,1803$1(/6(($7+.0*2%2$5'0*2(;7(5,25:$//0*2(;7(5,25:$//7+.0*2%2$5'0*2(;7(5,25:$//W6W12W6W6W6W1W1D1W13W11W11W5W5W6W1W1W6W6W6W77+.$/80,1805$,/,1*6(($A068)5217(/(9$7,21352326('6&$/(
$12&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
5($5(/(9$7,21352326('6&$/(
$
22'-0"R20'RINCON AVEDOT AVESAN TOMAS EXPY
CLCLCL 5'-0"(N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTPROPOSEDEVACUATION AREAFUTURE DEVELOPMENTPARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) LANDSCAPING(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) ACCESSIBLERAMP(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SIDEWALK(N) STAIR(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"40'-0"30'-0"20'-5"PROPOSEDEVACUATION AREA21'-2"17'23'-10"FIRE APPARATUSACCESS ROADWAY(NO PARKING ZONE)58'-3"59'-9"20'-8"40'-4" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A22'-5" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A (N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTPROPOSEDEVACUATION AREAPARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITBASEMENTPARKINGENTRANCEPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) LANDSCAPING(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) ACCESSIBLERAMP(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SIDEWALK(N) STAIR(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"40'-0"30'-0" (E) OUTDOOR PARKING(FOR FUTURE PROJECTS)20'-5"21'-2"17'23'-10"FIRE APPARATUSACCESS ROADWAY(NO PARKING ZONE)58'-3"59'-9"20'-8"40'-4" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A22'-5" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A 25'-2"(N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTPROPOSEDEVACUATION AREA S E C O N D A R Y F I R E A C C E S S R O A DPARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITBASEMENTPARKINGENTRANCEWALKWAYPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) LANDSCAPING(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) ACCESSIBLERAMP(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SIDEWALK(N) STAIR(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"40'-0"30'-0"20'-5"ON-SITE FIRE ACCESS ROADO N - S I T E F I R E A P P A R A T U S A C C E S S R O A D W A Y(N O P A R K I N G Z O N E)21'-2"13'-2"
17'23'-10"FIRE APPARATUSACCESS ROADWAY(NO PARKING ZONE)59'-9"58'-3"20'-8" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A22'-5"40'-4" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A 25'-2" N O P A R K I N G Z O N E N O P A R K I N G Z O N E N O P A R K I N G Z O N E N O P A R K I N G Z O N ENOPARKINGZONENO PARKINGZONE(SEE NOTE) N O P A R K I N G Z O N E
391'380'-11"(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)R8'(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)22'-0"R20'WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFS114'-3"126'-5"152'-10"106'-8"582'-6"324'-6"277'-1"R20'(N)22'R20'20'R20'22'20'-1"F019DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
12),5(3527(&7,216,7(3/$1352326('6&$/(
)1.ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THEINTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AS AMENDED AND THE UNIFORMDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (UDACS) AS ADOPTEDBY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL.2.APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BEPROVIDED TO ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES PRIOR TO THEPERMANENT FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS BEING COMPLETE.THE APPROVED VEHICLE ACCESS, ACCESS TO BUILDINGS,HYDRANTS AND OTHER FIRE APPLIANCES SHALL NOT BEBLOCKED BY CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR OPENUTILITY TRENCHING.3.AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION, EITHERTEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE ASSOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON SITE. ADDITIONALFIRE FLOW SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON COMMENCEMENT OFVERTICAL CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH IFC SECTION3312 AS AMENDED.4.FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEMOST CURRENT EDITION OF UDACS AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 25 AND KEPT IN AN OPERATIVECONDITION WITH THE REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY.5.HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THEIR PUMPER OUTLETNOZZLE (STEAMER CONNECTION) FACING THE FIRE ACCESSROAD. A 3-FOOT CLEAR SPACE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AROUNDTHE CIRCUMFERENCE OF FIRE HYDRANTS. WHERE HYDRANTSARE SUBJECT TO IMPACT BY MOTOR VEHICLES, GUARD POSTS(PIPE BOLLARDS) SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IFCSECTION 312.6.HYDRANTS SHALL BE PAINTED SAFETY YELLOW FOR PUBLIC ANDSAFETY RED FOR PRIVATE.7.PAINTING OF CURBS AND/OR ASPHALT AREAS ADJACENT TOHYDRANTS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE INSTALLER PRIOR TOFINAL INSPECTION. A COAT OF EXTERIOR INDUSTRIAL GRADESAFETY RED ENAMEL SHALL BE APPLIED FOR A MINIMUM OF 30FEET, 15 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE HYDRANT. PER NRS484B.450.8.HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MARKED BY MEANS OF AYELLOW REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER INSTALLED IN THECENTER OF THE FIRE ACCESS DRIVE LANE NEAREST TO THEHYDRANT9.FDC SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT ASMEASURED BY AN APPROVED UNOBSTRUCTED ROUTE.10.FDC SHALL FACE THE FIRE LANE.11.FDC SHALL NOT BE CLOSER THAN 3 FEET TO ANY DOOR ORWINDOW OPENING AND SHALL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED BY TREES,SHRUBS, PARKING SPACES, ETC.12.UNDERGROUND PIPING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WORKINGPRESSURE OF 150 PSI. UNDERGROUND PIPING CONNECTED TO AFIRE PUMP OR A FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION SHALL HAVE AMINIMUM WORKING PRESSURE OF 200 PSI (CLASS 305).13.TWO SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY ARE REQUIRED WHENEVER 4OR MORE FIRE HYDRANTS AND/OR FIRE SPRINKLER LEAD-INSARE INSTALLED ON A SINGLE SYSTEM.14.SECTIONAL CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT NOMORE THAN 2 FIRE HYDRANTS AND/OR FIRE SPRINKLER LEAD-INSCAN BE OUT OF SERVICE DUE TO A BREAK IN A WATER MAIN.15.A POST INDICATING VALVE (PIV) SHALL BE PROVIDED ANDINSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET FROM THE BUILDING ON EACHFIRE SPRINKLER LEAD-IN AND SHALL BE SET SO THE TOP OF THEPOST WILL BE 32” TO 40” ABOVE THE FINAL GRADE.16.ALL VALVES THAT CONTROL THE WATER SUPPLY TO PRIVATEFIRE SERVICE MAINS AND/OR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALLBE LISTED, INDICATING AND ELECTRICALLY SUPERVISED.EXCEPTION 1: UNDERGROUND KEY OR HUB VALVES.EXCEPTION 2: BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY VALVES THAT ARE CHAINEDAND LOCKED IN THE OPENPOSITION OR LOCATED IN AN UNDERGROUND VAULT ORAPPROVED INSULATED ENCLOSURE;HOWEVER, BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY VALVES THAT ARE DESIGNEDTO CONTROL ONLY FIRE SPRINKLERS, IN LIEU OF INSTALLING APIV, SHALL BE ELECTRICALLY MONITORED.17.ALL PIPING AND VALVES SUPPLYING FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMSSHALL BE PROTECTED FROM FREEZING WHEN EXPOSED TOTEMPERATURES LESS THAN 40°F. FREEZE PROTECTION SHALL BEAPPROVED, DURABLE AND PERMANENT.18. ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLEPROVISIONS OF THE CFC CHAPTER 33 AND OUR STANDARDDETAIL AND SPECIFICATION S1-7/(*(1'ACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVEL (ADA)EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED NEW FIRE HYDRANTE(N)),5(3527(&7,21127(6PROPOSED FIRE ESCAPE ROUTE&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPFIRE ENGINE PATH OF TRAVEL(ONE WAY)FIRE ENGINE PATH OF TRAVEL(TWO WAY)SAN JOSE WATER MAINWWFIRE HYDRANT PIPEFS(0(5*(1&<*$7('(7$,/NOTE:FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD DETAILSAND SPECIFICATION G-1 REQUIRED WIDTH REQUIRED WIDTH
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,772352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($6'6'6'6'6'33F72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($(;,7(;,7F021012&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL PENDENT SPRINKLER HEAD, RECESSED TYPE6'FCOMBINED SMOKE AND HEAT DETECTORFIRE ALARM ADDRESSABLE AUDIO(SPEAKER)DEVICEMOUNTING HEIGHT 80" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISESUPERSCRIPT 'C' DENOTES CEILING MOUNTEDFIRE ALARM MANUAL PULL STATION3PROPOSED FIRE ESCAPE ROUTEEGRESS(;,7),5(3527(&7,213/$1352326('%$6(0(176&$/(
)LEGENDTHE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE,2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, AND OTHER CURRENTLY ADOPTEDCODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ASENFORCED BY THE BREA FD.EXITS, EXIT SIGNS, FIRE ALARM PANELS, HOSE CABINETS, FIREEXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS SHALLNOT BE CONCEALED BY CURTAINS, MIRRORS, OR OTHER OBJECTS.THE EGRESS PATH SHALL REMAIN FREE AND CLEAR OF ALLOBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES. NO STORAGE IS PERMITTED IN AISLES.PROVIDE WET TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS INDICATED.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DESIGN DRAWINGS AND HYDRAULICCALCULATION AND SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 13, 2016 ANDAPPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES. PROVIDE MINIMUM 10% DESIGNFACTOR OF SAFETYEXIT DOORS SHALL BE OPENABLE FROM THE INSIDE WITHOUT THE USEOF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. DOORSSHALL NOT BE PROVIDED WITH THUMB-TURN LOCKS OR DEADBOLTSTHAT DO NOT UNLATCH IN TANDEM WITH THE NORMAL OPERATINGLEVER. THE OPENING FORCE FOR INTERIOR DOORS WITHOUTCLOSERS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 POUNDS. THE UNLATCHING ANDOPENING FORCE FOR OTHER DOORS, INCLUDING FIRE DOORS, SHALLNOT EXCEED 15 POUNDS. CBC 1010THE EXIT PATH SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH EXIT SIGNSCONFORMING TO CBC 1013. ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS MUST HAVE90-MINUTE EMERGENCY POWER BACK-UP.THE EXIT PATH SHALL BE ILLUMINATED AT ALL TIMES IN ACCORDANCEWITH CBC 1008. EMERGENCY LIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDEDWITH 90-MINUTE BACK-UP.RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROVED METHODS ANDMATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION. PENETRATIONS THROUGH RATEDWALLS, CEILINGS, OR FLOORS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN AN APPROVEDMANNER COMPLYING WITH CBC/CFC CHAPTER 7.FIRE/ SMOKE RATED DOORS SHALL BE SELF-CLOSING AND LATCHING;SUCH DOORS SHALL NOT BE EQUIPPED WITH DOOR STOPS OROTHERWISE PROPPED OPEN. FIRE/ SMOKE RATED DOORS SHALL BEEQUIPPED WITH RATED HARDWARE. CFC 705ALL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS INCLUDING ALARMS SHALL BETESTED.ALL TEST DOCUMENTS AND ACTUAL SYSTEM TEST SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE CAMPUS FIRE MARSHAL.SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE CHROME PLATED SEMI-RECESSED TYPERATED FOR 155-165 FDESIGN SHALL BE BASED ON LIGHT HAZARD CLASSIFICATION TOPROVIDE MINIMUM 0.10 GPM/SF OVER 1500 SQ.. FEET MINIMUM.PROVIDE 120 VOLT HARD-WIRED, INTER-CONNECTED SMOKE ALARMS(WITH BACK UP BATTERY) AT ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PER CRC 314.3.DUMPSTERS AND TRASH CONTAINERS EXCEEDING 1.5 CUBIC YARDSSHALL NOT BE STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOFEAVE LINES UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED SPRINKLERSYSTEM OR LOCATED IN A TYPE I OR IIA STRUCTURE SEPARATED BY 10FEET FROM OTHER STRUCTURES. CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 1 CUBICYARD SHALL BE OF NON- OR LIMITED-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ORSIMILARLY PROTECTED OR SEPARATED. CFC 304.3),5(3527(&7,21127(6
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6
'
6
'
6'
6
'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'6'FFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
F
F
F
FFFFFFFFFFF
F
F
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFF333
333
3333(;,7
(;,73(;,7(;,7 (;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7 (;,7 (;,7(;,7(;,7
(
;
,
7
(;,7 (;,7
(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,772352326('(9$&8$7,21
$5($
72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($
72352326('(9$&8$7,21$5($F031112&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
),5(3527(&7,213/$1352326('*5281')/2256&$/(
)PENDENT SPRINKLER HEAD, RECESSED TYPE6'FCOMBINED SMOKE AND HEAT DETECTORFIRE ALARM ADDRESSABLE AUDIO(SPEAKER)DEVICEMOUNTING HEIGHT 80" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISESUPERSCRIPT 'C' DENOTES CEILING MOUNTEDFIRE ALARM MANUAL PULL STATION3PROPOSED FIRE ESCAPE ROUTEEGRESS(;,7LEGENDTHE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE,2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, AND OTHER CURRENTLY ADOPTEDCODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ASENFORCED BY THE BREA FD.EXITS, EXIT SIGNS, FIRE ALARM PANELS, HOSE CABINETS, FIREEXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS SHALLNOT BE CONCEALED BY CURTAINS, MIRRORS, OR OTHER OBJECTS.THE EGRESS PATH SHALL REMAIN FREE AND CLEAR OF ALLOBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES. NO STORAGE IS PERMITTED IN AISLES.PROVIDE WET TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS INDICATED.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DESIGN DRAWINGS AND HYDRAULICCALCULATION AND SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 13, 2016 ANDAPPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES. PROVIDE MINIMUM 10% DESIGNFACTOR OF SAFETYEXIT DOORS SHALL BE OPENABLE FROM THE INSIDE WITHOUT THE USEOF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. DOORSSHALL NOT BE PROVIDED WITH THUMB-TURN LOCKS OR DEADBOLTSTHAT DO NOT UNLATCH IN TANDEM WITH THE NORMAL OPERATINGLEVER. THE OPENING FORCE FOR INTERIOR DOORS WITHOUTCLOSERS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 POUNDS. THE UNLATCHING ANDOPENING FORCE FOR OTHER DOORS, INCLUDING FIRE DOORS, SHALLNOT EXCEED 15 POUNDS. CBC 1010THE EXIT PATH SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH EXIT SIGNSCONFORMING TO CBC 1013. ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS MUST HAVE90-MINUTE EMERGENCY POWER BACK-UP.THE EXIT PATH SHALL BE ILLUMINATED AT ALL TIMES IN ACCORDANCEWITH CBC 1008. EMERGENCY LIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDEDWITH 90-MINUTE BACK-UP.RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROVED METHODS ANDMATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION. PENETRATIONS THROUGH RATEDWALLS, CEILINGS, OR FLOORS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN AN APPROVEDMANNER COMPLYING WITH CBC/CFC CHAPTER 7.FIRE/ SMOKE RATED DOORS SHALL BE SELF-CLOSING AND LATCHING;SUCH DOORS SHALL NOT BE EQUIPPED WITH DOOR STOPS OROTHERWISE PROPPED OPEN. FIRE/ SMOKE RATED DOORS SHALL BEEQUIPPED WITH RATED HARDWARE. CFC 705ALL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS INCLUDING ALARMS SHALL BETESTED.ALL TEST DOCUMENTS AND ACTUAL SYSTEM TEST SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE CAMPUS FIRE MARSHAL.SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE CHROME PLATED SEMI-RECESSED TYPERATED FOR 155-165 FDESIGN SHALL BE BASED ON LIGHT HAZARD CLASSIFICATION TOPROVIDE MINIMUM 0.10 GPM/SF OVER 1500 SQ.. FEET MINIMUM.PROVIDE 120 VOLT HARD-WIRED, INTER-CONNECTED SMOKE ALARMS(WITH BACK UP BATTERY) AT ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PER CRC 314.3.DUMPSTERS AND TRASH CONTAINERS EXCEEDING 1.5 CUBIC YARDSSHALL NOT BE STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOFEAVE LINES UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED SPRINKLERSYSTEM OR LOCATED IN A TYPE I OR IIA STRUCTURE SEPARATED BY 10FEET FROM OTHER STRUCTURES. CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 1 CUBICYARD SHALL BE OF NON- OR LIMITED-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ORSIMILARLY PROTECTED OR SEPARATED. CFC 304.3),5(3527(&7,21127(6
22'-0"R20'RINCON AVEDOT AVESAN TOMAS EXPY
CLCLCL 5'-0"FUTURE DEVELOPMENTPARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SI
DEWALK(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"30'-0"21'-2"20'-8" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A PARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITBASEMENTPARKINGENTRANCEPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SI
DEWALK(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"30'-0"21'-2"20'-8" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A (N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTPROPOSEDSELF-RETAINING AREAPARCEL ABASEMENTPARKING EXITBASEMENTPARKINGENTRANCE5 FT WIDE WALKWAYPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN:305-28-0095 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y (E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) STAIR 1 %/($&+(56(E)SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E)S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(E)SI
DEWALK(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E) W A L K W A Y5 F T W I D E W A L K W A Y 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"30'-0"(E) OUTDOOR PARKING21'-2"20'-8" E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G A R E A NOPARKINGZONENO PARKINGZONE(SEE NOTE)(N) LANDSCAPE1,160 SQ FTPROPOSEDBIORETENTION BASIN(N) LANDSCAPE2,360 SQ FTPROPOSEDSELF-RETAINING AREA(N) LANDSCAPE5,040 SQ FTPROPOSEDBIORETENTION BASINNOPARKINGZONE(E) SITE ENTRANCESIGN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTR8'22'-0"R20'INVERT ELEV: 189.5'2% RUNOFF SLOPE2% RUNOFF SLOPE2% RUNOFF SLOPEDOWNSPOUTTO BIORETENTIONDOWNSPOUT TO SELFRETAINING AREABASEMENT WATERTO DRYWELLDOWNSPOUT TO SELFRETAINING AREA DRYWELL2% RUNOFF SLOPE DRYWELL2% RUNOFF SLOPE2% RUNOFF SLOPEEXISTING ACCESS ROAD
P0112DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUIN
SANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL
95 Dot Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL
1267250'5$,1$*(6,7(3/$1352326('6&$/(
3/(*(1'APPROVED LANDSCAPE/GRASSAS PER C.3 STORMWATER HANDBOOKAPPENDIX D&RPSRQHQW'LVWULEXWLRQ,QF
2IILFH$GGUHVV 65RRS6WUHHW&DUVRQ&LW\19
'LUHFW/LQH
H0DLO $UFKLWHFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ#FGFRPPERVIOUS CONCRETE BRICKSWALE ( INDICATES DIRECTION OF FLOW)PROPOSED DRY WELL LOCATIONPIPE ( DIRECTION OF FLOW)MAN HOLE67250'5$,1127(6 7+(&216758&7,212)$//,03529(0(1766+$//&21)250727+(6(3/$167+(5(48,5(0(1762)7+(&,7<2)&$03%(//67$1'$5'63(&,),&$7,216$1'727+(67$1'$5'63(&,),&$7,216)2538%/,&:25.6&216758&7,21³*5((1%22.´/$7(67(',7,21&216758&7,213(50,766+$//%(2%7$,1(')5207+(&,7<2)&$03%(//38%/,&:25.6'(3$570(1735,257267$572)$1<:25.:,7+,17+(&,7</,0,7667$7,21,1*5()(56727+(&(17(5/,1(62)67250'5$,16(;&(37:+(5(127('27+(5:,6(&216758&7,21,163(&7,21:,//%(3(5)250('%<7+(&,7<2)&$03%(//7+(&2175$&7256+$//2%7$,1$//1(&(66$5<3(50,76$1'6+$//127,)<7+(&,7<,163(&7256 +28535,257267$57,1*($&+3+$6(2)&216758&7,216$1'35,25725(48,5,1*,163(&7,21$//(;326('&21&5(7(685)$&(66+$//&21)250,1*5$'(&2/25$1'),1,6+72$//$'-2,1,1*&85%6$1'6,'(:$/.67$7,21,1*)25/$7(5$/6$1'&211(&7253,3(5()(5727+(&(17(5/,1(&(17(5/,1(,17(56(&7,2167$7,2167$7(/$: 6% 5(48,5(67+(&2175$&72572&217$&781'(5*5281'6(59,&($/(57$1'2%7$,1$1,'(17,),&$7,21180%(535,25727+(,668$1&(2)7+(&,7<¶6(1&52$&+0(173(50,77+(&2175$&7256+$//127,)<81'(5*5281'6(59,&($/(577:2)8//:25.,1*'$<6 +28560,1,080 ,1$'9$1&(2)$1<&216758&7,21$&7,9,7,(6,1&/8',1*3$9(0(175(029$/(;&$9$7,21$1'$&29(5/$<:+,&+&28/'$))(&7$1<81'(5*5281'87,/,7<$//(/(9$7,2166+2:1$5(,1)((7$1''(&,0$/67+(5(2)%$6('21&,7<2)&$03%(//%(1&+0$5.$1''$780 (/(9$7,2162)87,/,7,(6$5($3352;,0$7(81/(6627+(5:,6(127(',)$1<(;,67,1*87,/,7,(625$1<27+(5)$&,/,7,(6&21)/,&7:,7+7+(352326(',03529(0(176:25.6+$//6723$1'7+((1*,1((52)5(&25'127,),(',00(',$7(/<&2175$&7256+$//327+2/($77,(,167$7,216$1'$7$1<27+(532,1762)327(17,$/&21)/,&76:,7+81'(5*5281')$&,/,7,(6%()25(67$57,1*&216758&7,21%$&.),//0$7(5,$/72+$9($6$1'(48,9$/(17 6( 2) 0,1 $1'0,1,080&203$&7,212) $//75(1&+%$&.),//6+$//%('21(,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(67$1'$5'63(&,),&$7,2162)7+(&,7<2)&$03%(//$1'67$1'$5''5$:,1*12%$&.),//72%(,1´/,)76,)75(1&+%27720$1'6,'(6+$9($6(/(667+$11275(1&+0$</()723(129(51,*+781/(66$87+25,=(',1:5,7,1*%<7+(&,7<(1*,1((575(1&+(66+$//+$9(6+$3('%('',1*:,7+7+(723´29(53,3(%(,1*&2/25('6$1'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('213/$16&2/2572%($33529('%<7+(),(/',163(&72512&21&5(7(6+$//%(3/$&('817,/7+()2506$1'5(,1)25&,1*67((/+$6%((13/$&(',163(&7('$1'$33529('(;,67,1*81'(5*5281'87,/,7,(6$5($63(57+($9$,/$%/(5(&25'67+(&2175$&7256+$//%(5(63216,%/()259(5,)<,1*7+($&78$//2&$7,21$1'(/(9$7,21,17+(),(/'7+(:$//$1')$&(62)$//(;&$9$7,216*5($7(57+$1),9( )((7,1'(37+6+$//%(())(&7,9(/<*8$5'('%<$6+25,1*6<67(06/23,1*2)7+(*5281'2527+(5(48,9$/(170($1675(1&+(6/(667+$1),9( )((7,1'(37+6+$//$/62%(*8$5'(':+(1(;$0,1$7,21,1',&$7(6+$=$5'286*5281'029(0(170$<%((;3(&7(' 7+(&2175$&725 6 6+$//$/622%7$,1$3(50,7723(5)250(;&$9$7,212575(1&+:25.$6'(6&5,%(',1127($%29()520&$/26+$³9´,67+('(37+2),1/(72)&$7&+%$6,160($685(')5207+(7232)&85%72,19(57287/(72)&211(&7253,3(7+(&2175$&7256+$//'(7(50,1(7+(758(/2&$7,212)$1<81'(5*5281'87,/,7<35,2572/$<,1*$1</,1(6:+,&+$5(72&211(&7727+((;,67,1*6(:(52567250'5$,16,)&$67,13/$&(3,3( &,33 :(5(86(',1/,(82)5&3$62,/65(32570867%(68%0,77('727+(&,7<2)&$03%(//&$7&+%$6,166+$//%(/2&$7('627+$7/2&$/'(35(66,2166+$//%(*,1$7(;,67,1*&85%5(785125-2,1781/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),('$//0$1+2/(66+$//%(&216758&7('´%(/2:3$9(0(17*5$'($1'%528*+772),1,6+*5$'(%<7+(3$9,1*&2175$&725$)7(53$9(0(17,6,13/$&((/(9$7,2166+2:121352),/($67232)0$1+2/( 5,0 $5($3352;,0$7(21/<$1'12772%(86(')256(77,1*2)0$1+2/(5,1*,00(',$7(/<)2//2:,1*5(029$/2)(;,67,1*3$9(0(1725',.(25&85%$1'25*877(57+(&2175$&7256+$//',/,*(17/<38568(7+$73257,212):25.72&203/(7,21127,&(72&2175$&725 7+((;,67(1&($1'/2&$7,212)$1<81'(5*5281'87,/,7<3,3(62)6758&785(66+2:1217+(6(3/$16$5(2%7$,1('%<$6($5&+2)7+($9$,/$%/(5(&25'6$33529$/2)7+(6(3/$16%<7+(&,7<2)&$03%(//'2(6127&2167,787($5(35(6(17$7,21$6727+($&&85$&<25&203/(7(1(662)7+(/2&$7,2125(;,67(1&(21121(;,67(1&(2)$1<81'(5*5281'87,/,7<3,3(6256758&785(6:,7+,17+(/,0,762)7+,6352-(&77+(&2175$&725,65(48,5('727$.($//'8(35(&$87,21$5<0($16723527(&77+(87,/,7</,1(61272)5(&25'251276+2:1217+(6(3/$16,)'85,1*&216758&7,21*5281':$7(5,6(1&2817(5('$6<67(0$33529('%<7+(&,7<(1*,1((56+$//%(,167$//('72'(:$7(56$,'$5($$77+(',5(&7,212)7+(62,/6(1*,1((51275(1&+%$&.),//6+$//7$.(3/$&(:,7+28735,25$33529$/2)7+(&,7<¶6,163(&725 $6%8,/73/$166+$//%(3529,'('727+(&,7<%<7+(&2175$&725
Project Description
The current enrollment is 375 students and would be expected to increase to 420 students with
the new Dot Avenue Campus. Only one half of the students attend class on each day, so the maximum
student load, on any given day, should not exceed 210 students, less than the West Valley Christian
School had at its peak enrolment.
There will be the same 13 full time teachers and office workers with 8 part-time office workers
and teacher assistants. The school does not provide any busing of students, as the parents carpool to
drop off the children around 3:30 PM and pick them up at about 7:00 PM, Monday through Thursday .
The Campbell Adventist Church has its main services on Friday night and Saturday providing the
perfect occupancy partner for the school, and not burdening their operations.
Currently, Saniku has a waiting list, but is unable to expand because of the limited number of
classrooms . Given the impending Moreland School District lease expiration and rental increases, at the
current school site, Saniku is strongly motivated to permanently relocate to the Campbell Site and
having already taken over the operation of the West Valley Christian School and signed a 35-year lease
agreement at the Campbell location.
The current proposal is to demolish the existing unusable 9,000 SQ FT Two-Story Building to
allow for a new structure with considerations on Earthquake and Fire Safety. This new structure shall
house the administration building and the classrooms.
There will be a new semi-subterranean garage structure proposed, that will ease the parking
strain for the Church, as well as for the school . To accommodate new classroom spacing requirements,
the applicant would propose to locate Five New Modular Classroom Duplex buildings, for the addition of
11,000 SQ FT of new classrooms , to be located on the top of the parking garage. This unique design
provides a playground, amphitheater, and sound barrier for the neighboring properties . The new
parking structure will add 30 off-street workforce housing, while improving the safety and enjoyment of
the staff and the students.
While there is an existing Conditional Use Permit in place of the operation of the West Valley
Christian School, at the Dot Avenue location, the city planning staff has suggested the applicant
complete a new CUP, which would be more consistent with the new operational plan and the proposed
site plan the applicant has agreed to do so.
Anticipated Construction Schedule
Saniku aims to finish its final phase by September of 2023 , followed by a full occupancy of the
school building. The construction development shall go through a total of three (3) phases — details of
which shall be found below. With the Planning and Zoning expected to be completed by the end of
2021 , the Saniku School anticipates its construction development to start at the beginning of 2022.
Phase 1
The demolition of the existing building and the construction of the semi-subterranean garage shall
occur for the next nine (9) months — January to September 2022 under the supervision of Larry Lang
Construction . During this phase, the administration shall temporarily reside in the existing building
indicated below, and the freed up space shall be developed into an outdoor parking area.
Beginning of Phase 1
End of Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 2 shall be the construction of the whole upper ground floor slab. This shall be followed with the
installation of the prefabricated modular classrooms and administration building with the help of AMCO
Engineering Co. It is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2023 .
Phase 2 Coverage
Final Phase
The bolting of the administration building, modular classrooms and restrooms along with the
development of the site shall occur towards the end of the third quarter of 2023 — August to
September 2023 . It is expected to be completed exactly or as close to the proposed project plans as
possible.
1. Will the proposed school share the parking lot with the existing church? Yes, there is an existing agreement between the church and the school. 1. What are the hours of operation of the church?
The church only has one day of full operation per week:
• Saturday 9:00am - 10:00pm (Sabbath School, Worship, Fellowship Lunch, afternoon programs, evening socials, attendance between 50 - 200 depending on what programs)
We do have regular small gatherings other than Saturday:
• Sunday 9:00am - 5:00pm (social breakfasts, ministry events, birthday and other celebrations, attendance <50)
• Monday 7:00pm - 9:00pm (various board and committee meetings, attendance <20)
• Wednesday 7:00pm - 9:00pm (Prayer meeting, attendance <20)
• Thursday 7:00pm - 9:00pm (Pathfinders, attendance <20)
• Friday 7:00pm - 9:00pm
(musician practices, SS lower-division classroom preparations etc, attendance < 20)
We also have pastor and secretary office hours (right now this is irregular, as we don't have a pastor), but possibly in the future:
• Monday - Friday 10:00am - 5:00pm (pastor, secretary, librarian etc. <5 people). 1. What are the proposed hours of operation of the proposed school?
2. Classes / Actual study sessions will begin at 3:45pm and will end 6:45pm - Monday thru Thursday. Students will arrive from about 3:30 p.m. and are picked up from 6:45 to 7:00 p.m. Our teachers and staff are on campus from about 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Thursday and on
Friday from about 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The early hours and later hours have a few people on campus. Some teachers like to prepare early in the morning and others stay later.
1. The project description notes that the children will be dropped off at 3:30 pm and picked up at 7:00 pm Monday through Thursday. Yes, Students arrive from about 3:30 p.m. and are picked up from 6:45 to 7:00 p.m. Monday thru
Thursday. We have a comprehensive parking plan whereas we will be providing a designated scheduled carpool bay during the time of arrival and pick-up window for the students and workforce. We also have bike parking 20 slots fronting the school premise, under and beside the existing Pine Tree. 1. Are all 420 children being dropped off at the same time? Will there be a staggering drop-off and pick-up? Currently, we have about 375 students. Half of our students come Monday/Wednesday, and the other half Tuesdays and Thursdays. They arrive within a window of 3:15 to 3:45 p.m. and are picked up 6:45
to 7:00 p.m. After the proposed school expansion is built, the pick-up drop-off will be within the school compound. Staggering pick-up and drop-off will be in front of the school ( facing San Tomas within the walls of the school premise). We do not have a staggering program yet, but we will have it as soon as the expansion is finished.
1. It would be incredibly helpful if you could provide a detailed description of the school curriculum sorted by school age. Any proposed times for playtime (both indoor and outdoor) would be helpful as well.
• Class begins at 3:45 and ends at 6:45.
• Our students are in the classroom except during playtime which is 4:30 to 5:15 for Kindergarten thru 8th grade.
• Depending on the teacher the playtime will vary during the hours of 4:30 to 5:15.
• The 9th grader's playtime is from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. 7. In the project description, the following is noted:
“The new parking structure will add 30 off-street workforce housing while improving the safety and enjoyment of the staff and the students”. This is a YES. We have future project plans for the workforce facility. They will have their own parking
layout plan apart from the proposed school site plan eventually. With the submitted proposed site plan for the school expansion, we have assigned 30 parking slots for them.
8. Any information regarding the type of school would also be greatly appreciated (e.g. K-8? Full time program or exclusively afterschool program?).
We are an exclusively afterschool program for grades K-9. Students attend twice a week - Monday/Wednesday or Tuesday/Thursday 3:45 to 6:45 p.m.
19'-1"13234521965127843645 =74°07'26"R=50.00'L=64.69'N 03°32'10" W 408.13'N41°35'21"E 213.53'N 07°58'15" E 122.33'N 14°58'15" E 73.81'N 80°46'49" E 96.65'N 89°04'00" E 282.64'N 11°28'00" W 103.01'S 80° W 106' - 3"N 09°49'00" W 272.10'N 89°56'42" E 211.59'N 05°8'30" W 150.00'N 8° E 141' - 3"N 8° E 51' - 9"N 89°04'00" E 196.32'S 83°33'59" W 67.21'N 89°49'59" E 36.44'S 09°24'20" E 814.38'RINCON AVEDOT AVE
SAN TOMAS EXPYCL
CLCL5'-0"2,200 SQ FT2,200 SQ FT10,573 SQ FT2,200 SQ FT(N) OPEN COURT6,800 SQ FTEXISTINGPARKING AREAFUTURE DEVELOPMENT17 FT WIDE RD.PARCEL APROPOSEDDROP-OFF AREABASEMENTPARKING EXITENTRANCE TOBASEMENT PARKINGPROPERTY LINEWALKWAYPARCEL 3:APN: 305-28-014PARCEL 2APN: 305-28-0095FTWIDEWALKWAY(E) CAMPBELL SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(E) RESIDENTIAL AREA(NOT IN SCOPE)(N) LANDSCAPING(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) ACCESSIBLE RAMP(N) STAIR(N) ADMIN BLDG2-STORYTYPE 1B(N) KINDERGARTENCLASSROOM1-STORY(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY2,200 SQ FT(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY(N) REG. CLASSROOM1-STORY2,240 SQ FT(N) REG. CLASSROOMS1-STORYTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1BTYPE 1B(N)BLEACHERS(E)SIDEWALK(E)S I D E W A L K
(E)S I D E W A L K
(E) S I D E W A L K(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E)SIDEWALK(E) S I D E W A L K(E) TRASHENCLOSURE(N) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(E) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(N) SITEENTRANCE SIGN(E)SIDEWALK(N) STAIR(N) GATE(E) RESIDENCE(E)WALKWAY5FTWIDEWALKWAY5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"(N)RESTROOMS223 SQ FT(N)RESTROOMS223 SQ FT40'-0"30'-0"EXISTINGPARKING AREAEXISTINGPARKING AREA20'-0" (E) OUTDOOR PARKING14 FT WIDE RD.(N) STAIRRESERVED FORFUTURE DEVELOPMENTSA024DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:JOB NO:SANIKU GAKUINSANTA CLARA JAPANESE SCHOOL95 Dot AvenueCampbell, CA 95008, United Statesof10/25/03LWL122020 Component Distribution Inc.Office Address: 1851 S Roop Street Carson City NVDirect Line: +1 775.244.2020eMail: ArchitecturalEngineering@2020-cd.comSITE DEVELOPMENT PLANPROPOSEDSCALE1/40" = 1'0"A021SITE NOTES1. FOR TYPICAL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS, SEE SHEETS C01 - C02.2. FOR THE EXACT LOCATION AND SPECIFICATIONS OF EXISTING VEGETATION (TREES,SHRUBS, ETC.), SEE SHEET A-02 (SITE PLAN).2. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTEDACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULLBOXES,TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THELOCATION OF THE HOOKUP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANYPOWER LINES - WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURETO COMPLY MAY CAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.3. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL AS INDICATED ON PLAN IS A BARRIER-FREE ACCESS ROUTEWITHOUT ANY ABRUPT LEVEL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" IF BEVELED AT 1:2 MAX SLOPE, ORVERTICAL LEVEL CHANGES NOT EXCEEDING 1/4" MAX, AND AT LEAST 48" IN WIDTH.SURFACE IS STABLE FIRM AND SLIP RESISTANT. CROSS SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2% ANDSLOPE IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IS LESS THAN 5% UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF OVERHANGINGOBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM, AND PROTRUDING OBJECTS GREATER THAN 4"PROJECTION FROM WALL AND ABOVE 27" AND LESS THAN 80".4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT ALL BARRIERS ON THE INDICATED PATH OF TRAVELHAVE BEEN REMOVED.5. IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONS BE SCALED FROM PLANS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN PLANS. ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OR MISSINGDIMENSIONS FOR CORRECTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK.6. ALL DIMENSIONS TO METAL/WOOD STUD WALLS/PARAPET ARE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.7. ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE OR CMU WALLS ARE FACE OF CONCRETE OR CMU, U.N.O."CLR." OR "MIN." DIMENSIONS SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISHES, U.N.O.8. DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIMENSIONED ON THE PLANS. WHERE DOOR IS LOCATEDNEXT TO A WALL, THERE SHALL BE A 3-1/2" CLEARANCE BETWEEN WALL FINISH SURFACEAND FACE OF DOOR IN A 90° OPEN POSITION, U.N.O.9. ELECTRICAL (SUB-) CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING ELECTRICAL FIXTURESTO REUSE/RELOCATE. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURE COVER SHALL BE NEW.10. EXISTING BUILDING IDENTIFIERS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH AN UPDATED AND APPROVEDADDRESS NUMBERS. BOTH EXISTING AND NEW SIGNAGES SHALL CONFORM TO THESPECIFICATIONS AND/OR STANDARDS SET BY THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.LINE OF PROPOSED FENCELAMP POSTPROPERTY LINELANDSCAPED AREAAC PAVINGCLLEGENDCENTER LINE OF ROADCONCRETENOT IN SCOPE AREAROOF DRAINACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAVEL (ADA)SITE ENTRANCE SIGNFIRE HYDRANTELECTRICAL POLE22,450.43 SF28,065.69 SF5,615.26 SF11,039.38 SF15,890.64 SF15,129.13 SFGROSS FLOOR AREABASEMENT FLOORDESCRIPTIONADMIN BLDG.PARKING & UTILITY RMSTOTALGROUND FLOORADMIN BLDG.CLASSROOM UNITS (5)TOTALOPEN AREA (exc. SIDEWALK)AREA4,851.26 SFPARKINGON SITE PARKING LOT (EXISTING)PROVIDEDSTANDARDACCESSIBLEAT BASEMENTPROVIDEDSTANDARDACCESSIBLE116 (verify on site)28262110 (verify on site)6 (verify on site)ON SITE PARKING LOT (NEAR DOT AVE.)PROVIDED301BASEMENTPARKING EXITPWALKWAY11444FFFTTTTWWWIIDDDEEEERRRDD.1WALKWAY11-feet7-feet12-feet17FTWIDERD.EL 2-28-00928 009CE05-PARCAPN:30APN:30(E) SITEENTRANCE SIGN20'-0" (E) OUTDOOR PARKING(N) STAIRRESERVED FORFUTURE DEVELOPMENTSE 196 32'180-feet
ITEM NO. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙May 24, 2022 PLN2018-202
Leone, N.
Public Hearing to consider the request of Nick Leone of Raintree
Campbell LLC, for property located at 601 Almarida Drive to add a
three-story (60-unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at- and below-grade parking and the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool,
spa, and six (6) on-site trees. The project also includes a request for a
Density Bonus to allow an approximately 19% increase in the allowable density, use of transit-oriented density bonus parking standards, concessions to allow a reduced setback between structures and a reduction in required open space area, and waivers to the
maximum allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage. The
applications under consideration include a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Development proposals are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The level of review required under CEQA is generally commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposed development. Minor projects, as identified in CEQA, may be deemed exempt from formal environmental review, if they will not result in any potential significant environmental impacts.
In review of the applicant’s proposal, staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations, are under five
acres in size1, and substantially surrounded by urban uses.
Further, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant environmental effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as further substantiated by the project materials.
1 A Class 32 exemption may be used for properties that are larger than (5) acres when the area disturbed by project construction remains less than five (5) acres (rather than counting the unaffected surrounding areas of a larger
parcel) (Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951).
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
General Plan Designation: High-Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre)
Net Lot Area: 6.5 acres (283,946 sq. ft.)
Gross Lot Area: 7.48 acres (325,763 sq. ft.)
Existing Density: 24-units per gross acre (180 units)
Proposed Density: 32-units per gross acre (240 units; 180 existing + 60 new) Development Standards: Proposed Required
Building Height: 38 feet (3-stories) 40 feet (3-stories)2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 71% (201,054 sq. ft.) 55% max. (waiver request) Building (Lot) Coverage: 48% (136,633 sq. ft.) 40% maximum (waiver request) Parking: 263 spaces 178 spaces3 (85 space surplus)
Landscape Area: 26% (73,032 sq. ft.) 20% (56,789 sq. ft.) Open Space Area (useable): 38,852 sq. ft. 72,000 sq. ft. (concession request) Setbacks: Proposed Required
Front/Street Side (East): 20.5 feet 20 feet (front) or 12 feet (street
side)4 Front/Street Side (North): 20-feet (existing) 20 feet (front) or 12 feet (street side)4 Rear (West): 44 feet 18.5 feet (> of 5-feet or ½ wall ht.) Interior Side (South): 62 feet (existing) 10.5 feet (> of 5-feet or ½ wall ht.)
Amenity Area Separation: 9.5-feet 20-feet (wall ht. of taller structure)5
Apartment Area Separation: 16-feet 34-feet (wall ht. of taller structure)5 Unit Details:
Existing Units: 180 units (comprised of 90 one-bedroom, 90 two-bedroom units)
Proposed Units: +60 units (comprised of 7 studio, 36 one-bedroom, 17 two-bedroom units)
All Units: 240 units (comprised of 7 studio, 126 one-bedroom, 107 two-bedroom units)
Allowable Base Units: 202 units6 (7.48 gr. ac x 27 max. density allowed by general plan)
Density Bonus Units: +38 units
All Units: 240 units Existing Unit Sizes:
2 Simplified for review; parapets and similar architectural elements are not included in building height.
3 In accordance with the State Density Bonus standard for qualifying project within ½ mile of a major transit stop. 4 The Campbell Municipal Code does not provide an objective definition to determine the appropriate front or street
side of a corner lot. While the project satisfies the requirement by either standard, both standards have been provided for reference purposes.
5 The R-3 zoning district requires a minimum distance between non-accessory structures on the same lot equal to the building wall height of the taller of the two structures. While ‘one-building’ two distinct interfaces occur between
the amenity and apartment components of the buildings; since the project does not satisfy the requirement, the applicant has proposed to use a density bonus concession to reduce the requirement.
6 Rounded up in accordance with CMC 21.20.090.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 3 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
One Bedroom: 700 sq. ft. (90 existing) Two Bedroom: 1,000 sq. ft. (90 existing) New Unit Sizes: Studio: 353 sq. ft. (7 proposed) One Bedroom: 640 sq. ft. (36 proposed) Two Bedroom: 900 sq. ft. (17 proposed)
Total Bedrooms: Existing: 270 bedrooms (90 one bedroom, 90 two bedroom) Proposed: 77 bedrooms (7 studio, 36 one bedroom, 17 two bedroom) 347 bedrooms total
Below Market Rate Units7: 20-very low income (1 studio, 10 one bedroom, 9 two bedroom)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location: The project site is located at 601 Almarida Drive which is a 6.5 net acre lot
located on the west side of Almarida Drive, north of Hamilton Avenue and south of David
Avenue (reference Attachment B – Location Map). The property is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and has a High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) General Plan land use designation. The project site is bordered by a vacant property (former Elephant Bar restaurant) to the south, a commercial shopping center anchored by Kohl’s and Bed Bath & Beyond to the
east, and single-family residential uses to the west and north. The site is developed with sixteen
(16) two-story apartment buildings containing 180-units and a centrally located leasing office, fitness facility, pool, and spa. Project Proposal: The applicant is seeking to add a three-story (60-unit) apartment building to
the existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at-
and below-grade parking and the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool, spa, and six (6) on-site trees. The project also includes a request for a Density Bonus to allow an approximately 19% increase in the allowable density, use of transit-oriented density bonus parking standards, concessions to allow a reduced setback
between structures and a reduction in required open space area, and waivers to the maximum
allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage (reference Attachment C – Project Plans). The applications under consideration include a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
Housing Accountability Act: As a housing development proposing more than one residential unit, the City is limited in its capability to ‘deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible’ the project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) unless: 1) the proposal is found to be in violation of an objective general plan/zoning standard; or
2) the project will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety. While changes to the project may be applied by the decision-making body to further applicable goals, policies, and strategies – any changes not based on objective standards may not make the project infeasible or reduce the number of units. For example, the decision-making body may not deny a
7 Referred to as “target units” by CMC 21.20.020 – Definitions.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 4 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
project because of its proposed paint color, but still retains the authority to condition such a change. The Planning Commission must consider if any recommended conditions of approval or modifications to the project are consistent with the HAA and may request clarification from staff where appropriate.
Density Bonus: In exchange for designating 11% of the total units8 as target units affordable to very low-income households, per State Density Bonus Law, the project qualifies for a 35% (19% proposed) density bonus, a transit-oriented density bonus parking standard (.5 spaces per bedroom for a qualifying project within ½ mile of light rail), two concessions and unlimited
waivers. In simple terms, a concession may be used to grant an exception from site development standards or zoning code requirements, where a waiver provides an opportunity for relief in situations where a development standard would otherwise physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density including the granted concessions/incentives. In consideration of the applicant’s request, the project includes the following concessions/waivers:
1. Concession #1: Setback between non-accessory structures on same lot 2. Concession #2: Open space requirements 3. Waiver #1: To allow an increase in the maximum allowable floor area ratio
4. Waiver #2: To allow an increase in the maximum allowable lot coverage
The requested concessions and waivers have been reviewed by staff as well as the City Attorney and found to be appropriate in consideration of the request. Parking: Pursuant to Section 21.20.120 (Standards for density bonus residential developments) of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC), rental housing developments with at least 11% very
low-income units that are; 1) located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (i.e., Hamilton
Light Rail Station); and 2) have unobstructed access to said major transit stop, are required to provide 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom. As the applicant’s proposal includes 347 bedrooms (existing + proposed, see ‘Project Data’) a total of 174 onsite parking spaces are required for the residential component of the project.
Further, as the applicant has proposed to provide a 903 sq. ft. leasing office onsite, an additional four (4) parking spaces are required (1 space per 225 sq. ft. of gross floor area). Accounting for the residential (174 spaces) and office (4 spaces) parking demand, a total of 178 parking spaces are required where a total of 263 parking spaces have been provided (exceeding the transit-
oriented parking requirement by 85 spaces). A detailed overview of the parking standards has
been included on Sheet A011 & Sheet A012 of the Project Plans (reference Attachment C). ANALYSIS
Considerations in Review of Applications
In review of any Site and Architectural Review Permit application, the Zoning Code directs
advisory and decision-making bodies to consider certain design and operational elements of the proposal in rendering a decision. The following identifies the compliance of the application with these considerations (a comprehensive list of considerations has been included as Attachment D).
8 The term ‘total units’ means the number of units that would otherwise be allowed under the zoning and maximum
density under the General Plan and does not include units added by a density bonus.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 5 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
Considerations in Review of Applications (CMC Section 21.42.040):
A. Considerations relating to site circulation, traffic congestion, and traffic safety:
To assist in the review of site circulation, traffic congestion, and traffic safety the City commissioned a Focused Transportation Impact Analysis (FTIA) to be conducted by the firm
W-Trans to evaluate the applicant’s proposal. The report concludes that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be adequate to serve the project as proposed, as well as on-site vehicle circulation (including commercial vehicle), pedestrian access between the building, parking areas, and surrounding sidewalks.
To study potential traffic generation, the FTIA also includes a trip generation analysis for the
project. The Trip Generation Estimates include the traffic generation from the proposed use. The analysis shows the average daily trips (ADT) as well as the p.m. and a.m. "peak trips," of the proposed use as follows:
The report concludes that the use will generate an additional twenty-two (22) a.m. peak hour
trips, and twenty-six (26) p.m. peak hour trips, well below the thresholds9 to require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The report further concludes that the proposed project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT as it is located within one-half mile of an existing light rail station.
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
The project site will remove and replace all onsite landscaping within the building footprint with water-efficient groundcover, shrubs, and trees (see ‘Tree Removal Permit’). While the applicant’s proposal includes a concession to reduce the required amount of required open space (38,852 sq. ft. proposed; 72,000 sq. ft. required – see ‘Project Data’), the project will exceed the minimum landscaping requirements of the R-3 zoning district (20% of net lot area
required; 26% proposed).
C. Considerations relating to structure and site layout:
The proposed apartment building would be centrally located and result in the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool and spa. In place of these improvements, the new building will serve as a focal point for the
community and provide enhanced amenities including a new two-story amenity area with a leasing office, fitness center, roof deck, and a community room with kitchen and seating for gatherings. The outdoor recreation area, at the rear of the new 3-story apartment building,
9 The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines published by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority do not require the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis for projects expected to generate fewer than 100
a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 6 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
will offer a swimming pool and spa, outdoor kitchen and seating, and dining areas. The revised site layout provides a central walkway connecting the north half of the project site with the south which passes between the new amenity building and apartment building providing improved connectivity through the site when compared to existing conditions.
Figure 3: Proposed Site Layout
Findings for Approval
To grant a land use approval, the decision-making body must affirmatively establish that the project meets codified findings for approval10. 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.11 The applicable findings depend upon the type of land use
approval under review (e.g., Site and Architectural Review, Tree Removal Permit, etc.). 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 will be consistent with the general plan;
The Campbell General Plan represents the City’s long-term vision for the community and is intended to guide decision-making regarding the City’s physical and economic growth. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre). The proposed density of approximately 32 units per gross acre is
consistent with the density range provided under the High-Density Residential land use
designation with the approval of a density bonus in accordance with state law. The General Plan Land Use Element provides policies for consideration by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. These policies reference the need to
protect the integrity of established neighborhoods and quality site planning and design as follows:
Goal LUT-5: Preservation and enhancement of the quality character and land use patterns that support the neighborhood concept.
10 Not all permit types have established findings for approval (e.g., Parcel Map). In such situations, findings are provided which serve to demonstrate how the project complies with the General Plan and Campbell Municipal Code, and establish the basis for conditions of approval and exactions, and justify the environmental determination.
11The following link provides a March 5, 2020 League of California Cities Planning Commissioner PowerPoint presentation on findings: https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Education-and-Events-Section/Planners-
Institute/2020-Session-Materials/How-to-Prepare-Findings-and-Conditions-of-Approval
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 7 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city’s neighborhoods.
Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
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-9.3f: Development Orientation: Orient new development toward public and private amenities or open space, in particular: • Orient front entrances, living/office area and windows toward the amenity or open space. • Orient high activity areas such as outdoor dining areas and plazas, and major pedestrian routes toward the amenity or open space.
Strategy LUT-10.1 c: 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-11.1d: 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.
Strategy LUT-12.1c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street system by providing adequate sized driveways, sufficient queuing and efficient circulation.
As the proposal is consistent with the high-density residential land use designation and may be found to further the aforementioned goal(s), policies, and strategies the development may be found compatible with the General Plan and to aid in the
harmonious development of the immediate area.
B. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; and
The Site and Architectural Review process facilitates review of potential impacts to health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood and City at large. Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the project Resolution (reference Attachment A) to lessen
potential or identified project impacts. The project complies with all applicable
development standards and policies and no detrimental impacts to health, safety, or welfare have been identified that will not be addressed by the Conditions of Approval.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 8 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
C. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s).
Not applicable. The applicant’s proposal is not subject to any of the City’s applicable design guidelines, or subject to a development agreement, overlay district, or
area/neighborhood/specific plan.
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 one of
the findings are satisfied. In consideration of the project, the following finding may be made:
A. 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.
The applicant’s request would result in the removal and replacement of six (6) trees (non-
protected species7) with seventeen (17) new 24-inch box trees within the footprint of the
new apartment building (reference Attachment C – Project Plans; Sheet L104). Project wide, the applicant intends to plant 92 trees to bring the total number of trees on the property up to 160 – consistent with the approved 1970 landscape plan. Further, following the recommendation of the consulting architect two (2) additional trees may be
recommended to soften the north elevation of Building A from David Avenue.
The retention of the trees proposed for removal would result in a severe reduction in the potential number of residential units and building size and preclude the construction of the parking garage. In consideration of the site constraints, project density, and parking
requirements, retention of the trees would severely limit the economic enjoyment of the
property or require alterations to the project to such an extent that it would render the project infeasible (see discussion under ‘Housing Accountability Act’).
Density Bonus Findings:
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (CMC 21.20.140.2) provides two findings for consideration
when a residential project seeks . In consideration of the project, the following finding may be
made:
A. The residential project is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications, or reduced parking standards requested; conforms to all standards for affordability included in this chapter; and includes a financing mechanism
for all implementation and monitoring costs; and
The project qualifies for a density bonus in that it: 1) creates at least five additional living units (not including any density bonus units)12, 2) included a request for a density bonus
12 Pursuant to CMC 21.20.030.1.a which only counts units allowed by the general plan before a density bonus.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 9 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
as part of the application, and 3) meets the criteria for a density bonus established in CMC Section 21.20.084. Further, the project is eligible for the reduced parking standards identified under Campbell’s Municipal Code in that it: 1) is a rental housing development with at least 11% very low-income units that are; 2) located within one-half mile of a
major transit stop (i.e., Hamilton Light Rail Station); and 3) have unobstructed access to said major transit stop (see discussion under ‘Parking’). The project Conditions of Approval require the recordation of a Developer Affordable Housing Agreement that includes a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs.
B. Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable, financially sufficient,
and actual cost reductions based upon appropriate financial analysis and documentation
if required by Section 21.20.110.
See discussion under ‘Density Bonus’. The requested concession and waivers have been reviewed by staff as well as the City Attorney and found to be appropriate in consideration of the request.
Public Outreach: This public hearing was noticed to all property owners within 300-feet and advertised in the Metro News. Further, the applicant held a virtual meeting on May 13, 2022, with community residents that included a presentation on the proposed project. The meeting was attended by approximately thirty-five (35) community members, which expressed interest in the
new and enhanced amenities, construction timing, and concerns with temporary construction impacts. In response, the community management company will continue to work with residents and alert them of updates to construction process. No public comments were received as of the writing of this report.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) reviewed this application at its meeting of May 25, 2021. The Committee was supportive of the project and provided the following recommendation (staff responses capturing feedback from the applicant has been provided in italics):
• Add two (2) additional trees between Building A and David Avenue. The applicant agreed to add two new trees in the location specified and a Condition of Approval has been incorporated into the Resolution (reference Attachment A).
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – May 24, 2022 Page 10 of 10 PLN2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
Prepared by:
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Attachments:
A.Resolution for ApprovalB.Location MapC.Project PlansD.Considerations in Review of Applications
E.SARC Memo, November 10, 2020
F.Architectural ReportG.Focused Transportation AnalysisH.Arborist ReportI.Below-Market Rate Housing Unit Locations
J.Air Quality Assessment
K.Biological Resources AssessmentL.Geotechnical EvaluationM.Hydrology and Water Quality AssessmentN.Noise Study
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ADD A THREE-STORY (60-UNIT) APARTMENT BUILDING TO AN EXISTING 180-UNIT APARTMENT COMMUNITY (D.B.A. THE FRANCISCAN), ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT- AND BELOW-GRADE
PARKING AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A LEASING
OFFICE/STORAGE BUILDING, PARKING AREAS, FITNESS FACILITY, POOL, SPA, AND SIX (6) ON-SITE TREES. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 19% INCREASE IN THE
ALLOWABLE DENSITY, USE OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DENSITY
BONUS PARKING STANDARDS, CONCESSIONS TO ALLOW A REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA, AND WAIVERS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT
COVERAGE. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 601 ALMARIDA AVENUE.
PROJECT FILE NO. PLN2018-202 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 with a Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit: Environmental Finding(s)
1. The project may be found Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies, zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Further, the project
qualifies for the exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Evidentiary Findings 1. The proposed project is to add a three-story (60-unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at- and below-grade parking and the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building,
parking areas, fitness facility, pool, spa, and six (6) on-site trees. The project also includes a request for a Density Bonus to allow an approximately 19% increase in the allowable density, use of transit-oriented density bonus parking standards, concessions to allow a reduced setback between structures and a reduction in required open space area, and waivers to the maximum allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 6 Approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit w/ Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
2. The applications under consideration include a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit.
3. The project site is a .52 net acre lot located on the south side of Rincon Avenue, west of Winchester Boulevard and east of San Tomas Expressway. 4. The project site is located at 601 Almarida Drive which is a 6.5 net acre lot located on the
west side of Almarida Drive, north of Hamilton Avenue and south of David Avenue.
5. The property is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and has a High Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre) General Plan land use designation.
6. The project site is bordered by a professional office building and restaurant (former
Elephant Bar; now vacant) to the south, a commercial shopping center anchored by Kohl’s and Bed Bath & Beyond to the east, and single-family residential uses to the west and north.
7. The project site is developed with sixteen (16) two-story apartment buildings containing
180-units and a centrally located leasing office, fitness facility, pool, and spa. 8. There are currently no rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive animals, plants, or natural communities within City limits according to City of Campbell General Plan and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database.
9. The project site is not a wetland or otherwise known to serve as a habitat for endangered, threatened or species and is in located within a very urbanized environment which is not likely to have an unrecorded species.
10. The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies and strategies: Goal LUT-5: Preservation and enhancement of the quality character and land use patterns that
support the neighborhood concept.
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial
and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city’s neighborhoods.
Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and
development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 6 Approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit w/ Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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-9.3f: Development Orientation: Orient new development toward public and private amenities or open space, in particular: • Orient front entrances, living/office area and windows toward the amenity or open space. • Orient high activity areas such as outdoor dining areas and plazas, and major pedestrian routes toward the amenity or open space.
Strategy LUT-10.1 c: 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-11.1d: 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.
Strategy LUT-12.1c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street system by providing adequately sized driveways, sufficient queuing and efficient circulation.
2. The project qualifies for a density bonus in that it creates at least five additional living units (not including density bonus units), included a request for a density bonus as part of the application for the first approval of the residential project, and meets the criteria for a
density bonus established in CMC Section 21.20.080. 3. The Proposed Project includes provision of twenty (20) very-low-income (VLI) units, constituting the twenty (20) "target units" for the requested Density Bonus. The twenty (20) "target units" equal 11% (202/20 = 10.1%, rounded up) of the 202 allowable "base units"
(7.47 gross acre project site x 27 units/gr. acre, rounded up). Provision of twenty (20) VLI "target units" qualifies the Proposed Project for a 35% density bonus per CMC Section 21.20.090 allowing for up to 71 "maximum allowable density bonus units" (202 allowable "base units" x 35% = 70.70, rounded up to 71 units). The 38 "bonus units" proposed by the applicant are within the maximum allowable number of density bonus units (i.e., 71 units)
and are permitted in addition to the otherwise allowable within the Proposed Project. All calculations, where noted, are rounded up in accordance with State Density Bonus Law [California Government Code § 65915-65918].
4. The Proposed Project identifies specific locations and unit sizes (i.e., studio, one-bedroom,
two-bedroom) for affordable housing which may be found consistent with the intent of Section 21.20.120.2 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: All target units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project and shall be
comparable to the design of the market rate units in terms of distribution of model types, number of bedrooms, appearance, materials and finished quality of the market rate units in the development.
There shall not be significant identifiable differences between target and market rate units visible from the exterior, and the size and design of the target units shall be reasonably consistent with the market-rate units in the development.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 6 Approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit w/ Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
5. The Proposed Project is also subject to the provisions CMC Chapter 21.24 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) requiring that 15% of the 60 units within the Proposed Project (9 units
in accordance with CMC Section 21.24.040A) be made available at an affordable
ownership cost. As permitted by CMC Section 21.20.100.6 the twenty (20) provided "target units" for the requested Density Bonus may satisfy the "inclusionary units" obligation as the "target units" would fulfill the affordability requirements of CMC Section 21.24.040.D.
11. In review of the proposed project, the Planning Commission considered the site circulation,
traffic congestion, and traffic safety effects of the project, including the effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exit driveways, and walkways; the arrangement and adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent
traffic congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimensions of truck loading and
unloading facilities; the circulation patterns within the boundaries of the development, and; the surfacing and lighting of the off-street parking facilities. 12. The Planning Commission further considered the landscaping design of the proposed
project, including the location, height, and material of fences, walls, hedges, and screen
plantings to ensure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations, and other unsightly aspects of the development; the planting of groundcover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion, and the preservation of existing healthy trees.
13. The Planning Commission further considered the proposed project's architectural and site layout, including the general silhouette and mass, including location on the site, elevations, and relation to natural plant coverage, all in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood; the exterior design in relation to adjoining structures in terms of area, bulk, height,
openings, and breaks in the facade facing the street; and appropriateness and
compatibility of the proposed uses in relation to the adjacent uses and the area as a whole. 14. 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, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (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);
Tree Removal Permit Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.32.080.A):
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 6 Approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit w/ Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
4. 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;
Density Bonus Findings (CMC Sec. 21.20.140.2): 5. The residential project is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications, or reduced parking standards requested; conforms to all standards
for affordability included in this chapter; and includes a financing mechanism for all
implementation and monitoring costs; 6. Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon appropriate financial analysis and documentation if
required by Section 21.20.110;
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 7. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects; and
8. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as
Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts a Resolution approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit to add a three-story (60-unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment
community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at- and below-grade parking and
the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool, spa, and six (6) on-site trees on property located at 601 Almarida Drive, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 6 Approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit w/ Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit
Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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 with a Density Bonus and Tree Removal Permit to add a three-story (60-unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan), allow the construction of at- and below-grade parking and the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage
building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool, spa, and six (6) on-site trees for property located at 601 Almarida Drive. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans, included as Attachment C in the May 25, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval.
2. Permit Expiration: The Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus and Tree
Removal Permit approval is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of the Resolution approving the project unless an Extension of Time is granted prior to the expiration date. 3. Indemnity: By exercise of the Planned Development approval, the applicant shall indemnify
and defend the City of Campbell, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and
all actions, liabilities, losses, and torts, including attorney’s fees arising out of or connected unto any challenge to the decision of the City Council on this application. 4. Plan Revisions: The construction plans submitted for building permits shall incorporate the
following revisions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director:
a. Trees: Add two (2) additional trees shall between Building A and David Avenue. b. Sheet A201: This sheet shall be updated to note the removal of the loading zone where indicated.
c. Consultant Recommendations: The project plans shall be revised to reflect the
recommendations of the environmental consultant evaluations (reference Attachments G and H, as well as J through N of the May 25, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report) where applicable.
5. Developer Affordable Housing Agreement: Exercise of this Approval is contingent upon
recordation of a "Developer and Affordable Housing Agreement" (hereinafter “Agreement”) for the provision of below-market rate housing in compliance with the provisions of Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.20.150 (Developer Affordable Housing
Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
Agreement). This Agreement shall provide for the allocation of twenty (20) "target units" made available at affordable rent to ‘very-low income’ households as follows:
• Studio: One (1) very low-income unit
• One-Bedroom: Ten (10) very low-income units
• Two-Bedroom: Nine (9) very low-income units These units shall be assigned to the locations identified in Attachment I of the May 25, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report unless the Community Development Director
finds alternative locations appropriate (i.e., similarly dispersed), comparable (i.e., finished quality, condition), and favorable (i.e., avoids displacement, ensures earlier occupancy by qualifying household) to those identified. The Agreement shall stipulate the following: a. An Equity Sharing Agreement and/or other similar document, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director, shall be required the Density Bonus "target
units" and shall remain in effect for a fifty-five (55) year period from the date that a
certificate of occupancy is issued for the Density Bonus "target unit". The Equity
Sharing Agreement shall require participation in an Annual Certification provided by
the City through its Housing Administrator.
b. The residents of the Density Bonus "target units" shall have the same access to
project amenities and recreational facilities as market-rate units.
c. No option to reduce or increase the number of bedrooms shall be permitted.
d. All affordable units shall be comparable to the design of the market-rate units in
terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality of the market-rate units in the
project. There shall not be significant identifiable differences between affordable
units and market-rate dwelling units which are visible from the exterior of the
dwelling units. Further, if air conditioning is provided for the market-rate units, all
affordable units shall also be provided with air conditioning.
e. The City will maintain, through its Housing Administrator, a list of Eligible
Households, and Owner agrees that buyers or renters will be selected from this
list. The Housing Administrator, with approval from the City, will finalize the eligibility
determination and refer Eligible Households to Owner to enter lease or sales
contract.
f. Owners, Buyers, and Applicants shall be responsible to pay fees in accordance with
the BMR (Below Market Rate) Administrator Fee Schedule available online as
follows: https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/1079/Assembly-Bill-AB-1483
g. All Housing Units shall be priced according to the ‘Methodology for Determining
Maximum Affordable Homeownership Unit Sales Price’ available online as follows:
https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/1079/Assembly-Bill-AB-1483
h. The Housing Agreement shall be approved by the Community Development Director and shall be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County.
Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
The applicant shall pay $1,035.00 (in accordance with the FY21/22 adopted Fee Schedule) for the preparation of the Housing Agreement prior submittal of a building permit and shall
be recorded prior to building permit occupancy. The fee (or deposit) in effect at the time of
payment shall be the fee (or deposit) due. 6. Minor Modifications: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction
drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building plan set during
construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 7. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: This project is subject to the updated California
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The building permit application
submittal shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable MWELO and landscaping requirements 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).
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. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to final
inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.”
8. Landscaping: Landscape areas in the aforementioned landscaping plan shall consist of a mix of plants including natural turf, ornamental grasses, groundcovers, shrubs, trees and boulders throughout and shall be provided with permanent irrigation, in compliance with the
Water Efficient Landscape Standards and Campbell Municipal Code. All landscaping will be
maintained in good condition and replaced as needed. 9. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: The applicant shall submit a plan prior to installation of any PG&E utility (transformer) boxes and San Jose Water Company back-
flow preventers for approval. Utility boxes shall be installed underground unless determined
to be infeasible to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
10. Construction Activity: The following standards shall apply to construction of the project. Failure to comply with permitted working hours that result in verified complaints may result
in the issuance of a Stop Work Notice issued to the project with cessation of work for a
minimum of seven (7) days from the date of issuance and an Administrative fine of up to $1,000.00.
• Construction Hours (CMC 18.04.052): Construction activity shall be limited to the hours
of eight a.m. and five p.m. daily, Monday through Friday. Saturday hours of construction shall be nine a.m. and four p.m. There shall be no construction activity on Sundays or National Holidays.
• Construction Noise (CMC 18.04.052): No loud environmentally disruptive noise over fifty
dbs., such as air compressors without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or radios will be allowed during the authorized hours of construction, Monday through Saturday, where such noise may be a nuisance to adjacent residential neighbors. Such nuisances shall be discontinued.
• Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to issuance of building permits.
11. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site in compliance with City of Campbell Lighting Design Standards (CMC
21.18.090). The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features.
12. Residential Address Identification: The applicant shall submit a detail sheet showing uniform residential address identification material type and location on the building wall for review and approval by the Community Development prior to the issuance of Building Permits. In order to obtain approval, numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or
road fronting the property. Additionally, number material and color is required to contrast with their background. 13. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash,
debris, and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. Any vacant existing
structures shall be secured, by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (Section 11.201 and 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code).
14. 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.
Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
15. Best Practices: The approved project shall abide by the following:
a. BAAQMD Basic Dust Control Measures: The construction contractor shall reduce
construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic fugitive
dust control measures, including:
• All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites.
• Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be
windblown. Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
• Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
• Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of
construction.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
City of Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
b. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources: If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel
shall be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the
suspected resources and the City and a licensed archeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. A licensed archeologist or paleontologist shall be retained to inspect the discovery and make any necessary recommendations to
evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines prior to the submittal of a resource
mitigation plan and monitoring program to the City for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site construction activity.
In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly
Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
treated. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage
Commission who would identify a "Most Likely Descendant (MLD)." The archeological
consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner.
c. Lead-Based Paint & Asbestos: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified
contractor shall assess the property for presence of Lead-based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing building materials (ACBM), and if present, prepare a plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and dispose of such materials.
d. Noise Reduction: The following measures shall be implemented during all phases of the
project (e.g. demolition, grading, and construction):
• Notify the City and neighbors in advance of the schedule for each major phase of the project (e.g. mass grading, compaction, rough framing) and expected loud activities or impulsive noise activities (e.g., nail guns during framing).
• When feasible, select “quieter” construction methods and equipment. Examples include: 1) using electrical service rather than portable power generators; and 2) using rollers rather than vibratory compactors.
• Locate noisy stationary equipment (e.g., compressors) and material unloading
and staging areas away from the nearest adjacent uses.
• Require posted signs at the construction site, which provide the permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job
site and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of
problems.
• Notify the City and neighbors in advance of the schedule for each major phase of construction and expected loud activities or impulsive noise activities (e.g.,
nail guns during framing).
• When feasible, select “quiet” construction methods and equipment. Examples include: 1) using electrical service rather than portable power generators and 2) using rollers rather than vibratory compactors.
• Locate noisy stationary equipment (e.g., compressors) and material unloading and staging areas away from the nearest adjacent uses.
• Require that all construction equipment (e.g., excavators, backhoes) be in
good working order and that mufflers are installed and functioning properly.
Avoid unnecessary idling of diesel engines.
Building Division:
16. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required. The building permit shall include Electrical/ Plumbing/ Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit.
Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
17. Plan Preparation: This project requires plans prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. Plans submitted for building permits shall be
“wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person.
18. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be provided on reduced size sheets included as part of the construction plans submitted for building permit.
19. Soils Report: Two copies of a current soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the
Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
20. Foundation Inspections: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and
certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items:
a. pad elevation b. finish floor elevation (first floor) c. foundation corner locations
21. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance with C.B.C Appendix 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter.
22. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 8½ X 11 calculations shall be submitted as well. 23. Non-Point Source Pollution Control: The City of Campbell standard Santa Clara Valley
Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter. 24. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance
of the building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Demolitions Only) d. School District:
i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405)
ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103)
Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the
building permit application.
25. P.G. & E.: The applicant is advised to contact PG&E as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays in the approval process. The applicant
should also consult with PG&E concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and
required conductor clearances. 26. California Green Building Code: This project is subject to the mandatory requirements for new residential structures (Chapter 4) under the California Green Building Code, 2016
edition.
27. Construction Fencing: This project shall be properly enclosed with construction fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the site during construction. The construction site shall be secured to prevent vandalism and/or theft during hours when no work is being done. All
protected trees shall be fenced to prevent damage to root systems.
28. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: This project shall be equipped with a complying Fire Sprinkler system.
29. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by this
permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel. Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels. FIRE DEPARTMENT
30. Limited Review: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site
access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.
31. Emergency Radio Responder Coverage: (As noted on Sheet A001) Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This
section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems.
Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements. 32. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate
notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
33. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As noted on Sheet A011) 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
Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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.
34. 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). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7
35. Public/Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required: (As noted on Sheet A015) Provide public fire
hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 2,125 GPM at 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, and Appendix C. Location of all existing and new fire
hydrants is noted on the Emergency Access Plan. 36. Required Fire Dept. Access: (As noted on Sheet A015) Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or
facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two
means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet
(11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are
equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CBLMC.
37. Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads: (NO LONGER REQUIRED - Revision includes eave height at a maximum 30' for all portions of the building as noted on Sheet A312) 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with
approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial
Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of
building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. CFC Sec.
503.
38. Fire Department (Engine) Roadway Turnaround Required: (Circulating Fire Lane shown on Sheet A015) Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as
adopted and amended by CBLPMC. Fire Lane is circulating (turnaround not required, as shown on Sheet A015. 39. 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 CFC Sec. 501.4
40. Two way communication system: (As noted on Sheet A001) 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. 41. Fire Alarm Requirements: (As noted on Sheet A001) Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the
currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.
42. Ground ladder access: (As noted on Sheet A015) Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side
of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to
interfere with the required access. CFC Sec. 503 and 1029 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2. A minimum 3' x 7' pad for each egress window placed at a distance away from the wall so to provide a 75 deg. climbing angle is shown.
43. 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
Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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. 44. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: (As noted on Sheet A013) Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open
shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or
driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed.
Gates providing access from a road to a driveway or other roadway shall be at least 30 feet
from the road being exited. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506. 45. No Violation: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A
permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or
other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
46. Frontage Improvements: The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improvements as required by Campbell Municipal Code 11.24.040. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit to construct frontage improvements as listed below and dedicate sidewalk easement along project frontage to accommodate 5’
detached sidewalk and parkstrip (total of 10’ wide from face of curb to back of proposed
sidewalk). The building permit and grading permit will not be issued until all Public Works Conditions of Approval have been satisfied. 47. Construction Drawings: The applicant shall submit the required Street Improvement
Plans, and Grading and Drainage Plans directly to the Public Works Department prior to,
or concurrent with the Building permit application. Said application shall include the following:
1. Response Letter: Upon submittal of the required plans, the applicant shall provide an itemized response letter verifying that all the Public Works Conditions of
Approval have been met or addressed.
2. Submittal Requirements: The checklist for the various plans required for submittal can be found on the City’s Website at City Services►Public Works►Engineering►Land Development►Documents, (or use this link:
http://www.cityofcampbell.com/206/Documents). See instructions on:
i. Checklist for Grading and Drainage ii. Checklist for Street Improvement Plans iii. Sidewalk Easement Dedication Requirements
Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
48. Preliminary Title Report: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall provide a current (within the past 6 months) Preliminary Title Report.
49. Public Service Easement and Sidewalk Easement: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall grant a sidewalk easement on private property contiguous with the public right-of-way along the Almarida Drive project frontage, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 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. 50. Soils Report: Upon submittal of the grading plans, applicant shall provide a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical or civil engineer.
51. 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 to obtain necessary grading permits. Prior to occupancy, the design engineer shall provide written
certification that the development has been built per the engineered grading and drainage
plans. In addition, a plan review letter will be required of the Geotechnical engineer for the entire grading and drainage system which should include but is not limited to a review of the
subsurface of the non-compacted biotreatment material that may have potential for
subsurface failure and surface failure due to vehicle loads.
52. Drainage System: Prior to occupancy clearance, the applicant shall refurbish, remodel, and reconstruct the on-site drainage system, as necessary, to demonstrate that the facilities are functioning normally in accordance with the requirements of the City.
53. State General Construction Activity Permit: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the State General Construction Activity Permit requirements including paying fees, filing a Notice of Intent and providing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the
filed Notice of Intent and SWPPP.
54. Storm Water Information: On the preliminary grading/utility plans show the amount, in square footage, of: 1. Existing impervious area.
2. Proposed impervious area.
3. Proposed pervious area. 55. 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,
Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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.
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: i. The stormwater management facilities were constructed in compliance
with the approved plans.
ii. The as-built drawings show all pertinent constructed dimensions, elevations, shapes, and materials. iii. All variations in construction from the approved design plan have been identified, including omissions to and additions from the approved plan.
iv. Any changes are in conformance with local, state, or federal regulations. 56. Trash Capture: Install trash capture inserts (KriStar FloGard or approved equal) in all on-site storm drain catchbasins, and a full trash capture screen (StormTek ST3G or approved equal) in the existing storm drain catchbasin along the Almarida Avenue and David Drive
frontage. 57. 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
Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
locations for utilities shall be explored. Include utility trench details where necessary.
58. 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. 59. 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.
60. 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. 61. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: 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:
1. Construction of 5’ detached sidewalk and 4.5’ parkstrip along Almarida Drive project frontage, total of 10’ from face-of-curb to back of new sidewalk. Sidewalk can meander around existing trees if needed.
2. Reconstruction of the southernmost driveway along Almarida Drive project
frontage to City standard ADA compliant driveway.
3. Construction of a new City standard ADA compliant driveway along the Almarida Drive project frontage for the new leasing office parking lot.
4. Construction of new storm sewer lateral and manhole along Almarida Drive project frontage.
5. Show location of all existing utilities within the new and existing public right of way.
6. Relocation of all existing utilities including utility boxes, covers, poles, etc. outside of sidewalk area. No private utility boxes, covers, etc. will be allowed in the sidewalk area.
7. Installation of City approved street trees and irrigation, at 30 feet on center.
8. Installation of full trash capture device (StormTek ST3G or approved equal)
Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
in existing storm drain inlet.
9. Installation of asphalt concrete overlay per street pavement restoration plan for
utility installation and/or abandonment, as required by the City Engineer.
10. Installation of detectable warning surface (truncated domes) on the 2 existing pedestrian ramps on the traffic circle at the intersection of Almarida Drive/David Avenue. Detectable warning surface shall be precast 1’ x 1’ x 2” ADA compliant detectable warning concrete pavers – Wausau Terra pavers, ADA 2 -60, as manufactured by Wausau Tile or approved equal. Contractor shall provide a
sample paver a minimum of 14 days prior to installation. City reserves the right to change paver specifications.
11. Installation of LED streetlights, conduits, conductors and related facilities in accordance with the City of Campbell’s Street Lighting Policies. Preliminary
analysis indicates the need for LED fixture upgrade to Leotek model GCJ3-30J-
MV-30K-3R- GY-075-PCR7-CR-WL-RWG (7,722lm & 54W) on the existing City streetlights along project frontage.
12. Installation of traffic control, stripes and signs.
13. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as
necessary.
14. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City. 62. 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. 63. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of utilities
to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.).
Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. 64. 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.
65. Traffic Mitigation: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the
applicant shall satisfy all the traffic mitigation measures outlined in the traffic impact analysis. 66. Trash Enclosure Requirements:
1. 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
Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 15 Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Density Bonus & Tree Removal Permit 601 Almarida Drive ~ Project File No.: PLN2018-202
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.
2. 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.
3. West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) the local sanitary sewer agency’s
authority and standards: If a sanitary connection will be installed, WVSD requires a roof on the enclosure.
188 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current
information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference
purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors.
601 Almarida Drive
2,257Campbell IT, GIS Services
376
1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet
3760
Scale
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS
08.17.20
601 Almarida Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
PROJECT INFORMATION
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A001
P R O J E C T SUMMARY / S C O P E O F W O R K
1/2 mile radius
VICINITY MAP
ARCHITECTURAL
A001 PROJECT INFORMATION
A002 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
A003 SITE PHOTOS
A010 EXISTING SITE & DEMOLITION PLAN
A011 OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A012 PARKING / LOADING
A013 FENCING AND CIRCULATION PLAN
A014 FENCING DETAILS
A015 EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN
A016 TRASH MANAGEMENT PLAN
A017 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
A018 FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
A019 LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM
A020 3D RENDERING - VIEW FROM ALMARIDA DRIVE
A200 UNDERGROUND PARKING
A201 LEVEL 1 PLAN
A202 LEVELS 2+3 PLANS
A301 STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT
A302 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A303 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A304 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A305 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A306 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A311 SITE CROSS SECTIONS
A312 BUILDING SECTIONS
A350 MATERIAL PALETTE
LANDSCAPE
L101 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L102 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
L103 TREE REMOVAL PLAN
L104 TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
L201 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
LIGHTING DESIGN
LTG-1 EXTERIOR LIGHTING LAYOUT
LTG-2 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
CIVIL
C.01 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C.02 STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C.03 SITE AREA CALCULATIONS
SHEET TOTAL: 36
S H E E T I N D E X
*** *
**
*
E. HAMILTON AVE.
***
BUS STOP
HAMILTON LIGHT RAIL STATION
MARIJANE HAMANN PARK
OVERALL SITE
*
P R O J E C T D I R E C T O R Y
OWNER: RAINTREE PARTNERS
25 TAYLOR STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
NICHOLAS LEONE, AIA
415.272.7541
nleone@raintreepartners.com
ARCHITECT: LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE
360 17TH STREET, SUITE 200
OAKLAND, CA 94612
MARK DONAHUE
510.269.1123
mark@lowneyarch.com
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE
360 17TH STREET, SUITE 200
OAKLAND, CA 94612
JENNIFER IVANOVICH
510.269.1112
jennifer@lowneyarch.com
CIVIL
ENGINEER: TALUS ENGINEERING
811 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
DANVILLE, CA 94526
EASTON MCALLISTER, PE
415.948.0440
easton@talus-eng.com
LIGHTING
DESIGNER: HLB LIGHTING
300 BRANNAN STREET, SUITE 212
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
BRANDON THRASHER
415.348.8273
bthrasher@hlblighting.com
1/4 mile radius
BED BATH & BEYOND
Current and Adjacent Property Land Use
• The current property, The Franciscan, is owned by the applicant, Raintree Franciscan
LLC. The Franciscan, is a 1971 constructed, 180-unit garden style apartment
community located at 601 Almarida Drive (“Existing Project”). The Property consists
of 16 two-story buildings and 2 one-story buildings on 7.5 gross acres. The Property
offers a mix of 90 one-bedroom and 90 two-bedroom units. The Property assemblage
is generally bound by single family residences to the north and east, a standalone
retail building (currently vacant) to the south, and a Kohl's retail store and associated
parking lot to the west.
Project Overview
• The Applicant proposes to add a 60-unit residential building, leasing office, and new
amenities to the Existing Project (“Proposed Addition”). The unit mix of the
Proposed Addition includes 7 studio, 36 one-bedroom, and 17 two-bedroom units.
• The 60-unit multifamily building and amenity building will be constructed in a single
phase with an anticipated construction timeframe of 18-24 months. The buildings
will be wood-framed with stucco and stained wood siding. Architectual elements
such as the proposed metal railings, wood siding, and clay tile roof are incorporated
into the design of the buildings to complement the elements of the surrounding
apartment buildings on site.
• Each apartment unit in the proposed project contains designer interiors, vinyl wood
plank flooring, designer cabinetry, and central heating and air conditioning.
• Exterior amenities include a roof deck, fitness center, community room,
contemporary mail room with package storage lockers, and pool deck. The proposed
project's site landscaping is designed with drought tolerant planting and will
complement the existing landscaping of the community.
• The Project will also result in the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage
building, fitness facility, laundry room, pool, spa, and 6 trees..
Parking
• In connection with the development of the Proposed Addition, per density bonus
standard for a development within ½ mile of a major transit stop ordinance, a total of
43 parking spaces are required. A total of 178 on-site parking stalls are required per
density bonus standards for the Existing Project and the Proposed Project, combined.
A total of 263 parking spaces are proposed through a combination of a subterranean
parking garage and on-grade parking. A total of 73 parking stalls will be provided in
the subterranean parking garage.
Amenities
• The amenity building has a leasing office, a fitness center, a roof deck, and a
community room with kitchen and seating for community gatherings. The outdoor
recreation area offers a swimming pool and spa, outdoor kitchen, lounge seating, and
dining areas. A roof deck is located above the leasing office and includes outdoor
kitchen and lounge seating.
Code
• The project is designed to meet the 2019 California Building Code.
Fire Life Safety
• Emergency Radio Responder Coverage shall be provided and installed per CFC Sec
510.
• Two-way communication system shall be provided and installed in accordance with
NFPA 72 (2016 edition), CEC (2013 edition), the CFC (2016 edition), the CBC (2016
edition) and applicable local codes.
• Fire alarm system shall be provided and installed per CFC Sec. 907 and NFPA 72. Plans
will be provided as a deferred submittal.
UP
UP
1
2
3
4
7
6
9
8
5
1415
19
21
16
17
SITE CA HI
GHWAY 17E. HAMILTON AVE.N. CENTRAL AVE.HARRISON AVE.ALMARIDA DR.SALMAR AVE.18
11
12
13
10
20
NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROPERTY LINE FOR
OVERALL PROJECT SITE
(N) PROJECT
(E)
BLDG
KEY
1. KOHL'S
2. BED BATH & BEYOND
3. PANERA BREAD
4. FORMER ELEPHANT BAR RESTAURANT
5. PRESCHOOL
6. HOME DEPOT
7. STAPLES
8. GAS STATION
9. FRY'S ELECTRONICS
10. BICYCLE SHOP
11. GAS STATION
12. LIQUOR STORE
13. GAS STATION
14. OPTOMETRIST
15. STARBUCKS
16. SUBWAY
17. DAY SPA
18. MOUNTAIN MIKE'S PIZZA
19. DENTIST
20. CHIROPRACTOR
21. ITALIAN RESTAURANT
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A002
0 200'100'
NEW ADDITION BOUNDARY
DAVID AVENUE.ALMARIDA DRIVE
1
3
2
4
6
5
7
8 910
LOCATION OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS
*THIS PLAN INDICATES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING AND
NOT-APPROVED SITE CONFIGURATION AND LAYOUT.SITE PHOTOS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A003
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 109
0 80'40'
CLDAVID AVENUE285' - 9"NEW ADDITION BOUNDARY
DAVID AVENUEALMARIDA DRIVE
DEMO (E) FITNESS
FACILITY AND
MAINTENANCE ROOM
(1,145 SF)
DEMO (E) POOL
AND SPA
DEMO (E) CARPORTS AND
PARKING SPACES
12 COVERED
SPACES
8 SURFACE
SPACES
15 SURFACE SPACES
(14 STANDARD + 1 ADA)
25 SURFACE SPACES
(24 STANDARD + 1 ADA)
*THIS PLAN INDICATES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING AND
NOT-APPROVED SITE CONFIGURATION AND LAYOUT.1 ADA1 ADA373
sf
650 sf 250 sf
1,145 sf
90 sf
(E) BLDG A
6,385 SF FOOTPRINT
12,770 SF TOTAL
(E) BLDG B
5,036 SF FOOTPRINT
10,072 SF TOTAL
(E) BLDG C
3,355 SF
FOOTPRINT
6,710 SF
TOTAL
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG B
10,072 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG B
10,072 SF
1 SURFACE SPACE
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
DEMO (E)
LEASING OFFICE
(650 SF)
DEMO (E)
STORAGE
(250 SF)
DEMO (E)
PLANTER
(90 SF)
(E) MAIL
(E) TRASH
DEMO (E) LAUNDRY ROOM
& STORAGE (373 SF)
(E) MAIL
(E) MAIL
(E) LAUNDRY
ROOM
(E) STOR
(E) MAIL
(E) LAUNDRY
DEMO (E) TRASH
EXISTING SITE & DEMOLITION PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A010
1/32" = 1'-0"1 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN
0 64'32'
EXISTING BUILDING AREA SUMMARY
UNIT BLDG TYPE A
UNIT BLDG TYPE C
5
AREA/BLDG
12,770 SF
TOTAL AREA
150,254 SF
UNIT BLDG TYPE B
BUILDING
LEASING OFFICE / POOL
(TO BE DEMOLISHED)
QTY
10,072 SF
6,710 SF
2,508 SF
3
8
63,850 SF
30,216 SF
53,680 SF
2,508 SF
TOTAL (E) BLDG AREA
-2,508 SF DEMO SCOPE
TOTAL (E) BLDG
AREA TO REMAIN
147,746 SF
EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY*
EXISTING SPACES
EXISTING TO REMAIN
60
COVERED
180
TOTAL SPACES
DEMO SPACES
SURFACE
-12
164
-47
13
242
-61
181
ADA
2
-2
0
OFF-STREET PARKING
Existing conditions do not meet minimum
code requirements for parking
*
UP
DN
UP
UP
(E) BLDG A
6,385 SF FOOTPRINT
12,770 SF TOTAL
(E) BLDG B
5,036 SF FOOTPRINT
10,072 SF TOTAL
A304
1
A305
1
(E) BLDG C
3,355 SF
FOOTPRINT
6,710 SF
TOTAL
A305 1
SIM.
A3044
A304
2
A304 3
POOL
16' - 2"
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
(E) BLDG B
10,072 SF
(E) BLDG A
12,770 SF
(E) BLDG B
10,072 SF20' - 0"FRONT SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE NEW ADDITION BOUNDARY
(E) BLDG C
6,710 SF
ALMARIDA DR.DAVID AVE.SCOPE OF (E) BLDG MODIFICATIONS TO
INTEGRATE W/NEW PROJECT DESIGN AND
MATERIALS. SEE ELEVATIONS
(N) RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
(N) AMENITY
BLDG.20' - 6"404' - 1"8"25' - 0"OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A011
0 64'32'
P R O J E C T D A T A
REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING (SEE A012 FOR ADDT'L. DETAILS)
ALLOWED
DENSITY
ALLOWED
UNITS
LOT
AREA
HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
21-27
D.U./GR. ACRE 157 - 202
7.48 GR.
ACRES
ZONING INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #:
ZONING DISTRICT:
GENERAL PLAN:
601 ALMARIDA DRIVE
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
279-30-043
R-3
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SETBACKS
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
LOT AREA 325,763 GSF (7.48 GR. ACRES)
283,946 NSF
DENSITY
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
STUDIO
CA STATE DENSITY BONUS STANDARD FOR A DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP:
BUILDING AREA
P3
P2
P1
L1
L2
L3
TOTAL 48,428 SF
16,246 SF
16,246 SF
15,936 SF
NUMBER OF STORIES: 3
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
AMENITY
BUILDING
UNDERGROUND
GARAGE
32,280 SF
1,792 SF
3,106 SF 1,013 SF DECK
462 SF BALC.
FLOOR
LEVEL
4,898 SF 32,280 SF
GENERAL PLAN EXISTING UNITS/
DENSITY
180 UNITS
(24 D.U./GR. ACRE)
240 UNITS
(32 D.U./GR. ACRE)
PROPOSED UNITS/
DENSITY
TOTAL
2 BEDROOM
90
90
180 (E)
UNITS
= 178 REQUIRED SPACES
7
17
60 (N)
UNITS
PROVIDED PARKING
SPACES:
EXISTING: 242 SPACES
PROPOSED: REMOVED - 61 SPACES
ADDED +82 SPACES
TOTAL 263 SPACES
1 BEDROOM
RATIO
36
PLANNING INFORMATION:
UNIT MATRIX
OFFICE 903 SF 4.0
NEW BUILDING INFORMATION
TYPE (E) PARKING
SPACES
0.5
1.0
0.5
1/225SF
135
(N) PARKING
SPACES
3.5
17.0
18.0
42.5+
Development Data Square Feet
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Percent of Site
Building Coverage 75,972 102,198 27% 36%
Landscape Coverage 92,913 91,424 33% 32%
Paving Coverage 115,061 90,324 40% 29%
Floor Area Ratio
(Total Bldg SF divided
by net lot size)
150,254
201,054
(excludes
garage)
53% 71%
Adjacent Land Uses:
North
South
East
West
Use
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Parking: # Standard # Compact # Accessible # TOTAL
240 (180 COVERED
+60 OPEN AIR)
256 (183 ONSITE
+73 GARAGE)
0 2 242Existing
Proposed 70 263
UNIT TYPE
A B C D E F G
250 300 300 300 314 300 322
- - - - - - -
Living Area (avg.sq.ft)
Garage Area (sq.ft)
Total Area (sq.ft)
Number of Bedrooms
Total Number of Units per Type
348 637 644 827 889 909 940
studio 1 1 2 2 2 2
7 33 3 2 5 6 4 = 60 TOTAL
Residential Projects:
STUDIO 1BR 2BR
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1
(TYPE A) (B,C) (D,E,F,G)
TOTAL/FL
3 13 5
2 11 7
2 12 5
7 36 17
21
20
19
60
RATIO 12%
353 SFAVG SIZE
60%
640 SF
28%
900 SF
40 FT / 3 STORIESALLOWABLE HEIGHT:
PROPOSED HEIGHT:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
SPRINKLERED:
OCCUPANCY
CLASSIFICATION:
37'-0"
(TOP OF RIDGE)
TYPE V-A
YES
R2 (RESIDENTIAL)
2
40 FT / 3 STORIES
27'-7"
(TOP OF RIDGE)
TYPE V-A
YES
R2 (RESIDENTIAL)
B (BUSINESS)
A3 (ASSEMBLY)
1 (BELOW GRADE)
-10'-0"
TYPE I-A
YES
S2 (PARKING)
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:300 SF/D.U.180 (E) UNITS
+60 (N) UNITS
54,000*
18,000
TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 72,000 SF
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
(N) COMMUNITY ROOF DECK
(N) POOL AREA
PRIVATE PATIOS/BALCONIES: (N)
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: (E)
(N)
1,037 SF
2,553 SF
1,208 SF
29,171 SF
4,883 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (EXISTING + NEW) = 38,852 SF
Existing Buildings To Remain:
BLDG A
BLDG B
BLDG C
12,770
10,072
6,710
5
3
8
63,850
30,216
53,680
147,746
Type Area (SF)Qty.Total (SF)
*PREVIOUSLY DEFFICIENT WHEN BUILT, SEE A017
Approved 267
0
45
90
0
PARKING SURPLUS:(263 PROVIDED - 178 REQUIRED)85 SPACES
FRONT STREET SIDE SIDE/REAR
20' 12' 5' or 1/2 wall ht
20'-6" 404' 44'-11"
DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION
STUDIO 1BR 2BR
BASE UNIT
COUNT
(TYPE A) (B,C) (D,E,F,G)
TOTAL
7 36 17 60
7
ALLOWED DENSITY PER ACRE 21 -27
WITH DENSITY BONUS (35%) 29 - 37
PROPOSED DENSITY PER ACRE 32
DENSITY BONUS
UNITS (11% VLI)1 4 2
UP
UP
(N) ADDITION
BOUNDARY
ALMARIDA DR.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154 15515615715815916016116217717617517417317217117016916416394 COVERED SPACES 24 COVERED SPACES22 COVERED SPACES24 COVERED SPACES
16 UNCOVERED SPACES
(RESTRIPED)
NEW
AMENITY
BUILDING
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
STORAGE178MAIN ENTRY & ACCESS TO
LEASING OFFICE
DAVID AVE.FIRE TRUCK ACCESSPOOL
(E) BLDG,
TYP.ACCVANACCRE-STRIPED PARKING
(E) (E) (E) (N)ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
183184185
186
187
188
189
190
ACC
VAN
VAN
(N) (N)168167166165179180181182ACC
6 NEW SPACES
73 GARAGE SPACES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161718192021222324
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6061
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
MECH.
MECH
.
BIKE
RESIDENTIAL
ELEV.
RAMP
(3%)
RAMP
(16%)
MECH.MECH.(N) RESIDENTIAL
PARKING
STAFF
PARKING
ADA
PARKING
GUEST
PARKING
(E) RESIDENTIAL
PARKING TO
REMAIN
PARKING ALLOCATION LEGEND
PARKING / LOADING
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A012
1/32" = 1'-0"2 PARKING L1
USE
PARKING ALLOCATION
SPACES
RESIDENT
GUEST
STAFF
TOTAL
249
12
2
263
EXISTING PARKING TABLE
COVERED
UNCOVERED
ACCESSIBLE
180
60
2
242(E) PROVIDED SPACES
REQUIRED PARKING
(PER DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS)
STUDIO: 7 UNITS @ 0.5:1
(N) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SPACES
4
17
43REQUIRED FOR (N) UNITS
NEW PROJECT PARKING TABLE
2 BEDROOM: 17 UNITS @ 1:1
PROPOSED PARKING
263PROPOSED (N) SPACES:
1 BEDROOM: 36 UNITS @ 0.5:1 18
OVERALL SITE PARKING SUMMARY
4(N) LEASING: 903 SF @ 1/225 SF
178TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES :
SURFACE PARKING
ACCESSIBLE
EXISTING SPACES
REMOVED (IN DEMO)
COVERED UNCOVERED
(N) GARAGE TOTAL
SPACES
180 60 2 242
-12 -47 -61-2
263
10'x18'10'x18'
STANDARD
9'x20'
168 13 0 181
PROPOSED (NEW PROJECT)73 + 82
TOTAL EXISTING TO REMAIN
TOTAL PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PARKING
CHAPTER 11A - REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE SPACES
1109A.3 Required accessible parking spaces: minimum rate of 2% of
dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking facility shall
be made accessible even if total number exceeds 2%.
REQUIRED:240 DU x 2% = 5 SPACES
1109A.5 Unassigned and visitor parking spaces = 5% of parking spaces.
REQUIRED:14 GUEST SPACES x 5% = 1 SPACE
1109A.8.6 Van accessible parking space. One in every 8 accessible
spaces shall be van accessible.
REQUIRED:1 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE
5 ACCESSIBLE SPACES
0 64'32'
+ REQUIRED FOR (E) UNITS + 135
(E) SURFACE SPACES TO REMAIN 181
(N) UNDERGROUND GARAGE
7
ACCESSIBLE
RESTRIPED ACC. SURFACE SPACES 3
STREET PARKING ON ALMARIDA
(N) RESTRIPED SPACES
0
3
+ 3STREET PARKING DELTA
REMOVED
73
(N) SURFACE SPACES 6
2
UP
UP
ALMARIDA DR.
NEW AMENITY
BUILDING
NEW RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
(E) CARPORTS(E) CARPORTS(E) CARPORTSDAVID AVE.POOL
EXISTING STEEL PICKET FENCE TO REMAIN
NEW WROUGHT
IRON FENCE TO
MATCH HEIGHT OF
EXISTING EXISTING STEEL PICKET FENCE TO REMAIN
EXISTING STEEL PICKET FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING SOLID WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
NEW SLUMP BLOCK WALLS
AT PRIVATE PATIOS @ 72"
W/FIRE ACCESS GATES
NEW WROUGHT IRON POOL FENCE
@ 42" ON SLUMP BLOCK RETAINING
WALL @ 30" FOR ELEVATED POOL
DECK. TOTAL HEIGHT OF 72"
(N) SLUMP BLOCK WALLS
AT DRIVEWAY RAMP @ 42"
ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE
EXISTING SOLID WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
AUTOMATED ENTRY
GATE ACTIVATED BY
TRAFFIC LOOP IN
PAVEMENT AND
KEY FOBS.
KNOX KEY
SWITCHES SHALL BE
PROVIDED AND
INSTALLED FOR FD
ACCESS.
AUTOMATED ENTRY GATE ACTIVATED BY
TRAFFIC LOOP IN PAVEMENT AND KEY
FOBS.
KNOX KEY SWITCHES SHALL BE PROVIDED
AND INSTALLED FOR FD ACCESS.
AUTOMATED ENTRY GATE ACTIVATED BY
TRAFFIC LOOP IN PAVEMENT AND KEY
FOBS.
KNOX KEY SWITCHES SHALL BE PROVIDED
AND INSTALLED FOR FD ACCESS.
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN PATH
VEHICULAR TRAVEL
ACCESSIBLE PATH
SOLID FENCE (WOOD--6 FT HT)
PICKET FENCE (STEEL--6 FT HT)
BLOCK WALL (VARIES AS NOTED)
LIGHT POLE
MAILBOXES
TRASH CAN
DOG WASTE
FENCING AND CIRCULATION PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A013
0 64'32'
WROUGHT IRON FENCE
DECORATIVE BASKET
TOP RAIL
BOTTOM RAIL
PLASTER FINISH
EMBED PLATE
CMU BLOCK WALL
POOL DECK
2'-6"
T.O. FENCE
6'-0"
PATIO WALL BEYOND
PRIVATE PATIO
0'-0"
CUSTOM WELDED
PLANTER LINER
PATIO PAVER
POOL PAVER
PLANTING
DRAIN PIPE
PLANTER DRAIN 3"GEO FOAM
GARAGE SLAB
METAL ANGLE
FENCING DETAILS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A014
1 1/2" = 1'-0"1 POOL FENCE
EXISTING
EXISTING SOLID WOOD FENCE EXISTING STEEL PICKET GATE PROPOSED PLASTER WALL TYPOLOGY
PROPOSED
PROPOSED WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND RAILINGS TYPOLOGY @ POOLEXISTING STEEL PICKET FENCE
PROPOSED POOL ENCLOSURE
EXISTING SWINGING STEEL GATE
TOP OF FENCE 6'-0"
ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE
NOTE: FENCE HEIGHT 6'-0" TYPICAL
UP
UP
DN
UP
UP
DRIVEWAY TO
UNDERGROUND
GARAGE
ALMARIDA DR.
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
15' - 0"26' - 0"
NEW BUILDING
+41'
NEW
BUILDING
+28'20' - 0"FHFH FH FH
FH
3
0' - 0
"
(E) OUTSIDE
TURNING RADIUS
FH ACROSS STREET
67' - 9"217' - 7"198' - 9"159' - 5"299' - 10"
42' - 0"
FH FH FH FH
50' - 0"25' - 0"24' - 6"22' - 6"23' - 9"FIRE ACCESS ROAD
(E) DRIVE AISLE
20' - 0"FIRE TRUCK PATH
OF TRAVEL
A015
3
NEW ADDITION
BOUNDARY
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL FOR
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS
(E) BUILDING, TYP.
(N) TRASH
ROOM
150
90
139
150
150
126
150
42' - 0"
FH (FUT.)
FDC
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
P1
-9' -3 11/16"75°GROUND LADDERS
GROUND LADDER PAD
SLEEPING
ROOM, TYP.*
*
*
*
7' - 0"
7' - 0"
12
6
T.O. EAVE (TYPICAL)30' - 0"2
A015
****
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ***** *
*****
*
*
*
KEYBOX FOR INTERNAL GATES
MOUNTED TO ADJACENT
BUILDING WALL
FH
LEASING
OFFICE
LOBBY/
MAIL
RESIDENTIAL
BLDG
POOL
HOSE PULL ORIGIN
7' - 0"3' - 0"MAIN KEYBOX
*
LEGEND
RESCUE WINDOW
150' HOSE PULL
STANDPIPE
GROUND LADDER PAD ACCESS
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
CURB STRIPE
(E) FIRE HYDRANT,
15' CLR. EITHER SIDE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
FH
3'-9"3'-0"EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A0151" = 40'-0"1 OVERALL SITE EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING SECTION EMERGENCY ACCESS
3/64" = 1'-0"3 ENLARGED EMERGENCY ACCESS PLAN
Ladder access pad
(typical)
NOTE: PER DISCUSSIONS WITH SCCFD, AERIAL ACCESS NOT
REQUIRED. IN ORDER TO MEET HOSE PULL
REQUIREMENTS, TWO POINTS OF ACCESS ARE PROVIDED:
ONE IN THE FRONT DRIVEWAY OF THE COMMUNITY
BUILDING AND ONE FROM THE INTERNAL PARKING ROAD
AT THE NW CORNER OF THE NEW BUILDING
UP
ALMARIDA DR.
43' - 0"
INTERNAL TRASH ROOM
NEW
AMENITY
BUILDING
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
25' - 0"
(E) DRIVE AISLE
(E) 10' WIDE
GARBAGE TRUCK
PATH OF TRAVEL(E) CARPORTS(E) CARPORTS(E) CARPORTS
(N) ADDITION BOUNDARY
(E) BLDG, TYP.DAVID AVE.24' - 6"22' - 6"23' - 9"(5) TRASH BINS AND
(1) RECYCLING BINS
3 CUBIC YARDS EACH
R
T
TT T T
TRASH MANAGEMENT PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A016
1/32" = 1'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN TRASH
0 64'32'
UP CLCLALMARIDA DRIVEDAVID AVENUEPOOL
PRIVATE PATIOS
(E) BLDG, TYP.
(E) PRIVATE BALCONY/PATIO
(N) RESIDENTIAL BLDG
(N)
AMENITY
BLDG
ALMARIDA DR.DAVID AVE.1
2 3
4
ROOF
DECK
BALCONY AT 3RD FLOORDAVID AVENUE.ALMARIDA DRIVE
POOL SETBACK20' - 0"(E) PRIVATE
BALCONY/PATIO
EXISTING OPEN SPACE TO
REMAIN, TYP (NOT IN SCOPE)
(E) ENTRY WALL ELEMENT WITH THE MONUMENT SIGN
LEGEND
EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA
EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA (10' MIN. DIM.)
ADDITION BOUNDARY / DEMO SCOPE
LEGEND
EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA
EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA
PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA
PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA
POOL / PLAZA
NEW PRIVATE PATIOS
ROOF DECK
ADDITION BOUNDARY
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A017
1" = 40'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN PROPOSED OPEN SPACE
1" = 40'-0"2 OVERALL SITE PLAN EXISTING OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS: PROPOSED
TABLE 21.08.070
REQUIRED: 300 SF/UNIT
180 EXISTING UNITS + 60 NEW UNITS
240 UNITS X 300 SF/UNIT = 72,000 SF REQUIRED
PROVIDED:
EXISTING TO REMAIN (NOT IN SCOPE)
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 29,171 SF
NEW PROJECT SCOPE
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 4,883 SF
POOL/POOL DECK: 2,553 SF
PRIVATE PATIOS: 1,208 SF
ROOF DECK: 1,037 SF
9,681 SF
EXISTING + NEW = 38,852 SF PROVIDED
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS: EXISTING
TABLE 21.08.070
REQUIRED: 300 SF/UNIT
180 EXISTING UNITS
180 UNITS X 300 SF/UNIT =54,000 SF REQUIRED
PROVIDED:
EXISTING TO REMAIN (NOT IN SCOPE)
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 29,171 SF
EXISTING (DEMO SCOPE)
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/POOL: 9,894 SF
EXISTING + DEMO = 39,065 SF PROVIDED
0 80'40'
PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPED AREA
73,032SF LANDSCAPE / 283,946SF SITE = 26%
UPUP
DNUPDNUP
DN
DN
UP
27'X34'
27'X34'
20'X5'10'X59'62'X98'
15'X22'
31'X32'
29'X22'
31'X12'
64'X32'
62'X24'
64'X10'
32'X22' 31'X22'16'X5'36'X11'
40'X9'
37'X28'
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
165' - 2"36' - 8"169' - 8"AMENITY
BUILDING
27'X34'
27'X34'
20'X5'10'X59'62'X98'
15'X22'
31'X32'
29'X22'
31'X12'
64'X32'
62'X24'
64'X10'
32'X22' 31'X22'16'X5'44'X12'
41'X20'
44'X12'
165' - 2"44' - 1"169' - 9"73' - 11"DECK
1,013 SF
41'X30'
62'X98'10'X59'5'X20'
27'X34'
27'X34'
15'X22'
31'X22'
29'X22'
31'X12'
64'X32'
62'X24'
64'X10'
32'X22' 31'X22'16'X5'BALCONY 462 SF
169' - 9"165' - 2"
27' x 34':
5' x 20':
27' x 34':
10' x 59':
62' x 98':
31' x 22':
29' x 22':
31' x 12':
64' x 32':
62' x 24':
64' x 10':
32' x 22':
16' x 5':
31' x 22':
918 SF
100 SF
918 SF
590 SF
6,076 SF
682 SF
638 SF
372 SF
2,048 SF
1,488 SF
640 SF
704 SF
80 SF
682 SF
15,936 SF
LEVEL 3
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
27' x 34':
5' x 20':
27' x 34':
10' x 59':
62' x 98':
31' x 32':
29' x 22':
31' x 12':
64' x 32':
62' x 24':
64' x 10':
32' x 22':
16' x 5':
31' x 22':
918 SF
100 SF
918 SF
590 SF
6,076 SF
992 SF
638 SF
372 SF
2,048 SF
1,488 SF
640 SF
704 SF
80 SF
682 SF
16,246 SF
LEVEL 2
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
AMENITY BUILDING
44' x 12':
41' x 20':
44' x 12':
41' x 30':
528 SF
820 SF
528 SF
1,230 SF
3,106 SF
19,352 SF
27' x 34':
5' x 20':
27' x 34':
10' x 59':
62' x 98':
31' x 32':
29' x 22':
31' x 12':
64' x 32':
62' x 24':
64' x 10':
32' x 22':
16' x 5':
31' x 22':
918 SF
100 SF
918 SF
590 SF
6,076 SF
992 SF
638 SF
372 SF
2,048 SF
1,488 SF
640 SF
704 SF
80 SF
682 SF
16,246 SF
LEVEL 1
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
AMENITY BUILDING
37' x 28':
36' x 11':
40' x 9':
1,036 SF
396 SF
360 SF
1,792 SF
18,038 SF
94' x 165':
60' x 112':
75' x 134':
15,510 SF
6,720 SF
10,050 SF
32,280 SF
LEVEL P1
UNDERGROUND PARKING
197' x 20':
20' x 10':
44' x 10':
39' x 10':
44' x 10':
20' x 10':
53' x 8':
16' x 3':
53' x 8':
7' x 3':
3,940 SF
200 SF
440 SF
390 SF
440 SF
200 SF
424 SF
48 SF
424 SF
21 SF
6,527 SF
BUILDING A
EXISTING BLDG LVLS 1+2
150' x 21':
23' x 10':
39' x 10':
45' x 10':
20' x 10':
27' x 8':
16' x 3':
53' x 8':
9' x 3':
3,150 SF
230 SF
390 SF
450 SF
200 SF
216 SF
48 SF
424 SF
27 SF
5,135 SF
BUILDING B
EXISTING BLDG LVLS 1+2
100' x 21':
20' x 10':
44' x 10':
20' x 10':
8' x 3':
53' x 8':
8' x 3':
2,100 SF
200 SF
440 SF
200 SF
24 SF
424 SF
24 SF
3,412 SF
BUILDING C
EXISTING BLDG LVLS 1+2
EXISTING
NEW
94'X165'
60'X112'
75'X134'
240' - 0"
197'X20'
53'X8'
44'X10' 39'X10'20'X10'44'X10' 20'X10'
53'X8'
16'X3'
COMBINED BALCONIES: 526 SF
197' - 0"37' - 2"7'X3'
9' - 3"6' - 10"150' x 21'
39' x 10'23' x 10' 45' x 10' 20' x 10'
27' x 8' 53' x 8'
16' x 3' 9' x 3'
COMBINED BALCONIES: 407 SF
38' - 2"150' - 0"
100' x 21'
20' x 10' 44' x 10' 20' x 10'
53' x 8'8' x 3' 8' x 3'
COMBINED BALCONIES: 270 SF
38' - 2"100' - 0"
FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A018
1/32" = 1'-0"1 AREA DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
1/32" = 1'-0"2 AREA DIAGRAM - LEVEL 2
1/32" = 1'-0"3 AREA DIAGRAM - LEVEL 3
1/32" = 1'-0"4 AREA DIAGRAM - LEVEL P1
1/32" = 1'-0"5 AREA DIAGRAM - EXISTING BLDG A, LVLS 1+2
1/32" = 1'-0"6 AREA DIAGRAM - EXISTING BLDG B, LVLS 1+2
1/32" = 1'-0"7 AREA DIAGRAM - EXISTING BLDG C, LVLS 1+2
UP
ALMARIDA DR.DAVID AVE.16,403 SF
4,383 SF5,757 SF
6,197 SF3,878 SF
7,388 SF
3,872 SF 3,869 SF
7,397 SF 5,748 SF 7,392 SF
3,876 SF 3,877 SF 3,867 SF 3,878 SF 3,882 SF
7,372 SF7,356 SF4,769 SF
16,989 SF 3,867 SF4,616 SF3,938 SF
73,032 SF
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
4,781 SF
NEW LANDSCAPE
373 SF
650 SF 250 SF
1,145 SF
2,079 SF
13,463 SF
DEMOLISHED LANDSCAPE
7,397 SF
5,757 SF
5,748 SF
7,392 SF
3,872 SF
3,869 SF
3,878 SF
6,197 SF
3,876 SF
3,877 SF
3,867 SF
3,878 SF
3,882 SF
7,388 SF
7,356 SF
7,372 SF
NEW LOT COVERAGE*
EXISTING BUILDINGS
4,383 SF
16,403 SF
NEW BUILDINGS
4,769 SF
16,989 SF
3,867 SF
4,616 SF
CARPORTS
20,786 SF85,606 SF 30,241 SF+ + =136,633 SF
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
73,032 SF
73,032 SF
NEW LANDSCAPE
4,781 SF
3,938 SF
7,397 SF
5,757 SF
5,748 SF
7,392 SF
3,872 SF
3,869 SF
3,878 SF
6,197 SF
3,876 SF
3,877 SF
3,867 SF
3,878 SF
3,882 SF
7,388 SF
7,356 SF
7,372 SF
PREVIOUS LOT COVERAGE*
EXISTING BUILDINGS
4,769 SF
16,989 SF
3,867 SF
4,616 SF
CARPORTS
32,320 SF88,024 SF + =120,344 SF
LANDSCAPE
73,032 SF
2,079 SF
1,145 SF
650 SF
373 SF
250 SF
13,553 SF
8,719 SF+ =81,751 SF86,565 SF
KEY:
BLACK: EXISTING / NEW
RED: DEMOLISHED
* "Lot coverage" means the horizontal area measured
within the outside of the exterior walls on the ground
floor of all buildings and accessory structures on a lot,
including garages, carports, and covered porches.
% LOT COVERAGE = 37%% LOT COVERAGE = 42%
Maximum allowable lot coverage = 40%
LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A019
3D RENDERING -VIEW FROM ALMARIDA DRIVE
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A020
UP
UP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
2
A312
1
A312
25' - 1" 25' - 9" 29' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 18' - 9"
FOOTPRINT OF
BUILDING ABOVE
19' - 0"30' - 0"17' - 0"16' - 0"30' - 0"20' - 0"22' - 8"
16% RAMP
SLOPE
3% RAMP
SLOPE
MECHANICAL
BIKE ROOM
MECHANICAL
20' - 0" 26' - 7" 20' - 0"
9' - 0"
RAMP TO INTERNAL
DRIVE AISLE 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL
ELEVATOR
-11' - 4"-9' - 4"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
252627282930
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41
424344454647
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61626364656667686970717273
8% RAMP
SLOPE
25' - 0"
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL
OUTLINE
OF POOL
AND
HOT TUB
ABOVE
48 STALLS
UNDERGROUND PARKING
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A200
1/16" = 1'-0"1 UNDERGROUND PARKING - LEVEL P1
0'16'32'8'
DNUP
UP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
2
A312
1
A312
889 SF
2BR
624 SF
1BR
624 SF
1BR
908 SF
2BR
909 SF
2BR
624 SF
1BR
624 SF
1BR
908 SF
2BR
972 SF
2BR
624 SF
1BR
667 SF
1BR
644 SF
1BR
667 SF
1BR
624 SF
1BR
623 SF
1BR
624 SF
1BR
689 SF
1BR
339 SF
STUDIO
169 SF
UTIL.
T.O.S.=0'-00"
F.F.= 0' 6"
F.F.= 3' 0"
F.F.= 0' 2 1/2"
T.O.S.=
0'-4
1/2"
100.30 AMSL=0'-00"
903 SF
LEASING OFFICE
203 SF
UTIL.
T.O.S.=1'-2 1/2"
POOL
6' H. POOL FENCE
25' - 1" 25' - 9" 29' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0" 18' - 9"
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
F.F.= 0' 2"
MAIL/PKG
EGRESS PATH
EGRESS PATHPARKING DRIVE AISLE LEADS TO DAVID AVEPUBLIC
WAY
PUBLIC WAY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
ACC
(E) (N) (N) (N)(E) LOADING ZONEPROPERTY LINE
E G B F B
B B F
G
B
B
A
C
BB
B
B
B
10' - 1"
16' - 11"
(E)
BALC
18' - 8" +/-10' - 1"9' - 5"16' - 2"49' - 6"VAN ACC
VAN
TRASH
ACC
450 SF
STUDIO
LIFT14' - 10"9' - 10"7' - 5"
6' - 7"
SPA
BRIDGE ABOVE
OUTLINE OF
BUILDING ABOVE
20' - 8"
KNOX BOX FOR
GARDEN GATES
KNOX BOX FOR
GARDEN GATES
KNOX BOX
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING NOT
IN CONTRACT
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF
TRAVEL
EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL
LEVEL 1 PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A201
0'16'32'8'
UP
DNUP DN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
889 SF
2BR
624 SF
1 BR
624 SF
1 BR
908 SF
2 BR
909 SF
2 BR
624 SF
1 BR
889 SF
2 BR
624 SF
1 BR
908 SF
2 BR
970 SF
2 BR
624 SF
1 BR
667 SF
1 BR
644 SF
1 BR
667 SF
1 BR
624 SF
1 BR
827 SF
2 BR
624 SF
1 BR
689 SF
1 BR
339 SF
STUDIO
366 SF
STUDIO
204 SF
UTIL.
169 SF
UTIL.
25' - 1" 25' - 9" 29' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 18' - 9"19' - 0" 30' - 0" 17' - 0" 16' - 0" 30' - 0" 20' - 0"
TRELLIS
ABOVE
BALCONY
ABOVE
86' - 1"
11' - 6"8' - 0"10' - 10"67' - 0"
3' - 0"21' - 11" 66' - 0" 14' - 10"
13' - 0"72' - 0"30' - 7"134' - 7"41' - 8" 32' - 4" 27' - 7"
36' - 9"
E
E
G B F B
B B F
G
B
B
A
C
BB
B
B
D
1,633 SF
FITNESS CENTER
992 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
1,013 SF
ROOF DECK
LIFT
31' - 11" 24' - 1" 43' - 11" 22' - 1" 31' - 11"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
889 SF
2BR
624 SF
1 BR
624 SF
1 BR
909 SF
2 BR
623 SF
1 BR
889 SF
2 BR
624 SF
1 BR
908 SF
2 BR
664 SF
1BR
625 SF
1 BR
667 SF
1 BR
644 SF
1 BR
667 SF
1 BR
624 SF
1 BR
827 SF
2BR
624 SF
1 BR
689 SF
1 BR
339 SF
STUDIO
365 SF
STUDIO
204 SF
UTIL.
169 SF
UTIL.
25' - 1" 25' - 9" 29' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 18' - 9"19' - 0" 30' - 0" 17' - 0" 16' - 0" 30' - 0" 20' - 0"
BALCONY
AMENITY
BUILDING BELOW
338 SF
STUDIO
569 SF
1 BR
26' - 7"86' - 1"
11' - 6"8' - 0"67' - 0"
3' - 0"21' - 11" 66' - 0" 14' - 10"72' - 0"134' - 7"
E
E
A B F B
B B F
B
B
B
A
C
BB
B
B
D
B
A
31' - 11" 24' - 1" 43' - 11" 22' - 1" 31' - 11"
LEVELS 2+3 PLANS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A202
1/16" = 1'-0"1 SD - LEV 2
0'16'32'8'
1/16" = 1'-0"2 SD - LEV 3
STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A301
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
5 89
27' - 7"T.O. RIDGE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AMENITY BUILDING
85
8
2 6
10
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
59 8
10' - 2"10' - 2"40' - 0"T.O. ROOF
ROOFTOP FAN COIL UNITS ON
FLAT ROOF ARE SCREENED BY
MANSARD ROOF, TYP.
6
12
6
6
12
8
2
1112
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
9
MATERIAL LEGEND
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "SPARE WHITE" SW 6203
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"AGREEABLE GRAY" SW 7029
8
4
5
6
TILE IN "REGENCY BLUE"
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE"
SW7048
1 EXISITNG BARREL CLAY TILE
3 STAINED WOOD, BOARD AND BATTEN
RESIDENTIAL WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON BLEND, ADOBE
FLAT TERRA COTTA ROOF TILE
7 AMENITY WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON, ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
10 METAL GUARDRAIL SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE" SW 7048
11 GARAGE ENTRY RAMP
12 METAL ROLL-UP DOOR AT TRASH ROOM
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
5
8
6
8 3
EXISTING BUILDINGSEXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED AMENITY BUILDING
3 8 2247
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A302
1" = 10'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"1 STREETSCAPE - ALMARIDA DRIVE
0 20'10'
Window frame in
wall recess
Window trim mounted
to face of wall
NOTE: 0'-0" = 99.75'
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
5
8 97
AMENITY BUILDING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BEYOND
8
12
27' - 7"3 6
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
5
898 38' - 0"T.O. ROOF
27' - 7"T.O. RIDGE
AMENITY BUILDING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
ROOFTOP FAN COIL UNITS ON FLAT ROOF
ARE SCREENED BY MANSARD ROOF, TYP.
6
126
12
6
. 18' - 8"
22
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
9
MATERIAL LEGEND
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "SPARE WHITE" SW 6203
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"AGREEABLE GRAY" SW 7029
8
4
5
6
TILE IN "REGENCY BLUE"
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE"
SW7048
1 EXISITNG BARREL CLAY TILE
3 STAINED WOOD, BOARD AND BATTEN
RESIDENTIAL WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON BLEND, ADOBE
FLAT TERRA COTTA ROOF TILE
7 AMENITY WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON, ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
10 METAL GUARDRAIL SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE" SW 7048
11 GARAGE ENTRY RAMP
12 METAL ROLL-UP DOOR AT TRASH ROOM
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
LEV 1
0' -6"
5
8 9 10' - 2"10' - 2"38' - 0"T.O. ROOF
2
2
6
T.O. EAVE
30' -0"
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A303
1" = 10'-0"3 EAST ELEVATION incl AMENITY and ENTRY WALL
1" = 10'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
0 20'10'
1" = 10'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION AMENITY BUILDING
NOTE: 0'-0" = 99.75'
(E) CLAY TILE ROOF TO
REMAIN
± 23' - 0"± 23' - 0"2 22228
2 1 8
(E)
STUCCO ± 23' - 0"(E)
STUCCO
± 23' - 0"3 3 3
± 23' - 0"1 22 388
9
MATERIAL LEGEND
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "SPARE WHITE" SW 6203
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"AGREEABLE GRAY" SW 7029
8
4
5
6
TILE IN "REGENCY BLUE"
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE"
SW7048
1 EXISITNG BARREL CLAY TILE
3 STAINED WOOD, BOARD AND BATTEN
RESIDENTIAL WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON BLEND, ADOBE
FLAT TERRA COTTA ROOF TILE
7 AMENITY WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON, ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
10 METAL GUARDRAIL SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE" SW 7048
11 GARAGE ENTRY RAMP
12 METAL ROLL-UP DOOR AT TRASH ROOM
± 23' - 0"(E) CLAY TILE ROOF TO
REMAIN
± 23' - 0"8
± 23' - 0"8
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A304
1" = 10'-0"1 EXISTING BLDG TYPE A EAST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"2 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE A WEST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"3 EXISTING BLDG TYPE A NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"4 EXISTING BLDG TYPE A SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"5 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE A EAST ELEVATION
NOTE: NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE NORTH AND
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
1" = 10'-0"6 EXISTING BLDG TYPE A WEST ELEVATION
0 20'10'
1" = 10'-0"7 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE A NORTH
1" = 10'-0"8 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE A SOUTH
(E) CLAY TILE
ROOF TO REMAIN
(E)
STUCCO ± 22' - 0"(E) CLAY TILE ROOF TO
REMAIN
(E)
STUCCO ± 22' - 0"(E)
STUCCO
± 22' - 0"(E)
STUCCO ± 22' - 0"3 3 3
± 22' - 0"8 8
9
MATERIAL LEGEND
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "SPARE WHITE" SW 6203
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"AGREEABLE GRAY" SW 7029
8
4
5
6
TILE IN "REGENCY BLUE"
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE"
SW7048
1 EXISITNG BARREL CLAY TILE
3 STAINED WOOD, BOARD AND BATTEN
RESIDENTIAL WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON BLEND, ADOBE
FLAT TERRA COTTA ROOF TILE
7 AMENITY WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON, ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
10 METAL GUARDRAIL SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE" SW 7048
11 GARAGE ENTRY RAMP
12 METAL ROLL-UP DOOR AT TRASH ROOM
± 22' - 0"1
2 8 2 2
8
2 8 ± 22' - 0"8 ± 22' - 0"8
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A305
1" = 10'-0"1 EXISTING BLDG TYPE B EAST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"2 EXISTING BLDG TYPE B WEST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"3 EXISTING BLDG TYPE B NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"4 EXISTING BLDG TYPE B SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"5 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE B EAST ELEVATION
NOTE: NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE NORTH AND
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
1" = 10'-0"6 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE B WEST ELEVATION
0 20'10'
1" = 10'-0"7 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE B NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"8 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE B SOUTH ELEVATION
± 22' - 0"(E)
STUCCO
± 22' - 0"(E)
STUCCO ± 22' - 0"(E) CLAY TILE ROOF TO
REMAIN
(E)
STUCCO ± 22' - 0"3 3
± 22' - 0"8
± 22' - 0"8 ± 22' - 0"8
± 22' - 0"1
2 8 2 2
8
9
MATERIAL LEGEND
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "SPARE WHITE" SW 6203
PAINTED STUCCO SHERWIN WILLIAMS
"AGREEABLE GRAY" SW 7029
8
4
5
6
TILE IN "REGENCY BLUE"
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE"
SW7048
1 EXISITNG BARREL CLAY TILE
3 STAINED WOOD, BOARD AND BATTEN
RESIDENTIAL WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON BLEND, ADOBE
FLAT TERRA COTTA ROOF TILE
7 AMENITY WINDOW FRAME -
MIKRON, ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
10 METAL GUARDRAIL SHERWIN
WILLIAMS "URBANE BRONZE" SW 7048
11 GARAGE ENTRY RAMP
12 METAL ROLL-UP DOOR AT TRASH ROOM
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A306
1" = 10'-0"1 EXISTING BLDG TYPE C EAST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"2 EXISTING BLDG TYPE C NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"3 EXISTING BLDG TYPE C SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"4 EXISTING BLDG TYPE C WEST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"5 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE C EAST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"6 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE C NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"7 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE C SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"8 PROPOSED BLDG TYPE C WEST ELEVATION
NOTE: NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE NORTH AND
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
0 20'10'
12' - 0"EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES
KOHL'S
46' - 0"(N) AMENITY BLDG
(N) RESIDENTIAL BLDG
ALMARIDA DRIVE
HARRISON AVENUE
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES
KOHL'S
(N) AMENITY BLDG
(N) RESIDENTIAL BLDG
ALMARIDA DRIVE HARRISON AVENUE
(N) RESIDENTIAL BLDG
(E) RESIDENTIAL BLDG(E) RESIDENTIAL BLDG(E) RESIDENTIAL BLDG(E) RESIDENTIAL BLDG
SITE CROSS SECTIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A311
1/16" = 1'-0"2 2 - Site Section
1/16" = 1'-0"1 1 - Site Section
1/16" = 1'-0"3 3 - Site Section
BOARD AND BATTEN
SIDING BEYOND
GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
ROOF
30' -10"
P1
-9' -3 11/16"
1
A312
MECH
ROOF
POOL DECK
ROOFTOP FAN COIL UNITS ON FLAT ROOF
ARE SCREENED BY MANSARD ROOF, TYP.
12
6
ALMARIDA DRIVE
PROPERTY LINE
SIDEWALK
2BR 1 BR
1 BR2 BR
1BR 1BR
8% RAMP
9' - 6"
16% RAMP
48' - 8"
8% RAMP
9' - 6"CLR1' - 4"CLR1' - 10"MIN7' - 0"COMMUNITY
ROOM
7' - 7"GROUND LEVEL
0' -0"
LEV 2
10' -8"
LEV 3
20' -10"
ROOF
30' -10"
P1
-9' -3 11/16"
LEV 1
0' -6"
2
A312
1 BR
1 BR
1BR
1 BR
1 BR
1BR
POOL
EXISTING BUILDING
RAMP LANDING
HOT
TUB
CLR1' - 4"MIN7' - 0"CLR2' - 6"MIN7' - 0"CLR1' - 10"CLR1' - 4"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 0"T.O. EAVE
30' -0"9' - 2"9' - 2"9' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 0"12
6
3' - 11"BUILDING SECTIONS
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A312
1" = 10'-0"2 EAST-WEST BUILDING SECTION THROUGH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND GARAGE
1" = 10'-0"1 NORTH-SOUTH BUILDING SECTION THROUGH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND GARAGE
0'16'32'8'
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 406.2.2,
REQUIRED CLEAR HEIGHT IS 7 FEET.
1
2
3
4
7
5
6
8 9
Amenity building metal railings,
residential building window accent and
existing residential doors
Proposed Amenity Building
and Existing building siding
Proposed stucco
Amenity window frame Residential window frame
Proposed stucco
Existing Barrel Clay tile Existing Barrel Clay tile
Decoration tile Decoration tile
Proposed Flat Clay Tile Proposed Flat Clay Tile
1
8
3
8
4
6
7
5
8
9
6
Sherwin-Williams - Urbane Bronze 7048
Mikron Blend - Adobe
Stained wood, Board and batten
Daltile - Blue Regency - 3" x 3"Daltile - Blue Regency - 3" x 3"
Mikron - Architectual Bronze
Sherwin Williams - Spare White SW 6203 Sherwin Williams - Agreeable Gray SW 7029
8
6
9
2
5
2
2
3
Board and batten precedent
MATERIAL PALETTE
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 08.17.20 A350
TREE PLAN-1970
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
C303
TOTAL TREES ON 1970 PLAN 160
CLCLALMARIDA DRIVEDAVID AVENUE1
2 3
4
ROOF
DECK xxxxxxX TREES TO BE REMOVED FROM NEW PROJECT
BOUNDARY
TOTAL TREES FROM 1970 PLAN
TOTAL TREES ON SITE IN 2020
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COUNT
6
160
74
TOTAL TREES TO REPLACE 92
TREE PLAN-EXISTING & TO BE REMOVED
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
C303.1
EXISTING TREES BASED ON GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES
AND SITE PHOTOS, V.I.F.
CLCLALMARIDA DRIVEDAVID AVENUETOTAL TREES REQUIRED TO REPLACE
TREE REPLACEMENT WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COUNT
92
17
TOTAL TREES REPLACED THROUGHOUT SITE
(NOT SHOWN AT THIS TIME)
75
1
2 3
ROOF
DECK
TREE PLAN-PROPOSED
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
C303.2
EXISTING TREES BASED ON GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES
AND SITE PHOTOS, V.I.F.
ALMARIDA DR.DAVID AVE.1
2 3
4
ROOF
DECK
OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
L101
1/32" = 1'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE
1 2 3 4
0 64'96'32'
EXISTING LANDSCAPE PHOTOS
T.O.S.=1'-2
1/2"
POOL
HOT
TUB
PLAZA
PRIVATE
PATIOS
ALMARIDA DRIVEROOF DECK
NOTE:
TO COMPLY
WITH MWELO
STANDARDS
Pavers
Concrete
Flow-through planters
Decomposed Granite
Drought tolerant planting area
Roof Deck
LEGEND
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
L102
TREES
Acacia
stenophylla
Acer
palmatum
Olea
europaea
Magnolia
grandiflora
Washingtonia
filifera
FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS
Chondropetulum
tectorum
Echium
candicans
Lavandula
hidcote
DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING
Festuca
idahoensis
Agave
attenuata
Grevillea
Artemisa
Verbena
bonariensis
0 32'16'
IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH MWELO STANDARDS -TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
WATER NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN GOOD PLANT HEALTH. ALL SELECTED COMPONENTS ARE COMMERCIAL GRADE,
SELECTED FOR DURABILITY, VANDAL RESISTANCE AND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT. THE SYSTEM IS A
COMBINATION OF SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION AND TREE BUBBLERS AS APPROPRIATE TO PLANT TYPE, EXPOSURE, AND
SLOPE CONDITIONS.
CONTROL OF THE SYSTEM IS VIA A WEATHER-ENABLED CONTROLLER CAPABLE OF DAILY SELF-ADJUSTMENT BASED ON
REAL-TIME WEATHER CONDITIONS AS MEASURED BY AN ON-SITE WEATHER SENSOR.
THE SYSTEM INCLUDES A MASTER CONTROL VALVE AND FLOW SENSING CABABILITY WHICH WILL SHUT DOWN ALL OR
PART OF THE SYSTEM IF LEAKS ARE DETECTED.
IRRIGATION DESIGN INTENT
H YDPALM
5" DBH
MAGNOLIA C
12" DBH
MAGNOLIA B
18" DBH
MAGNOLIA A
26" DBH
BETULA
5" DBH ALMARIDA DRIVEx
x
x
x
x
x
BETULA
UNKNOWN DBH
TREE REMOVAL PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
L103
MAGNOLIA B
MAGNOLIA C
PALM
BETULA
MAGNOLIA A
0 32'16'
KEY:
X EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (6)
T.O.S.=1'-2 1/2"
POOL
HOT TUB
(1)Olea europaea
Olive
24" box
(2)Washingtonia filifera
California Fan Palm
24" box
POOL DECK
DRIVE-
WAY
PLAZA
PRIVATE
PATIOS
ALMARIDA DRIVE(1)Magnolia grandiflora
Southern Magnolia
24" box
(1)Acacia stenophylla
Acacia
24" box
(1)Olea europaea
Olive
24" box
(1)Olea europaea
Olive
24" box
(1)Olea europaea
Olive
24" box
(1)Acacia stenophylla
Acacia
24" box
(1)Acacia stenophylla
Acacia
24" box
(3)Washingtonia filifera
California Fan Palm
24" box
(3)Acer palmatum
Japanese Maple
24" box
TOTAL PROPOSED TREES WITHIN NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY :17
TOTAL REMOVED TREES WITHIN NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY : (6)
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES GAINED WITHIN NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY : 11
TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
L104
0 32'16'
7 NEW SPACESPOOL
HOT
TUB
POOL DECK
DRIVEWAY
PLAZA
PRIVATE
PATIOS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS - 2/28/2020
L201
WALL MOUNT
MOUNTED ON TREE TRUNK
LED DOWNLIGHT
By FXLuminaire
LED DOWNLIGHT
PATH LIGHT SET INTO PLANTING BEDS
MULTIPLICITY PATH LIGHT
By Landscapeforms
PATH LIGHT
SYMBOL:
RECESSED LED STEP LIGHT MOUNTED TO CMU WALL
LED me LED 100 STEP LIGHT
By WAC Lighting
SYMBOL:
SYMBOL:
WALL LIGHT
MOUNTED AT PRIVATE PATIOS AND EXITS
FRAMED OUTDOOR WALL LIGHT
By Lightology
SYMBOL:
0 32'16'
E5E5
DRAWINGNAME:P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160C01GRAD.dwgPLOTDATE:10-31-19PLOTTEDBY:EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:
OFZONINGCOMPLIANCEPLANSET601ALMARIDADRIVE CALIFORNIASANTACLARACOUNTYCITYOFCAMPBELL3
18160
Scale
No. 61148
EXP. 12/31/20
VIC LI
Stamp:
Date
Job No.
10/31/19
PROJECT SUMMARY
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
EASTON C. MCALLISTER, PE DATE
UTILITIES:
AT&T / COMCAST
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
CITY OF CAMPBELL
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
COMCAST
SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPT.
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
CABLE TELEVISION:
TELEPHONE:
SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
FIRE PROTECTION:
WATER SUPPLY:
GAS & ELECTRIC:
STORM DRAIN:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
TOTAL AREA:
DEVELOPER:
ARCHITECT:
SURVEYOR:
325,763 SF (GROSS) | 283,946 SF (NET)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:APN: 279-30-043
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.E. #61148 EXP 12/31/16
RAINTREE PARTNERS
28202 CABOT ROAD, SUITE 300
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
(949) 365-5650
TALUS, INC.
811 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD.
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526
(925) 837-3780
LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE
36017TH STREET, SUITE 200
PAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 836-5400
ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY
1900 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
(714) 774-1763
THE FRANCISCAN
601 ALMARIDA DRIVE
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
CIVIL ENGINEERING WORK ON THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD
CIVIL ENGINEERING PRACTICE.
10/31/2019
1) THIS PLAN IS BASED ON AN ALTA SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE
CLIENT AND PREPARED BY ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY
DATED JUNE 9, 2017.
2) SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC DATA IN THE PROJECT AREA WAS
COLLECTED BY DEBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING IN A FIELD SURVEY
DATED APRIL 16, 2018.
3) PUBLIC UTILITY INFORMATION IN ALMARIDA DRIVE WAS OBTAINED
FROM CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITY RECORD DRAWINGS.
SURVEYOR NOTES:
ZONE 'X' PER FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NO:06085C 0237H
EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 18, 2009
FLOOD ZONE:GRADINGANDDRAINAGEPLAN1" = 10'
C.011
NATIVE SOIL
COMPACTED @
85% MIN R.C.
STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
12" DRAIN
ROCK LAYER
4" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PERF PIPE;
FACE PERFORATIONS DOWNWARD.
6" STORAGE
18" LOAMY SAND PER SCVURPPP
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
HANDBOOK APPENDIX C.
NO LINER
OUT
2" MIN COVER
FINISH GRADE
GRATE ELEV.
BASE ELEV.
CLASS II PERMEABLE,
CALTRANS SPEC. 68-1.025
LANDSCAPE PLANTING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN
RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION
PROGRAM TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
HANDBOOK.
NOTE:
REFER TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SCVURPPP)
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE HANDBOOK FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ON FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS.
C.3 FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER
-
1
CONCRETE BOX PER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
DRAWINGNAME:P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160C02SWCP.dwgPLOTDATE:10-31-19PLOTTEDBY:EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:
OFZONINGCOMPLIANCEPLANSET601ALMARIDADRIVE CALIFORNIASANTACLARACOUNTYCITYOFCAMPBELL3
18160
Scale
No. 61148
EXP. 12/31/20
VIC LI
Stamp:
Date
Job No.
10/31/19STORMWATERCONTROLPLAN
1" = 20'
C.022SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #1 SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #2 SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #3
THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE MAINTAINED SUCH THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT:
1) VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE OR
GROUND WATER QUALITY.
2) SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITH
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT THE PROJECT MAY IMPEDE
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT OF THE BASIN.
3) SUBDSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTENR OF THE SITE
AREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE COURSE OF A STREAM
OR RIVER OR THROUGH THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, IN A
MANNER WHICH WOULD:
-i. RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF-SITE;
-ii. SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURGFACE RUNOFF
IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE;
-iii. CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE RUNOFF WATER WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE
CAPACITY OF EXISTING OR PLANNED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
OR PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF POLLUTED RUNOFF;
OR
-iv. IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOOD FLOWS.
4) IN A FLOOD HAZARD, TSUNAMI, OR SEICHE ZONES, RISK RELEASE OF
POLLUTANTS DUE TO PROJECT ININDATION.
5) CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLAN OR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
CEQA COMPLIANCE NOTES:
Attachment D
Created: 2021-10-06 10:10:51 [EST]
(Supp. No. 35, 8/21)
Page 1 of 1
21.42.040 Considerations in review of applications.
The community development director, the site and architectural review committee, and the planning
commission shall consider the following matters, and others when applicable to making the determinations
required by this chapter, in their review of site and architectural review permit and administrative site and
architectural review permit applications:
A. Considerations relating to traffic safety, traffic congestion, and site circulation:
1. The traffic generated from the development should not have adverse affects on traffic conditions
on abutting streets;
2. The layout of the site should provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exit
driveways, and walkways; and
3. The arrangement of off-street parking facilities should prevent traffic congestion and adequately
meet the demands of the users.
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
1. The location, height, and material of walls, fences, hedges and screen plantings should ensure
harmony with adjacent development and/or conceal storage areas, utility installations, or other
potentially unsightly elements of the project;
2. The project should maximize open space around structures, for access to and around structures,
and the establishment and maintenance of landscaping for aesthetic and screening purposes;
3. The project should maximize areas of improved open space to protect access to natural light,
ventilation, and direct sunlight, to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to provide space for
privacy, landscaping, and recreation; and
4. The project should minimize the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees.
C. Considerations relating to structures and site layout:
1. The project should enhance the overall appearance of the city by improving the appearance of
individual development projects within the city;
2. The project should complement the surrounding neighborhoods and produce an environment of
stable and desirable character;
3. The project should enhance the city's character and should not have an adverse aesthetic impact
upon existing adjoining properties, the environment, or the city in general;
4. The project should promote the use of sound design principles that result in creative, imaginative
solutions and establish structures of quality design throughout the city and which avoid
monotony and mediocrity of development;
5. The project should promote maintenance of the public health, safety, general welfare, and
property throughout the city; and
6. The project should be consistent with the city's general plan and all applicable design guidelines
and special plans.
(Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006: Ord. 2043 § 1 (part), 2004).
To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Date: November 10, 2020
From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Via: Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director
Address: 601 Almarida Drive
File No.: PLN-2018-202 ~ Site and Architectural Review Permit; Tree Removal Permit; and Density Bonus
PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit (PLN-2018-202) to add a three-story (60 unit) apartment building to an existing 180-unit apartment community (d.b.a. The Franciscan) and allow the alteration of existing building
façades, construction of at- and below-grade parking and three (3) new parking stalls on
Almarida Drive, and the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool and spa; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of six (6) on-site trees1, and a Density Bonus to allow a 19% increase in the allowable density, a reduction in required parking, concessions to allow a reduced setback between structures and a reduction in
required open space area, and waivers to the maximum allowable floor area ratio and lot
coverage on property located at 601 Almarida Drive (reference Attachment 2 – Project Plans).
PROJECT SITE
The project site is a 6.5 net acre lot located on the west side of Almarida Drive, north of Hamilton Avenue and south of David Avenue (reference Attachment 1 – Location Map). The
property is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and has a High Density Residential (21-27
units/gr. acre) General Plan land use designation. The project site is bordered by a professional office building and restaurant (former Elephant Bar; now vacant) to the south, a commercial shopping center anchored by Kohl’s and Bed Bath & Beyond to the east, and single-family residential uses to the west and north. The site is developed with sixteen (16) two-story
apartment buildings containing 180-units and a centrally located leasing office, fitness facility,
pool and spa.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
General Plan Designation: High-Density Residential (21-27 units/gr. acre)
Net Lot Area: 6.5 acres (283,946 sq. ft.)
Gross Lot Area: 7.48 acres (325,763 sq. ft.)
Existing Density: 24-units per gross acre (180 units)
1 When comparing existing conditions against the approved 1970 landscape plan, several trees are missing and not reflected in the number of trees proposed for ‘removal’.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 2 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
Proposed Density: 32-units per gross acre (240 units; 180 existing + 60 new) Development Standards: Proposed Required
Building Height: 38 feet (3-stories) 40 feet (3-stories)2
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 71% (201,054 sq. ft.) 55% Max. (waiver request)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 48% (136,633 sq. ft.) 40% Maximum (waiver request) Parking: 263 Spaces 178 Spaces3 (85 space surplus) Landscape Area: 26% (73,032 sq. ft.) 20% (56,789 sq. ft.) Open Space Area (useable): 38,852 sq. ft. 72,000 sq. ft. (concession request)
Setbacks: Proposed Required
Front/Street Side (East): 20.5 feet 20 feet (front) or 12 feet (street side)4 Front/Street Side (North): 20-feet (existing) 20 feet (front) or 12 feet (street side)4
Rear (West): 44 feet 18.5 feet (> of 5-feet or ½ wall ht.) Interior Side (South): 62 feet (existing) 10.5 feet (> of 5-feet or ½ wall ht.) Amenity Area Separation: 9.5-feet 20-feet (wall ht. of taller structure)5 Apartment Area Separation: 16-feet 34-feet (wall ht. of taller structure) Unit Details:
Existing Units: 180 units (comprised of 90 one-bedroom, 90 two-bedroom units) Proposed Units: +60 units (comprised of 7 studio, 36 one-bedroom, 17 two-bedroom units) All Units: 240 units (comprised of 7 studio, 126 one-bedroom, 107 two-bedroom units) Conforming Units (Total): 201 units (7.48 gr. acre x 27 units/gr. acre) Density Bonus Units: +39 units All Units: 240 units
Existing Unit Sizes: One Bedroom: 700 sq. ft. (90 existing) Two Bedroom: 1,000 sq. ft. (90 existing) New Unit Sizes: Studio: 353 sq. ft. (7 proposed) One Bedroom: 640 sq. ft. (36 proposed) Two Bedroom: 900 sq. ft. (17 proposed)
BACKGROUND
2 Simplied for review; parapets and similar architectural elements are not typically included in building height.
3 In accordance with the State Density Bonus standard for qualifying project within ½ mile of a major transit stop. 4 The Campbell Municipal Code does not provide an objective definition to determine the appropriate front or street
side of a corner lot. While the project satisfies the requirement by either standard, both standards have been provided for reference purposes.
5 The R-3 zoning district requires a minimum distance between non-accessory structures on the same lot equal to the building wall height of the taller of the two structures. While ‘one-building’ two distinct interfaces occur between the amenity and apartment components of the buildings; since the project does not satisfy the requirement, the applicant has proposed to use a density bonus concession to reduce the requirement.
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 3 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
On November 28, 2017 the Planning Commission held a Study Session to review a preliminary application (PRE-2017-03) for the introduction of a new three-story apartment building to be integrated into an existing apartment development at the subject site. The conceptual drawings included a three-dimensional massing study which served to illustrate how a new building may
appear in relation to the existing apartment community, the public right of way, and single-
family homes to the west (see Figures 1 & 2).
Figure 1 & 2: Massing Exhibits
In consideration of the pre-application materials, the Planning Commission provided the
following recommendations:
1. Ensure the new building provides pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and adequate access to amenities by all residents.
2. Rooftop decks (if any) should avoid causing privacy impacts to single-family residences.
3. Façade enhancements should not be required to be provided throughout the entire project
site; but should be carried consistently throughout areas visible from the public right of way (i.e. Almarida & David).
The formal application request (subject permit) incorporates changes to the plans responsive to the direction of the Planning Commission and includes access through the new building, the
incorporation of rooftop decks without vantage points to single-family residences, and façade
improvements to street facing elevations consistent with the previous direction provided.
DISCUSSION
Review of the applicant’s proposal is governed by goals, policies, and strategies of the General Plan and development standards contained in the Campbell Municipal Code including, but not
limited to, the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone district. Pursuant to Campbell Municipal
Code Section 21.54.050, the Site and Architectural Review Committee's (SARC) purview is to review the project's architectural design and site configuration, upon which a recommendation may be made to the Planning Commission. The following discussion points cover areas of review staff considers integral in reviewing this proposal. Key points have been flagged for
review and discussion where appropriate.
Housing Accountability Act: As a housing development project proposing more than one residential unit, the proposal may not be denied or conditioned to reduce its density under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) unless: 1) the proposal is found to be in violation of an
objective general plan/zoning standard; or 2) the project will result in a specific adverse impact
to public health and safety. While changes to the project may be requested to further applicable goals, policies and strategies – changes not based on objective standards must be limited to avoid rendering the project infeasible or reduce the number of units. As an example, while the
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 4 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
decision-making body may not deny a project because of its proposed paint color, it still retains the authority to condition such a change. Accordingly, when forming recommendations, the SARC should consider if the requested change is consistent with the HAA and request clarification from staff where appropriate.
Density Bonus: In exchange for designating 11% of the total units6 as target units affordable to very-low income households, the project qualifies for a 35% (19% proposed) density bonus, a reduced parking standard (.5 spaces per bedroom for qualifying projects ½ mile of light rail), two concessions and unlimited waivers. In simple terms, a concession may be used to grant an
exception from site development standards or zoning code requirements, where a waiver provides an opportunity for relief in situations where a development standard would otherwise physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives taken into account. In consideration of the applicant’s request, the following concessions/waivers have been made:
• Concession #1: Setback between non-accessory structures on same lot
• Concession #2: Open space requirements
• Waiver #1: To allow an increase in the maximum allowable floor area ratio
• Waiver #2: To allow an increase in the maximum allowable lot coverage The requested concession and waivers have been reviewed by staff as well as the City Attorney
and found to be appropriate in consideration of the request.
Site Layout & Architectural Design: In review of the project’s site layout and architectural design the General Plan provides the following goals, policies, and strategies to be taken into consideration:
Goal LUT-5: Preservation and enhancement of the quality character and land use patterns that support the neighborhood concept.
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city’s neighborhoods. Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
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-9.3f: Development Orientation: Orient new development toward public and private amenities or open space, in particular: • Orient front entrances, living/office area and windows
6 The term ‘total units’ means the number of units that would otherwise be allowed under the zoning and maximum density under the General Plan and does not include units added by a density bonus.
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 5 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
toward the amenity or open space. • Orient high activity areas such as outdoor dining areas and plazas, and major pedestrian routes toward the amenity or open space.
Strategy LUT-10.1 c: 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-11.1d: 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.
Strategy LUT-12.1c: Parking Lot Design: Design parking lots to minimize impacts on the street system by providing adequate sized driveways, sufficient queuing and efficient circulation.
While the project site is not subject to an area plan (i.e. San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan) or adopted Design Guidelines (i.e. City design guidelines do not apply to high-density residential
development), the SARC should still consider basic principles of design in its review (e.g. site layout, mass and bulk, color and materials, building articulation and design elements) as well as the considerations in review of Site and Architectural Review Permit applications (CMC 21.42.040).
Site Layout: The proposed apartment building would be centrally located and result in the removal and replacement of a leasing office/storage building, parking areas, fitness facility, pool and spa. In place of these improvements, the new building will serve as a focal point for the community and provide enhanced amenities including a new two-story amenity area with a leasing office, fitness center, roof deck, and a community room with kitchen and seating for
gatherings. The outdoor recreation area, at the rear of the new 3-story apartment building, will offer a swimming pool and spa, outdoor kitchen and seating, and dining areas. The revised site layout provides a central walkway connecting the north half of the project site with the south which passes between the new amenity building and apartment building providing improved
connectivity through the site when compared to existing conditions.
Figure 3: Proposed Site Layout Privacy Impacts: The new three-story apartment building will be over 44-feet away from single-family residential uses to the west and separated by a row of one-story carports along the rear
property line. The windows on the west elevation of the new-three story apartment building serve passive areas (bedrooms and bathrooms) and are designed to match the windows on the
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 6 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
rest of the building. While the new building will have a rooftop deck (over the amenity building area) and a balcony on the 3rd floor of the new apartment building area, both areas are oriented away from residential uses from the west and will pose no privacy impact
Figure 4 & 5: West Elevation of New Apartment Building & Rooftop Deck/Balcony Areas
Compatibility: Recognizing the applicant’s proposal places a new 3-story apartment building at the center of an established/older two-story apartment community one of the most critical considerations is how well the project fits in with the existing development and surrounding neighborhood. In response to previous direction from the Planning Commission (see
‘Background’) the applicant has proposed to add new wood siding to existing buildings facing
Almarida & David Avenue to ensure a consistent look for the project from the street. Further, since the applicant has proposed to place a two-story amenity building area adjacent to the street (instead of the 3-story apartment building area) the impact to the streetscape and neighborhood will be diminished. The new building also incorporates similar design elements, roof colors, and
light stucco siding consistent with the existing buildings. While the new leasing office will not
‘match’ the existing structures (distinct roof form, pitch, roof material) the differences may be appreciated as a modern take on the original design and beneficial to help future residents, delivery drivers, or visitors quickly identify the leasing office at a glance.
Figure 6: Proposed Streetscape (Facing Almardia Avenue) Consultant Review: To assist the SARC in its review, the City hired Kurt Anderson, of Anderson
Architects, to review the project. A summary of key conclusions and recommendations made in
the report (reference Attachment 3 – Architectural Report) has been provided as follows (a staff analysis of recommendations raised as discussion points has been provided below in italics):
• The proposed setbacks and height are appropriate for an apartment building.
• The new 3-story apartment building achieves a sensitive blend of massing and height that
fits in with the existing two-story buildings which surround it.
• The distance of the new apartment building (45-feet) and row of single-story carports
serve to protect privacy and buffer the single-family homes to the west.
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 7 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
• Landscaping should be added along the west wall of the new 3-story building adjacent to
the driveway.
• The exterior elevations of Building A (where facing David Avenue) need some form of
embellishment as well as additional landscaping and two (2) additional trees to soften the
exterior wall.
Recognizing the project will be adding new wood siding to existing buildings facing
Almarida and David, the consulting architect comments pick up on the fact that no such
treatment has been proposed for Building ‘A’ – the only building with a side elevation
facing the street.
Figure 7: Recommended Tree Placement & Side of Building A (Facing David Avenue)
In consideration that the side of Building A facing David Avenue is rather flat and
unarticulated, the consultant recommended that two new trees be added between
Building A and the street and that some other form of embelishment be considered for the
wall itself. The SARC may wish to consider whether or not trees would be sufficient, or if
some other form of embelishment (faux windows, wrought iron medalion, decorative tile
etc.) to connect this building with the rest of the project may be warranted.
• The railing around the parking ramp should match the railing proposed around the pool.
• The mechanical equipment screen on the roof of the new 3-story apartment building may
not be necessary and should be evaluated for removal.
• The choice of exterior materials (except the wood siding, handrails, and balconies for the
new building) reflects the style of architecture of the existing buildings.
o It is recommended to lower the slope of the roof on the new buildings, match the
material of the balconies and railings of the new buildings with the existing, and
provide some alternatives (color, wall tile, wall adornments, etc.) to the exterior
elevations instead of the proposed wood siding.
The consulting architects’ points serve to highlight discrepancies in the roof pitch,
window style, and materials between the new and existing building(s). At question is
whether the design of the new building goes ‘far enough’ to match the existing apartment
community or if additional changes should be made to the proposed building or existing
buildings to create a more consistent look. Revising window designs from a more vertical
(proposed) to horizontal (existing) style and lowering the pitch of the roof could help
create a more consistent look. Further, instead of proposing wood siding, the consultant
suggested the application of a different paint color, wall tile, or wall adornments to not
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 8 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
only create a consistent look between new and existing buildings but also one that is
more in keeping with the architectural style.
Figure 8: Recommended Window, Roofing, and Siding Material Changes
• The addition of the rooftop deck adjacent to the Community Room and Fitness area is a
nice addition to the shared common area.
o It is recommended to consider adding glass at the railings for sound attention
from external noise sources as well as internal noise sources.
With the suggested modifications and changes, the consultant noted that the City of Campbell
will have an exemplary project. In consideration of the feedback provided, the SARC should
consider what other changes (if any) should be made with an emphasis on how to ensure the new
three-story building will fit into the existing apartment community.
Tree Removal & Replacement Plan: The applicant’s request would result in the removal and
replacement of six (6) trees (non-protected species7) with seventeen (17) new 24-inch box trees within the footprint of the new apartment building (reference Attachment 2 – Project Plans; Sheet L104). Project wide, the applicant intends to plant 92 trees in order to bring the total number of trees on the property up to 160 – consistent with the approved 1970 landscape plan. Further, following the recommendation of the consulting architect two (2) additional trees may
be recommended in order to soften the north elevation of Building A from David Avenue. Fencing: The applicant has proposed to retain a 6-foot tall wood fence along the interior side and rear property lines consistent with City standards. Interior to the project site, the applicant has proposed to retain existing steel picket fences and entry driveway gates and proposed to install
new wrought iron fences (around the pool) and slump block walls (private patios and driveway
ramp, and below wrought iron fences surrounding the pool). Public Comments: No public comments were received as of the writing of this memo.
SUMMARY
The SARC should discuss the project's proposed site layout, architecture, materials, and landscaping. If the SARC believes that the applicant has adequately addressed any concerns the Committee may have, it may recommend approval to the Planning Commission as proposed, or
7 Three Magnolia trees (12, 18, and 26-inches in diameter), one Palm tree (5-inches in diameter) and two multi-trunked Birch trees (measuring roughly 8-inches in diameter at their widest trunk).
SARC Memorandum – November 10, 2020 Page 9 of 9 PLN-2018-202 ~ 601 Almarida Drive
subject to specific revisions. In consideration of the recommendations made by the consulting architect, the following points have been raised to facilitate conversation:
o Roof Design: Should the applicant lower the slope of the roof on the new
buildings to better blend in with the existing structures?
o Materials: Should the new building match the color and material of existing
balconies and railings? Should the applicant provide some alternatives (color,
wall tile, wall adornments, etc.) to be considered instead of the proposed wood
siding?
o Building A: Should two (2) additional trees be added between Building A and
David Avenue or the façade of the north face of the building improved?
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Project Plans 3. Architectural Report
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Franciscan Apartments
600 Almarida Avenue
Project Review
Report Prepared by:
Anderson Architects, Inc. For the City of Campbell
Dated: November 4, 2020
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Introduction:
This report was commissioned by the city of Campbell for Anderson Architects, Inc. to provide an architectural review of
the proposed project located at 600 Almarida Avenue, a renovation of the Franciscan Apartments. It is intended for the
use of the Planning Department and the Site and Architectural Review Committee to provide guidance and suggestions for improvements to the design of the submitted project during the approval process. These comments do not suggest there are deficiencies nor is the project design inadequate but are merely meant as improvement and enhancement suggestions. Documents reviewed:
1) Plan documents received on September 16th, 2019 which consisted of 41 sheets of 24”x36” pages in the Plan set.
The review was based on the following:
1) City of Campbell General Plan, the GP Designation is High Density Residential.
2) City of Campbell Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Designation is R-3.
3) The project is a renovation and a 3-story addition to an existing two story apartment complex known as the
Franciscan apartments. Site: The site is located at 600 Alamarida Avenue and is 7.5 gross acres in size. The site is surrounded by Residential to the
north and west (single-family, all single story), commercial to the east (Kohl’s and Bed, Bath and Beyond and associated
parking) and the vacant Elephant Bar to the south.
The site is within 1800 lineal feet of the Light Rail Stop at Hamilton Avenue and is accessed easily from the Highway 17 in
both the north and south directions.
Architecture:
The applicant has proposed a project that takes an underutilized space on the existing apartment project and transforms
that area into more residential apartments with parking below and replaces the current amenity spaces with similar type
areas in the addition/expansion area. I have redlined the plans, which are attached, but will summarize my comments as outlined below:
Project Information, Sheet A001:
• Add the number of existing and proposed street spaces as reference only. That number should not be included in
the required parking calculations. Carry that number through on all of the site plans; A010, A011, A012 and A013.
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Overall Architectural Site Plan, Sheet A011:
• Clarify the dimensions between buildings, the front setback and also the dimension from the new building to the
north and south property lines.
• Add landscape along the west wall of the new building adjacent to the driveway.
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Parking/Loading Plan, A012:
• Clarify the on street parking numbers.
• Provide accessible stalls in the basement per Chapter 11a as noted on your plans (“Provide at least one space of
each type of parking facility”). This will affect your parking layout and result in a reduction of parking in the garage. Please check your calculations again to make sure there is adequate parking.
• In addition, that will require the basement to be lowered to provide adequate clearance for the accessible stalls. Please check the ramp length to make sure there is adequate length to get down to the appropriate level required for the vertical clearance in the garage for the accessible stalls.
• Are two staff stalls enough?
• What is the red mark on the drawings adjacent to the new building? I assume that is a fire curb. I believe you
need to add a landscape area adjacent to that building to protect the structure and to soften the building.
Fencing and Circulation Plan, Sheet A013:
• There does not appear to be a railing adjacent to the north wall on the driveway to the parking basement. Please add a railing. It is more clearly shown on the proposed pool enclosure 3d picture on A014 that there is no railing. Match the railing proposed around the pool.
Open Space Diagram, Sheet A017:
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
• The project is short of the required open space and most of the open space in between the buildings is not
usable.
• One option would be to add a roof deck on top of the new building. This would go a long way to create more
usable open space but careful consideration will have to be paid to the number of occupants and the required exiting. In addition, if a roof deck is considered, privacy for the back yards of the single family homes to the west should be considered.
• Revise the north arrow, it is pointing to the east. Underground Parking, A200:
• Provide accessible parking as required by Chapter 11A. The code requires accessible spaces for each type of
parking; surface and below ground stalls.
• Review the ramp length to insure there is adequate distance to get down to the depth required for the vertical
clearance at the path of travel to the accessible stalls and also at the accessible stalls.
• Designate that the tandem stalls are assigned. Make sure this is considered in the parking calculations. Exterior Elevations, Sheet A302:
• The windows as portrayed on the new building do not match the existing window types on the existing buildings.
Try top match the existing window types so there is continuity between the old and new structures.
• Add a handrail on Elevation #2 at the driveway ramp as previously indicated.
• Consider eliminating the mechanical screen. The condensers should be able to be hidden by the other roof area.
Provide some cross-section exhibits utilizing line of sight angles to determine if the screens are required.
• The wood exterior siding does not fit with the architectural style. Consider a different paint color or the addition
of some ceramic tile or some other form or wall embellishments. This should be added throughout the project.
• The windows at the proposed amenity building do relate to the existing windows.
• Consider shallowing up the roof slope. Exterior Elevations, Sheet A303:
• The elevations of the Amenity Building and the Units Building appear to be more contemporary in design.
Consider making the building blend more with the existing buildings by shallowing up the roof slope, matching
the window style and matching the deck railings.
• The stair railings and the deck railings do not match on the West Elevation of the Amenity Building. Consider
making them consistent in style and materials.
Existing Exterior Elevations, Sheet A303:
• The existing and proposed elevations on Building A need some form of embellishment as well as additional landscaping to soften that exterior wall. Consider adding some windows into the units and also some color or wall adornments.
• Eliminate the wood siding and come up with an optional wall treatment. The wood does not fit with the existing
architecture.
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Existing Exterior Elevations, Sheet A304, 305, 306:
• Same comments as above.
Site Cross Sections, Sheet A311, 312:
• The new building does not look like it is part of the existing project.
Material Palette, Sheet A350:
• Re-look at the siding and the railing materials.
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Overall Site Landscape Plan:
• Consider adding two trees along David Ave. at the north end of Building A along with some additional landscaping
to soften the building.
• Consider adding new landscape along the west side of the new Units Building.
Conclusion:
Setbacks:
The project as designed, is consistent with the setbacks and the height as established in the Zoning Code and is
appropriate for this type of use.
Height: The addition of the new building between the existing two story buildings is a sensitive blend of massing and height. The project as currently designed conforms to the allowed height in the Zoning Code. The new three story building is surrounded by two story buildings and although the three story building is directly adjacent to single story residential to
the west, it is separated by a distance approximately 45’ to the property line with a single story carport in between which
further protects privacy and buffers the single family homes.
120 W. Campbell Ave.
Suite D
Campbell, CA 95008
T: 408 . 371 . 1269
F: 408 . 370 . 1276
Exterior Materials:
The choice of the exterior materials (excepting the wood siding and the handrails and balconies at the new buildings) reflects the style of architecture of the existing buildings. My recommendation is to lower the slope of the roof on the new buildings, match the material of the balconies and railings of the new buildings with the existing and provide some alternatives (color, wall tile, wall adornments, etc.) to the exterior elevations instead of the wood siding. The wall adornments can be areas of Spanish style ceramic tile applied to the wall that have a splash of color or some form of wall applique to break up the surface of the wall that keeps within the Spanish style motif.
Compatibility:
The proposed addition is compatible with the existing project and meets all of the criteria as specified in the General Plan
and the Zoning Plan. In addition, it provides below market rate units that will help augment the housing stock in the City
of Campbell.
Rooftop Deck:
The addition of the rooftop deck adjacent to the Community Room and the Fitness area is a nice addition to the shared common area although it is most likely undersized to provide enough outdoor space for the project. The applicant should consider adding additional roof deck area to the proposed three-story building. Sound attenuation should be addressed and the applicant should consider adding some exterior glass at the railings for sound attenuation from external noise
sources as well as internal noise sources.
Final thoughts:
Overall, I think the project is well designed and if the applicant is willing to make the minor suggested modifications, the
City of Campbell will have an exemplary project.
Respectfully submitted, Kurt B. Anderson, AIA, CGBP, NCARB
Principal
7901 Oakport Street, Ste.1500, Oakland, CA 94621 510.444.2600 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
January 29, 2021
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Focused Transportation Impact Analysis for 601 Almarida Drive –
the Franciscan Apartments Expansion (PLN 2018-202,203,204)
Dear Mr. Jue;
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a Focused Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed expansion of the
Franciscan Apartments located at 601 Almarida Drive in Campbell. According to the Transportation Impact
Analysis guidelines published by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority, the preparation of a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required since this project would generate fewer than 100 a.m. or p.m.
peak hour trips. Instead, a focused transportation analysis was prepared to evaluate issues related to site access,
internal circulation and to identify potential parking-related issues during the construction period. Also, the
project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT as it would be located within one-half mile of
an existing light-rail station.
Project Description
The Franciscan Apartments is comprised of 180 dwelling units with 242 off-street parking spaces and associated
amenity facilities. The project is proposing to remove approximately 61 off-street parking spaces as well as several
site-serving amenity buildings and structures (e.g., pool, leasing office, club room). In its place, a new 60-unit
three-story apartment building with new amenity rooms and 85 new parking spaces (82 off-street and 3 on-street)
would be constructed.
The site is currently accessed by three driveways: one driveway on David Avenue and two driveways on Almarida
Drive. The proposed project would not alter the existing driveway on David Avenue or the south driveway on
Almarida Drive. Vehicular access to the project site would be reconfigured by relocating the north driveway on
Almarida Drive approximately 30 feet south toward Hamilton Avenue. Upon completion of the project, the
number of parking spaces in the lot serving the leasing office would be reduced from 25 to six spaces.
Local Roadways
Hamilton Avenue is a six-lane east-west principal arterial roadway south of the project site that provides access
between West Campbell Avenue and Pine Avenue. Hamilton Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph.
Almarida Drive is a two-lane north-south local street that provides access between Hamilton Avenue and the
Hamann Park neighborhood. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Two (out of three) of the project driveway access
points are located on Almarida Drive.
Alternative Transportation Modes
Pedestrians
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, and various streetscape
amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 2 January 29, 2021
curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the proposed project site. There are no existing gaps
or obstacles along the connecting roadways that impact convenient and continuous access for pedestrians.
Hamilton Avenue – Continuous sidewalk coverage is provided on Hamilton Avenue on both sides of the
street within the study area. Curb ramps and crosswalks are provided at side street approaches near the
project site.
Almarida Drive – Continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of Almarida Drive. Lighting is provided
by overhead streetlights on both sides of the road. Curb ramps and crosswalks at side street approaches are
intermittent.
Bicycle Network
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, classifies bikeways into four categories:
Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street
or highway.
Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles
and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may
include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
In the immediate project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Hamilton Avenue between SR 17 and Campbell Avenue.
Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 1
summarizes the existing bicycle facilities in the project vicinity.
Table 1 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
Los Gatos Creek Trail I 9.70 Lexington Reservoir (Los Gatos) Meridian Ave (San Jose)
Hamilton Ave II 2.82 Campbell Ave State Route 17
Bascom Ave II 1.23 Fruitdale Ave Hamilton Ave (San Jose)
Bascom Ave III 0.75 Hamilton Ave (San Jose) Apricot Ave
Central Ave III 1.10 Westfield Ave Grant St
Winchester Blvd III 0.75 Hamilton Ave Sunnyside Ave
Source: Santa Clara Valley Bikeways Map, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2016
Transit Facilities
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides fixed route bus service and light rail train service
in Santa Clara County. Two bicycles can be carried on VTA light rail trains and most VTA buses. Bike rack space is
on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on VTA buses at the discretion of the driver.
VTA Route 56 provides local bus service between the Lockheed Martin Transit Center and Tamien Caltrain Station
via Fair Oaks Road, Wolfe Road, Miller Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue. This route operates approximately 30 buses
per day at 30-minute headways on weekdays from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 28 buses per day on Saturdays from
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 3 January 29, 2021
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and another 28 buses per day on Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The nearest
westbound stop is located on Hamilton Avenue just west of Central Avenue a distance approximately 1,200 feet
from the southernmost portion of the project site. The nearest eastbound stop is on Hamilton Avenue just west
of the intersection with Creekside Way, approximately 1,750 feet from the southernmost portion of the project
site.
VTA Green Line is a light rail route that provides service between Santa Clara and the Winchester area of
Campbell. The Green Line operates over 60 trains per day on weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. with 15-
minute headways and from 8:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. with 30-minute headways. The Hamilton Light Rail Station is
the nearest station to the project site and is located approximately 2,000 feet from the southernmost portion of
the project site along Hamilton Avenue just west of the intersection with Creekside Way.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to
independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. VTA Paratransit is designed to serve
the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Campbell and greater Santa Clara County.
On-Demand Transportation Services
On-demand private taxi services are available in Campbell 24 hours a day. Taxis can be used for trips within the
study area and adjacent destinations.
Parking Inventory
The existing parking occupancy was recorded during a typical weekday during the midday and overnight hours
to document the existing condition within the residential development and on surrounding streets. Parking
surveys were timed to occur during the middle of the day when most Franciscan Apartment residents are not
home as well as during the overnight hours when most residents are home. This information was then used to
document current parking occupancy levels and estimate the potential for parking displacement while
construction activity restricts access to certain areas of the existing apartment complex.
All parking surveys were conducted at 30-minute intervals on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
and again from 11:00 p.m. to midnight in the following locations:
1. David Avenue from Central Avenue to the “traffic circle” at Almarida Drive;
2. Almarida Drive from Hamilton Avenue to the “traffic circle” at David Avenue;
3. Almarida Drive from David Avenue to Pamlar Avenue; and
4. All internal gated areas of the Franciscan Apartments.
Survey Results
The results of the parking survey are summarized in Table 2. Summary tables showing the detailed survey results
are enclosed.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 4 January 29, 2021
Table 2 – Parking Survey Summary
Street Segment Side Number
of
Spaces
Number of Occupied Spaces
2:00 – 4:00 PM 11:00 PM to Midnight
Demand Occupancy Demand Occupancy
On-Street
David Ave
(Central Ave to Harrison Ave)
North 8 0 0% 0 0%
South 9 0 0% 0 0%
David Ave
(Harrison Ave to Almarida Dr)
North 8 3 38% 7 88%
South 7 3 43% 7 100%
Almarida Dr
(Pamlar Ave to David Ave)
West 9 1 11% 1 11%
East 12 4 33% 4 33%
Almarida Dr
(David Ave to Hamilton Ave)
West 63 35 56% 54 86%
East 35 5 14% 17 49%
Sub-Total 151 51 34% 90 60%
Off-Street
Lot 1* (Larger lot with driveways
on both David Ave and Almarida
Dr)
217 83 38% 184 85%
Lot 2 (Smaller lot adjacent to
Almarida Dr)
25 13 52% 25 100%
Sub-Total 242 96 40% 209 86%
Total 393 147 37% 299 76%
Notes: Parking surveys conducted on Tuesday, December 3, 2019; *At the time of the survey, parking was restricted for a
portion of Lot 1 for the temporary storage of construction equipment. These spaces are included in this table as
they are typically available.
During the typical weekday midday period a maximum of 96 spaces were observed occupied out of a total of 242
off-street parking spaces available for an occupancy rate of 40 percent. As expected, the number of occupied off-
street spaces increased during the overnight period to 209 spaces, for an occupancy rate of 86 percent. The survey
also indicated there are 33 spaces (242 spaces available minus 209 occupied spaces) available during this period.
The maximum number of occupied on-street spaces during the overnight peak period was 90 spaces out of 151
for an occupancy rate of 60 percent. According to the parking survey there are 61 unused on-street parking spaces
(151 spaces available minus 90 occupied spaces) during the overnight period.
Finding – Although both on- and off-street parking at the Franciscan Apartments is well-utilized during the
overnight hours, there is available capacity within the study area to accommodate additional parking demand for
94 (61 on-street and 33 off-street) more vehicles during the overnight peak period.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 5 January 29, 2021
Project-Specific Issues
Trip Generation of Daily Traffic
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for “Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise)” (ITE LU #221). Trip reductions that may result from demolished amenities (such as the swimming pool
or activity room) were not included as those elements of the apartment complex would be rebuilt with the
proposed project.
The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 3. The proposed project is
expected to generate an average of 326 net-new trips per day, including 22 trips during the a.m. peak hour and
26 during the p.m. peak hour; these net-new trips represent the increase in traffic associated with the project.
Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 60 du 5.44 326 0.36 22 6 16 0.44 26 16 10
TOTAL 326 22 6 16 26 16 10
Note: du = Dwelling Unit
Trip Distribution
Plots illustrating the prevailing travel patterns in the study area output from the Santa Clara County Travel Demand
Model were used to estimate relative trip distribution patterns within the study area by comparing relative vehicle
demands on major roadways surrounding the study area. It should be noted that trips were assumed to use
surface streets (such as Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard) to access regional facilities (like SR 17 and
San Tomas Expressway). The applied distribution assumptions (with manual adjustments for rounding) and
resulting trips are shown in Table 4.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 6 January 29, 2021
Table 4 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent Daily AM Trips PM Trips
To/From the north via Winchester Blvd 8% 26 2 2
To/From the north via Almarida Dr 2% 7 1 1
To/From the west via Hamilton Ave 10% 33 2 3
To/From the south via Winchester Blvd 5% 16 1 1
To/From the east via Hamilton Ave 20% 65 4 5
To/From the north via Bascom Ave 15% 48 3 3
To/From the south via Bascom Ave 15% 48 3 3
To/From the south via Central Ave 3% 10 1 1
To/From the south via Salmar Ave 2% 7 1 1
To/From the north via SR 17 14% 46 3 4
To/From the south via SR 17 6% 20 1 2
TOTAL 100% 326 22 26
Neighborhood Traffic
The potential effect of adding project-related traffic on residential streets near the project site was evaluated
based on the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. The TIRE index is a tool that measures
residents’ perception of the effect of increased Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on residential streets. TIRE index values
range from 0.0 to 5.0 depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0.0 represents the least infusion of traffic and
5.0 the greatest, and, thereby the poorest residential environment. A TIRE index of 3.0 represents the threshold at
which the character of a residential street changes. Residential streets with a TIRE index above this mid-range
point of 3.0 typically exhibit higher traffic volumes, while streets with a TIRE index below 3.0 are usually more
suitable for residential activities. The index was developed by D.K. Goodrich, and reflects research conducted by
University of California at Berkeley Professor Donald Appleyard with consideration of prior work by the Ministry of
Transport, England. According to this methodology, an impact occurs on the residential street when the
difference in index between no project and project conditions is 0.10 or more. The TIRE index calculations are
enclosed.
The average daily traffic (ADT) on the study neighborhood street segments was determined based on 24-hour
machine counts conducted on either December 3, 2019 or January 8, 2020. Roadway segment counts are
enclosed.
It is estimated that up to ten percent of the project-generated traffic would access the site and have an intended
origin or destination north of the project site along Winchester Boulevard. As the streets in this area are laid out
in a grid pattern with multiple route choices, it is challenging to accurately anticipate which specific combinations
of streets would be used by a typical driver. One potential scenario would assume that these travelers would each
choose different routes and their trips would be spread out amongst many streets thereby creating many small
increases in vehicle traffic with little or no measurable change to the TIRE index on any single street. Thus, for the
purposes of this study and to provide a conservative analysis, it was assumed that all ten percent would use Pamlar
Avenue. This is equivalent to approximately 32 vehicle trips per day. The remaining project-generated trips were
distributed amongst Central Avenue, David Avenue and Almarida Drive. The number of daily project-generated
trips would be lower than the required threshold needed to change the TIRE index calculation by 0.1 (or greater)
along these roadways. According to this methodology and based on likely travel routes and the surrounding
roadway network, it is projected that project-related traffic would contribute less than the volume of traffic
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 7 January 29, 2021
necessary to be noticeable to residents of those streets. Table 5 summarizes the ADT of the neighborhood streets,
the TIRE index for the street segments under Existing Conditions, and the project-added trips.
Table 5 – TIRE Index Summary
Study Segment Count
Date
Existing
Conditions
Threshold Percent of
Project’s
Daily Trips
Daily
Project
Trips
Significant
Impact
ADT TIRE
Index
Central Ave: Hamilton Ave to
David Ave 1/8/2020 2,446 3.4 650 20% 64 No
David Ave: Central Ave to
Almarida Dr 12/5/2019 1,205 3.1 290 28% 90 No
Almarida Dr: Pamlar Ave to
David Ave 12/5/2019 2,178 3.3 500 10% 32 No
Almarida Dr: David Ave to
Hamilton Ave 12/5/2019 3,006 3.5 825 70% 225 No
Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic; Threshold equals the volume needed to cause a 0.1 increase in the TIRE index
It should be noted that the use of popular mobile navigation applications by drivers may alter these trip estimates
slightly as traffic conditions change from day-to-day or even hour-to-hour. Since these mobile navigation
applications regularly update road conditions and adapt travel routes based on constantly renewing information,
it is speculative to anticipate potential routes in the future. Additionally, as not every driver uses these
applications, there is also limited means to estimate how many drivers are currently using them or would continue
to use them in the future.
Finding – The project would result in an acceptable increase in traffic along Central Avenue, David Avenue and
Almarida Drive since the addition of project-related trips would result in less than a 0.1 increase in the TIRE index.
Construction Period Impacts to Parking
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last 18 to 24 months. Access to portions of the site would
be restricted during this construction period resulting in the temporary loss of 61 parking spaces (61 spaces off-
street and no spaces on Almarida Drive). The parking survey indicated that the immediate area has available
parking capacity to accommodate 94 additional vehicles. This estimate considers the results from the overnight
off-street and on-street parking survey. Therefore, the loss of 61 spaces from construction activity is
accommodated by the unused capacity of 94 spaces resulting in a surplus of 33 spaces during the construction
period. A summary of the estimated construction period overnight parking is shown in Table 6.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 8 January 29, 2021
Table 6 –Construction Period Overnight Parking Analysis
Description Available Spaces Occupied Spaces Surplus / Deficit
On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total
Existing Condition 151 242 393 90 209 299 61 33 94
Spaces removed during
Construction
0 -61 -61 61 -28 33
Construction Period Parking 151 181 332 90 209 299 61 -28 33
Notes:
1) On-street is defined as publicly available parking along surrounding streets (Almarida Dr, David Ave).
2) Off-street is defined as the parking area within the Franciscan Apartment site.
Finding – There would be a parking surplus of 33 parking spaces overnight during construction of the project.
On-site and Off-site Parking/Loading/Fire Lanes/Driveway Access
Commercial Vehicle Access
Commercial service vehicles would access the main parking lot through either driveway on Almarida Drive or from
David Avenue. The trash/recycle bins would be located along the western edge of the new building with primary
access provided along the main drive-aisle. The main drive-aisle is adequate to accommodate commercial service
vehicles such as garbage trucks.
Finding – Commercial vehicle access to the site would be adequate.
Fire and Loading Lanes
The preliminary site plan included an exhibit showing the Emergency Access Plan for a standard fire truck (Sheet
A015, August 2020 by Raintree Partners). The exhibit demonstrates that a fire truck has enough space to enter
from the driveway on David Avenue, maneuver within the parking lot and exit onto Almarida Drive without
striking permanent fixtures on the project site. The plans show the main drive-aisle of the parking lot has a
minimum width of 20 feet and there is a 90 degree turn with a 30-foot outside radius. The plans also demonstrate
that the project driveway serving the leasing office can accommodate a 90 degree turn from the northbound
direction of Almarida Drive with a 42-foot outside radius turn. It should be noted that the swept vehicle path as
shown in Sheet A015 encroaches upon the perpendicular parking space just south of the driveway on Almarida
Drive. However, the site plan was reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) and their
evaluation concluded that the swept vehicle path shown in Sheet A015 is a conservative estimate and that their
fire apparatus vehicles would be able to complete this maneuver without encroaching upon this parking space.
A copy of the relevant sheets from the site plan are enclosed.
The project includes a 20-foot-long yellow loading zone just north of the drive-aisle serving the leasing office. The
City of Campbell Municipal Code, Section 10.24.060, “Loading zones”, states that the City Traffic Engineer is
authorized to determine and to make loading zones and passenger loading zones at any place in the business
district or in front of the entrance to any place of business or in front of any hall or place used for the purpose of
public assembly. Yellow loading zones are intended to be installed in areas where frequent material loading
and/or passenger loading occurs.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 9 January 29, 2021
Finding – Emergency vehicle access and circulation to the site is expected to be adequate. Inclusion of a yellow
loading zone may be considered at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer in accordance with City Code
10.24.060.
Site Access
The project site would have two parking areas accessed by three full access driveways; two on Almarida Drive and
one on David Avenue. The south driveway access on Almarida Drive and the driveway on David Avenue are gated
with access restricted to residents only. The remaining driveway on Almarida Drive is intended for visitor use and
access to this driveway would not be restricted. The project would not alter the existing gated driveways but
would shift the location of the unrestricted Almarida Drive access by approximately 30 feet to the south. The
project as proposed would provide three new perpendicular on-street parking spaces, similar to the existing on-
street spaces, along with a 20-foot-long yellow loading zone directly north of the proposed driveway location.
Sight distances at the leasing office driveway were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the
Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distances for driveways are based on
stopping sight distance, with approach travel speeds used as the basis for determining the recommended sight
distance. Sight distances at the David Avenue driveway and the southernmost Almarida Driveway were not
evaluated as the project is not proposing to alter these existing driveways.
The posted speed limit for Almarida Drive is 25 mph, with a corresponding minimum recommended stopping
sight distance of 150 feet. Based on a review of field conditions and project plans for the driveway serving the
leasing office, the available sight distance for a vehicle exiting this parking lot is estimated to be 100 feet to the
south and 90 feet to the north. This evaluation considers the placement of perpendicular on-street parking on
either side of the driveway and assumes that a vehicle exiting the driveway can pull out a short distance to gain a
more favorable line of sight along Almarida Drive. The sight distances in either direction at this location would
not be adequate for the observed approach speeds. It is recommended that the perpendicular on-street parking
spaces on the west side of Almarida Drive removed within 65 feet to the north and 30 feet to the south of the
driveway to facilitate a minimum of 150 feet of clear sight distance between an exiting vehicle and approaching
traffic on Almarida Drive.
Finding – The sight distance at the driveway access on Almarida Drive serving the leasing office would be limited
by the presence of on-street perpendicular parking on either side of the driveway.
Recommendation – To achieve a minimum sight distance of 150 feet, it is recommended that perpendicular on-
street parking spaces be located no closer than 65 feet north of and 30 feet south of the driveway along the west
side of Almarida Drive. Maintaining these sight distances includes the removal or relocation of approximately five
on-street parking spaces (three to the north and two to the south of the driveway).
Alternative Modes Analysis
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of residential and commercial land uses surrounding the site, it is reasonable to assume that
some residents would want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit to access the project site.
Sidewalks and crosswalks currently exist along the project frontages on both Hamilton Avenue and Almarida
Drive. According to the site plan, the project would include sidewalk connections between the buildings and
adjacent sidewalks along public streets.
Finding – Existing and proposed pedestrian facilities serving the project site would be adequate.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 10 January 29, 2021
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including the Class II bike lanes along Hamilton Avenue, together with shared use of
minor streets, provide adequate access for bicyclists. The project includes a “bike room” that would provide
storage for 48 bicycles.
The City of Campbell Municipal Code, Section 21.28.070, “Bicycle Parking” requires that the number of bicycle
parking stalls should be consistent with the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which
states in Section 5.106.4.1.2 that the number of bicycle parking stalls provided should be equal to five percent of
the total number of auto parking stalls provided. The project would include 48 bicycle parking stalls which is
greater than five percent of 82 vehicle spaces, or four spaces. Therefore, the number of bicycle spaces provided
by the project would satisfy both the City of Campbell Municipal Code and CALGreen recommendations.
Finding – The provision of 48 bicycle spaces would satisfy the City’s Code requirement as well as CALGreen
recommendations.
Transit
Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate potential project-generated transit trips based on the
number of routes and frequency of service. Existing stops located on Hamilton Avenue are within an acceptable
walking distance of the site. The volume of additional transit riders would be spread over several transit lines and
time and therefore is not expected to exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bus or light rail service near the
project site.
Finding – Existing transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.
Transit-Oriented Density Bonus Considerations
The California Density Bonus Law (CDBL) is a state housing development mandate that supersedes local land use
requirements and encourages the development of some housing units. One such incentive provided by the CDBL
states that a qualified housing development shall be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and have
unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. If these conditions are satisfied, then, upon
request of the developer, a city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds the pre-determined amount
listed in the legislation.
A major transit stop is defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code as a site containing an existing rail
transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major
bus routes with a service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
It should be noted that VTA Route 56 operates with a service interval of greater than 15 minutes and as such does
not satisfy the criteria to be considered a major transit stop.
Pedestrian access between the project site and each transit stop is generally provided via a network of sidewalks
and crosswalks. Sidewalks are paved and constructed to meet current City or Caltrans design standards.
Crosswalks are located at signalized intersections with protected pedestrian phasing.
There is an at-grade railroad crossing just west of the Creekside Way/Hamilton Avenue intersection.
Approximately two freight train crossings occur at this location per week. Trains using this crossing are typically
traveling at 5 to 10 mph. This location lacks pedestrian access control measures, such as pedestrian gates or
moveable arms at the sidewalks.
Based on traffic data reported in the Traffic Impact Study for 499 East Hamilton Avenue, W-Trans, January 2019,
passenger cars travel through this area of Hamilton Avenue with an average vehicle speed of 28.6 mph in the
westbound direction. The corresponding average speed in the eastbound direction during the p.m. peak hour is
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 11 January 29, 2021
15.6 mph. The posted speed limit of Hamilton Avenue is 35 mph. According to traffic counts conducted in
October 2018, approximately 61,200 vehicles travel on Hamilton Avenue on each weekday and 50,860 on a typical
weekend day. These values include both the eastbound and westbound directions.
Section 65915 of the Government Code states that a development shall have unobstructed access to a major transit
stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed
impediments. The sidewalks between the Franciscan Apartments and the Hamilton Light Rail Station satisfies
minimum design standards used by either the City of Campbell or Caltrans and as such is deemed to be suitable
for use by pedestrians and is therefore not considered to be an impediment.
Although the combination of vehicle speeds, volumes and geometric characteristics may result in a potentially
uncomfortable pedestrian experience along Hamilton Avenue, none of these factors would obstruct pedestrian
access between the project site and the Hamilton Light Rail Station.
Finding – The project satisfies the CDBL criteria described above as the Green Line Light Rail service has stops
located within one-half mile of the project site and there is unobstructed pedestrian access from the site to this
transit stop.
Parking Analysis
The proposed project to expand the Franciscan Apartments would satisfy the criteria for the CDBL meaning the
City shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio greater than the pre-determined amount according to the
legislation. However, to better inform the decision-making process, a parking analysis has been conducted. It
should also be noted that the City may impose parking management strategies intended to maximize efficiency
of the available parking supply at their discretion. This parking analysis was conducted to determine whether
additional parking management strategies need to be recommended.
On-street parking is typically shared amongst the various adjacent land uses surrounding each street. To provide
a conservative analysis, it was assumed that all the vehicles parked on the streets directly adjacent to the project
site were related to the Franciscan Apartments. The Franciscan Apartments currently consist of 180 dwelling units
which occupy 299 parking spaces out of a supply of 393 spaces within the entire study area (including 90 on-street
spaces that are shared with other area residents and land uses in the Hamann Park Community). Based on the
parking occupancy survey, the estimated parking demand for the Franciscan Apartments is equivalent to 1.66
spaces per dwelling unit.
The parking survey indicates that there are 94 unused parking spaces within the study area (61 on-street and 33
off-street spaces). The proposed project would eliminate 61 off-street spaces and provide 85 new spaces (82 off-
street and 3 on-street) resulting in a net-increase of 24 parking spaces (21 off-street and 3 on-street). It is estimated
that the proposed project would increase the parking demand by 100 spaces (assuming a demand of 1.66 spaces
per unit and 60 new dwelling units). The changes in the number of parking spaces available, along with the
expected increase in parking demand, would result in an anticipated parking surplus of 18 spaces. A summary of
the estimated available spaces versus the parking demand is shown in Table 7.
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 12 January 29, 2021
Table 7 – Overnight Parking Analysis
Description Available Spaces Occupied Spaces Surplus / Deficit
On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total On-
Street
Off-
Street
Total
Existing Condition 151 242 393 90 209 299 61 33 94
Spaces removed by Project 0 -61 -61 61 -28 33
Spaces added by Project 3 82 85 64 54 118
Sub-Total 154 263 417 64 54 118
Demand added by Project 46 54 1 100
Existing + Project Condition 154 263 417 136 263 399 18 0 18
Notes:
1) Assumed off-street parking supply (including 54 project-added spaces) is 100 percent occupied.
2) On-street is defined as publicly available parking along surrounding streets (Almarida Dr, David Ave).
3) Off-street is defined as the parking area within the Franciscan Apartment site.
Finding – Upon completion of the project, there would be a parking surplus of 18 parking spaces. This estimate
considers both the off-street and on-street parking supply.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
Consideration was given to the project’s potential generation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The City of
Campbell adopted a VMT policy in August 2020. According to this policy, all proposed land uses located within
one-half mile of a light-rail station shall be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact on VMT
presuming these projects are consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed project at 601 Almarida Drive is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT as it would
be located within one-half mile of an existing light-rail station.
Finding – The project would be expected to have a less-than-significant transportation impact on vehicle miles
traveled.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed project would generate an average of 326 net-new daily trips, including 22 new trips during
the a.m. peak hour and 26 new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be adequate to serve the project as proposed.
On-site vehicle (including commercial vehicles) and pedestrian access between the building, parking lot and
surrounding sidewalks are adequate.
The proposed project would result in an acceptable increase in traffic on Central Avenue, David Avenue and
Almarida Drive.
The parking survey indicated that the immediate area has surplus parking capacity to accommodate an
additional 94 vehicles. Therefore, the loss of 61 parking spaces during the construction period would be
Mr. Matthew Jue, PE Page 13 January 29, 2021
accommodated by the excess on-street parking capacity, and reduce the overnight parking surplus from 94
to 33 parking spaces during construction of the project.
Emergency vehicle access and circulation to the site is expected to be adequate. Inclusion of a yellow loading
zone may be considered at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer in accordance with City Code 10.24.060.
The sight distance at the driveway access on Almarida Drive serving the leasing office is limited by the
presence of on-street perpendicular parking on either side of the driveway. It is recommended that
perpendicular on-street parking spaces be restricted for approximately 65 feet north of and 30 feet south of
the driveway to provide at least 150 feet of sight distance in both directions. Maintaining these sight distances
includes the removal or relocation of approximately five on-street parking spaces (three to the north and two
to the south of the driveway).
The project would satisfy the California Density Bonus Law criteria as the Green Line Light Rail service has a
stop within one-half mile of the project site with unobstructed pedestrian access.
The project as proposed would result in a net-gain of 85 parking spaces (3 on-street parking spaces on
Almarida Drive and 82 off-street spaces).
Upon completion of the project, there would be a total of 417 parking spaces and an estimated parking
demand of 399 vehicles within the study area which results in a surplus of eighteen parking spaces. This
estimate considers both the off-street and on-street parking supply.
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant transportation impact on vehicle miles traveled.
Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Jeong, PE
Traffic Engineer
Mark Spencer, PE
Senior Principal
MES/kbj/CMP030.L1
Enclosures: Parking Survey Detail Summary; TIRE Index Calculations; Traffic Count Sheets; Site Plans
Location:19‐8608Date:12/3/2019City:Campbell,CADay:TuesdayLot Restriction Inventory 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AMNotesRegular 21669 71 76 79 83 179 182 183HC100000111Regular 2111 11 12 12 12 21 21 21HC100000000Future Resident 311100333Illegal00000110Some spaces in Lot 1 are fenced off and used for construction equipment.These spaces are included in this table as they are typically available.Prepared by National Data & Surveying ServicesParking Study12
Location:19‐8608Date:12/3/2019City:Campbell,CADay:TuesdaySegment ID Street From To Side Restriction Spaces 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AM Notes1 David Ave Central Ave Harrison Ave North Unmarked 80000 0 0002 David Ave Central Ave Harrison Ave South Unmarked 90000 0 0003 David Ave Harrison Ave Almarida Dr North Unmarked 83311 1 7564 David Ave Harrison Ave Almarida Dr South Unmarked 71122 3 4775 Almarida Dr David Ave Pamlar Ave West Unmarked 90101 1 0106 Almarida Dr David Ave Pamlar Ave East Unmarked 123344 4 433Regular 4534 34 34 34 35 42 42 43Unmarked 180000 0 101011Regular 175555 5 131413Unmarked 180000 0 333Prepared by National Data & Surveying ServicesParking Study78Almarida DrAlmarida DrDavid AveDavid AveHamilton AveHamilton AveWestEast
Day:City:Campbell
Date:Project #:CA19_8607_001
NB SB EB WB
0 0 821 384
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 1 2 10 4 14
00:15 0 0 0 10 7 17
00:30 0 0 0 10 5 15
00:45 010102 83812282066
01:00 2 0 2 14 10 24
01:15 0 0 0 9 5 14
01:30 0 0 0 8 7 15
01:45 2 4 0 2 4 8 39 6 28 14 67
02:00 1 0 1 11 11 22
02:15 1 0 1 9 7 16
02:30 0 0 0 15 7 22
02:45 0 2 0 0 2 16 51 13 38 29 89
03:00 0 1 1 16 8 24
03:15 2 1 3 10 6 16
03:30 1 0 1 18 5 23
03:45 030205 15594231982
04:00 0 0 0 18 9 27
04:15 0 0 0 16 7 23
04:30 0 0 0 11 11 22
04:45 4 4 0 4 4 25 70 6 33 31 103
05:00 0 0 0 44 7 51
05:15 3 0 3 20 4 24
05:30 3 0 3 27 8 35
05:45 4 10 0 4 10 29 120 11 30 40 150
06:00 4 2 6 22 4 26
06:15 6 1 7 17 13 30
06:30 8 0 8 6 8 14
06:45 8 26 0 3 8 29 15 60 5 30 20 90
07:00 9 3 12 16 4 20
07:15 5 1 6 11 10 21
07:30 20 3 23 3 7 10
07:45 2054 7 142768 7 37 7 281465
08:00 23 2 25 4 6 10
08:15 26 5 31 7 6 13
08:30 12 5 17 5 3 8
08:45 1071 2 141285 6 22 9 241546
09:00 12 5 17 4 4 8
09:15 9 4 13 6 4 10
09:30 13 4 17 2 3 5
09:45 10 44 2 15 12 59 4 16 5 16 9 32
10:00 9 5 14 3 2 5
10:15 4 3 7 3 3 6
10:30 8 4 12 1 4 5
10:45 6 27 4 16 10 43 5 12 3 12 8 24
11:00 8 4 12 1 4 5
11:15 15 5 20 0 2 2
11:30 11 3 14 1 1 2
11:45 12468202066 3529514
TOTALS 292 85 377 529 299 828
SPLIT %77.5% 22.5%31.3%63.9% 36.1%68.7%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 821 384
AM Peak Hour 07:30 11:45 07:30 17:00 14:00 17:00
AM Pk Volume 89 24 106 120 38 150
Pk Hr Factor 0.856 0.750 0.855 0.682 0.731 0.735
7 ‐ 9 Volume 00125 28 153 00190 63 253
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:30 17:00 16:00 17:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 89 19 106 0 0 120 33 150
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.856 0.679 0.855 0.000 0.000 0.682 0.750 0.735
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
12/5/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
David Ave Bet. Central Ave & Almarida Dr
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
1,205
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
1,205
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Project #:CA19_8607_001City:CampbellLocation: Date:12/5/2019David Ave Bet. Central Ave & Almarida DrPrepared by National Data & Surveying Services02040608010012014000:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00VehiclesNBSBEBWB
Day:City:Campbell
Date:Project #:CA19_8607_002
NB SB EB WB
1,084 1,094 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 1 2 25 8 33
00:15 2 1 3 16 12 28
00:30 2 1 3 15 13 28
00:45 1603 19 15711245 27116
01:00 3 0 3 13 19 32
01:15 0 2 2 21 16 37
01:30 0 1 1 25 14 39
01:45 0314 17 15742372 38146
02:00 1 0 1 22 12 34
02:15 0 0 0 33 11 44
02:30 0 0 0 23 47 70
02:45 0 1 0 0 1 21 99 49 119 70 218
03:00 0 0 0 23 16 39
03:15 0 0 0 13 36 49
03:30 0 0 0 18 29 47
03:45 0 0 0 13 67 21 102 34 169
04:00 0 1 1 22 22 44
04:15 1 1 2 20 16 36
04:30 0 0 0 24 27 51
04:45 0157 58 21871580 36167
05:00 0 3 3 22 22 44
05:15 1 1 2 28 21 49
05:30 0 4 4 24 22 46
05:45 2 3 5 13 7 16 28 102 21 86 49 188
06:00 3 5 8 12 25 37
06:15 3 5 8 11 16 27
06:30 3 10 13 15 15 30
06:45 2 111131 1342 1452 9 65 23117
07:00 14 13 27 23 11 34
07:15 21 13 34 16 10 26
07:30 27 29 56 16 7 23
07:45 47 109 38 93 85 202 15 70 6 34 21 104
08:00 19 36 55 10 5 15
08:15 20 23 43 9 9 18
08:30 15 15 30 19 8 27
08:45 9 63 21 95 30 158 12 50 8 30 20 80
09:00 7 14 21 14 7 21
09:15 16 17 33 11 3 14
09:30 9 14 23 9 8 17
09:45 8 401358 2198 8 42 3 21 1163
10:00 5 14 19 5 2 7
10:15 10 17 27 4 0 4
10:30 12 15 27 8 2 10
10:45 12 39 21 67 33 106 3 20 0 4 3 24
11:00 19 20 39 8 1 9
11:15 18 12 30 6 1 7
11:30 10 11 21 2 2 4
11:45 10 57 18 61 28 118 1 17 0 4 1 21
TOTALS 333 432 765 751 662 1413
SPLIT %43.5% 56.5%35.1%53.1% 46.9%64.9%
NB SB EB WB
1,084 1,094 00
AM Peak Hour 07:15 07:30 07:30 17:00 14:30 14:30
AM Pk Volume 114 126 239 102 148 228
Pk Hr Factor 0.606 0.829 0.703 0.911 0.755 0.814
7 ‐ 9 Volume 172 188 00360 189 166 00355
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 114 126 0 0 239 102 86 0 0 188
Pk Hr Factor 0.606 0.829 0.000 0.000 0.703 0.911 0.977 0.000 0.000 0.959
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
12/5/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Almarida Dr Bet. David Ave & Pamlar Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
2,178
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
2,178
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Project #:CA19_8607_002City:CampbellLocation: Date:12/5/2019Almarida Dr Bet. David Ave & Pamlar AvePrepared by National Data & Surveying Services02040608010012014000:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00VehiclesNBSBEBWB
Day:City:Campbell
Date:Project #:CA19_8607_003
NB SB EB WB
1,408 1,598 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 3 2 5 30 20 50
00:15 2 1 3 24 16 40
00:30 2 1 3 19 19 38
00:45 2904 213 24971671 40168
01:00 2 2 4 20 29 49
01:15 1 1 2 29 18 47
01:30 0 3 3 26 18 44
01:45 0328 211 19942792 46186
02:00 1 1 2 31 19 50
02:15 0 1 1 42 17 59
02:30 0 0 0 29 43 72
02:45 0102 03 3313538117 71252
03:00 1 0 1 28 29 57
03:15 2 1 3 21 36 57
03:30 0 1 1 22 42 64
03:45 0302 05 168727134 43221
04:00 0 1 1 27 28 55
04:15 1 1 2 25 26 51
04:30 0 0 0 36 31 67
04:45 0 1 10 12 10 13 23 111 31 116 54 227
05:00 1 3 4 26 47 73
05:15 1 5 6 29 30 59
05:30 1 7 8 30 40 70
05:45 1 4 8 23 9 27 37 122 32 149 69 271
06:00 3 8 11 15 41 56
06:15 3 12 15 19 29 48
06:30 3 15 18 23 17 40
06:45 3 122156 2468 157222109 37181
07:00 17 24 41 26 23 49
07:15 22 18 40 26 21 47
07:30 30 37 67 20 9 29
07:45 53 122 56 135 109 257 21 93 8 61 29 154
08:00 21 50 71 16 8 24
08:15 24 42 66 17 13 30
08:30 20 24 44 20 12 32
08:45 11 76 27 143 38 219 20 73 10 43 30 116
09:00 12 25 37 17 9 26
09:15 21 25 46 15 6 21
09:30 12 26 38 14 5 19
09:45 10 55 18 94 28 149 11 57 5 25 16 82
10:00 10 25 35 8 4 12
10:15 14 19 33 9 3 12
10:30 12 20 32 10 2 12
10:45 15 51 24 88 39 139 4 31 4 13 8 44
11:00 25 24 49 11 0 11
11:15 20 25 45 9 1 10
11:30 12 22 34 3 2 5
11:45 17 74 26 97 43 171 2 25 1 4 3 29
TOTALS 411 664 1075 997 934 1931
SPLIT %38.2% 61.8%35.8%51.6% 48.4%64.2%
NB SB EB WB
1,408 1,598 00
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 14:00 17:00 17:00
AM Pk Volume 128 185 313 135 149 271
Pk Hr Factor 0.604 0.826 0.718 0.804 0.793 0.928
7 ‐ 9 Volume 198 278 00476 233 265 00498
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 128 185 0 0 313 122 149 0 0 271
Pk Hr Factor 0.604 0.826 0.000 0.000 0.718 0.824 0.793 0.000 0.000 0.928
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
3,006
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Almarida Dr Bet. David Ave & Hamilton Dr
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
3,006
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
12/5/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
Project #:CA19_8607_003City:CampbellLocation: Date:12/5/2019Almarida Dr Bet. David Ave & Hamilton DrPrepared by National Data & Surveying Services02040608010012014016000:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00VehiclesNBSBEBWB
Day:City:Campbell
Date:Project #:CA20_8003_001
NB SB EB WB
1,049 1,397 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 2 2 4 21 18 39
00:15 1 2 3 13 20 33
00:30 0 1 1 16 17 33
00:45 2516 311 13631873 31136
01:00 2 0 2 26 19 45
01:15 0 0 0 41 19 60
01:30 0 0 0 27 39 66
01:45 0222 24 1911338115 57228
02:00 1 0 1 20 19 39
02:15 0 1 1 18 21 39
02:30 2 0 2 14 33 47
02:45 0323 26 25771891 43168
03:00 0 0 0 13 21 34
03:15 0 1 1 20 29 49
03:30 0 1 1 32 26 58
03:45 0 1 3 1 3 15 80 28 104 43 184
04:00 0 0 0 20 27 47
04:15 0 1 1 23 32 55
04:30 0 1 1 13 24 37
04:45 1157 68 268227110 53192
05:00 3 4 7 30 23 53
05:15 0 3 3 20 25 45
05:30 1 6 7 19 24 43
05:45 1 5 9 22 10 27 22 91 16 88 38 179
06:00 1 6 7 29 16 45
06:15 2 14 16 21 19 40
06:30 6 14 20 20 15 35
06:45 5 141751 2265 17872272 39159
07:00 2 18 20 20 13 33
07:15 9 22 31 10 18 28
07:30 20 37 57 12 11 23
07:45 31 62 38 115 69 177 16 58 15 57 31 115
08:00 18 51 69 8 11 19
08:15 27 36 63 15 4 19
08:30 18 22 40 13 4 17
08:45 9 72 26 135 35 207 7 43 6 25 13 68
09:00 9 26 35 8 5 13
09:15 12 18 30 7 2 9
09:30 10 21 31 4 10 14
09:45 11 42 23 88 34 130 5 24 8 25 13 49
10:00 7 22 29 5 6 11
10:15 8 19 27 2 2 4
10:30 13 19 32 2 4 6
10:45 20 48 32 92 52 140 2 11 2 14 4 25
11:00 13 25 38 4 3 7
11:15 16 19 35 3 1 4
11:30 11 25 36 1 3 4
11:45 15 55 19 88 34 143 3 11 4 11 7 22
TOTALS 309 612 921 740 785 1525
SPLIT %33.6% 66.4%37.7%48.5% 51.5%62.3%
NB SB EB WB
1,049 1,397 00
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 13:00 13:30 13:00
AM Pk Volume 96 162 258 113 117 228
Pk Hr Factor 0.774 0.794 0.935 0.689 0.750 0.864
7 ‐ 9 Volume 134 250 00384 173 198 00371
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 16:45 16:00 16:15
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 96 162 0 0 258 95 110 0 0 198
Pk Hr Factor 0.774 0.794 0.000 0.000 0.935 0.792 0.859 0.000 0.000 0.900
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/8/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Wednesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Central Ave Bet. Hamilton Ave & David Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
2,446
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
2,446
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Project #:CA20_8003_001City:CampbellLocation: Date:1/8/2020Central Ave Bet. Hamilton Ave & David AvePrepared by National Data & Surveying Services02040608010012014016000:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00VehiclesNBSBEBWB
CL DAVID AVENUE285' - 9"E t/d/KEKhEZzs/s Eh >DZ/Z/s DK; Ϳ&/dE ^^&/>/dzED/Ed EE ZKKD;ϭ͕ϭϰϱ^&Ϳ DK; ͿWKK>E^W DK; ͿZWKZd^EWZ</E'^W ^ϭϮKs Z ^W ^ϴ^hZ& ^W ^ϭϱ^hZ& ^W ^;ϭϰ^dEZнϭͿϮϱ^hZ& ^W ^;Ϯϰ^dEZнϭͿΎd,/^W>E/E/d ^ DK>/d/KEK&d, y/^d/E'EEKdͲWWZKs ^/d KE&/'hZd/KEE>zKhd͘ϭϭϯϳϯƐĨϲϱϬƐĨϮϱϬƐĨϭ͕ϭϰϱƐĨϵϬƐĨ; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϯϴϱ^&&KKdWZ/EdϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&dKd>; Ϳ>'ϱ͕Ϭϯϲ^&&KKdWZ/EdϭϬ͕ϬϳϮ^&dKd>; Ϳ>'ϯ͕ϯϱϱ^&&KKdWZ/Edϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&dKd>; Ϳ>'ϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϭϬ͕ϬϳϮ^&; Ϳ>'ϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&; Ϳ>'ϭϬ͕ϬϳϮ^&ϭ^hZ& ^W ; Ϳ>'ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^& DK; Ϳ> ^/E'K&&/ ;ϲϱϬ^&Ϳ DK; Ϳ^dKZ' ;ϮϱϬ^&Ϳ DK; ͿW>Ed Z;ϵϬ^&Ϳ; ͿD/>; ͿdZ^, DK; Ϳ>hEZzZKKDΘ^dKZ' ;ϯϳϯ^&Ϳ; ͿD/>; ͿD/>; Ϳ>hEZzZKKD; Ϳ^dKZ; ͿD/>; Ϳ>hEZz DK; ͿdZ^, y/^d/E'^/d Θ DK>/d/KEW>E&ZE/^EWZdD Ed^ͲϬϴ͘ϭϳ͘ϮϬϬϭϬϭͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ^/d DK>/d/KEW>E
y/^d/E'h/>/E'Z ^hDDZzhE/d>'dzW hE/d>'dzW ϱZ ͬ>'ϭϮ͕ϳϳϬ^&dKd>Z ϭϱϬ͕Ϯϱϰ^&hE/d>'dzW h/>/E'> ^/E'K&&/ ͬWKK>;dK DK>/^, ͿYdzϭϬ͕ϬϳϮ^&ϲ͕ϳϭϬ^&Ϯ͕ϱϬϴ^&ϯϴϲϯ͕ϴϱϬ^&ϯϬ͕Ϯϭϲ^&ϱϯ͕ϲϴϬ^&Ϯ͕ϱϬϴ^&dKd>; Ϳ>'Z ͲϮ͕ϱϬϴ^& DK^KW dKd>; Ϳ>'Z dKZ D/Eϭϰϳ͕ϳϰϲ^& y/^d/E'WZ</E'^hDDZzΎ y/^d/E'^W ^ y/^d/E'dKZ D/EϲϬKs Z ϭϴϬdKd>^W ^ DK^W ^^hZ& ͲϭϮϭϲϰͲϰϳϭϯϮϰϮͲϲϭϭϴϭϮͲϮϬK&&Ͳ^dZ dWZ</E' džŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĚŽŶŽƚŵĞĞƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĐŽĚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐΎ
8383;EͿ/d/KEKhEZz>DZ/Z͘ϭϮϯϰϱϲϳϴϵϭϬϭϭϭϮϭϯϭϰϭϱϭϲϭϳϭϴϭϵϮϬϮϭϮϮϮϯϮϰϮϱϮϲϮϳϮϴϮϵϯϬϯϭϯϮϯϯϯϰϯϱϯϲϯϳϯϴϯϵϰϬϰϭϰϮϰϯϰϰϰϱϰϲϰϳϰϴϰϵϱϬϱϭϱϮϱϯϱϰϱϱϱϲϱϳϱϴϱϵϲϬϲϭϲϮϲϯϲϰϲϱϲϲϲϳϲϴϲϵϳϬϳϭϳϮϳϯϳϰϳϱϳϲϳϳϳϴϳϵϴϬϴϭϴϮϴϯϴϰϴϱϴϲϴϳϴϴϴϵϵϬϵϭϵϮϵϯϵϰϵϱϵϲϵϳϵϴϵϵϭϬϬϭϬϭϭϬϮϭϬϯϭϬϰϭϬϱϭϬϲϭϬϳϭϬϴϭϬϵϭϭϬϭϭϭϭϭϮϭϭϯϭϭϰϭϭϱϭϭϲϭϭϳϭϭϴϭϭϵϭϮϬϭϮϭϭϮϮϭϮϯϭϮϰϭϮϱϭϮϲϭϮϳϭϮϴϭϮϵϭϯϬϭϯϭϭϯϮϭϯϯϭϯϰϭϯϱϭϯϲϭϯϳϭϯϴϭϯϵϭϰϬϭϰϭϭϰϮϭϰϯϭϰϰϭϰϱϭϰϲϭϰϳϭϰϴϭϰϵϭϱϬϭϱϭϭϱϮϭϱϯϭϱϰ ϭϱϱϭϱϲϭϱϳϭϱϴϭϱϵϭϲϬϭϲϭϭϲϮϭϳϳϭϳϲϭϳϱϭϳϰϭϳϯϭϳϮϭϳϭϭϳϬϭϲϵϭϲϰϭϲϯϵϰKs Z ^W ^ϮϰKs Z ^W ^ϮϮKs Z ^W ^ϮϰKs Z ^W ^ϭϲhEKs Z ^W ^;Z ^dZ/W ͿE tD E/dzh/>/E'E tZ ^/ Ed/>h/>/E'^dKZ' ϭϳϴD/E EdZzΘ ^^dK> ^/E'K&&/ s/s ͘&/Z dZh< ^^WKK>; Ϳ>'͕dzW͘sEϮϬΖ>K/E'KE Z Ͳ^dZ/W WZ</E'; Ϳ; Ϳ; Ϳ ;EͿ ^^/> Wd,K&dZs >ϭϴϯϭϴϰϭϴϱϭϴϲϭϴϳϭϴϴϭϴϵϭϵϬsEsE;EͿ;EͿϭϲϴϭϲϳϭϲϲϭϲϱϭϳϵϭϴϬϭϴϭϭϴϮϲE t^W ^ϳϯ'Z' ^W ^ϭϮϯϰϱϲϳϴϵϭϬϭϭϭϮϭϯϭϰϭϱϭϲϭϳϭϴϭϵϮϬϮϭϮϮϮϯϮϰϮϱϮϲϮϳϮϴϮϵϯϬϯϭϯϮϯϯϯϰϯϱϯϲϯϳϯϴϯϵϰϬ ϰϭϰϮϰϯϰϰϰϱϰϲϰϳϰϴϰϵϱϬϱϭϱϮϱϯϱϰϱϱϱϲϱϳϱϴϱϵϲϬϲϭϲϮϲϯϲϰϲϱϲϲϲϳϲϴϲϵϳϬϳϭϳϮϳϯD ,͘D ,͘/< Z ^/ Ed/> > s͘ZDW;ϯйͿZDW;ϭϲйͿD ,͘D ,͘;EͿZ ^/ Ed/>WZ</E'^d&&WZ</E'WZ</E''h ^dWZ</E'; ͿZ ^/ Ed/>WZ</E'dKZ D/EWZ</E'>>Kd/KE> ' EWZ</E'ͬ>K/E'&ZE/^EWZdD Ed^ͲϬϴ͘ϭϳ͘ϮϬϬϭϮϭͬϯϮΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮWZ</E'>ϭh^ WZ</E'>>Kd/KE^W ^Z ^/ Ed'h ^d^d&&dKd>ϮϰϵϭϮϮϮϲϯ y/^d/E'WZ</E'd> Ks Z hEKs Z ^^/> ϭϴϬϲϬϮϮϰϮ; ͿWZKs/ ^W ^Z Yh/Z WZ</E';W Z E^/dzKEh^^dEZ^Ϳ^dh/K͗ ϳhE/d^ΛϬ͘ϱ͗ϭ;EͿZ ^/ Ed/>h/>/E' ^W ^ϰϭϳϰϯZ Yh/Z &KZ;EͿhE/d^E tWZK: dWZ</E'd> Ϯ ZKKD͗ϭϳhE/d^Λϭ͗ϭWZKWK^ WZ</E'ϮϲϯWZKWK^ ;EͿ^W ^͗ϭ ZKKD͗ϯϲhE/d^ΛϬ͘ϱ͗ϭ ϭϴKs Z>>^/d WZ</E'^hDDZzϰ;EͿ> ^/E'͗ϵϬϯ^&ΛϭͬϮϮϱ^&ϭϳϴdKd>Z Yh/Z ^W ^͗^hZ& WZ</E' ^^/> y/^d/E'^W ^Z DKs ;/E DKͿKs Z hEKs Z ;EͿ'Z' dKd>^W ^ϭϴϬ ϲϬ Ϯ ϮϰϮͲϭϮ ͲϰϳͲϲϭͲϮϮϲϯϭϬΖdžϭϴΖϭϬΖdžϭϴΖ^dEZϵΖdžϮϬΖϭϲϴϭϯϬ ϭϴϭWZKWK^ ;E tWZK: dͿϳϯнϴϮdKd> y/^d/E'dKZ D/EdKd>WZKWK^ Ks Z>>^/d WZ</E',Wd ZϭϭͲ Z Yh/Z ^^/> ^W ^ϭϭϬϵ͘ϯZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͗ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĂƚĞŽĨϮйŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͘ƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞƐƉĂĐĞŽĨĞĂĐŚƚLJƉĞŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂĚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĞǀĞŶŝĨƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌĞdžĐĞĞĚƐϮй͘Z Yh/Z ͗ϮϰϬhdžϮйсϱ^W ^ϭϭϬϵ͘ϱhŶĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐсϱйŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘Z Yh/Z ͗ϭϰ'h ^d^W ^džϱйсϭ^W ϭϭϬϵ͘ϴ͘ϲsĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞ͘KŶĞŝŶĞǀĞƌLJϴĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƐƉĂĐĞƐƐŚĂůůďĞǀĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ͘Z Yh/Z ͗ ϭsE ^^/> ^W ϱ ^^/> ^W ^
нZ Yh/Z &KZ; ͿhE/d^нϭϯϱ; Ϳ^hZ& ^W ^dKZ D/Eϭϴϭ;EͿhE Z'ZKhE'Z' ϳ ^^/> Z ^dZ/W ͘^hZ& ^W ^ ϯ^dZ dWZ</E'KE>DZ/;EͿZ ^dZ/W ^W ^Ϭϯнϯ^dZ dWZ</E' >dZ DKs ϳϯ;EͿ^hZ& ^W ^ϲϮ
8383'18383Z/s tzdKhE Z'ZKhE'Z' >DZ/Z͘&/Z ^^ZK&/Z ^^ZKϭϱΖͲϬΗϮϲΖͲϬΗE th/>/E'нϰϭΖE th/>/E'нϮϴΖϮϬΖͲϬΗ&,&,&, &,&,ϯϬΖͲϬΗ; ͿKhd^/ dhZE/E'Z/h^&,ZK^^^dZ dϲϳΖͲϵΗϮϭϳΖͲϳΗϭϵϴΖͲϵΗϭϱϵΖͲϱΗϮϵϵΖͲϭϬΗϰϮΖͲϬΗ&,&,&, &,ϱϬΖͲϬΗϮϱΖͲϬΗϮϰΖͲϲΗϮϮΖͲϲΗϮϯΖͲϵΗ&/Z ^^ZK; ͿZ/s /^> ϮϬΖͲϬΗ&/Z dZh<Wd,K&dZs >$E t/d/KEKhEZz/Z d/KEK&dZs >&KZ Z/>&/Z WWZdh^(E) BUILDING, TYP.;EͿdZ^,ZKKDϭϱϬϵϬϭϯϵϭϱϬϭϱϬϭϮϲϭϱϬ
&,;&hd͘Ϳ&'ZKhE> s >ϬΖͲϬΗWϭͲϵΖͲϯϭϭͬϭϲΗϳϱΣ'ZKhE> Z^'ZKhE> ZW^> W/E'ZKKD͕dzW͘****ϳΖͲϬΗϳΖͲϬΗ126d͘K͘ s ;dzW/>ͿϯϬΖͲϬΗϮϬϭϱ
< zKy&KZ/Ed ZE>'d ^DKhEd dK: Edh/>/E't>>&,> ^/E'K&&/ >KzͬD/>Z ^/ Ed/>>'WKK>,K^ Wh>>KZ/'/EϳΖͲϬΗϯΖͲϬΗD/E< zKy
> ' EZ ^h t/EKtϭϱϬΖ,K^ Wh>>^dEW/W 'ZKhE> ZW ^^&/Z ^^ZKhZ^dZ/W ; Ϳ&/Z ,zZEd͕ϭϱΖ>Z͘ /d, Z^/ /Z d/KEK&dZs >&,ϯΖͲϵΗϯΖͲϬΗ D Z' Ez ^^W>E&ZE/^EWZdD Ed^ͲϬϴ͘ϭϳ͘ϮϬϬϭϱϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗϭKs Z>>^/d D Z' Ez ^^W>EϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮh/>/E'^ d/KE D Z' Ez ^^ϯͬϲϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϯ E>Z' D Z' Ez ^^W>E>ĂĚĚĞƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƉĂĚ;ƚLJƉŝĐĂůͿEKd ͗W Z/^h^^/KE^t/d,^&͕ Z/> ^^EKdZ Yh/Z ͘/EKZ ZdKD d,K^ Wh>>Z Yh/Z D Ed^͕dtKWK/Ed^K& ^^Z WZKs/ ͗KE /Ed, &ZKEdZ/s tzK&d, KDDhE/dzh/>/E'EKE &ZKDd, /Ed ZE>WZ</E'ZKdd, EtKZE ZK&d, E th/>/E'
1
Arborist Report
Prepared by: February 18, 2020
Certified Arborist: Robert Apolinar
#WE-8846A
P.O box 8552 San Jose, Ca 95155
(408) 422-1313
Email: robert@sanjosetreemaintenance.com
SanJoseTreeMaintenance.com
Prepared for:
Nicholas B. Leone
nleone@raintreepartners.com
415-272-7541
601 Almarida Dr, Campbell
Objective
The following Arborist report has been developed in order to provide an assessment of the trees
proposed for removal on site. There is a total of 5 trees.
Assessment
The trees are located throughout the property. They have been on site for over 20 years.
Tree: A
Magnolia gradiflora
Age: 30-50 years
Height: 45 ft
Spread: 30 ft
DBH: 26”
Location:
The tree is located in front of parking lot and along Almarida dr. There is a large metal fence near the
tree. The roots of the tree are causing damage to the parking lot pavement and also lifting the fence.
Health:
The tree is in good health. There are no signs of disease and stress.
Age:
The tree has reached maturity and is approximately 30-40 years old.
2
Structure:
The canopy is balanced and branches are well spaced. There are no signs of structural issues.
Recommendations:
The tree is in good health, but causing property damage. Should the roots be severed it may cause the
tree to decline in health and also impact the trees structural integrity. Due to the structure damage
being caused by the tree roots, my recommendation would be to remove the tree and replace with a
species that has fewer surface roots.
Tree: B
Magnolia gradiflora
Age: 30-50 years
Height: 30 ft
Spread: 20 ft
DBH: 18”
Location:
The tree is located in front of parking lot and along Almarida dr. There is a large metal fence near the
tree. The roots of the tree are causing damage to the parking lot pavement and also lifting the fence.
Health:
The tree is in good health. There are no signs of disease and stress.
Age:
The tree has reached maturity and is approximately 30-40 years old.
Recommendations:
The tree is in good health, but causing property damage. Should the roots be severed it may cause the
tree to decline in health and also impact the trees structural integrity. Due to the structure damage
being caused by the tree roots, my recommendation would be to remove the tree and replace with a
species that has fewer surface roots.
Tree: C
Magnolia gradiflora
Age: 30-50 years
Height: 30 ft
Spread: 15 ft
DBH: 12”
Location:
The tree is located in front of parking lot and along Almarida dr. There is a large metal fence near the
tree. The roots of the tree are causing damage to the parking lot pavement and also lifting the fence.
Health:
The tree is in good health. There are no signs of disease and stress.
Age:
The tree has reached maturity and is approximately 20-30 years old.
3
Recommendations:
The tree is in good health, but causing property damage. Should the roots be severed it may cause the
tree to decline in health and also impact the trees structural integrity. Due to the structure damage
being caused by the tree roots, my recommendation would be to remove the tree and replace with a
species that has fewer surface roots.
Tree: D
Syagrus romanzoffiana (Queen palm)
Age: 20-30 years
Height: 30 ft
Spread: 10 ft
DBH: 11”
Location:
The tree is located near the pool and has concrete structures on either side.
Health:
The tree is in good health. There are no signs of disease or stress.
Age:
The tree has reached maturity and is approximately 30-40 years old.
Recommendations:
The tree is inhibiting the economic enjoyment of the property at this time. It is restricting the
development of the property in order to provide more living space for residents. The tree can be
replaced and a new one planted in a more suitable location.
Tree: E
Betula pendula (White birch)
Age: 20-30 years
Height: 20 ft
Spread: 15 ft
DBH: (Multi-trunk: 5”, 4”, 3”,3”)
Location:
The tree is located between the buildings in the lawn area. There are concrete walkways within 10 ft
from the trunk.
Health:
The tree is in good health. There are no signs of disease and stress. There are no apparent structural
issues in the upper canopy or lower trunk. The tree has several multi trunks which make up the entire
canopy.
4
Age:
The tree has reached maturity and is approximately 20-30 years old.
Recommendations:
The tree is inhibiting the economic enjoyment of the property at this time. It is restricting the
development of the property in order to provide more living space for residents. The tree can be
replaced and a new one planted in a more suitable location.
Tree replacement:
See landscape plans for details on tree replacement. Quantities, species, and container size are all
indicated.
ISA Certified Arborist
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
#WE8846A
Robert Apolinar
5
Photos of tree A:
6
Tree A:
- The roots are growing under the pavement and lifting the driveway. The roots are also causing
the fence to lift. The tree is damaging the landscape structures. Severing the roots will cause the
tree to lose vigor and could damage structural integrity.
7
Photo of Trees B & C:
Tree C Tree B
8
Tree B:
- The roots are growing under the pavement and lifting the driveway. The roots are also causing
the fence to lift. The tree is damaging the landscape structures. Severing the roots will cause the
tree to lose vigor and could damage structural integrity.
9
Tree C:
- The roots are growing under the pavement and lifting the driveway. The roots are also causing
the fence to lift. The tree is damaging the landscape structures. Severing the roots will cause the
tree to lose vigor and could damage structural integrity.
10
Photo of Tree D:
11
Photo of Tree E:
12
Site Map:
(D)
Tree (E)
1 1
1 1
2
2
2
One-bedroom apartment – 700 SF
Two-bedroom apartment – 1000 SF
Note: Location of affordable units identified are subject to
change.
Level 1
2
1
1
11
2
2
2
One bedroom apartment – 700 SF
Two-bedroom apartment – 1000 SF
Note: Location of affordable units identified are subject to
change.
Level 2
211
S
1
2
One bedroom apartment – 624 SF
Two bedroom apartment – 909 SF
Studio apartment – 339 SF
Note: Location of affordable units (very low income) identified
are subject to change.
Level 1
1
One bedroom apartment – 624 SF
Note: Location of affordable units (very low income) identified
are subject to change.
1
Level 3Level 2
March 28, 2022
Mr. Allen Chuang
Raintree Partners
35052 La Plaza, Suite 201
Dana Point, CA 92629
RE: Baseline Air Quality Assessment 601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, CA 95008 AEI Project #427606
Dear Mr. Chuang:
AEI Consultants, Inc. (“AEI”) is pleased to present the findings of AEI’s industrial hygiene services,
specifically a pre-project Baseline Air Quality Assessment for Raintree Partners. This report, and its
conclusions, is subject to the limitations and service constraints provided in Attachment A; Summary
Tables are provided in Attachment B; and specific threshold criteria published by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are presented in
Attachment C.
All reports, both verbal and written, are for the benefit of Raintree Partners and the City of Campbell. This
report has no other purpose and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written consent of AEI. Either verbally or in writing, third parties may come into possession of this report or all or part of the information generated as a result of this work. In the absence of a written agreement with AEI granting such rights, no third parties shall have rights of recourse or recovery whatsoever under any course
of action against AEI, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns. Reliance is provided in
accordance with Terms and Conditions executed by Raintree Partners and AEI prior to the performance of
the work.
1 Background
AEI was retained by Raintree Partners to provide consultation services and personnel to conduct a Baseline
Air Quality Assessment for planned construction operations at 601 Almarida Drive in Campbell, California
(“the Site”). The purpose of on-site industrial hygiene services was to conduct a pre-construction model of
estimated emissions of criteria air pollutants using the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) estimator modeling
software and compare the results against published or known threshold(s) in Northern California. AEI
identified and subsequently relied on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), a software modeling package, that would serve as a modeling platform for this project.
The subject property is an occupied multifamily residential facility constructed in 1971 consisting of approximately 180 individual apartments. The existing property is subject to an expansion plan estimated to add 60 additional residential units to the property. The property is on approximately 7.48 acres formally
used as an agricultural facility. A recent Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded negligible
impact of residual agricultural compounds in the soil under the facility. Moreover, the site is not listed on
Project No. 427606
Page 2 of 6 March 28, 2022
the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control Facility Inventory Database Hazardous Waste and Substances List
2 Scope of Work
The overall scope of work included an interview with Mr. Nicholas Leone, a brief review of the proposed construction activity, and utilization of the CalEEMod software to conduct project related specific emissions
estimates of criteria pollutants to respond to the project questions below. Results from the computer model
were then compared to applicable BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Thresholds of Significance.1
• Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
• Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air-quality violation?
• Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
• Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
• Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Additional questions addressed by the CalEEMod software model include regarding potential air quality
impacts:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within ¼ mile of an
existing or proposed school?
• Be located on the site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires?
On December 8, 2020 AEI personnel conducted a telephone interview with Mr. Leone to confirm the project parameters in the CalEEMod software.
1 BAAQMD (2017). Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
Project No. 427606
Page 3 of 6 March 28, 2022
3 Results
Relevant project related input values were entered into the CalEEMod using software default parameter values as a platform for calculation(s).
Results for Peak Daily Construction Emissions, Peak Daily Operational Emissions and Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions are summarized in Table 1-3. Results were compared to the CAEQ Thresholds of Significance
published by the BAAQMD as a guide to determine violations, violations of emission threshold of
significance, a cumulative net increase of criteria pollutants, potential exposure to sensitive receptors, or if
the project may create objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people.
Results of the peak daily construction emission values by year and construction phase summarized in Table
1 suggest peak emissions for unmitigated construction values for reactive organic gas, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate matter (as exhaust) are universally less than the CEQA Thresholds of Significance summarized
in Attachment C.
Results summarized in Table 1 that suggest both mitigated and unmitigated estimated construction
emission concentrations for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate
matter are less than proposed thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Based on these data, the
construction phase of this project does not appear to represent a conflict or obstruction of implementation of the air district’s most current Air-Quality Plan, the primary goals of which are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protecting public health and the bay area, and, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect climate.2,3
Results of peak daily operational emission values summarized in Table 2 suggest peak emissions of
unmitigated and mitigated operational concentrations for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter (as exhaust) are universally less than the CEQA Thresholds of Significance
summarized in Attachment C.
Results summarized in Table 2 suggest both mitigated and unmitigated estimated operational
peak emissions for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate
matter are less than proposed thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Based on these
data, the post construction operational phase of this subject property does not appear to
represent a conflict or obstruction of implementation of the air district’s most current Air-
Quality Plan.
Similarly, based on the results summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 and the regions designation as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards, the construction and operational phase of this project is unlikely to result in a cumulative
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant under applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard(s).
2 BAAQMD (2010). Bay Area 2010 Clean-Air Plan.
3 BAAQMD (2017). Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
Project No. 427606
Page 4 of 6 March 28, 2022
According to the BAAQMD, for land-use development projects the threshold is compliance with a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy, or annual emissions less than 1100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Results of annual greenhouse gas emissions summarized in Table 3 suggest the cumulative CO2e results are less than 1,100 metric tons per year.
BAAQMD recommends cumulative impacts of new sources in the receptors be evaluated to include impacts
of all individual sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the project. Moreover, a project would be considered
a “cumulative significant impact if aggregate of past, present, and future sources within the 1000 foot
radius from the fence line, or from the location of receptor, plus the contribution from the project exceeds
in excess cancer risk level of more than one in one million or chronic hazard index greater than 10 times
for toxic air contaminants, or, a 0.8 µg/m³ annual average of particulate matter aerodynamic diameters of
2.5 µm (PM2.5)”4 Summary results indicate PM2.5 and PM10 emissions during construction phase and (as
exhaust) and PM2.5 and PM10 emissions during the operational phase of this project. However, we cannot
conclude that particulate emissions irrespective of application of mitigation measures would exceed the 0.8
μg/m³ annual average of PM2.5. However, according to BAAQMD “If a proposed project would not exceed
BAAQMDs applicable Threshold of Significance for TACs or PM2.5, then the project would result in a less
than significant air quality impact.
The Thresholds of Significance or order impacts are qualitative. In accordance BAAQMD, “a type of motor source with five (5) or more confirmed odor complaints in the new source area per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors…” within the defined 1,000-foot screening distance.
Based on interviews with project management and planners, this project is not anticipated to handle, or
store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. However, any all handling of unanticipated hazardous
materials, and any subsequent hazardous waste shall be managed, packaged, and transported by licensed
contractor companies in accordance with local, state, and federal environmental & health and safety
standards, regulations, or guidelines.
Software model does not indicate this project will result in a material increase of surface traffic that interfere
with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
The is not sited within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. Moreover, this project is not located within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, may not result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area. Similarly, this project is not sited within areas of wildland fires, therefore exposure to people or structures either directly or indirectly to significant risk or loss, injury or death is from this construction project is negligible.
The facility was subject to a lead-based paint inspection and testing in 2018. Results of this testing found
minimal locations of lead-based paint, all of which have been abated. Moreover, lead-based paint was
found in areas that are not subject to demolition during the proposed development. Therefore, lead-based
paint is not expected to have an impact on or off the site during the proposed development. Similarly, the
facility was subject to an asbestos-containing material inspection and testing in 2008. Results of testing
found minimal asbestos-containing material (ACM) located in areas not subject to demolition during the
proposed development. Therefore, ACM is not expected to have an impact on or off the site during the
4 Ibid.
Project No. 427606
Page 5 of 6 March 28, 2022
proposed development. Should any additional ACM be discovered, it will be abated and removed in accordance with federal, state and regional regulations.
4 Summary and Conclusions
• The results of the CalEEMod software model do not indicate this project would conflict or obstruct the BAAQMD implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
• The construction and operational phase of this project is unlikely to result in a cumulative
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant under applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard(s).
• The results of the CalEEMod software model do not indicate this project would violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation.
• Based on the 1,000-foot radius zone of influence, that the model does not indicate substantial impact to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• The results suggest that this project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
• This project is not anticipated to handle, use, or store hazardous materials.
• This project is not anticipated to handle or store hazardous waste. Unanticipated hazardous waste
shall be managed, transported, and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste management
company in accordance with local, state, and federal standards, regulations, and guidelines.
• This project is not sited within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school.
• This project is not listed or located on a site listed on the hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, does not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
• This site is not located within 2 miles of the public airport or public use airport.
• The software model does not indicate this project will impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• This project is sited outside of areas of wildland fires. This construction project does not impose
additional risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
• The facility was inspected and tested for lead-based paint in 2018. Locations with lead-based paint
were found to be minimal and have been abated in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality
Management District protocols. Lead-based paint is not expected to impact on or off-site operations
during this proposed development.
• The facility was inspected and tested for asbestos containing material in 2018. Asbestos-containing
material was found to be minimal and abated in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District protocols. Asbestos-containing materials not expected to impact on our off-site operations during this proposed development.
• Operations shall adhere to standard best management practices regarding dust control during
demolition and construction. Have a written dust control plan will be prepared prior to
commencement of construction operations.
• Operations shall adhere to best management practices regarding equipment washing to prevent
tracking mud and organic debris onto city streets. Rinsate from washing operations shall be
managed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
• The proposed project shall use equipment fueled by diesel and gasoline. Contractor(s) shall be
required to comply with known regulations, including CCR Title 13 § 2485 that prohibits idling of
truck engines for greater than five minutes for vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds.
• Where feasible, contractor(s) shall be encouraged to use electric tools in lieu of gas-powered equipment during construction operations.
Project No. 427606
Page 6 of 6 March 28, 2022
Please contact my office directly at 339-368-3391 should you have any questions with the information provided or should you require additional services that I may assist with.
Sincerely,
John A. Martin, ScD, CIH, CHMM
Senior Industrial Hygienist
Health & Safety Director
AEI Consultants
Reviewed By:
David Gengenbacher, CAC, CDPH I/A, CIEC, RMP
Senior Project Manager
AEI Consultants
Attachments
Attachment A Limitations and Service Constraints Attachment B Summary Tables Attachment C California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance
Attachment A
Limitations and Service Constraints
Limitations and Service Constraints
The data presented and the opinions expressed in this report are qualified as follows:
• AEI derived the data in this report primarily from visual inspections, interviews with individuals with
information about the Site and a limited number of environmental samples. The passage of time,
manifestation of latent conditions, or occurrence of future events may require further exploration at
the Site, analysis of the data, and reevaluation of the findings, observations, conclusions, and
recommendations expressed in the report.
• The data reported and the findings, observations, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in the
report are limited by the Scope of Services, including the extent of environmental sampling and other
tests. The Scope of Services was defined by the requests of the Client, the time and budgetary
constraints imposed by the Client, and the availability of access to the Site.
• Because of the limitations stated above, the findings, observations, conclusions and recommendations
expressed by AEI in this report are limited to the information obtained and the surface and subsurface
investigation undertaken and should not be considered an opinion concerning the compliance of any
past or current owner(s) or operator(s) of the Site with any Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
No warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made with respect to the data reported or
findings, observations, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report. Furthermore, such
data, findings, observations, conclusions and recommendations are based solely upon Site conditions
in existence at the time of investigation.
• This assessment was performed at the request of Raintree Partners, its successors and assigns
("Client") utilizing methods and procedures consistent with good commercial or customary practices
designed to conform with acceptable industry standards. This report may be distributed to and relied
upon by Client and its current and future wholly and partially owned subsidiaries, affiliates, successors
and assigns. The independent conclusions represent AEI Consultants’ best professional judgment based
on the conditions that existed and the information and data available to us during the course of this
assignment. Factual information regarding operations, conditions, and test data provided to Client,
Reliant Party, or their representative has been assumed to be correct and complete.
• This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Client and is subject to and
issued in connection with the Agreement and the provisions thereof.
• Factual information regarding operations, conditions, and test data provided to Client, Reliant Party, or
their representative has been assumed to be correct and complete.
Attachment B
Summary Tables
Table 1 Summary results of peak daily construction emissions, by year and phase. Results auto-calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod20163.2).
Unmitigated Mitigated
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year Phase lb/day
2020 Demolition 2.2874 W 24.8836 W 15.8188 W 0.0358 S 4.4107 W 1.6211 W 2.2874 W 24.8836 W 15.8188 W 0.0358 S 4.4107 W 1.6211 W
2020 Site Preparation 1.6595 W 18.3673 W 7.9293 S 0.0179 S 6.6867 S 3.7268 S 1.6595 W 18.3673 W 7.9293 S 0.0179 S 6.6867 S 3.7268 S
2020 Grading 1.3794 W 15.1062 W 6.6743 S 0.0147 S 5.6648 S 3.1731 S 1.3794 W 15.1062 W 6.6743 S 0.0147 S 5.6648 S 3.1731 S
2021 Grading 1.3158 W 14.3494 W 6.5330 S 0.0147 S 5.6183 S 3.1303 S 1.3158 W 14.3494 W 6.5330 S 0.0147 S 5.6183 S 3.1303 S
2021 Building Construction 1.9769 W 14.3493 W 14.1115 S 0.0270 S 1.0735 W 0.7673 W 1.9769 W 14.3493 W 14.1115 S 0.0270 S 1.0735 W 0.7673 W
2021 Paving 0.8185 W 7.7725 W 9.1845 S 0.0146 S 0.5228 S 0.4119 S 0.8185 W 7.7725 W 9.1845 S 0.0146 S 0.5228 S 0.4119 S
2021 Architectural Coating 83.3113 W 1.5455 W 2.0192 S 3.5900e-003 S 0.1602 S 0.1119 S 83.3113 W 1.5455 W 2.0192 S 3.5900e-003 S 0.1602 S 0.1119 S
Peak Daily Total 83.3113 W 24.8836 W 15.8188 W 0.0358 S 6.6867 S 3.7268 S 83.3113 W 24.8836 W 15.8188 W 0.0358 S 6.6867 S 3.7268 S
Table 2 Summary results of peak daily operational emissions by operational activity and site status. Results auto-calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod20163.2).
Unmitigated Mitigated
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Operational Activity lb/day
On-Site Stationary 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 S
On-Site Area 25.9023 S 0.5927 S 36.9362 S 0.0620 S 4.5780 S 4.5780 S 1.5429 S 0.0562 S 4.8664 S 2.6000e-004 S 0.0268 S 0.0268 S
On-Site Energy 0.0151 S 0.1287 S 0.0548 S 8.2000e-004 S 0.0104 S 0.0104 S 0.0151 S 0.1287 S 0.0548 S 8.2000e-004 S 0.0104 S 0.0104 S
Off-Site Mobile 0.6181 S 2.3001 W 6.5956 S 0.0220 S 1.9349 W 0.5285 W 0.6159 S 2.2844 W 6.5328 S 0.0217 S 1.9117 W 0.5222 W
Peak Daily Total 26.5355 S 3.0216 W 43.5865 S 0.0848 S 6.5233 W 5.1169 W 2.1738 S 2.4693 W 11.4540 S 0.0228 S 1.9489 W 0.5594 W
Table 3 Summary results of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Results auto-calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod20163.2).
Unmitigated Mitigated
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
GHG Activity Year MT/yr
Construction 2020 34.3859 6.6000e-003 0.0000 34.5508 34.3859 6.6000e-003 0.0000 34.5508
Construction 2021 234.4490 0.0363 0.0000 235.3561 234.4487 0.0363 0.0000 235.3559
Operational 2021 454.7352 0.4717 4.3800e-003 467.8326 433.3452 0.4016 4.0800e-003 444.6014
Attachment C
California Environmental Quality Act
Thresholds of Significance
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
437 Figueroa Street, Suite 203
Monterey, California 93940
831 333 0310 OFFICE AND FAX
info@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s
October 15, 2020
Rincon Project No. 18-06931
Nicholas Leone
Raintree Partners
25 Taylor Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via email: nleone@raintreepartners.com
Subject: Biological Resources Assessment for the Franciscan Apartments Project at 601
Almarida Drive in Campbell, California, 95008
Dear Mr. Leone:
This report documents the findings of a biological resources assessment (BRA) conducted by Rincon
Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the Franciscan Apartments Project (project) in Campbell, California. The
purpose of this report is to document existing conditions at the project site and to evaluate the potential
for impacts to special-status biological resources in compliance with the City of Campbell’s California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review requirements.
Project Location and Description
The project site includes County Assessor’s Parcel Number 27930043 and is located at 601 Almarida
Drive in the northeast corner of the City of Campbell, within the core area of the Silicon Valley, on the
south side of the San Francisco Bay (Figure 1; Attachment A). The project site is west of the State Route
(SR) 17 and south of Interstate 280 interchange. Surrounding land uses include a school, residential, and
commercial buildings. The approximately 0.86-acre project site, hereinafter referred to as the study
area, is bordered by existing development and paved surfaces on all sides. The site itself includes several
office and maintenance buildings as well as a pool and landscaped areas.
The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the site to construct another residential building
and underground parking area. The project will add 60 new residential units, a new leasing office, and
new amenities including a pool and underground parking area with 73 new spaces.
Regulatory Background
Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, State, and local authorities under a
variety of statutes and guidelines. Primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land
use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Campbell). The
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources
throughout the State under CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game
Code (CFGC). Under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA/ESA), the CDFW and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed
as threatened or endangered, and species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S.
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 2
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over specific biological resources, namely
wetlands and waters of the United States, under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. The CDFW
and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protect waters and streambeds at the State level.
The City of Campbell is the designated lead agency under CEQA for this project.
Envision Campbell General Plan. The City of Campbell contains policies to preserve, avoid, and mitigate
impacts to biological resources in the City. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project:
OSC-3.1 Require new residential development to pay park impact fees to use for the acquisition and development of park land and recreational facilities, and update the fees periodically to ensure they reflect current costs of land acquisition.
OSC-3.2 Encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space and/or recreational facilities in new residential and nonresidential development projects, to the greatest extent feasible, in accordance with the Campbell Zoning Code
OSC-4.1 Identify and provide an urban forest vision for the city through the creation of an Urban Forest Management Plan.
OSC-4.2 Conserve existing native trees and vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native trees and plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.
OSC-4.4 Require the use of primarily locally-sourced native and drought-tolerant plants and trees for landscaping on public projects, if feasible, and strongly encourage their use for landscaping on private projects.
OSC-4.5 Avoid removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat, visual screening, or contribute to the visual quality of the environment through appropriate project design and
building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over off-site locations. Replacement trees for high-quality mature trees should generally be of like kind, and provide for comparable habitat functionality, where appropriate site conditions exist.
OSC-4.6 Facilitate the preservation of existing trees, the planting of additional street trees, and the replanting of trees lost through disease, new construction or by other means.
OSC-4.8 Strongly discourage the removal of healthy protected trees on public and private property. When tree removal is necessary in order to protect public safety or property, continue to require the replacement planting of trees.
OSC-4.9 Disallow the removal of Heritage Trees unless the tree poses a risk to public safety.
OSC-7.4 Conserve existing native trees and vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.
OSC-7.7 Build upon existing streetscapes and develop an urban forest along the City’s major corridors
and in residential neighborhoods to provide avian habitat, sequester carbon emissions, foster pedestrian activity, and provide shade.
CITY OF CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 21.32 of the Campbell Municipal Code requires a permit for the removal of “protected trees” on
private property. Protected trees include trees designated as Heritage Trees and “any tree shown on an
approved landscaping plan or required to be planted or retained as a condition of approval of a
development application, a building permit, or a tree removal permit”. Protected trees on multi-family
residential properties in all zoning districts also include “any tree or multi-trunk tree with at least one
trunk measuring twelve inches or greater in diameter” at breast height (DBH). The City requires an
arborist report, justification for tree removal, and a replanting plan in an application for a tree removal
permit. Replacement trees are required at a 1:1 ratio as follows;
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 3
▪ for removal of trees with a DBH of 12 to 24 inches replacement is required at minimum size of a 24-
inch box;
▪ for removal of trees with a DBH greater than 24 inches replacement is required at a minimum size of
a 36-inch box;
▪ and for removal of Heritage Trees replacement is required at a minimum size of a 48-inch box.
Methods
This biological resources assessment consisted of a review of relevant literature and background
information, a reconnaissance-level field survey to confirm existing conditions and determine which
biological resources are present or may occur at the site, and an evaluation of the development to
determine potentially significant impacts to biological resources under CEQA. The potential presence of
special-status species is based on the literature review and a survey designed to map vegetation
communities and assess habitat suitability and presence of target species. The study area evaluated for
this biological resource assessment is defined as the limits of development (Figure 2; Attachment A).
Literature Review
The literature review included database research on special-status resource occurrences within the San
Jose West, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle. Sources included the CDFW
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2020a), Biogeographic Information and
Observation System (Bios) (CDFW 2020b), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
(USWFS 2020a), and USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USWFS 2020b). Other resources included the
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
(CNPS 2020), CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW 2020c), and CDFW’s Special Vascular Plants,
Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2020d). Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil survey maps,
geologic maps, and climatic data in the area were also examined. References are included as
Attachment B.
Field Survey
A reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted to assess the habitat suitability for potential special-
status species; map existing vegetation communities and any evident sensitive biological resources
currently onsite; note the presence of potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands; document any wildlife
connectivity/movement features; and record all observations of plant and wildlife species within the
study area. Site photos from the survey are included as Attachment C.
Existing Conditions
Topography and Soils
The site’s elevation ranges from approximately 180-190 feet above mean sea level. The topography of
the study area and its immediate surroundings is generally flat and has been previously graded and
compacted with developed areas. The site is located on the Santa Clara valley floor. Based on the most
recent soil survey for Sonoma County (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service [USDA, NRCS] 2020), the study area contains one soil map unit:
Urban land-Stevenscreek complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes occurs in developed disturbed areas and is
comprised of transported material and alluvial fans. This soil type is derived from Alluvium derived from
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 4
metamorphic and sedimentary rock and/or alluvium derived from metavolcanics. A typical soil profile
consists of a sandy loam to 2 inches, with several layers of silty clay loam and silty clay from 2 to 70
inches. This soil type is well drained and is not included on the hydric soils list.
Vegetation
No natural vegetation communities exist withing the study area or adjacent existing apartment complex.
Between buildings and paved walkways, lawns and hedges are comprised of ornamental non-native
species, including English ivy (Hedera helix) and lily of the Nile (Agapanthus sp.). Trees observed in
ornamental plantings include magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) and birch (Betula sp.).
General Wildlife
The study area and its surroundings provide habitat for wildlife species that commonly occur in urban
habitats such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus); however,
the site is regularly maintained and, therefore, only provides marginal habitat for urban wildlife such as
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and black rat (Rattus rattus).
Special-Status Biological Resources
This section discusses special-status biological resources observed in the study area and evaluates the
potential for the study area to support special-status biological resources.
Special-Status Species
Local, State, and federal agencies regulate special-status species and may require an assessment of their
presence or potential presence to be conducted prior to the approval of proposed development on a
property. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special-status species are based upon known
ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB species
occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the study area, and previous reports for the study
area. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to
the following criteria:
▪ Not expected. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species’ requirements
(foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history,
disturbance regime).
▪ Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species’ requirements are present,
and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The
species is not likely to be found on the site.
▪ Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species’ requirements are
present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a
moderate probability of being found on the site.
▪ High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species’ requirements are present and/or
most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of
being found on the site.
▪ Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the
site recently (within the last 5 years).
For the purpose of this report, special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for
listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS under the ESA; those listed
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 5
or candidates for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under the CESA or Native Plant Protection
Act; those identified as Fully Protected by the CFGC (Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515); those
identified as Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1 and 2 of the
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) system per the following definitions:
▪ Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California;
▪ Rank 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California
(over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat);
▪ Rank 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-80%
occurrences threatened);
▪ Rank 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California
(<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known);
▪ Rank 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
Based on a query of the CNDDB, there are five special-status plant species and 15 special-status wildlife
species documented within the San Jose West, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. All 20 special-
status species have been evaluated for potential to occur within the study area (Attachment B).
Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plants were incidentally observed during the reconnaissance-level field survey. The
reconnaissance survey was conducted in January, outside of the spring blooming period when many
species would not have been identifiable; however, the site visit was sufficient to identify the lack of
natural vegetation communities within the study area. Based on the developed nature of the site and
habitat requirements of special-status plant species, none of 20 special-status plant species known to
occur in the region were determined to have the potential to occur on site (see Attachment D).
Special-Status Wildlife Species
No federal or State-listed or other special-status wildlife species were observed during the field survey.
Of the 15 species evaluated (see Attachment D), Rincon determined that no special-status species are
expected to occur in the study area. This is due to a lack of species-specific habitat requirements on site
and the overall lack of suitable habitat such as natural vegetation communities or natural wetland
habitats (e.g., marshes or seeps). The project site is relatively small and isolated from any natural
habitats. As such, it does not support a prey base for larger predators/raptors and lacks connectivity to
regional populations of special-status species.
Nesting Birds
The study area does contain suitable nesting habitat for resident and migratory birds. Birds may nest in
trees, shrubs, or directly on the ground. The study area contains suitable nesting habitat for a variety of
native avian species common to urban areas, including northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
American crow, house finch, and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). Native bird nests are protected by
the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503. The nesting season generally extends from February through August
but can vary based upon annual climatic conditions.
Special-Status Vegetation Communities
Plant communities are also considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions,
have high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW
ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 6
occurrences in CNDDB. CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's
(2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered
sensitive. Some alliances with the rank of 4 and 5 have also been included in the 2018 sensitive natural
communities list under CDFW’s revised ranking methodology (CDFW 2020e).
Based on the current list, no special-status vegetation communities are present on-site.
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
No potentially jurisdictional features occur on site.
Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat
patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations or
those populations that are at risk of becoming isolated. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as
providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some
habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area
and then subsequently return. Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A
group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.
The study area is not with any Essential Connectivity Areas or Natural Landscape Blocks (CDFW 2020b).
Additionally, the study area is surrounded by development and does not provide connectivity for local
movement.
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the potential impacts and effects to biological resources that may occur from
implementation of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures that would reduce those
impacts where applicable.
Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
Special-Status Plants
The proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to special-status plant species if they are
present in the disturbance footprint due to removal of individuals or crushing by heavy equipment.
Given the small size of the study area and surrounding development, and the lack of potential for
special-status species to occur, impacts to special-status plant species are not expected.
Special-Status Wildlife
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species and no impacts are
anticipated to special-status wildlife species. The site does contain habitat for nesting birds. If nesting
birds protected by the CFGC are present on site during construction, direct effects could include injury
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 7
or mortality from construction activity, or nest abandonment from construction noise, dust, and other
project activities.
The loss of active nests would be a violation of the MBTA and CFGC sections 3503 and 3513. The loss of
common avian species is not likely to constitute a significant impact under CEQA; however, the following
measures are recommended for all avian species to maintain compliance with federal and State laws:
▪ To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds or migratory species protected by the MBTA
and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the CFGC, activities related to the project, including, but not
limited to, vegetation and/or tree removal should occur outside of the bird breeding season
(February 1 through August 30). If ground disturbance, vegetation removal or heavy equipment
work must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey should be
conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. The nesting bird pre-construction
survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint and a 300-foot
buffer.
▪ If nests are found, an avoidance buffer should be established by a qualified biologist. The buffer
should be established to ensure nesting activity is not disturbed by construction activity, and should
be determined by the qualified biologist based on the species’ known tolerances, the proposed work
activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The buffer should be
demarcated by the biologist with bright construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other
means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel should be notified as to the existence of
the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground
disturbing activities should occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting has completed and the young have fledged the nest or the nest has become
otherwise inactive. Encroachment into the buffer should occur only at the discretion of the qualified
biologist.
Special-Status Vegetation
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
No CDFW listed sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats are present within the study area.
Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities are expected.
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally or state protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, and drainages) or waters of the United
States, as defined by § 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or California Fish & Game Code §
1600, et seq. through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
No jurisdictional features occur within the study area, therefore no impacts to wetlands or waters are
expected.
Wildlife Movement
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 8
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
No corridors for wildlife movement occur within the study area, and the site is completely enclosed in
the developed area of the City and valley. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife movement corridors are
expected.
Local Policies and Ordinance
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
Six trees are proposed for removal: three magnolias (12, 18, and 26 inch DBH), two birch trees (one 5
inch and one < 5 inch DBH), and one palm tree (5 inches DBH). Removal of these trees will require a
permit from the City and replacement at a 1:1 ratio for the three magnolia trees, requiring two 24-inch
boxes and one 48-inch box. The planting plan for the proposed project would include planting of 17 new
24-inch box sized trees within the study area. The City ordinance allows some variances to address site
limitations; the 17 new trees will provide additional canopy cover sufficient to replace the removal of
the 26-inch tree as well as the two other trees. With approval of the City, no conflicts with local
ordinance or policies are expected.
Habitat Conservation Plan
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The study area is outside the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area. Therefore, no conflicts with state,
regional, or local habitat conservation plans are expected.
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page 9
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Samantha Kehr Sherri Miller
Senior Biologist Principal
Attachments
Attachment A Figures
Attachment B References
Attachment C Representative Site Photographs
Attachment D Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page A-1
Attachment A Figures
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page A-2
Figure 1. Regional Location
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page A-3
Figure 2. Study Area
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page B-1
Attachment B References
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page B-2
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database,
Rarefind 5. (Accessed October 2020)
_____, 2020b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). V5.2.14
http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. (Accessed October 2020)
_____, 2020c. April. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. July, 2020. (Accessed October 2020)
_____, 2020d. April. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. July,
2020. (Accessed October 2020)
_____, 2020e. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (PDF). Available from
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-
Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. (Accessed October 2020)
California Native Plant Society. 20120. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V8-02.
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. (Accessed October 2020)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. Information for Planning and Consultation.
Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (Accessed October 2020)
_____, 2020b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. (Accessed October
2020)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 2019.
Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Area: Santa Clara County, California. Soil Survey Data: Version 8,
September 16, 2019. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (Accessed
January 2020)
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page C-1
Attachment C Representative Site Photographs
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page C-2
Photograph 1. The south east corner of the study area, showing the 26-inch Magnolia tree, facing
southeast.
Photograph 2. The site from the south side of the study area, showing existing buildings, facing west.
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page C-3
Photograph 3. The center of the study area, showing the existing pool and 5 inch palm tree, facing
north.
Photograph 4. The west side of the study area showing the 5 inch and <5 inch birch trees, facing north.
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page C-4
Photograph 5. The north side of the study area, facing east.
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page D-1
Attachment D Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page D-2
Special-Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity (San Jose West Quad) of the Study Area
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
G-Rank/S-Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
for Impact
Potential for
Occurrence
Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
None/None
G3T1T2/S1S2
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline). 0 - 230
m. annual herb. Blooms May-Oct(Nov)
Not
Expected
No natural vegetation
communities or suitable
habitat occur in the
study area.
Chorizanthe
robusta var.
robusta
robust spineflower
FE/None
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland
(openings), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub. sandy
or gravelly. 3 - 300 m. annual herb. Blooms Apr-
Sep
Not
Expected
No natural vegetation
communities or suitable
habitat occur in the
study area.
Malacothamnus
hallii
Hall's bush-mallow
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub. 10 - 760 m. perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms (Apr)May-Sep(Oct)
Not
Expected
No natural vegetation
communities or suitable
habitat occur in the
study area.
Plagiobothrys
glaber
hairless
popcornflower
None/None
GH/SH
1A
Meadows and seeps (alkaline), Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt). 15 - 180 m. annual herb.
Blooms Mar-May
Not
Expected
No natural vegetation
communities or suitable
habitat occur in the
study area.
Trifolium
hydrophilum
saline clover
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill
grassland (mesic, alkaline), Vernal pools. 0 - 300
m. annual herb. Blooms Apr-Jun
Not
Expected
No natural vegetation
communities or suitable
habitat occur in the
study area.
FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened
SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SR = State Rare
G-Rank/S-Rank = Global Rank and State Rank as per NatureServe and CDFW’s CNDDB RareFind3.
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank):
1A=Presumed Extinct in California
1B=Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2A=Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere
2B=Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
3=Need more information (a Review List)
4=Plants of Limited Distribution (a Watch List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1=Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2=Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3=Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened)
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page D-3
Special-Status Animal Species in the Regional Vicinity (San Jose West Quad) of the Study
Area
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
G-Rank/S-
Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
for Impact
Potential for
Occurrence
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G5/S3
CDFW_SSC
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and
forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures. Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's big-
eared bat
None/None
G3G4/S2
CDFW_SSC
Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats.
Most common in mesic sites. Roosts in the open,
hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites
limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Neotoma fuscipes
annectens
San Francisco
dusky-footed
woodrat
None/None
G5T2T3/S2S3
CDFW_SSC
Forest habitats of moderate canopy & moderate to
dense understory. May prefer chaparral & redwood
habitats. Constructs nests of shredded grass, leaves
& other material. May be limited by availability of
nest-building materials.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
None/None
G5/S4
CDFW_WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal
type. Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river
flood-plains; also, live oaks.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
CDFW_SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts,
and scrublands characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/ST
G5/S3
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-
sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural
or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent
populations.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G4/S1S2
CDFW_SSC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono
County. Freshwater marshlands.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
CDF_S-
Sensitive
CDFW_FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on cliffs,
banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made
structures. Nest consists of a scrape or a depression
or ledge in an open site.
Not
Expected
No suitable habitat
occurs in the study
area.
Retiles
Raintree Partners
Franciscan Apartments Biological Resources Assessment
Page D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
G-Rank/S-
Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
for Impact
Potential for
Occurrence
Anniella pulchra
northern
California legless
lizard
None/None
G3/S3
CDFW_SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation.
Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a
high moisture content.
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present and the site is
surrounded by
development.
Emys marmorata
western pond
turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
CDFW_SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs
basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water
for egg-laying.
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present and the site is
surrounded by
development.
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT/ST
G2G3/S2S3
CDFW_WL
Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened.
Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally
listed as endangered. Need underground refuges,
especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools
or other seasonal water sources for breeding.
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present and the site is
surrounded by
development.
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-
legged frog
None/SCT
G3/S3
CDFW_SSC
Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a
rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at
least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying.
Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.
Not
Expected
Suitable habitat is not
present and the site is
surrounded by
development.
Fish
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
8
steelhead - central
California coast
DPS
FT/None
G5T2T3Q/S2S3
DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of
steelhead (and their progeny) in streams from the
Russian River to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz County,
California (inclusive). Also includes the drainages of
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
Not
expected
There are no aquatic
habitats on or adjacent
to the site.
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble
bee
None/SCE
G3G4/S1S2
Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest
and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
Not
Expected
There is little foraging
habitat within the
vicinity of the site due
to development.
Bombus
occidentalis
western bumble
bee
None/SCE
G2G3/S1
Once common & widespread, species has declined
precipitously from central CA to southern B.C.,
perhaps from disease.
Not
Expected
There is little foraging
habitat within the
vicinity of the site due
to development.
FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered
FC = Federal Candidate Species ST = State Threatened
FE = Federally Endangered SR = State Rare
FS=Federally Sensitive SS=State Sensitive
G-Rank/S-Rank = Global Rank and State Rank as per NatureServe and CDFW’s CNDDB RareFind3
SC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully Protected
WL = Watch List
www.intertek.com/building
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite B
Oakland, CA 94601
phone: 510.434.9200
fax: 510.434.7676
intertek.com/building
psiusa.com
October 15, 2020
Nicholas Leone, AIA
Raintree Partners
25 Taylor Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Subject: Geotechnical and Environmental Review and Evaluation
The Franciscan Apartment Complex
Proposed Improvements
601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California
PSI Project No. 575‐1683‐1
Dear Mr. Leone:
Per your request, Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to submit this
geotechnical and environmental review letter. This report includes the results of our review of published
and unpublished geologic and environmental information, and our conclusions as to the potential geologic
hazards and geotechnical and environmental concerns that could affect development at the property.
INTRODUCTION
Site Location and Description
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of David Avenue and Almarida
Drive, in Campbell, California (see Figure 1 – Site Location Map). The site is a roughly rectangular parcel
(assessor’s parcel no. 279‐30‐043) totaling about 7.5 acres in plan area, with a street address of 601
Almarida Drive, Campbell, California. The site is bound by residential properties to the north and west,
and by commercial properties to the south and east.
While our scope of services did not include a site visit, based on recent street‐level and aerial
photography and on other information provided by you, PSI understands that the site is developed with
sixteen (16) 2‐story apartment buildings, and a central community area with 4 to 5 small single‐story
buildings, a pool and a hot tub/spa. The remainder of the site is improved with asphalt‐paved parking
and drive lanes, car ports, and landscaped areas with lawn, shrubs and mature trees.
There is a gentle regional slope downward towards the north, with site elevations (estimated from the
1979 San Jose West, California USGS topographic map) of between about 177 and 183 feet above mean
sea level, which generally agrees with site elevations indicated by Google Earth.
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 2
www.intertek.com/building
Project Information
Based on information provided by you, including a set of conceptual development plans (Lowney, 2018),
PSI understands that it is proposed to demolish the existing central community area of the complex and
redevelop it with a 3‐story, 60‐unit residential building and a 2‐story office/community/amenities building.
Both structures are to be underlain by a single‐level below‐grade parking structure, with excavations
expected to extend to between 10 and 15 feet below the surface grade. Other improvements are to
include a pool and spa/hot tub and landscaped areas.
Purpose and Scope of Services
You have provided some comments made by the City of Campbell Planning Division regarding the project,
which include geotechnical and environmental issues that they want to be addressed. You have requested
that we provide a letter report to address answers to the City’s geotechnical and environmental‐related
comments.
Our services included an in‐house, desktop evaluation for the site, consisting of a review of geologic maps,
geologic maps, and environmental, soils and groundwater information available on‐line and in our office.
California State and Santa Clara County seismic, fault and geotechnical hazard zone maps were also
reviewed. Additionally, we have reviewed a copy of a recent Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA;
Partner, 2017) for the site provided by you. Our services did not include a review of data or response to
the City’s comment regarding the presence of paleontological resources. A list of the references used in
our evaluation is presented at the end of this report.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Geology
The subject site is located within a large region known as the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. This
province is characterized by extensively folded, faulted, and fractured earth materials. These structural
features trend in a northwesterly direction and make up the prominent system of northwest‐trending
mountain ranges separated by straight‐sided sediment‐filled valleys (CGS, 2002).
The subject site is situated on the northern end of the Santa Clara Valley, about 0.4 miles west of Los
Gatos Creek and 1.1 miles east of San Tomas Aquinas Creek. Our review of readily available, pertinent
geologic literature (Wesling, 1989) indicates that the subject site is underlain by Holocene aged
(Quaternary) alluvial fan deposits (Qhaf), described as gravelly sand or sandy gravel that grades upward
to sandy or silty clay. The surface of these alluvial deposits display striking channel ridges shown related
to the late Holocene history of the course of the Los Gatos Creek. The geologic map indicates that Los
Gatos Creek flowed further west than at present, possibly through the area of the existing Franciscan
Apartments.
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 3
www.intertek.com/building
Review of Subsurface Data
Our scope of services did not include performance of any subsurface exploration, and we were not able
to locate any site‐specific studies for our review. We reviewed subsurface data available on the State
Water Resource Board GeoTracker environmental database, which indicated 3 nearby sites along East
Hamilton Avenue; about 820 feet southwest and 950 feet southeast and southwest of the subject site.
All are within the same area of the geologic map as the subject site; indicated as underlain by Holocene
aged alluvial fan deposits (Qhaf). The logs of borings from these nearby sites indicated medium stiff to
hard clayey silt (ML) sandy clay (CL), silty clay (CL and CH), and very loose to very dense clayey sand (SC),
silty sand (SM), gravelly sand (SW) and sandy gravel (GC) to the total depths explored of between about
38 and 120 feet bgs. The upper 15 to 30 feet of soils were reported to consist primarily of silt and clay,
with coarser soils (sand and gravel) identified below those depths.
Groundwater
The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Jose West Quadrangle (CDMG, 2002) indicates a historic high
groundwater level of greater than 50 feet in the area of the site. Based on our review of logs of nearby soil
borings available from the State Water Resource Board GeoTracker environmental database, groundwater
is estimated to be below a depth of about 80 to 90 feet bgs. As such, groundwater is not expected to
impact the proposed construction. It is possible, however, that transient, saturated ground conditions at
shallower depths could develop at a later time during periods of heavy precipitation, landscape watering,
leaking water lines, or other unforeseen causes. Variations in groundwater levels should be expected
seasonally, annually, and from location to location.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Regional Seismicity
Generally, seismicity within California can be attributed to faulting due to regional tectonic movement.
This includes the Monte Vista‐Shannon Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and most parallel and subparallel
faulting within the State. The portion of California which includes the subject site is considered seismically
active. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to potential groundshaking resulting from
earthquake events along nearby or more distant faulting.
According to regional geologic literature (Blake, 2000) the closest known late Quaternary faults are the
Monte Vista‐Shannon Fault and the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 5 and 8.3 miles southwest of
the site, respectively. Mapping by the USGS (USGS, 2019) indicates the Stanford and San Jose Faults
located about 0.8 and 1.2 miles northeast of the site, respectively, and the Cascade Fault about 2 miles
southwest of the site. Several other potentially active and pre‐Quaternary faults also occur within the
regional vicinity. The site is subject to a Maximum Seismic Event of 7.9 Magnitude on the San Andreas
Fault (CDMG, 2002) and 6.7 Magnitude along the Monte Vista‐Shannon Fault (Blake, 2000). The Maximum
Magnitude Event is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the
presently known tectonic framework.
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 4
www.intertek.com/building
Hazard Assessment
Faulting and Shallow Ground Rupture – According to the Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972
(revised 1994), active faults are those that have been shown to display surface rupture during the last
11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). PSI did not observe any mapped faults crossing the site on readily
available resources (Wesling, 1989; USGS, 2019) and the site is not situated within any State or County
Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones (CGS, 2020; CSC, 2012). As such, the potential for ground rupture from
faulting at the site is considered to be low.
Ground Shaking – Based on the active and potentially active faults in the region, the site could be
subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the
San Jose West Quadrangle (CDMG, 2002) estimates ground shaking based on the statewide probabilistic
seismic hazard evaluation released cooperatively by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The report indicates that the estimated peak ground acceleration
(PGA) in the area of the site, with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years and assuming alluvial site
conditions, is about 0.58g (where g=acceleration due to gravity).
Seismic shaking is a hazard common to the vicinity of the project site and the site is not generally exposed
to a greater seismic shaking risk than other locations in this area. This hazard can be mitigated if buildings
are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The
structural engineer should evaluate whether a site‐specific seismic ground motion hazard analysis (per
ASCE 7‐16 and the 2019 CBC) is required for the project, to be included as part of the design‐specific
geotechnical report.
Seismically‐Induced Dry Settlement of Soils – Based on the anticipated earthquake effect and the expected
stratigraphy of the site, any minor seismically‐induced dry settlement will probably affect relatively large
areas so that differential settlements over short distances are likely to be very small. Dry settlement is not
expected to be a design consideration for this project.
Liquefaction – Soil liquefaction and seismically‐induced settlement typically occur in saturated loose to
medium dense cohesionless soils; and in clays and silts with low plasticity indexes and with moistures near
their liquid limits, due to cyclic softening where the groundwater is relatively shallow (within 50 feet of the
ground surface). During an earthquake, ground shaking causes a rapid increase in the porewater pressure
within the soil mass under undrained conditions. The generation of excess porewater pressures causes a
corresponding decrease in the soil’s effective stress, which can result in a sudden loss of soil bearing
strength and ground surface settlement within the liquefied (and softened) soil layers. Soil liquefaction
potential is generally affected by soil types, mineral contents, ground acceleration, duration of shaking,
and frequency content of the earthquake ground motion, among other factors.
The site does not lie within a State or County mapped zone of potential liquefaction hazard (CDMG, 2002;
CSC, 2012) and the historic high groundwater level is expected to be greater than 50 feet bgs (CDMG,
2002). Based on the expected depth to historic high groundwater, it is our opinion that the potential for
soil liquefaction at this site is very low and that liquefaction is not a design consideration for this project.
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 5
www.intertek.com/building
Landsliding and Slope Stability – Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a hazard on, or adjacent
to the project site due to the absence of significant steep slopes in or around the project area. The stability
of the excavation(s) for construction of the below‐grade parking level will need to be addressed in the
design‐specific geotechnical report, which should include recommendations for temporary shoring, if
appropriate, to stabilize the sidewalls of the excavation during construction and minimize any movement of
the adjacent ground surfaces and any damage to adjacent structures.
Flooding ‐ The Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Viewer (ABAG, 2020) indicates that the site is
not within a FEMA 100‐ or 500‐year floodplain. The site is shown within an area mapped as Zone X – listed
as an area of minimal flood hazard.
Tsunamis and Seiches – Inundation by tsunamis (seismic or "tidal waves") or seiches ("tidal waves" in
confined bodies of water) are not considered to be a significant threat to the subject site due to the
absence of proximal large bodies of water.
Compressible Soils – The site is not located within a mapped compressible soil hazard zone (CSC, 2012) and
as such, the hazard of compressible soils at this site is expected to be low, however; the design‐specific
geotechnical report should include the evaluation of the compressive nature of the site soils.
Expansive Soils ‐ Our review of boring logs from nearby sites indicates the presence of high plasticity (or
“fat”) clays (CH), which is an indicator of potentially expansive soils. Expansive soils can experience
significant volumetric changes (shrink or swell) with changes in moisture that can negatively impact shallow
foundations and slabs‐on‐grade. Due to the potential for expansive soils in the area, the design‐specific
geotechnical report should include the evaluation of the expansive nature of the site soils and contain
recommendations as necessary for site preparation measures to mitigate the potentially adverse effects of
near‐surface expansive soils on conventional shallow foundations, pavements and slabs‐on‐grade.
Soil Erosion – Where present, near‐surface clayey and silty soils can be moisture sensitive and susceptible
to erosion. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site topography and the expected permeable
(landscaped) and impermeable (paved or hardscaped) surfaces, soil erosion is not expected to be a
significant concern for the completed development. The finished project should incorporate surface
drainage pathways to route stormwater from paved and hardscaped areas and control of water run‐off
from roofs (with tightlined piping as needed) to storm drains or other approved retention facilities.
During construction, water should not be allowed to collect in construction excavations or on prepared
subgrades; the contractor should exercise care in creating drainage paths for water during the construction
phase of the project.
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 6
www.intertek.com/building
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
We have reviewed a copy of a recent Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the site, which was
provided by you.
Phase I ESA The Franciscan, 601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California, prepared by Partner Engineering
and Science, Inc. (Partner) dated June 14, 2017 ‐ At the time of this report, Partner indicated that the
subject property was developed with the current buildings. The property consisted of 16 apartment
buildings, an office, fitness center, and laundry buildings. The buildings are on 6.49 acres and were built
in 1971. The property operated as the Franciscan Apartment Complex.
No hazardous substances and/or petroleum products were identified at the subject site other than small
quantities of pool chemicals and maintenance supplies. The subject property was not listed on any
environmental database and adjacent/surrounding properties were not identified as being a concern.
Partner indicated that there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) from the subject or
adjacent properties. They did indicate that the building materials at the site may contain asbestos and
that, since the site has been historically as agricultural land, pesticides may have been used at the
subject property. This language regarding pesticides is standard default language for ESAs and does not
indicate the presence of significant risk.
Soil Characterization and Management ‐ The proposed development includes the construction of a single
level of below‐grade parking, with excavations expected to extend down to between about 10 and 15
feet below the existing ground surface. Considering the significant volume of soil that will be generated
from this project that will need to be off hauled from the site, it is recommended that a Soil
Management Plan (SMP) be developed to detail how soil will be handled during site construction
activities and characterized prior to its removal from the site. The SMP should also outline the efforts
required to reduce the potential of soil being spread across or removed from the property without
proper characterization and to minimize any street track‐out of nuisance soil, impact to workers and to
on‐site and neighboring residents and businesses from fugitive dust air quality, and traffic routes and
controls during excavation and hauling.
LIMITATIONS
This report is for the exclusive use of Raintree Partners and their representatives to use for the proposed
development and the evaluation of the feasibility of the development. After the plans and specifications
are more complete, a design‐specific geotechnical study should be performed to assess the subsurface soil
conditions, soil infiltration capabilities, and the geotechnical hazards for the site and to provide
appropriate recommendations for site preparation, retaining walls, foundation support, temporary
excavation shoring, and pavement design.
Services performed by PSI for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area. No warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
Project Number: 0575-1683-1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex -Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 7
We appreciate the opportunity to have performed this Geotechnical and Environmental Review and
look forward to continued participation during the design and construction phases of this project. If you
have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact our
office.
Respectfully submitted,
Attachments: Figure 1 -Site Location Map
~~:
Frank Poss
Department Manager
www.intertek.com/building
Project Number: 0575‐1683‐1
The Franciscan Apartment Complex – Campbell, California
October 15, 2020
Page 8
www.intertek.com/building
REFERENCES
1. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), March 2020, Resilience Program – Hazard Viewer,
https://abag.ca.gov/our‐work/resilience/data‐research.
2. Blake, T.F., 1989‐2000, Documentation for Eqfault Version 3.00b Update, Thomas F. Blake Computer
Services and Software, Thousand Oaks, California.
3. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.
4. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2002, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San
Jose West 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058.
5. CDMG, February 7, 2002, “State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Jose West Quadrangle,
Official Map,” Scale 1:24,000.
6. California Geological Survey (CGS), April 2002, “California Geomorphic Provinces”
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/note_36.pdf.
7. CGS, 2020, Regulatory Maps Portal, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/.
8. County of Santa Clara (CSC), 2012, “Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones.”
9. Lowney Architecture, June 15, 2018, “Planning Submittal, Franciscan Apartments, Campbell, CA,”
Civil, Landscape and Architectural drawings, 20 Sheets.
10. Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., June 14, 2017, “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The
Franciscan, 601 Almarida Drive, Campbell California 95008,” Partner Project No. 17‐185874.1.
11. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and California’s Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD), U.S. Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/.
12. US Geological Survey (USGS), 1979, San Jose West Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series
(topographic), United States Department of the Interior, Scale: 1:24,000.
13. USGS, 2020, U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database (web page), https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com
/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf.
14. Wesling, J. R. and E.J. Helley, 1989, “Quaternary Geologic Map of the San Jose West Quadrangle,
Santa Clara County, California,” USGS Open‐File Report 89‐672, Scale: 1:24,000.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
THE FRANCISCAN
601 ALMARIDA DRIVE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Raintree Partners
25 Taylor Street
San Francisco, California 94102
by
Aquifer Sciences, Inc.
3520 Golden Gate Way
Lafayette, California 94549
November 30, 2020
THE FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS
CAMPBELL, CA
ACOUSTICAL NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY
PREPARED FOR: RAINTREE PARTNERS
Attn: Nicholas Leone
Sent via email: nleone@raintreepartners.com
January 14, 2021
Prepared by: CSDA Design Group
Indi Savitala
Cameron Sullivan
610 E. Franklin Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 2 of 17
Table of Contents
Section Page
Project Background .............................................................................................................. 3
Noise and Vibration Criteria ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Criteria Summary ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 City of Campbell General Plan – Noise Element .............................................................. 4
2.3 Campbell Municipal Code ................................................................................................ 5
2.4 California Building Code – Residential ............................................................................. 6
2.5 California Building Code (CALGreen) – Commercial/Amenity ......................................... 6
2.6 Transit-related Vibration .................................................................................................. 6
Environmental Noise Study .................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements .............................................................................. 7
3.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 8
Environmental Noise – Analysis and Recommendations ..................................................... 9
4.1 Outdoor Activity Areas ................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Interior Noise Levels – California Building Code/CALGreen .......................................... 11
Vibration Study .................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A: Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 17
List of Figures
Figure
Figure 1 - Measurement Locations .................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 - Continuous Sound Levels at LT-1 ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 1 .............................................................................. 12
Figure 4 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 2 .............................................................................. 13
Figure 5 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 3 .............................................................................. 14
Figure 6 - Continuous Vibration Level Measurement .................................................................... 16
List of Tables
Table
Table 1: Transit-Related Vibration Impact Criteria .......................................................................... 7
Table 2: Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results ........................................................... 9
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 3 of 17
Project Background
Raintree Partners purchased the existing 180-unit Franciscan Apartment complex in Campbell,
CA. Raintree is planning on developing an additional s near the center of the existing site. There
are concerns about noise and vibration impacts from State Route 17 (SR-17) and East Hamilton
Avenue to the proposed residential units and amenity spaces.
The following report outlines three studies conducted by CSDA Design Group (CSDA) to address
noise and vibration concerns:
▪ Environmental Noise Study: Quantify the existing noise environment around the project site
and providing recommendations to ensure interior and exterior noise environments comply
with applicable standards.
▪ Vibration Study: A vibration measurement was conducted on the project site to quantify
existing levels of vibration, which are compared to applicable transit-related vibration
standards.
▪ Traffic Study: A review of increases in project-generated traffic noise will be completed after
receipt of the traffic impact analysis that is being completed for this project (the traffic study
will be provided in a separate report).
Note: increases in project-related traffic noise will be analyzed once the traffic impact analysis
for this project has been completed. For a list of acoustical definitions, terminology, and
references, please refer to Appendix A.
Noise and Vibration Criteria
The following subsections include the relevant acoustical criteria for the project.
2.1 Criteria Summary
Noise level criteria for this project are based on the standards listed below:
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1
Noise generating stationary sources should not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA (for
exterior noise environments) or 45 dBA (for interior noise environments). Impacts should be
determined when stationary noise sources (such as exterior mechanical equipment, pool
pumps, etc.) are in operation.
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2
Not to exceed an exterior 24-hour noise level of CNEL 60 dBA at residential outdoor activity
areas.
CBC Title 24, Volume 1, Section 1206.4
Not exceed an interior 24-hour noise level of Ldn 45 dBA for residential units.
CALGreen
Not exceed 50 dBA 1-hour LEQ during the noisiest hour of operation for indoor
amenity/commercial spaces (only applicable if the loudest exterior hourly noise level is
above 65 dBA LEQ).
Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
Vibration levels at the residential building should not exceed 72 VdB for frequent events, 75
VdB for occasional events, or 80 VdB for infrequent events. A vibration level that exceeds
any of these referenced thresholds shall be considered a vibration event.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 4 of 17
Regarding Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1, information regarding exterior noise
sources (e.g., mechanical equipment data for exterior HVAC units, pool pumps, etc.) is not
currently available. We will evaluate this when information is available.
2.2 City of Campbell General Plan – Noise Element
The City of Campbell General Plan includes a Noise Element that identifies and evaluates noise
problems in Campbell and includes policies to ensure that future land use decisions fully
minimize adverse noise impacts possible. Noise reduction policies applicable to the proposed
project are as follows:
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1a – Noise Ordinance: Adopt and strictly enforce a Noise
Ordinance that establishes noise standards for various noise-sensitive land uses
and for all Zoning Districts (applicable noise limits from the Municipal Code
Noise Ordinance provided in Section 2.3).
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1b – Minimization of Noise Exposure and Generation:
Encourage practices and technologies that minimize noise exposure and noise
generation in new development and redevelopment.
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1c – Noise and New Development: Evaluate the potential for
noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development
proposals.
Noise from Stationary Sources: New residential development shall conform to a
stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and
45 dBA for interior noise levels. Acoustical studies shall be required for all new
noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary
sources. Where existing stationary noise sources exceed the City’s noise
standards, mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure
to or below the allowable levels of the Noise Ordinance.
Traffic-Related Noise: New residential development shall conform to a traffic-
related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-
sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New
development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard
shall not be permitted. Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and
interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential
developments with a noise exposure greater than 60 dBA CNEL. The studies
should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California
Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached
residential projects, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. Table CNR-2:
Traffic-Related Noise Conditions at General Plan Buildout should be used as the
basis to initially identify areas with potential excessive noise exposure (rather
than using traffic noise estimates included in the General Plan, the noise
environment discussed herein is ascertained by on-site noise measurements).
Note: this policy is in line with the noise limits included in the Campbell
Municipal Code outlined in Section 2.3. The 45 dBA interior noise limits
presented here are consistent with the California Building Code standard
presented in Section 2.4.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 5 of 17
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1d – Noise Mitigation Measures: Review and require noise
mitigation measures for development projects, including setbacks between uses,
earth berms, sound walls, landscaping and site design that shields noise-
sensitive uses with non-sensitive structures such as parking lots, utility areas and
garages, or orients buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1e – Construction Noise Mitigation: Require mitigation
measures during construction, including limits on operating times of noise-
producing activities (including vehicles). (Note: review of project-related
construction noise is not in the scope of this noise analysis).
As stated in the General Plan Strategy CNR-10.1a, the intent of the Noise Element is to “adopt
and strictly enforce a Noise Ordinance that establishes noise standards for various noise-
sensitive land uses and for all Zoning Districts.” The specific noise limits included in the
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance are an enactment of the strategies and policies included in the
City of Campbell General Plan Noise Element – see Section 2.3.
2.3 Campbell Municipal Code
Section 21.16.070 – Noise, of the Campbell Municipal Code includes noise and vibration limits
applicable to the proposed project – applicable noise ordinance information is provided below:
21.16.070-E – Residential Noise Standards
1. Noise from stationary sources. New residential development shall conform to a
stationary source noise exposure standard of sixty-five dBA for exterior noise
levels and forty-five dBA for interior noise levels.
2. Traffic-related noise. New residential development shall conform to a traffic-
related noise exposure standard of sixty dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-
sensitive outdoor activity areas and forty-five dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New
development that does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard
shall not be allowed.
Note: the 45 dBA interior noise limits presented above are consistent with the California
Building Code standard presented in Section 2.4.
21.16.070-F – Acoustical Studies Required
1. Acoustical studies. Acoustical studies are required for all new noise-sensitive
projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources,
including all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than
60 dBA CNEL. The studies shall also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24,
Part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for
multiple family attached residential projects, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by
Title 24 (see Section 2.4)
2. Mitigation measures. Where acoustical studies show that existing stationary
noise sources exceed, or will exceed maximum allowable noise levels, mitigation
shall be identified to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of
this chapter. Mitigation measures may include increased setbacks between uses,
earth berms, sound walls, landscaping, and site design that shields noise-
sensitive uses with non-sensitive structures, (e.g., parking lots, utility areas and
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 6 of 17
garages), or orientation of buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
In cases where sound walls are used as mitigation, they should be encouraged to
help create an attractive setting with features such as setbacks, changes in
alignment, detail and texture, pedestrian access (if appropriate) and
landscaping.
21.16.090 – Vibration
Uses, activities, and processes shall not generate ground vibration that is
perceptible without instruments by the average person at any point along or
beyond the property line of the parcel containing the activities. Vibrations from
temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the
subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) shall be exempt.
Note: the project does not include any major sources of vibration. Vibration impacts associated
with existing sources of transportation are analyzed in terms of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) standards presented in Section 2.6.
2.4 California Building Code – Residential
For the residential portion of the project, the California Building Code stipulates that interior
noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn for any habitable room
in a multi-family building (2019 California Building Code [CBC], California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Volume 1, Section 1206.4).
2.5 California Building Code (CALGreen) – Commercial/Amenity
CALGreen stipulates noise criteria for commercial spaces. If exterior hourly noise levels at the
project site are above 65 dBA LEQ, then interior noise levels in the indoor amenity spaces must
not exceed 50 dBA LEQ during the noisiest hour of operation (Performance Method).
Note: this criterion applies to the interior noise environment associated with the indoor
support/amenity spaces (i.e., Leasing Office, Community Room, Fitness Center, Level 2 Lobby).
2.6 Transit-related Vibration
The City of Campbell does not provide criteria for transit-related vibration sources. To estimate
the impact of transit-related vibration, this analysis uses the industry standard transit-related
vibration targets provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as follows (Federal
Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual):
Community response to vibration correlates with the frequency of events. More frequent events
of low vibration levels may evoke the same response as fewer high vibration level events. This
effect is accounted for in the ground-borne vibration and noise impact criteria by characterizing
projects by frequency of events. Event frequency definitions from the FTA are as follows:
▪ Frequent Events: More than 70 Events per Day
▪ Occasional Events: 30-70 Events per Day
▪ Infrequent Events: Fewer than 30 Events per Day
Note: Impacts from vibration events, as described in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual, are typically related to rail transit. As shown in the presentation of
Vibration Measurements in Section 5.0, there are no notable transit-related vibration events
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 7 of 17
that could be quantified. The existing vibration levels at the project site will nonetheless be
compared to the vibration standards presented below.
Table 1: Transit-Related Vibration Impact Criteria
Building/Structural Category
Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re. 1 micro-inch per sec)
Frequent Events Occasional Events Infrequent Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration
would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB
Category 2: Residences and buildings
where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 85 VdB
Reference: Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123),
Table 6-3
Category 2 vibration levels are appropriate criteria for the Franciscan Apartments project
Environmental Noise Study
3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements
Ambient sound level measurements were conducted around the project site vicinity between
September 30th and October 4th, 2020. For the ambient noise measurements, Type 1 Larson
Davis Model 831 sound level meters were used. Measurement locations are described as
follows:
Long-term Measurement 1 (LT-1): This meter was attached to a light pole along Almarida
Drive, approximately 12 feet above grade. The noise environment at this location was
controlled by traffic noise along SR-17; local traffic along Almarida Drive, property
maintenance, and noise from pedestrians also contributed to the total noise
environment at this location.
To supplement the data from LT-1, two short-term sound level measurements were conducted
around the project site.
Short-term Measurement 1 (ST-1): This meter recorded approximately 20 minutes of data
on September 30, 2020. This measurement location was on top of the carport near the
east side of the project site, approximately 12 feet above grade. This measurement
location defines the noise environment near the rear of the property, where existing
structures shield the measurement from the major sources of roadway noise. At ST-1,
the noise environment is controlled by traffic noise along SR-17. Based on site
observations, the noise sources controlling this measurement location are consistent
with the noise sources controlling the levels at LT-1.
Short-term Measurement 2 (ST-2): This meter recorded approximately 10 minutes of data
on October 5, 2020. The microphone at this measurement location was attached to a
pole approximately 12 feet above grade, just east of the existing leasing office building
(this monitoring location is at the approximate location of the future residential
building’s east-facing facade). At ST-2, the noise environment is controlled by traffic
noise along SR-17. Based on site observations, the noise sources controlling this
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 8 of 17
measurement location are consistent with the noise sources controlling the levels at
LT-1.
Refer to Figure 1 for a site map indicating the measurement locations (see Section 5.0 for the
description of the vibration monitoring procedure).
Figure 1 - Measurement Locations
3.2 Results
Table 2 summarizes the noise measurement results. Figure 1, above, shows the measurement
locations. Figure 2 represents the continuous sound levels throughout the measurement period
for LT-1.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 9 of 17
Table 2: Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results
Location Average Ldn / CNEL Loudest LEQ 1-hour Average LEQ between 8 AM – 10 PM
LT-1 67 dBA 66 dBA 64 dBA
ST-1 60 dBA 59 dBA 57 dBA
ST-2 60 dBA 59 dBA 57 dBA
Notes:
▪ Sound levels for ST-1 and ST-2 were adjusted to account for the 24-hour noise environment
▪ The loudest 1-hour of the measurement period occurred at 6:45 AM on October 1, 2020
▪ Ldn and loudest 1-hour Leq sound levels for ST-1 and ST-2 were adjusted to account for the 24-hour noise environment. This
assumes noise sources controlling the environment at LT-1 are the same sources controlling ST-1 and ST-2, which is consistent
with on-site observations.
Irregular noise events, including leaf blowers and trucks idling, have been removed from the noise measurement results
Figure 2 - Continuous Sound Levels at LT-1
As shown in the results above, the existing ambient noise levels range between 50 dBA to
55 dBA at the quietest hours of the night, and up to 67 dBA during weekday morning rush hour
(weekday morning rush hour represented by the green and red plots in Figure 2).
Environmental Noise – Analysis and Recommendations
Noise generating sources associated with the proposed project, such as exterior mechanical
equipment, pool pumps, etc., are required to comply with the noise limits included in Campbell
Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1, which requires noise exposure from stationary sources to
be limited to 65 dBA (for exterior noise environments) or 45 dBA (for interior noise
environments). Information regarding exterior noise sources is not available at this time –
impacts related to exterior noise generation will be evaluated at a later date.
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
LEQ-15-minute(dBA) Long-Term Location 1
09/30/20 - 10/01/20 10/01/20 - 10/02/20 10/02/20 - 10/03/20 10/03/20 - 10/04/20
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 10 of 17
4.1 Outdoor Activity Areas
The project development includes several outdoor activity areas that would be subject to the
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2, which requires new residential developments
to conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of CNEL 60 dBA (see Section 2.3 for
additional information). Outdoor activity areas associated with this new development include:
▪ Public Level 2 Roof Deck near the east side of the project site;
▪ Public ground-level pool area;
▪ Four ground-level private patios (directly next to pool area);
▪ Two level 3 private balconies (only two units will have balcony access; both balconies
are located on the northeast corner of the residential building).
The ST-1 and ST-2 measurement locations are representative of the areas around the future
residential buildings that will experience barrier attenuation from existing or future structures.
These measurement locations are representative of the estimated noise environment at the
future pool area and ground-level private patios. Table 2 shows these measurement locations
are both exposed to a CNEL 60 dBA noise environment. Accordingly, the public ground-level
pool area, the four ground-level private patios (directly next to the pool area), and the two
Level 3 private balconies, which could be represented by the measured sound levels at ST-1 and
ST-2, are in compliance with the traffic-related noise exposure standard of CNEL 60 dBA.
Additionally, the ground-level pool area and the four ground-level private patios are enclosed by
existing or future structures on three sides, which would further reduce the noise levels at these
locations.
Using the measured LT-1 sound level data (see Table 2) as well as the existing and future
building geometry, the Level 2 Amenity Deck near the east side of the project site is estimated
to be exposed to noise levels between CNEL 57 to CNEL 63 dBA. Approximately 50 percent of
the roof deck is estimated to be within the CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard,
and approximately 50 percent of the roof deck is estimated to be above the referenced standard
by about 3 dBA (the portion of the Amenity Deck closest to Almarida Drive is exposed to the
highest noise levels). A potential mitigation measure to reduce the entirety of the Level 2 Roof
Deck noise environment to within the referenced standard would be the inclusion of a solid
barrier wall along the east and north perimeter of the Amenity Deck. However, it was calculated
that such a barrier wall would reduce Amenity Deck noise levels by only 0.5 to 2.5 dB, which is
considered a less-than-noticeable noise level difference. Accordingly, the inclusion of a barrier
wall system should not be considered an effective solution.
We understand the rooftop Amenity Deck will be used primarily between the hours of 8 AM to
10 PM. If the 24-hour CNEL calculation of 60 dBA is re-calculated to the hours of 8 AM to 10 PM,
the average LEQ of the noise levels is 59 dBA. As presented in Table 2, the average LEQ of the
noise levels between 8 AM to 10 PM at LT-1 is 64 dBA. Using the LT-1 measured LEQ 64 dBA
sound level between 8 AM to 10 PM, as well as existing and future building geometry, the
Amenity Deck is estimated to be exposed to noise levels between LEQ 54 to LEQ 60 dBA. This
means that the Amenity Deck, as designed, is within the applicable noise levels during the
anticipated hours of operation.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 11 of 17
Although the referenced Campbell Municipal Code standard refers to a 24-hour CNEL noise
level, the space will not be used during the nighttime hours and it should be noted that the
Amenity Deck is expected to be below 60 dBA during the time period when the space will
actually be in use.
Additionally, as a feasible noise reduction solution, we recommend installing fixtures along the
eastern portion of the Amenity Deck (e.g., potted plants, rooftop landscaping, etc.). Although
these fixtures would not reduce the traffic noise levels impacting the Amenity Deck, fixtures
would force users towards the western side of the Amenity Deck that is generally below the
CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard. Based on the assumptions above plus
inclusion of the referenced mitigation measure, outdoor activity spaces associated with the
project are expected to comply with the CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard
provided by Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2.
4.2 Interior Noise Levels – California Building Code/CALGreen
Based on the noise analysis detailed above, we expect portions of the ground-floor facade will
be exposed to 24-hour noise levels above Ldn 65 dBA. Per the CALGreen standard referenced
above, the project’s indoor amenity spaces should be designed so that interior noise
attributable to the noisiest 1-hour period does not exceed Ldn 50 dBA.
In addition, since noise levels are up to Ldn 60 dBA, the residential interior criterion of Ldn 45 dBA
should be met. Sound-rated windows and exterior doors are required at various building facades
– see recommendations in Figures 3 through 5. Please note the following:
▪ Calculations are based on the Planning Submittal architectural drawings dated June
15th, 2020.
▪ Estimated noise contribution for the future pool amenity space was included for the
residential units facing the pool area.
▪ Since traffic volumes are low due to Distance Learning and COVID-19, we have added
2 dBA to the measured levels to account for typical traffic noise levels.
▪ Typical construction grade window achieves STC 28.
▪ Typical exterior entry door with gasketing and a door bottom/shoe (swing doors)
achieves STC 28.
o The exterior partition details are not provided at this time. However, we
understand the exterior siding will be stucco. For this analysis, we assumed the
exterior assembly consists of exterior stucco, wood framing with batt insulation
in the stud cavity, and 1/2-inch thick interior gypsum board.
▪ STC ratings only apply to occupied spaces; stairwells, bathrooms, unoccupied support
spaces do not require sound rated assemblies.
▪ The recommended STC ratings of operable fenestration correspond to performance in
the closed position, which halts natural ventilation; therefore, fresh air must be
provided using an active mechanical (e.g., HVAC) or passive (e.g., stack-effect) system.
The mechanical engineer should review this recommendation.
If the design changes, the recommended STC ratings below would need to be refined.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 12 of 17
Figure 3 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 1
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 13 of 17
Figure 4 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 2
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 14 of 17
Figure 5 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 3
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 15 of 17
Vibration Study
In addition to the exterior noise measurements described above, an ambient vibration measurement
was conducted to determine if existing sources of transportation, most notably the SR-72 freeway,
generate vibration impacts on the project site. As detailed in the transit-related vibration impact criteria
presented in Table 1, vibration events at residential buildings would be considered significant if frequent
events exceed 72 VdB, if occasional events exceed 75 VdB, or if infrequent events exceed 80 VdB (where
frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day, occasional events are defined as 30-70
events per day, and infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day).
Ground-borne vibration can be a concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance
facility. However, in contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental
problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in
locations close to major roads. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings
such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical
outdoor sources of vibration waves that propagate through the ground and create perceptible ground-
borne vibration in nearby buildings include construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on
rough roads. If the roadway is fairly smooth, the vibration from rubber-tired traffic is rarely perceptible.
Building damage due to vibration is also rare for typical transportation projects (Federal Transit
Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual). The nearest large
transportation source that could potentially generate transit-related vibration events would be the
SR-17 freeway approximately 350 feet east of the project site.
A Sigicom C22 vibration sensor was used to measure ambient ground vibration levels near the east side
of the existing project site (see Figure 1 for measurement locations). The measurement was performed
between September 30 to October 4, 2020. Results are presented in terms of max and average RMS
vibration decibels, referenced at 1 micro-inch per second, between 2-250 Hz (peak levels were
measured, RMS values were calculated using a crest factor of 2, which is conservative based on the FTA
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual). The results of the ambient ground vibration
measurement are shown in Figure 6.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 16 of 17
Figure 6 - Continuous Vibration Level Measurement
As shown in the figures above, continuous vibration levels exceeded 70 VdB only once throughout the
measurement period (the limit for frequent events is 70 VdB for minimum 30 events per day). Given the
infrequency of vibration events, it is unlikely the freeway or other transportation sources generate
reoccurring vibration events. Based on this data, vibration levels at this measurement location do not
exceed the FTA transit-related vibration impact criteria for frequent, occasional, or infrequent events.
Existing levels of ground vibration are not expected to generate any impact on the project site.
This concludes our environmental noise and vibration study for the Franciscan Multifamily Housing
project in Campbell, CA; please contact us with questions.
30
40
50
60
70
80
Vib-1: Continuous Vibration Levels, VdB (re. micro-in/sec) -RMS
Limit for Frequent Events Limit for Occasional Events Limit for Infrequent Events
VdB - 15-min Average VdB - 15-min Maximum
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 17 of 17
Appendix A: Definition of Terms
Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number used to rate the transmission of sound
between exterior and interior. While similar to STC, the OITC rating considers lowers frequencies (i.e.,
down to 80 Hz) and is weighted more to lower frequencies (e.g., aircraft/rail/truck traffic).
Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single number used to compare walls, floor/ceiling assemblies and
doors for their sound insulating properties with respect to reducing airborne noise.
A-Weighted Sound Level: A term for the A-Weighted sound pressure level. The sound level is obtained
by use of a standard sound level meter and is expressed in decibels. Sometimes the unit of sound level
is written as dB(A).
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A metric for the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level.
The CNEL metric accounts for the increased sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and
nighttime hours. From 7 pm to 10 pm, sound levels are penalized by 5 dB; from 10 pm to 7 am, sound
levels are penalized by 10 dB. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud.
Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL): A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise
occurring during the nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people
during sleeping hours. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud.
Leq: The equivalent continuous sound level which would contain the same sound energy as the time
varying sound level.
November 30, 2020
220734
Nicholas Leone
Raintree Partners
25 Taylor Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
The Franciscan, 601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California
Dear Mr. Leone:
Aquifer Sciences is pleased to present this assessment report regarding the hydrology and water
quality related to the proposed addition at the Franciscan apartment community, located at 601
Almarida Drive, Campbell, California.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us.
Respectfully yours,
Rebecca Sterbentz, PG, CHG, QSP/QSD Duncan Knudsen
President Senior Staff Geologist
Enclosure
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION 1
3.0 HYDROGEOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1
4.0 RAIN DATA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT 2
5.0 FLOOD HAZARDS 3
6.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3
6.1 CONSTRUCTION 3
6.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION OPERATION 4
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 5
7.0 REFERENCES 6
FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Site Vicinity: The Franciscan
Figure 2. Site Map Showing The Franciscan and Proposed Addition
Figure 3. City of Campbell Checklist for Hydrology and Water Quality Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Overall Architectural Site Plan
Appendix B. City of Campbell GIS Viewer Map of Storm Drain System
Appendix C. Storm Water Control Plan – 601 Almarida Drive
Appendix D. Grading and Drainage Plan – 601 Almarida Drive
Appendix E. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 06085C0237H
1
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSEMENT
601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California
November 2020
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Aquifer Sciences performed a hydrology and water quality assessment for the proposed
construction project at 601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California (Figures 1 and 2). The
objective of the assessment was to evaluate the local hydrology, water quality, stormwater
drainage, historical rain data, and flood data to identify any potential environmental impacts to
the area during the proposed construction project and post-construction operation. The City of
Campbell checklist for hydrology and water quality evaluation of environmental impacts is
presented in Figure 3.
2.0 PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The property at 601 Almarida Drive was constructed in 1971 as an apartment community (The
Franciscan) on 7.48 acres of land. The Franciscan contains 180 garden-style units within 16
two-story buildings and 4 one-story buildings with a pool and other amenities. The proposed
project includes the demolition of a portion of the existing development and to make way for
constructing the proposed addition. The demolition would remove the current pool, 61 parking
spaces, and the four one-story buildings that currently house the leasing office, facility
maintenance, storage, and laundry room. The proposed addition would include a new 60-unit
residential building with a pool, amenities, and subgrade parking garage (Figure 2). The 16
two-story buildings built in 1971 will remain in place and are not a part of the proposed
addition.
The demolition area includes 75,972 square feet of current building coverage, 92,913 square
feet of landscaping, and 115,061 square feet of pavement. The proposed addition would
include 102,198 square feet of building coverage, 91,424 square feet of landscaping, and
90,324 square feet of pavement. Construction of the proposed addition would increase the area
of impervious surfaces by 1,489 square feet. The land use calculations are included in
Appendix A.
3.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Aerial photographs, storm drain maps, and the GeoTracker database were evaluated for this
hydrology and water quality assessment. Aerial photographs were obtained from Google Earth.
Storm drain maps were obtained from the City of Campbell GIS website. The GeoTracker
database was searched to identify any environmental cases in the vicinity of the property.
2
Aerial photographs and storm drain maps show that the land at the property is relatively flat
and that there are no storm drain inlets within the property boundary. All storm drain inlets are
located in the streets adjacent to the property along David Avenue and Almarida Drive. The
City of Campbell records show that the storm drain line in the property vicinity conveys water
eastward along David Avenue and southward along Almarida Drive until the intersection at
East Hamilton Avenue. At East Hamilton Avenue, storm drain line conveys water eastward
until reaching the Highway 17 southbound onramp, where it follows southward along Highway
17 to discharge into Los Gatos Creek. The City of Campbell storm drain map is included in
Appendix B.
The GeoTracker database search concluded that there are no environmental cases at the
property or in the close vicinity. It is reasonable to conclude that soil and groundwater in the
area have not been adversely impacted by chemical contaminants. Historical data gathered
from the property vicinity indicate that the depth to groundwater is approximately 100 feet
below ground surface. The groundwater flow direction in the area is to the east-southeast.
4.0 RAIN DATA AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
According to the Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and the National Weather
Service, the mean annual precipitation in Campbell is 14 inches. The proposed SWCP for the
project is included in Appendix C.
Stormwater runoff at The Franciscan apartment community is currently managed by roof
drainage plumbing, surface flow, and a minimally sloped pavement and drainages located in
the parking lot. None of the stormwater runoff is treated before discharge into the public storm
drain system. The overall drainage pattern is split by a drainage divide that extends north to
south across the property. Stormwater runoff from existing buildings and impervious surfaces
on the eastern side of the property flows eastward across pavement and landscaping to the
public storm gutter and storm drain inlets in Almarida Drive. Stormwater runoff from existing
buildings and impervious surfaces on the western side of the property flows westward toward a
minimally-sloped paved drainage channel situated within the parking lot and access road. The
drainage channel flows to the public storm gutter and storm drain inlets on David Avenue and
Almarida Drive.
The proposed addition to the development will introduce new stormwater runoff management
and treatment. According to the Grading and Drainage Plan, stormwater runoff from
impervious areas would incorporate C.3-compliant biotreatment flow-through planters, roof
drainage plumbing, detention plumbing, self-retaining areas, and a storm drain lift station that
discharge into a 12-inch diameter conveyance line connected to the public storm drain system
on Almarida Drive. The Grading and Drainage Plan is included D. The proposed project
stormwater runoff management is divided into three Drainage Management Areas (DMAs):
DMA #1, DMA #2, and DMA #3.
3
DMA #1 will manage stormwater runoff from the podium level and pool area of the new
residential building through building plumbing that discharges into a 200 square foot C.3-
compliant biotreatment flow-through planter. The 200-square foot flow-through planter will
flow into a 36-inch diameter detention pipe for treatment before being pumped through a storm
drain lift station that discharges to the 12-inch diameter storm drain conveyance line.
DMA #2 will manage stormwater runoff from the roof of the new residential building through
drainage plumbing that discharges into a 500-square foot C.3-compliant biotreatment flow-
through planter. The 500-square foot flow-through planter will discharge to the 12-inch
diameter storm drain conveyance pipe.
DMA #3 will manage stormwater runoff from the roof of the new amenity building through
drainage plumbing that discharges into a 235-square foot C.3-compliant biotreatment flow-
through planter. The 235-square foot flow-through planter will discharge to the 12-inch
diameter storm drain conveyance line.
Hardscape areas outside of DMA #1, DMA #2, and DMA #3 will drain to self-retaining areas
with a maintained 2:1 ratio of impervious to pervious surfaces. The hardscape areas are
walkways and patios that are considered infeasible to be treated. The 16 two-story buildings
that are not part of the construction project will continue with the existing stormwater runoff
management.
5.0 FLOOD HAZARDS
According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM panel 06085C0237H), The Franciscan is
located in an area of minimal flood hazard. The National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette for
601 Almarida Drive is included in Appendix E.
6.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This hydrology and water quality assessment identifies and analyzes the potential
environmental impacts during construction and post-construction operation of the proposed
addition at The Franciscan development. The potential of the proposed project to impact water
quality during construction and post-operation are discussed in this section.
6.1 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed addition will require grading, excavation, and other construction-
related earthwork that could cause soil erosion at an accelerated rate during storm events.
These activities have a potential to create environmental impacts on water quality if stormwater
runoff from the construction zone enters local receiving waters. Construction runoff can enter
local receiving water through two processes: 1) suspended soil particles transported through
4
stormwater runoff; and 2) sediment transported via dust that eventually reaches local water
bodies during rain events.
Local receiving waters are regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program, established by the Clean Water Act, which control and reduces
pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point source discharges. In California, the
NPDES permitting program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) through Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) located across the
State. Any new development that disturbs one or more acres of land is required to comply with
the NPDES General Construction Permit and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) which incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control
sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction.
These hazards can be mitigated through the implementation of erosion and sediment control
BMPs. Until the construction is complete and permanent vegetation is established, BMPs
controlling erosion will be used to prevent potential sediment-laden drainage runoff into the
storm drain system. Examples of BMPS that control erosion and sediment include the
following:
• watering any exposed soil for dust suppression
• soil stabilization by means of binding agents or fabrics
• construction road stabilization to reduce soil tracking
• drain inlet protection such as filter fabric, wattles, or sediment traps
• covering stockpiles, trashcan, and construction debris during rainfall.
The proposed project is situated on 7.48 acres, and therefore, will likely be subject to the State
NPDES General Construction Permit requirements for SWPPP and site-specific BMPs. If a
SWPPP plan is not required for the proposed project, an erosion control plan should be
implemented with site-specific BMPs. Compliance with the NPDES General Construction
Permit requirements and/or the implementation of site-specific BMPs would ensure that the
proposed construction project would not violate any water quality standards or wastewater
requirements.
6.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION OPERATION
During the dry season, vehicles and other urban and maintenance activities may release
contaminants onto impervious surfaces. These contaminants could accumulate until the rainy
season. During the initial storm events, the concentrated pollutants could be transported by
way of stormwater runoff from the property to the public stormwater system, which discharge
into local receiving waters.
As described in Section 2.0, the proposed addition will increase the area of impervious surface
by only 1,489 square feet. Additionally, the final design of the proposed project will
5
implement new stormwater runoff management and treatment in DMA #1, DMA #2, and DMA
#3. The new stormwater runoff management and treatment will offer additional stormwater
protections beyond what is currently at the property.
All municipalities within Santa Clara County are required to develop stricter surface water
control standards for new developments projects to comply with Provision C.3 of the RWQCB
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049. The Santa Clara
Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) developed a C.3 Stormwater
Handbook for implementing the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit C.3
requirements, known as the C.3 Standards. The C.3 Standards require new developments and
redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces to
incorporate design, control, and engineering treatment measures to contain and treat all
stormwater runoff from a project site in order to prevent pollutants from being washed into
local receiving waters. The proposed addition would alter 192,522 square feet of impervious
surfaces and would create approximately 1,489 square feet of new impervious surfaces;
therefore, the project would be considered a C.3-regulated project and would be subject to the
requirements of the RWQCB’s C.3 Standards.
Due to the similarity in existing and proposed land use, the potential for an increased amount of
urban pollutants associated with stormwater runoff would not be significant. Compliance with
the C.3 Stormwater Handbook requirements and the additional stormwater runoff management
and treatment will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern; result in substantial
erosion or siltation; increase the rate or amount of surface runoff; create or contribute runoff
water that will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or
impede or redirect flood flows.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project would be compliant with either the NPDES General Construction Permit
or an erosion control plan and should implement proper BMPs to appropriately manage and
control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous material contamination runoff. Compliance with
either of these plans will ensure that the proposed project will not violate any water quality
standards, wastewater discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface water
or groundwater quality during construction, Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
The post-construction operation of the proposed project would be compliant with Provision C.3
of the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049 and
the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Compliance with these permits will ensure the
completed project would not violate any water quality standards, wastewater discharge
requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during
construction, Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
6
The City of Campbell’s water supply is currently imported from Santa Clara Valley Water
Districts (SCVWD), which is treated surface water, not derived from groundwater wells in the
vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project will only increase the impermeable
surface area by 1,489 square feet. The project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
The proposed project includes new stormwater runoff management measures, as well as new
treatment measures, to limit the generation of untreated stormwater runoff. The additional
stormwater runoff management measures and the comparable square footage of impermeable
surfaces will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern; result in substantial erosion;
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems; or impeded or redirect flood flows. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM panel 06085C0237H), the project is located in
an area of minimal flood hazard, such that the flood hazards and the risk of release of pollutants
is not significant. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Historical data from surrounding areas indicate that the depth to groundwater is approximately
100 feet below ground surface. Furthermore, the City of Campbell sources drinking water from
the SCVWD. The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or a groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impact will occur.
8.0 REFERENCES
City of Campbell GIS Viewer. Storm Drain System Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center, San Jose Water.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Weather Service, Climate and
History for Campbell, California.
Santa Jose Water. Water Source Map.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention. C.3 Stormwater Handbook, September
5, 2019.
State Water Resources Control Board. Construction Stormwater General Permits, 2009-0009-
DWQ Construction General Permit, July 1, 2010.
State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker website.
Figure 1. MAP OF SITE VICINITY: THE FRANCISCAN601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California
scale
0 1 mile
SITE
880
17
85
87
280
Figure 2. SITE MAP SHOWING THE FRANCISCAN AND PROPOSED ADDITION601 Almarida Drive, Campbell, California
Explanation
property boundaryproposed addition scale
0 300 feet
17
East Hamilton AvenueNorth Central AvenueHarrison AvenueAlmarida DriveDavid Avenue
Figure 3. City of Campbell Checklistfor Hydrology and Water Quality Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
APPENDIX A
OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
CITY OF CAMPBELL
GIS VIEWER MAP
OF
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
APPENDIX C
STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
APPENDIX D
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
APPENDIX E
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet
Ü121°56'46.81"W 37°18'1.72"N 121°56'9.36"W 37°17'33.10"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% AnnualChance Flood Hazard Zone XArea with Reduced Flood Risk due toLevee. See Notes.Zone XArea with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm SewerLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance17.5 Water Surface ElevationCoastal Transect
Coastal Transect BaselineProfile BaselineHydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of StudyJurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 6/9/2020 at 11:58:19 AM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following mapelements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images forunmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used forregulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
OTHERFEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.
THE FRANCISCAN APARTMENTS
CAMPBELL, CA
ACOUSTICAL NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY
PREPARED FOR: RAINTREE PARTNERS
Attn: Nicholas Leone
Sent via email: nleone@raintreepartners.com
January 14, 2021
Prepared by: CSDA Design Group
Indi Savitala
Cameron Sullivan
610 E. Franklin Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 2 of 17
Table of Contents
Section Page
Project Background .............................................................................................................. 3
Noise and Vibration Criteria ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Criteria Summary ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 City of Campbell General Plan – Noise Element .............................................................. 4
2.3 Campbell Municipal Code ................................................................................................ 5
2.4 California Building Code – Residential ............................................................................. 6
2.5 California Building Code (CALGreen) – Commercial/Amenity ......................................... 6
2.6 Transit-related Vibration .................................................................................................. 6
Environmental Noise Study .................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements .............................................................................. 7
3.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 8
Environmental Noise – Analysis and Recommendations ..................................................... 9
4.1 Outdoor Activity Areas ................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Interior Noise Levels – California Building Code/CALGreen .......................................... 11
Vibration Study .................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A: Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 17
List of Figures
Figure
Figure 1 - Measurement Locations .................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 - Continuous Sound Levels at LT-1 ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 1 .............................................................................. 12
Figure 4 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 2 .............................................................................. 13
Figure 5 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 3 .............................................................................. 14
Figure 6 - Continuous Vibration Level Measurement .................................................................... 16
List of Tables
Table
Table 1: Transit-Related Vibration Impact Criteria .......................................................................... 7
Table 2: Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results ........................................................... 9
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 3 of 17
Project Background
Raintree Partners purchased the existing 180-unit Franciscan Apartment complex in Campbell,
CA. Raintree is planning on developing an additional s near the center of the existing site. There
are concerns about noise and vibration impacts from State Route 17 (SR-17) and East Hamilton
Avenue to the proposed residential units and amenity spaces.
The following report outlines three studies conducted by CSDA Design Group (CSDA) to address
noise and vibration concerns:
▪ Environmental Noise Study: Quantify the existing noise environment around the project site
and providing recommendations to ensure interior and exterior noise environments comply
with applicable standards.
▪ Vibration Study: A vibration measurement was conducted on the project site to quantify
existing levels of vibration, which are compared to applicable transit-related vibration
standards.
▪ Traffic Study: A review of increases in project-generated traffic noise will be completed after
receipt of the traffic impact analysis that is being completed for this project (the traffic study
will be provided in a separate report).
Note: increases in project-related traffic noise will be analyzed once the traffic impact analysis
for this project has been completed. For a list of acoustical definitions, terminology, and
references, please refer to Appendix A.
Noise and Vibration Criteria
The following subsections include the relevant acoustical criteria for the project.
2.1 Criteria Summary
Noise level criteria for this project are based on the standards listed below:
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1
Noise generating stationary sources should not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA (for
exterior noise environments) or 45 dBA (for interior noise environments). Impacts should be
determined when stationary noise sources (such as exterior mechanical equipment, pool
pumps, etc.) are in operation.
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2
Not to exceed an exterior 24-hour noise level of CNEL 60 dBA at residential outdoor activity
areas.
CBC Title 24, Volume 1, Section 1206.4
Not exceed an interior 24-hour noise level of Ldn 45 dBA for residential units.
CALGreen
Not exceed 50 dBA 1-hour LEQ during the noisiest hour of operation for indoor
amenity/commercial spaces (only applicable if the loudest exterior hourly noise level is
above 65 dBA LEQ).
Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
Vibration levels at the residential building should not exceed 72 VdB for frequent events, 75
VdB for occasional events, or 80 VdB for infrequent events. A vibration level that exceeds
any of these referenced thresholds shall be considered a vibration event.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 4 of 17
Regarding Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1, information regarding exterior noise
sources (e.g., mechanical equipment data for exterior HVAC units, pool pumps, etc.) is not
currently available. We will evaluate this when information is available.
2.2 City of Campbell General Plan – Noise Element
The City of Campbell General Plan includes a Noise Element that identifies and evaluates noise
problems in Campbell and includes policies to ensure that future land use decisions fully
minimize adverse noise impacts possible. Noise reduction policies applicable to the proposed
project are as follows:
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1a – Noise Ordinance: Adopt and strictly enforce a Noise
Ordinance that establishes noise standards for various noise-sensitive land uses
and for all Zoning Districts (applicable noise limits from the Municipal Code
Noise Ordinance provided in Section 2.3).
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1b – Minimization of Noise Exposure and Generation:
Encourage practices and technologies that minimize noise exposure and noise
generation in new development and redevelopment.
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1c – Noise and New Development: Evaluate the potential for
noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development
proposals.
Noise from Stationary Sources: New residential development shall conform to a
stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and
45 dBA for interior noise levels. Acoustical studies shall be required for all new
noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary
sources. Where existing stationary noise sources exceed the City’s noise
standards, mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure
to or below the allowable levels of the Noise Ordinance.
Traffic-Related Noise: New residential development shall conform to a traffic-
related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-
sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New
development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard
shall not be permitted. Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and
interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential
developments with a noise exposure greater than 60 dBA CNEL. The studies
should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California
Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached
residential projects, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. Table CNR-2:
Traffic-Related Noise Conditions at General Plan Buildout should be used as the
basis to initially identify areas with potential excessive noise exposure (rather
than using traffic noise estimates included in the General Plan, the noise
environment discussed herein is ascertained by on-site noise measurements).
Note: this policy is in line with the noise limits included in the Campbell
Municipal Code outlined in Section 2.3. The 45 dBA interior noise limits
presented here are consistent with the California Building Code standard
presented in Section 2.4.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 5 of 17
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1d – Noise Mitigation Measures: Review and require noise
mitigation measures for development projects, including setbacks between uses,
earth berms, sound walls, landscaping and site design that shields noise-
sensitive uses with non-sensitive structures such as parking lots, utility areas and
garages, or orients buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
▪ Strategy CNR-10.1e – Construction Noise Mitigation: Require mitigation
measures during construction, including limits on operating times of noise-
producing activities (including vehicles). (Note: review of project-related
construction noise is not in the scope of this noise analysis).
As stated in the General Plan Strategy CNR-10.1a, the intent of the Noise Element is to “adopt
and strictly enforce a Noise Ordinance that establishes noise standards for various noise-
sensitive land uses and for all Zoning Districts.” The specific noise limits included in the
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance are an enactment of the strategies and policies included in the
City of Campbell General Plan Noise Element – see Section 2.3.
2.3 Campbell Municipal Code
Section 21.16.070 – Noise, of the Campbell Municipal Code includes noise and vibration limits
applicable to the proposed project – applicable noise ordinance information is provided below:
21.16.070-E – Residential Noise Standards
1. Noise from stationary sources. New residential development shall conform to a
stationary source noise exposure standard of sixty-five dBA for exterior noise
levels and forty-five dBA for interior noise levels.
2. Traffic-related noise. New residential development shall conform to a traffic-
related noise exposure standard of sixty dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-
sensitive outdoor activity areas and forty-five dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New
development that does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard
shall not be allowed.
Note: the 45 dBA interior noise limits presented above are consistent with the California
Building Code standard presented in Section 2.4.
21.16.070-F – Acoustical Studies Required
1. Acoustical studies. Acoustical studies are required for all new noise-sensitive
projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources,
including all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than
60 dBA CNEL. The studies shall also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24,
Part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for
multiple family attached residential projects, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by
Title 24 (see Section 2.4)
2. Mitigation measures. Where acoustical studies show that existing stationary
noise sources exceed, or will exceed maximum allowable noise levels, mitigation
shall be identified to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of
this chapter. Mitigation measures may include increased setbacks between uses,
earth berms, sound walls, landscaping, and site design that shields noise-
sensitive uses with non-sensitive structures, (e.g., parking lots, utility areas and
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 6 of 17
garages), or orientation of buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
In cases where sound walls are used as mitigation, they should be encouraged to
help create an attractive setting with features such as setbacks, changes in
alignment, detail and texture, pedestrian access (if appropriate) and
landscaping.
21.16.090 – Vibration
Uses, activities, and processes shall not generate ground vibration that is
perceptible without instruments by the average person at any point along or
beyond the property line of the parcel containing the activities. Vibrations from
temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the
subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) shall be exempt.
Note: the project does not include any major sources of vibration. Vibration impacts associated
with existing sources of transportation are analyzed in terms of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) standards presented in Section 2.6.
2.4 California Building Code – Residential
For the residential portion of the project, the California Building Code stipulates that interior
noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn for any habitable room
in a multi-family building (2019 California Building Code [CBC], California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Volume 1, Section 1206.4).
2.5 California Building Code (CALGreen) – Commercial/Amenity
CALGreen stipulates noise criteria for commercial spaces. If exterior hourly noise levels at the
project site are above 65 dBA LEQ, then interior noise levels in the indoor amenity spaces must
not exceed 50 dBA LEQ during the noisiest hour of operation (Performance Method).
Note: this criterion applies to the interior noise environment associated with the indoor
support/amenity spaces (i.e., Leasing Office, Community Room, Fitness Center, Level 2 Lobby).
2.6 Transit-related Vibration
The City of Campbell does not provide criteria for transit-related vibration sources. To estimate
the impact of transit-related vibration, this analysis uses the industry standard transit-related
vibration targets provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as follows (Federal
Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual):
Community response to vibration correlates with the frequency of events. More frequent events
of low vibration levels may evoke the same response as fewer high vibration level events. This
effect is accounted for in the ground-borne vibration and noise impact criteria by characterizing
projects by frequency of events. Event frequency definitions from the FTA are as follows:
▪ Frequent Events: More than 70 Events per Day
▪ Occasional Events: 30-70 Events per Day
▪ Infrequent Events: Fewer than 30 Events per Day
Note: Impacts from vibration events, as described in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual, are typically related to rail transit. As shown in the presentation of
Vibration Measurements in Section 5.0, there are no notable transit-related vibration events
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 7 of 17
that could be quantified. The existing vibration levels at the project site will nonetheless be
compared to the vibration standards presented below.
Table 1: Transit-Related Vibration Impact Criteria
Building/Structural Category
Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re. 1 micro-inch per sec)
Frequent Events Occasional Events Infrequent Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration
would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB
Category 2: Residences and buildings
where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 85 VdB
Reference: Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123),
Table 6-3
Category 2 vibration levels are appropriate criteria for the Franciscan Apartments project
Environmental Noise Study
3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements
Ambient sound level measurements were conducted around the project site vicinity between
September 30th and October 4th, 2020. For the ambient noise measurements, Type 1 Larson
Davis Model 831 sound level meters were used. Measurement locations are described as
follows:
Long-term Measurement 1 (LT-1): This meter was attached to a light pole along Almarida
Drive, approximately 12 feet above grade. The noise environment at this location was
controlled by traffic noise along SR-17; local traffic along Almarida Drive, property
maintenance, and noise from pedestrians also contributed to the total noise
environment at this location.
To supplement the data from LT-1, two short-term sound level measurements were conducted
around the project site.
Short-term Measurement 1 (ST-1): This meter recorded approximately 20 minutes of data
on September 30, 2020. This measurement location was on top of the carport near the
east side of the project site, approximately 12 feet above grade. This measurement
location defines the noise environment near the rear of the property, where existing
structures shield the measurement from the major sources of roadway noise. At ST-1,
the noise environment is controlled by traffic noise along SR-17. Based on site
observations, the noise sources controlling this measurement location are consistent
with the noise sources controlling the levels at LT-1.
Short-term Measurement 2 (ST-2): This meter recorded approximately 10 minutes of data
on October 5, 2020. The microphone at this measurement location was attached to a
pole approximately 12 feet above grade, just east of the existing leasing office building
(this monitoring location is at the approximate location of the future residential
building’s east-facing facade). At ST-2, the noise environment is controlled by traffic
noise along SR-17. Based on site observations, the noise sources controlling this
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 8 of 17
measurement location are consistent with the noise sources controlling the levels at
LT-1.
Refer to Figure 1 for a site map indicating the measurement locations (see Section 5.0 for the
description of the vibration monitoring procedure).
Figure 1 - Measurement Locations
3.2 Results
Table 2 summarizes the noise measurement results. Figure 1, above, shows the measurement
locations. Figure 2 represents the continuous sound levels throughout the measurement period
for LT-1.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 9 of 17
Table 2: Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement Results
Location Average Ldn / CNEL Loudest LEQ 1-hour Average LEQ between 8 AM – 10 PM
LT-1 67 dBA 66 dBA 64 dBA
ST-1 60 dBA 59 dBA 57 dBA
ST-2 60 dBA 59 dBA 57 dBA
Notes:
▪ Sound levels for ST-1 and ST-2 were adjusted to account for the 24-hour noise environment
▪ The loudest 1-hour of the measurement period occurred at 6:45 AM on October 1, 2020
▪ Ldn and loudest 1-hour Leq sound levels for ST-1 and ST-2 were adjusted to account for the 24-hour noise environment. This
assumes noise sources controlling the environment at LT-1 are the same sources controlling ST-1 and ST-2, which is consistent
with on-site observations.
Irregular noise events, including leaf blowers and trucks idling, have been removed from the noise measurement results
Figure 2 - Continuous Sound Levels at LT-1
As shown in the results above, the existing ambient noise levels range between 50 dBA to
55 dBA at the quietest hours of the night, and up to 67 dBA during weekday morning rush hour
(weekday morning rush hour represented by the green and red plots in Figure 2).
Environmental Noise – Analysis and Recommendations
Noise generating sources associated with the proposed project, such as exterior mechanical
equipment, pool pumps, etc., are required to comply with the noise limits included in Campbell
Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-1, which requires noise exposure from stationary sources to
be limited to 65 dBA (for exterior noise environments) or 45 dBA (for interior noise
environments). Information regarding exterior noise sources is not available at this time –
impacts related to exterior noise generation will be evaluated at a later date.
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
LEQ-15-minute(dBA) Long-Term Location 1
09/30/20 - 10/01/20 10/01/20 - 10/02/20 10/02/20 - 10/03/20 10/03/20 - 10/04/20
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 10 of 17
4.1 Outdoor Activity Areas
The project development includes several outdoor activity areas that would be subject to the
Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2, which requires new residential developments
to conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of CNEL 60 dBA (see Section 2.3 for
additional information). Outdoor activity areas associated with this new development include:
▪ Public Level 2 Roof Deck near the east side of the project site;
▪ Public ground-level pool area;
▪ Four ground-level private patios (directly next to pool area);
▪ Two level 3 private balconies (only two units will have balcony access; both balconies
are located on the northeast corner of the residential building).
The ST-1 and ST-2 measurement locations are representative of the areas around the future
residential buildings that will experience barrier attenuation from existing or future structures.
These measurement locations are representative of the estimated noise environment at the
future pool area and ground-level private patios. Table 2 shows these measurement locations
are both exposed to a CNEL 60 dBA noise environment. Accordingly, the public ground-level
pool area, the four ground-level private patios (directly next to the pool area), and the two
Level 3 private balconies, which could be represented by the measured sound levels at ST-1 and
ST-2, are in compliance with the traffic-related noise exposure standard of CNEL 60 dBA.
Additionally, the ground-level pool area and the four ground-level private patios are enclosed by
existing or future structures on three sides, which would further reduce the noise levels at these
locations.
Using the measured LT-1 sound level data (see Table 2) as well as the existing and future
building geometry, the Level 2 Amenity Deck near the east side of the project site is estimated
to be exposed to noise levels between CNEL 57 to CNEL 63 dBA. Approximately 50 percent of
the roof deck is estimated to be within the CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard,
and approximately 50 percent of the roof deck is estimated to be above the referenced standard
by about 3 dBA (the portion of the Amenity Deck closest to Almarida Drive is exposed to the
highest noise levels). A potential mitigation measure to reduce the entirety of the Level 2 Roof
Deck noise environment to within the referenced standard would be the inclusion of a solid
barrier wall along the east and north perimeter of the Amenity Deck. However, it was calculated
that such a barrier wall would reduce Amenity Deck noise levels by only 0.5 to 2.5 dB, which is
considered a less-than-noticeable noise level difference. Accordingly, the inclusion of a barrier
wall system should not be considered an effective solution.
We understand the rooftop Amenity Deck will be used primarily between the hours of 8 AM to
10 PM. If the 24-hour CNEL calculation of 60 dBA is re-calculated to the hours of 8 AM to 10 PM,
the average LEQ of the noise levels is 59 dBA. As presented in Table 2, the average LEQ of the
noise levels between 8 AM to 10 PM at LT-1 is 64 dBA. Using the LT-1 measured LEQ 64 dBA
sound level between 8 AM to 10 PM, as well as existing and future building geometry, the
Amenity Deck is estimated to be exposed to noise levels between LEQ 54 to LEQ 60 dBA. This
means that the Amenity Deck, as designed, is within the applicable noise levels during the
anticipated hours of operation.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 11 of 17
Although the referenced Campbell Municipal Code standard refers to a 24-hour CNEL noise
level, the space will not be used during the nighttime hours and it should be noted that the
Amenity Deck is expected to be below 60 dBA during the time period when the space will
actually be in use.
Additionally, as a feasible noise reduction solution, we recommend installing fixtures along the
eastern portion of the Amenity Deck (e.g., potted plants, rooftop landscaping, etc.). Although
these fixtures would not reduce the traffic noise levels impacting the Amenity Deck, fixtures
would force users towards the western side of the Amenity Deck that is generally below the
CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard. Based on the assumptions above plus
inclusion of the referenced mitigation measure, outdoor activity spaces associated with the
project are expected to comply with the CNEL 60 dBA traffic-related noise exposure standard
provided by Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070-E-2.
4.2 Interior Noise Levels – California Building Code/CALGreen
Based on the noise analysis detailed above, we expect portions of the ground-floor facade will
be exposed to 24-hour noise levels above Ldn 65 dBA. Per the CALGreen standard referenced
above, the project’s indoor amenity spaces should be designed so that interior noise
attributable to the noisiest 1-hour period does not exceed Ldn 50 dBA.
In addition, since noise levels are up to Ldn 60 dBA, the residential interior criterion of Ldn 45 dBA
should be met. Sound-rated windows and exterior doors are required at various building facades
– see recommendations in Figures 3 through 5. Please note the following:
▪ Calculations are based on the Planning Submittal architectural drawings dated June
15th, 2020.
▪ Estimated noise contribution for the future pool amenity space was included for the
residential units facing the pool area.
▪ Since traffic volumes are low due to Distance Learning and COVID-19, we have added
2 dBA to the measured levels to account for typical traffic noise levels.
▪ Typical construction grade window achieves STC 28.
▪ Typical exterior entry door with gasketing and a door bottom/shoe (swing doors)
achieves STC 28.
o The exterior partition details are not provided at this time. However, we
understand the exterior siding will be stucco. For this analysis, we assumed the
exterior assembly consists of exterior stucco, wood framing with batt insulation
in the stud cavity, and 1/2-inch thick interior gypsum board.
▪ STC ratings only apply to occupied spaces; stairwells, bathrooms, unoccupied support
spaces do not require sound rated assemblies.
▪ The recommended STC ratings of operable fenestration correspond to performance in
the closed position, which halts natural ventilation; therefore, fresh air must be
provided using an active mechanical (e.g., HVAC) or passive (e.g., stack-effect) system.
The mechanical engineer should review this recommendation.
If the design changes, the recommended STC ratings below would need to be refined.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 12 of 17
Figure 3 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 1
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 13 of 17
Figure 4 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 2
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 14 of 17
Figure 5 - Recommended STC Ratings: Level 3
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 15 of 17
Vibration Study
In addition to the exterior noise measurements described above, an ambient vibration measurement
was conducted to determine if existing sources of transportation, most notably the SR-72 freeway,
generate vibration impacts on the project site. As detailed in the transit-related vibration impact criteria
presented in Table 1, vibration events at residential buildings would be considered significant if frequent
events exceed 72 VdB, if occasional events exceed 75 VdB, or if infrequent events exceed 80 VdB (where
frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day, occasional events are defined as 30-70
events per day, and infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day).
Ground-borne vibration can be a concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance
facility. However, in contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental
problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in
locations close to major roads. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings
such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical
outdoor sources of vibration waves that propagate through the ground and create perceptible ground-
borne vibration in nearby buildings include construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on
rough roads. If the roadway is fairly smooth, the vibration from rubber-tired traffic is rarely perceptible.
Building damage due to vibration is also rare for typical transportation projects (Federal Transit
Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual). The nearest large
transportation source that could potentially generate transit-related vibration events would be the
SR-17 freeway approximately 350 feet east of the project site.
A Sigicom C22 vibration sensor was used to measure ambient ground vibration levels near the east side
of the existing project site (see Figure 1 for measurement locations). The measurement was performed
between September 30 to October 4, 2020. Results are presented in terms of max and average RMS
vibration decibels, referenced at 1 micro-inch per second, between 2-250 Hz (peak levels were
measured, RMS values were calculated using a crest factor of 2, which is conservative based on the FTA
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual). The results of the ambient ground vibration
measurement are shown in Figure 6.
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 16 of 17
Figure 6 - Continuous Vibration Level Measurement
As shown in the figures above, continuous vibration levels exceeded 70 VdB only once throughout the
measurement period (the limit for frequent events is 70 VdB for minimum 30 events per day). Given the
infrequency of vibration events, it is unlikely the freeway or other transportation sources generate
reoccurring vibration events. Based on this data, vibration levels at this measurement location do not
exceed the FTA transit-related vibration impact criteria for frequent, occasional, or infrequent events.
Existing levels of ground vibration are not expected to generate any impact on the project site.
This concludes our environmental noise and vibration study for the Franciscan Multifamily Housing
project in Campbell, CA; please contact us with questions.
30
40
50
60
70
80
Vib-1: Continuous Vibration Levels, VdB (re. micro-in/sec) -RMS
Limit for Frequent Events Limit for Occasional Events Limit for Infrequent Events
VdB - 15-min Average VdB - 15-min Maximum
The Franciscan Apartments
Acoustical Noise and Vibration Study
January 14, 2021
CSDA Project No. 20073.01
Page 17 of 17
Appendix A: Definition of Terms
Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number used to rate the transmission of sound
between exterior and interior. While similar to STC, the OITC rating considers lowers frequencies (i.e.,
down to 80 Hz) and is weighted more to lower frequencies (e.g., aircraft/rail/truck traffic).
Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single number used to compare walls, floor/ceiling assemblies and
doors for their sound insulating properties with respect to reducing airborne noise.
A-Weighted Sound Level: A term for the A-Weighted sound pressure level. The sound level is obtained
by use of a standard sound level meter and is expressed in decibels. Sometimes the unit of sound level
is written as dB(A).
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A metric for the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level.
The CNEL metric accounts for the increased sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and
nighttime hours. From 7 pm to 10 pm, sound levels are penalized by 5 dB; from 10 pm to 7 am, sound
levels are penalized by 10 dB. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud.
Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL): A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise
occurring during the nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people
during sleeping hours. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud.
Leq: The equivalent continuous sound level which would contain the same sound energy as the time
varying sound level.
ITEM NO. # 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ May 24, 2022 PLN-2021-157 Amaranta Hernandez
Public Hearing to consider the request (PLN-2021-157) of Amaranta Hernandez of T Square Consulting Group (agent for operator) to allow the establishment of a day care center and associated site improvements, on
property located at 65 W. Hamilton Avenue in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Conditional Use Permit and finding the
project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the minor alteration of existing facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the determination that the project is
Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pertaining to the operation, permitting, and minor alterations of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
PROJECT DATA
Lot Size: 15,022 square feet
Tenant Space: 2,268 square feet
Zoning District: C-2 General Commercial
General Plan: General Commercial
Operational Hours:
Business hours: Operational hours:
8:30 AM to 6:00 PM (Monday through Friday) 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Monday through Friday) Drop Off Times: Group A: Group B:
8:30 AM – 9:15 AM 9:15 AM – 10:00 AM Pick Up Times: Group A: Group B:
4:45 PM – 5:30 PM 5:30PM – 6:00 PM Outdoor Play Area: 1,000 square feet
Building Square Footage: 2,268 square feet
Parking: Total existing parking:
Provided parking: Required parking:
10 parking spaces
10 parking spaces 10 parking spaces
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is an existing commercial building along W. Hamilton Avenue. The
property is bookended by other commercial properties (a restaurant d.b.a Burger King to the east and two personal services uses such as a nail salon and hair salon) with single-family residential uses sharing the rear property line. The proposed commercial day care center will occupy the entire building.
Figure 1: Aerial View
Proposed Project: As depicted on the submitted Project Plans and described in the Project Description (reference Attachments 2 and 3), the proposed project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial day care center within an existing commercial building. The proposed hours of operation would have business hours of 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and operational
hours from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday. The commercial day care center is proposing a maximum number of 24 children, ranging from ages 2 to 5. Due to the number of children, the drop-off and pick-up will be staggered to ensure minimal impacts to Hamilton Avenue. The proposed commercial day care center will only be offering preschool
services at this location. The existing commercial building will be internally reconfigured from 13 offices to four classrooms, an indoor playroom area, two offices, five restrooms, a library, reception area, and teacher area. The exterior alterations include creation of a fenced-in outdoor play area and reconfiguration of the parking
lot, which includes demolition of a detached garage.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 3 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
Figure 2: Proposed Floor Plan Site Layout: The existing site includes two driveways that are one way in and one way out. As part of the project, the parking lot is proposed to be restriped and reconfigured to allow for the outdoor play
area, and easier vehicular maneuverability. The proposed outdoor play area is located towards the rear
of the building, and away from West Hamilton Avenue. The play area includes a 6-foot wrought iron fence with a man door equipped with panic hardware to allow for egress from the inside of an outswing exit door. Inside the play area is a play structure approximately 13-feet tall and rubber pavers covering the ground. To accommodate the outdoor play area and relocation of an accessible parking space, two
non-protected trees are proposed for removal. These trees are considered non-protected as none of the
trunks are 12 inches or greater measured four feet above adjacent grade.
Figure 3: Existing Site Plan Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 4 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
ANALYSIS
General Plan:
The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is General Commercial. The General Plan
Land Use designation of General Commercial allows for commercial uses that need exposure to high volumes of traffic or access to transit corridors. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial.
Zoning Code:
The project site has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial. The purpose of this zoning district is to provide a wide range of retail sales and business and personal services oriented to the automobile customer and accessible to transit corridors, to provide for general commercial needs of the city.
Administrative Procedure: In the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, a commercial day care
use is identified as a Conditional Use. In accordance with CMC 21.72 (Definitions) a commercial day care use is defined as follows:
“Commercial day care use” means a commercial or non-profit child day care facility not operated as a small or large child day care home. Includes infant centers, preschools, sick child
centers, and school-age day care facilities. These may be operated in conjunction with a
business, school, or religious facility, or as an independent land use.
The proposed commercial day care use is proposing to locate in an existing commercial building with limited changes to the exterior, site improvements, and primarily interior renovations.
Parking: With the reconfiguration of the surface parking lot, the project site provides ten parking spaces
on-site. A commercial day care center requires one parking space for each employee plus one parking
space for each five children. Based on a maximum of five employees, and 24 children, the parking requirement is ten parking spaces. The commercial day care center satisfies the parking requirement.
Special Uses: Pursuant to Section 21.36.080 of the CMC, commercial day care centers must comply with development and operational standards. The development and operational standards generally
speak to the configuration of the play area, hours of operation, parking, and parcel size. The table below
summarizes the requirements in Section 21.36.080 and explains how the proposal satisfies the requirement.
Requirement Proposed Satisfies Requirement?
Minimum parcel size for a
commercial child care center shall
be 10,000 square feet.
Project site is approximately
15,238 square feet.
Yes
Indoor play areas shall be in
compliance with State requirements requiring 35 square feet of unencumbered indoor space per child.
The indoor play area is
approximately 460 square feet and with a requirement of 35 square feet of unencumbered play area per child, a maximum
of 13 children can occupy the
indoor play area at the same time.
Yes
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 5 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
The children will need to be placed into groups to ensure indoor play time is staggered.
Outdoor play areas shall be in compliance with State requirements requiring 75 square feet of unencumbered outdoor
space per child and shall be
enclosed by a six-foot high fence or wall.
The outdoor play area is approximately 1,000 square feet and based on the requirement of 75 square feet of unencumbered
play area, 13 children can occupy
the outdoor play area at the same time. The children will need to be placed into groups to ensure indoor play time is staggered.
The outdoor play area will be
enclosed by a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence.
Yes
Unless approved to operate 24 hours, hours of operation shall be confined to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. In no case shall an
individual child stay for a
continuous period of 24 hours or more.
The commercial day care center is proposing business hours of operation from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM and operational/staff hours of
operation from 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM.
Yes
One sign shall be allowed in
compliance with Chapter 21.30 (Signs).
Signage is not part of the
Conditional Use Permit and a separate application must be made to the Building Division. The sign will be required to
comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Yes
Off street parking shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 21.28,
plus additional surface area shall be
provided that is of sufficient size to accommodate off-street loading/unloading. The area used for parking shall not be used for
both parking and as a play area at the same time.
The proposed commercial day care center complies with the
parking requirement, as discussed in the previous section. The parking area will not be used as a play area.
Yes
The facilities may also be subject to
other requirements (e.g. California Health and Safety Code, California Administration Code, and Uniform Building Code).
The commercial day care center
will be required to submit for subsequent building permits and child care licensing from the California Department of Social
Services.
Yes
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 6 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
Findings for Approval
In order to grant approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must
affirmatively establish 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 following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings in italics and the consistency of the proposed project.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 21.46.040 of CMC): The property is located within the C-2
(General Commercial) Zoning District. A commercial day care center may be allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit after making all six (6) of the required findings described in italics below. An explanation of how the project meets each finding is provided below.
1. 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;
See related discussion under ‘Zoning Code’. The use is considered a commercial day care center which is allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and upon compliance with Section 21.36.080 Commercial Child Care Centers of the CMC.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;
Allowing a new Commercial Day Care use will meet the purpose and intent of the General Commercial General Plan land use designation, which is to accommodate businesses along larger arterials. This land use designation is intended to support the success and viability of the City’s retail and business centers, establishment of a commercial day care center would be
consistent with the General Commercial designation. The applicant’s proposal may also be
found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies:
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.
Policy LUT-11.2: Services Within Walking Distance: Encourage neighborhood services within walking distance of residential uses.
Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance between the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community.
The proposed commercial day care center furthers the above General Plan policies and strategy
by proposing a new business within city limits to provide an additional service to residents. The
proposed commercial day care is located within walking distance of residential uses, as there are residential uses located behind the proposed commercial day care.
3. 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;
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 7 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
The project site is already developed with a commercial building improved with fencing, landscaping, and a surface parking lot. However, with the proposed commercial day care center,
site modifications are required in order to accommodate an outdoor play area and allow for
greater ease of parking by restriping the surface parking lot from 90-degree angled spaces to 30-degree angled spaces. Additionally, consistent with the City's trash enclosure requirements, a new trash enclosure to serve the commercial day care center is proposed at the rear of the property. With the necessary site improvements, the project site will adequately serve the
proposed use and better integrate into the surrounding area.
As described in the ‘Zoning Code’ section above, the project is providing the required number of parking spaces as required by the CMC.
4. 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;
The City's Traffic Engineering Division determined that the change of use from a professional
office use to a commercial day care center would not result in any appreciable increase that would require a formal traffic analysis. The project site and adjacent street system can accommodate the traffic that may be generated by the commercial day care center of the proposed size. To alleviate any potential traffic issues, the applicant is required to stagger the
drop off and pick up times to limit the number of vehicles visiting the site at one time.
Furthermore, the one way in and one way out vehicular circulation allows for the ease of parents reentering the site, should the need arise.
5. 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
A commercial day care center with business hours of 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through
Friday and operational hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday located within an existing commercial building along a commercial corridor presents no evident compatibility issues to neighboring businesses and residents. A commercial day care center is operating during expected business hours. Furthermore, the proposed commercial day care center is
operating in compliance with Section 21.36.080. This commercial use provides another service
on an existing commercial corridor and is non-impactful to surrounding residential uses.
6. 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.
Single-family residences abuts the project site to the north. A suitable use in this context is one that does not present noise, safety, or general nuisance concerns. The establishment of a commercial day care use may present noise concerns, however, prohibitions on use of speakers, chimes, or other sound generating devices can help reduce noise. Outdoor activities can also be
restricted to only occur in the late morning and early evening hours (e.g. 10:00 AM to 6:00
PM).
Public Outreach: The project was noticed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and publicized in the newspaper (Metro). No public comments have been received on this application.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2022 Page 8 of 8PLN-2021-157 ~ 65 W. Hamilton Avenue
Site and Architectural Review Committee: This application was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) on April 26, 2022. Vice Chair Buchbinder inquired whether the City
regulated the height of play structures. Staff stated that it may be considered an accessory structure but
upon further review, it would be considered another primary structure. The play structure would be required to meet the height regulations of the zoning district, which is 75-feet. Staff also stated that the building was previously occupied by office uses.
The applicant then provided a brief presentation and stated that this is a montessori school with
bilingual services with a Christian focus. The operator has been operating in other locations for 30-
years. Lastly, Vice Chair Buchbinder asked if the use category of commercial day care center was the same as a pre-school. For purposes of the zoning code and child care licensing, they are treated the same, but a pre-school has a scholastic element.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. Project Description
Prepared by:
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (PLN-2021-157) TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAY CARE USE WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 65 WEST HAMILTON AVENUE IN THE C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
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 did find as follows with regard to application PLN-2021-157:
1. The project site is zoned C-2 (General Commercial) and designated General Commercial
by the General Plan.
2. The project site is the approximately 15,022 square foot lot containing one commercial building located at 65 West Hamilton Avenue.
3. The subject use, Christian Righteousness Education Center, occupies an approximately
2,268 square-foot commercial building.
4. The proposed project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial day care use (d.b.a. Christian Righteousness Education Center) with associated site improvements to allow for an outdoor play area, the reconfiguration of an existing parking
lot and a new trash enclosure.
5. As described by the applicant's Written Description, the commercial day care use will have a maximum of 24 children. To alleviate traffic concerns, the two drop-off and pick-up will be staggered to ensure minimal traffic impacts.
6. In the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning districts, ‘commercial day care’ is identified as a
Conditional Use.
7. A ‘commercial day care use’ is defined by CMC 21.72 as follows:
" Commercial child day care centers" means a commercial or non-profit child day care
facility not operated as a small or large child day care home. Includes infant centers,
preschools, sick child centers, and school-age day care facilities. These may be
operated in conjunction with a business, school, or religious facility, or as an
independent land use. Commercial child day care centers shall comply with the
provisions of Section 21.36.080.
8. The proposal does not result in any additional floor area. Exterior building alterations are
only proposed for the demolition of an existing shed.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 7 65 West Hamilton Avenue Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157) – Commercial Day Care
9. The business would operate between 8:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday for customer serving hours and operate between 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday for staff operation hours, and accordingly, would not constitute a late-night use.
10. The site provides approximately 10 parking spaces. A commercial day care center
requires one parking space for each employee plus one parking space for each five children. Based on a maximum of five employees, and 24 children, the parking requirement is ten parking spaces. The commercial day care center satisfies the parking requirement.
11. The proposed commercial day care center use complies with the regulations contained
in Section 21.36.080 of the CMC. The proposed commercial day care center is located on a site of approximately 15,238 square feet, exceeding the minimum required 10,000 square foot lot requirement by 5,238 square feet. The indoor play area is approximately 460 square feet and with a requirement of 35 square feet of unencumbered play area per child, a maximum of 13 children can occupy the indoor play area at the same time.
To satisfy this requirement, the children will need to be placed into groups to ensure indoor play time is staggered. The outdoor play area is approximately 1,000 square feet and based on the requirement of 75 square feet of unencumbered play area, 13 children can occupy the outdoor play area at the same time. Therefore, the outdoor play times will need to be staggered into two groups to ensure this requirement is satisfied. The
outdoor play area will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence as required by the CMC. The commercial day care center is proposing business hours of operation from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM and operational/staff hours of operation from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and therefore, complies with the hours of operation of the municipal code. Signage is not part of the Conditional Use Permit and a separate application must be made to the
Building Division, in which will be required to comply with the Sign Ordinance of the CMC. The proposed commercial day care center complies with the parking requirement, as discussed in the previous section. Furthermore, the parking area will not be used as a play area as the play area is a separate, enclosed space. Lastly, the commercial day care center will be required to submit for subsequent building permits and child care
licensing from the California Department of Social Services.
12. Applicable General Plan Policies considered by the Planning Commission included, but were not limited to, the following:
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.
Policy LUT-11.2: Services within walking distance: Encourage neighborhood services within walking distance of residential uses.
Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance between the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 7 65 West Hamilton Avenue Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157) – Commercial Day Care
13. In review the proposed project, the Planning Commission also weighed the public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the project, against any impacts it may cause.
14. 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:
Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):
1. 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; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;
3. 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; 4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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; Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
7. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and minor
alteration of an existing private structure.
8. 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.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157) to allow a commercial day care use within an
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 65 West Hamilton Avenue Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157) – Commercial Day Care
existing building located at 65 West Hamilton Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157)
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.s
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-157) to
allow a commercial day care use (d.b.a. Christian Righteousness Education Center) within an existing commercial building located at 65 West Hamilton Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans and Written Description included as Attachments 2 and 3 in the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, except as
may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Approval Expiration: The Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for one year from the effective date of the approval (expiring June 3, 2023). Within this one-
year period an application for a building permit must be submitted. Failure to meet this
deadline or expiration of an issued building permit will result in the Approval being rendered void. Abandonment, discontinuation, or ceasing of operations for a continuous period of twelve months shall void the Conditional Use Permit approved herein without the need for formal revocation by the decision-making body.
3. Compliance with Animal Ordinance: Operation of the use shall comply with all applicable provisions of Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Title 7 – Animals. 4. Operational Standards: Consistent with the submitted Written Descriptions and City
standards, a veterinary clinic and animal hospital use operating pursuant to the
Conditional Use Permit approved herein shall conform to the following operational standards. Significant deviations from these standards (as determined by the Community Development Director) shall require approval of a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit.
a. Commercial day care center: Operation of the commercial day care center shall be
in full compliance with Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.36.080 and the California Code of Regulations. The commercial day care center shall maintain in good standing the appropriate license(s) from the California Department of Social Services.
b. Number of children: The maximum number of children allowed shall be twenty-four (24) children.
Planning Commission Resolution No. __ Page 2 of 7 2020 S. Bascom Avenue Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-195) – Veterinary Clinic and Animal Hospital
c. Vehicular Management: In the event that three verifiable complaints are received by the City regarding parking, drop-off and pick-up operations, the Community Development Director may require establishment of limited duration parking, reduce the permitted occupancy, limit the hours of operation, require greater staggering of
drop-off and pick-ups, require additional parking management strategies and/or return the project to the Planning Commission for review.
d. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation shall be as follows. By the end of 'Business Hours', all customers shall have exited the premises. By the end of the 'Operational Hours' all employees shall be off the premises.
Operational/Staff: 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday Business/Public: 8:30 AM – 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday
e. Outdoor activities: All outdoor activities shall be restricted to 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
f. Trash Disposal and Clean-Up: All trash disposal, normal clean-up, carpet cleaning,
window cleaning, sidewalk sweeping, etc. shall occur during the "operational hours."
g. Business License: The business shall be required to obtain and maintain a City business license at all times.
h. Smoking: "No Smoking" signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC Section 6.11.060.
i. Noise: Regardless of decibel level, and taking into consideration the noise levels generated by children, no noise generated from the commercial day care use shall unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to unreasonable interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the adjoining properties. Use of whistles, amplified devices and other sound generating devices is
prohibited.
j. Meeting with neighbors: As necessary, the operator shall conduct meetings with surrounding neighbors should issues arise.
k. Staggered drop-off and pick-up times: The drop-off and pick-up times shall be staggered into two groups to minimize the potential traffic impacts. The first group
shall be dropped off at 8:30 AM to 9:15 AM and picked up at 4:45 PM to 5:30 PM. The second group shall be dropped off at 9:15 AM to 10:00 AM and the picked up at 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM.
5. 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 include the public right-of-way adjacent to the business. Trash receptacles shall be maintained within their approved enclosures at all times.
6. Landscape Maintenance: All landscaped areas shall be continuously maintained in
accordance with City Landscaping Requirements (CMC 21.26). Landscaped areas shall
be watered on a regular basis so as to maintain healthy plants. Landscaped areas shall
Planning Commission Resolution No. __ Page 3 of 7 2020 S. Bascom Avenue Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2021-195) – Veterinary Clinic and Animal Hospital
be kept free of weeds, trash, and litter. Dead or unhealthy plants shall be replaced with healthy plants of the same or similar type.
7. Signage: No signage is approved as part of the development application approved herein. New signage shall not be installed prior to approval of a sign permit.
8. 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.
9. 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. Parking spaces shall be free of debris or other obstructions.
10. Revocation of Permit: Operation of a commercial day care use pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit approved herein is subject to Chapter 21.46 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke an Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that its operation has become a nuisance to
the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Conditional Use Permit or
any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval and/or related to its operation within a six (6) month period, a public hearing may be scheduled to consider modifying
conditions of approval or revoking the Conditional Use Permit. The Community
Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of permits 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 noise complaints at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of patrons’ actions or facility equipment;
b. The number of parking complaints received from residents, business owners
and other citizens concerning the operation of an establishment, including
objectionable or obnoxious odors; and
c. Violation of conditions of approval.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
11. It appears the existing building is a B occupancy and will require an occupancy change
before use. Building permit application for change of occupancy shall be subject to fire department plan review.
12. California Fire Code requirements such as required fire protection systems, fire access, fire flow requirements will be evaluated at the time of building permit review.
13. Prior to final occupancy, property shall be subject to a fire and life safety inspection in
coordination with the CDSS Community Care Licensing process.
Conditional Use Permit Application for the new CREC site at 65 W. Hamilton Ave.
Christian Righteousness Education Center (CREC) provides preschool services to its neighborhood for many years in bay area.
We had school sites at Saratoga and Cupertino, the new site at Campbell will provide the same
services to public.
The new facility will have:
24 Students
5 Teachers
Operational hours: 7:00am ~ 7:00pm (Mon - Fri)
Business hours: 8:30am ~ 6:00pm (Mon – Fri)
Program Schedule: attached
Outdoor Playground: 1,000 square feet
Indoor Playground: 460 square feet
1. How many children are proposed to be dropped off and picked up in Group A and Group B?
Each group would have at most 12 students.
2. What are the outdoor play times and will the children be taken out in groups? If so, how
many children are proposed in each group?
Yes, the children will be taken out in groups of at most 12 students. If there are 12
students or less, then all students can go out in one group, Group A.
Group A:
10:30-11:00 AM,
3:00-3:30 PM
If there are more than 12 students, then children will be split into two groups, and there
will be staggered outdoor times (see Group B times below, in addition to Group A times
above).
Group B:
11:10-11:40 AM
3:45-4:15 PM
3. What are the age range of the children at this facility?
Ages 2-5
4. Will all employees be full time or part time?
5 teachers (3 full-time, 2 part-time) for 24 students
AM part-time teacher hours: 10:00AM - 1:00PM
PM part-time teacher hours: 4:00PM - 6:00PM
Full time teachers 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM
5. In the scanned pamphlet and class schedule, it mentions and preschool, summer camp, and
after school program. Is it anticipated that all three programs will be provided at once all
year, or is there a schedule for these programs?
This facility will only be for preschool year-round. There will be no summer school
or after school activities (as those will be held at a different location entirely).
Parents will be charged late pick up fees at $5.00 for each 5 minute intervals after 6:00 PM.
Followed are CREC pamphlet, and programs.
ITEM NO. 4
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ May 24, 2022 PLN-2021-33
Public Hearing to consider the request of Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. to
allow relocation of an existing office building (converted Folk-
Victorian residence) from 1940 Hamilton Avenue to 1980 Hamilton Avenue for use as an administrative office for the First Congregational Church of San Jose and removal of four protected trees. The applications under consideration include a Conditional Use Permit and
a Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2021-33.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Make a motion to continue consideration of this item to the next Planning Commission
meeting of June 14, 2022
DISCUSSION
Staff requests that this item be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing.
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
ITEM NO. 5
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ May 24, 2022 PLN-2021-177
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 Parking Modification Permit File. No.: PLN-2021-177.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Make a motion to continue consideration of this item to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2022.
DISCUSSION
Staff requests that this item be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission
hearing.
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
ITEM NO. 6
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ May 24, 2022 CIP - General Plan
Consistency
Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell 2023-2027 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for citywide projects for consistency with
the Campbell General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), finding that the proposed Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) is consistent with the Campbell General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the adoption
of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the CIP is not a "project" as defined by Public
Resources Code §21065. CEQA specifically excludes organizational or administrative activities
of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15378. However, individual projects contained within the CIP will be
subject to environmental review under CEQA at the time they are scheduled to go forward.
DISCUSSION
Capital Improvement Plan: Each year, the City prepares a rolling 5-year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for physical and operational infrastructure improvements, including public facilities such
roadways, public parks, and Civic Center and Community Center facilities. The City uses the CIP to project future capital needs, determine financial resources, and to schedule implementation. Expenditures of $25,000 or more must be included in the CIP, while expenditures under that amount are included in annual departmental operating budgets. The first year of the 5-year CIP is
incorporated into the City’s annual budget.
Scope of Review: Government Code Section 65103(c) and 65403(c) requires the City’s "planning agency" to annually review its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for its consistency with the Campbell General Plan and any applicable specific plans at least 60 days prior to its adoption. As
such, the Planning Commission’s purview is limited to evaluating General Plan consistency. The
Commission should, therefore, refrain from discussing the merits of any particular project(s) contained within the CIP. Consistency with the General Plan: Staff has reviewed the new capital projects and identified the
applicable General Plan policies and strategies, as summarized in the table on the following page.
The policies and strategies cited are excerpted in Attachment 2 for the Planning Commission’s reference. Based on this analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the 2023-2027 CIP is consistent with the Campbell General Plan.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2023-2027
Projects and Apportions Applicable General Plan Policies and Strategies
Policies Strategies
Ainsley House Roof & Foundation Assess CNR 1.1; LUT-8-1 LU-4.1a
Bridge Conditions Assessment LUT-7.1; LUT-7.2 LUT-7.1b
Campbell Water Tower Light Replacement LUT-8-1 CNR-2.1b; LU-4.1a
Citywide ITS Enhancement Phase 2 LUT-7.3 LUT-7.3a
Community Center - Heritage Theatre Boiler OSP-6.2 LUT-8.1j; OSP-6.2b
Community Center Fire Alarm Panel Replace OSP-6.2b
Measure B Bike/Ped Educ & Encouragement LUT-7.3 LUT-2.1r
Accessibility Ramps - FY27 LUT-11.1 LUT-2.1h; LUT-11.1g; OSP-6.2d ADA Transition Plan - FY27
Annual Street Maintenance - FY27 LUT-7.1 LUT-7.1b
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Improv - FY27 LUT-7.1; LUT-7.2 LUT 1.3d; LUT-2.1b; LUT-2.1h; LUT-2.1i; LUT-7.2j
Misc Storm Drain Improvements - FY27 OSP-9.2 OSP-9.2a; OSP-9.2b
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY27 LUT-7.2 LUT-2.1i
CIP Projects: The proposed FY 2023-27 CIP totals $90,112,463 and would fund 75 projects.
Thirteen of the projects are new. The remaining projects have been previously approved and/or are proposed to have their apportions revised or their funding period modified. Revenue for project expenditures comes from a number of funding sources, both restricted and discretionary, including the Capital Improvement Plan Reserve (CIPR), Parkland Dedication Fund, grants and private funds, development impact fees required as conditions of approval, construction tax
revenue, environmental services fee revenue, and bond issuance (debt obligation). Approximately 58% of the proposed FY 2023-27 CIP budget is for the $50 million Measure O – Civic Center Improvements Project, which includes a comprehensive remodel of the Campbell Library and construction of a new police station, completely funded from proceeds of general obligation bond sales, as authorized by voters in 2018. Measure O funds are restricted funds whose expenditures
will be reviewed by the "Citizen's Bond Oversight Committee for Measure O." The following tables list the CIP projects grouped by new capital projects, projects with revised (increased or decreased) appropriations, projects with a change to funding period, and existing
(previously approved) capital projects. New projects are further described in the summary sheets (Attachment 3).
New Capital Projects Total Budget Funding Period Source of Funds
Ainsley House Roof & Foundation Assess $ 120,000 FY2023 CIPR
Bridge Conditions Assessment 60,000 FY2024 VIF
Campbell Water Tower Light Replacement 100,000 FY2023 - FY2024 CIPR
Citywide ITS Enhancement Phase 2 500,000 FY2024 CIPR/VRF
Community Center - Heritage Theatre Boiler 90,000 FY2024 CIPR
Community Center Fire Alarm Panel Replace 75,000 FY2023 CIPR
Measure B Bike/Ped Educ & Encouragement 80,155 FY2023 Grants
Accessibility Ramps - FY27 50,000 FY2027 Construction Tax
ADA Transition Plan - FY27 50,000 FY2027 CIPR
Annual Street Maintenance - FY27 2,789,000 FY2027 CIPR/SB1/Grants/VIF
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Improv - FY27 65,000 FY2027 Construction Tax/Grants
Misc Storm Drain Improvements - FY27 50,000 FY2027 Environmental Services
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY27 75,000 FY2027 Construction Tax
Sub‐Total $ 4,104,155
Change to Appropriations Total Budget Funding Period Source of Funds
Hamilton Ave Hwy 17 Southbound Offramp (increased by $1.5M) $ 3,007,000 FY2024 - FY2026 CIPR/Grants/Developer Fees
Police Facility - Funiture Fixtures, Equip (decreased by $1.3M) 2,000,000 FY2024 Grants
Police Mobile Data Computer Replacement (decreased by $16,150) 193,250 FY2023 - FY2027 CIPR
Sub‐Total $ 5,200,250
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2023-2027
Change to Funding Period Total Budget Funding Period Source of Funds
Measure O Design and Construction (moved to FY2023) $ 50,913,750 FY2023 - FY2025 Carryover - CIPR/Grants/SCC
Parking Guidance System (moved from FY2023 to FY2024) 230,000 FY2024 Developer Fees
Service Pistol Replacement (moved from FY2024 to FY2023) 150,000 FY2023 CIPR
SR 17/San Tomas/Camden/White Oaks Impr (moved from FY2026
to FY2027)
1,007,500 FY2027 Grants/Developer Fees
Sub‐Total $ 52,301,250
Existing Projects Total Budget Funding Period Source of Funds
Accessibility Ramps - FY22 $ 50,000 Carryover - Construction Tax
Accessibility Ramps - FY23 50,000 FY2023 Construction Tax
Accessibility Ramps - FY24 50,000 FY2024 Construction Tax
Accessibility Ramps - FY25 50,000 FY2025 Construction Tax
Accessibility Ramps - FY26 50,000 FY2026 Construction Tax
ADA Transition Plan - FY22 50,000 Carryover - CIPR
ADA Transition Plan - FY23 50,000 FY2023 CIPR
ADA Transition Plan - FY24 50,000 FY2024 CIPR
ADA Transition Plan - FY25 50,000 FY2025 CIPR
ADA Transition Plan - FY26 50,000 FY2026 CIPR
ADA Transition Plan Improv 107,209 Carryover - CIPR
Annual Street Maintenance - FY22 4,019,055 Carryover - CIPR/SB1/Grants/VIF
Annual Street Maintenance - FY23 thru FY25 8,513,000 FY2023 - FY2025 CIPR/SB1/Grants/VIF
Annual Street Maintenance - FY26 2,789,000 FY2026 CIPR/SB1/Grants/VIF
Armored Rescue Vehicle 312,750 FY2023 - FY2026 Carryover - CIPR
Auxiliary Gym Upgrades 54,000 Carryover - Park Fees
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY22 25,000 Carryover - Construction Tax
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY21 26,493 Carryover - Construction Tax/Grants
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY23 55,000 FY2023 Construction Tax/Grants
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY24 55,000 FY2024 Construction Tax/Grants
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY25 55,000 FY2025 Construction Tax/Grants
Bike/Ped & Traffic Safety Impr - FY26 55,000 FY2026 Construction Tax/Grants
Camden Avenue Resurfacing 1,422,017 Carryover - VIF
Campbell Avenue and Page Street Traffic Sig 332,000 FY2023 - FY2024 Developer Fees
Campbell Park Bicycle Pathway 109,803 Carryover - Park Fees
Campbell Park Improvements 2,638,094 Carryover - Grants/LLD/Park
Fees
Campbell PDA Enhancements 650,000 Carryover - VIF/Grants
Citywide ITS Enhancement 28,817 Carryover - Grants
Comm Center C-Wing Breezeway Reroofing 70,000 Carryover - CIPR
Comm Center Transformer Replacement 200,000 FY2023 Carryover - CIPR
Community Center Bathroom Upgrades 67,253 Carryover - CIPR
Community Center Wifi 125,000 Carryover - ARPA
Council Chambers Cablecast Equip Upgrade 61,195 Carryover - PEG Fees
General Hazardous Materials Survey - CCC 150,000 FY2023 Carryover - CIPR
Harriet Avenue Sidewalks 1,369,712 FY2023 Carryover - CIPR/Env Srvs/Grants
JDM Improvements - Rincon - Design 50,000 FY2025 Park Fees
JDM Park Parking Lots 240,000 FY2023 Park Fees
JDM Restrooms Improvement - Budd 839,000 FY2024 - FY2025 Park Fees
JDM Rincon Recreational Bldg Assessment 50,000 FY2024 Park Fees
Measure B Bike/Ped Educ & Encouragement 119,000 Grants
Misc Storm Drain Improvements - FY23 50,000 FY2023 Environmental Services
Misc Storm Drain Improvements - FY25 50,000 FY2025 Environmental Services
Officer Safety Plan 1,686,203 FY2023 - FY2031 CIPR
Pruneyard Creek Trail Extension 250,000 FY2023 Developer Fees
Service Center Portable Bldg Replacement 319,728 Land Sale
Service Yard ADM Building Design 50,000 Land Sale
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY23 175,000 FY2023 Construction Tax
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY24 75,000 FY2024 Construction Tax
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY25 75,000 FY2025 Construction Tax
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Impr - FY26 75,000 FY2026 Construction Tax
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2023-2027
Existing Projects Total Budget Funding Period Source of Funds
Silicon Valley Radio Communications System 93,827 Carryover - CIPR
Traffic & Street Sign Replacement 97,798 FY2023 Carryover - CIPR
Traffic Calming Improvements - FY19 50,854 Carryover - Construction Tax
Traffic Calming Improvements - FY23 50,000 FY2023 Construction Tax
Virginia Park Improvements 320,000 FY2025 - FY2026 Park Fees
Sub‐Total $ 28,506,808
Total 5‐Year Capital Projects $ 90,112,463
Attachment: 1. Draft Resolution 2. General Plan Policies and Strategies 3. Proposed Project Summary Sheets
Prepared by: ____________________________________ Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Prepared by: ____________________________________ Norite Vong, Finance Manager
Approved by: __________________________________________ Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 464_ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL 2023-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CAMPBELL GENERAL PLAN. 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 regards to the City of Campbell 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): 1. Government Code Section 65103(c) and 65403(c) requires the City’s "planning agency"
to annually review its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for its consistency with the City’s General Plan and any applicable specific plans at least 60 days prior to its adoption.
2. Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.54.020 specifies that the Planning Commission, amongst other organs of the City, constitute the City’s "planning agency," as defined by Government Code Section 65100.
3. The City of Campbell does not have any adopted specific plans as defined by California Government Code Sec. 65451.
4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the identified projects and appropriations that constitute the proposed 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan, as contained within the administrative record.
5. The Planning Commission found that the new projects and appropriations identified in the proposed 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan further and/or are supported by the following General Plan Policies and Strategies:
Land Use and Transportation
Policy LUT-1.2: Regional Land Use and Transportation Planning: Promote integrated and coordinated regional land use and transportation planning.
Policy LUT-1.4: Regional Traffic Management: Lead and participate in initiatives and functions to manage regional traffic and to reduce congestion on area roadways.
Strategy LUT-1.3d: Regional Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths: Cooperate with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad right-of-way that are safe, convenient and visible for commuting and recreational use.
Policy LUT-2.1: Multi-modal Transportation: Develop and implement a multi-modal transportation network that balance transportation options aimed at reducing automobile traffic and greenhouse gas emissions while promoting healthier travel alternatives for all users
Planning Commission Resolution No. 464_ Page 2 2023-2027 CIP - General Plan Consistency
Strategy LUT-2.1b: Bicycle Plan Implementation: Use the development review process and the
Capital Improvement Program to identify opportunities to implement bicycle connections, parking, storage and other related improvements.
Strategy LUT-2.1h: Pedestrian Plan: Develop and implement a pedestrian plan that is safe, convenient and functional creating a network connecting neighborhoods with
services, recreation, transit and employment centers and consistent with the City’s ADA Implementation Plan.
Strategy LUT-2.1i: Street Design and Improvements: Design streets and sidewalks so as to provide a comfortable, accessible and safe pedestrian experience.
Strategy LUT-2.1r: Safe Routes to Schools: Promote and support Safe Routes to Schools policies and programs for all schools serving Campbell including safe and convenient
walking and bicycle connections.
Policy LUT-2.3: Roadway and Intersection Disruption Minimization: Minimize traffic disruptions
along arterial roadways and major intersections.
Strategy LUT-2.3a: Intersection Level of Service: To the extent possible, maintain level of service
(LOS) on designated intersections consistent with the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan.
Street Appearance and Public Improvements Policy LUT-7.1: Road Maintenance: Maintain and repair roads.
Strategy LUT-7.1b: Roadway Repair and Maintenance: Conduct roadway repair and routine maintenance as necessary.
Policy LUT-7.2: Public Utilities and Improvements: Provide a comprehensive network of sidewalks, public utilities and multi-modal improvements that are safe, attractive,
efficient, well maintained and accessible for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Strategy LUT-7.2j: Sidewalks: Inventory sidewalks and develop a program to address filling the gaps.
Design sidewalks that are separated from the automobile travel way, on arterial streets. Sidewalks along other streets should be consistent with the neighborhood.
Policy LUT-7.3 Transportation Safety: Make safety a priority of citywide transportation design and
planning.
Strategy LUT-7.3a: Intersection Design: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle features and auto safety
components in intersection design and improvement projects, such as curb cuts to accommodate bicycle trailers, bicycle crossing buttons at traffic signals, appropriately designed bulb-outs to shorten pedestrian crossings but still facilitating bicyclists, and bicycle sensors at major intersections. Develop a
comprehensive policy incorporating strategies that facilitate the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists through intersections that includes periodic safety risk evaluations and corresponding safety measures.
Amenities, Open Space and Community Linkages
Policy LUT-11.1: Physically Connected Transportation Infrastructure: Strive to achieve physically
connected transportation infrastructure.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 464_ Page 3 2023-2027 CIP - General Plan Consistency
Strategy LUT-11.1g: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Address the needs of people with
disabilities and comply with the requirements of the ADA during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects.
Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities
Policy OSP-1.1: Regional Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities: Support efforts to enhance, enlarge and provide public access to regional open space, parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of Campbell residents.
Strategy OSP-1.1a: Santa Clara County Parks and Trails: Work with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to renovate and improve access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail and Los Gatos County Park,
Policy OSP-2.2: Maintain and Renovate Existing Open Space, Park and Recreation Facilities: Maintain and renovate existing open space, park and recreation facilities to improve their usefulness, safety and appearance.
Strategy OSP-2.2b: Park Improvement Budget: Coordinate the budget for park improvement projects with the development of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Strategy OSP-3.2a: Park Impact Fees: Utilize park impact fees for the acquisition and development of parks and recreation facilities.
Policy OSP-9.2: NPDES: Comply with the federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
Strategy OSP-9.2a: Storm Water Management Plan: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to implement the Storm Water Management Plan.
Strategy OSP-9.2b: West Valley Clean Water Program: Implement the Work Plan for the West Valley Cities, including implementing Campbell’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices.
Public Facilities and Services
Policy OSP-6.2: Community Facilities: Ensure functional, attractive and well-maintained
community facilities that serve Campbell’s residents.
Strategy OSP-6.2a: New or Renovated Facilities: Design, construct or renovate facilities to ensure adaptability for changing community needs and on-going use.
Strategy OSP-6.2b: Aging Facilities: Renovate and modernize aging facilities to improve their
usefulness and appearance and to maximize their potential life and avoid the high cost of deferred maintenance.
Strategy OSP-6.2d: Accessible Facilities: Modernize City facilities to provide full accessibility to all residents and visitors, including those with disabilities.
Policy OSP-6.3: Public Spaces and Amenities for Community Gatherings: Ensure safe, convenient and attractive public spaces and amenities for community gatherings and
activities.
Strategy OSP-6.3a: Features and Maintenance of Public Spaces and Amenities: Encourage
community gatherings and individual use of public spaces and amenities by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 464_ Page 4 2023-2027 CIP - General Plan Consistency
providing attractive landscaping, outdoor furniture, recycling and trash facilities
and adequate maintenance of the facilities.
Historic Resources
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible.
Policy LUT-8-1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural
resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community.
Strategy LUT-8.1j: Heritage Theater: Support efforts to restore the Heritage Theater.
Strategy CNR-2.1b: Historic Amenities: Use amenities such as signs and historical lighting in key public access areas. Consider incorporating public art to reflect historical
elements.
Downtown Development Plan
Policy CPT-3.1: Adequate Parking: Encourage the joint utilization of parking.
Strategy CPT-3.1b: Develop a plan with the property/business owners to develop a parking management plan to maximize the use of existing parking…
Strategy CPT-1.1d: Pedestrian connections shall be enhanced between the downtown and the Community Center on the west and the Los Gatos Creek Trail/Pruneyard Shopping Center on the east.
Strategy LU-4.1a The historic character of Downtown shall be preserved through the protection and
restoration of its historic buildings and landmarks.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. In accordance with Sections 65103(c) and 65403(c) of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited to the Community Development Director’s report and all documents incorporated by
reference therein, and the City’s General Plan, that the proposed 2023-2027 Campbell
Improvement Plan is consistent with the Campbell General Plan.
2. Adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the CIP is not a “project” as defined by Public Resources Code §21065. CEQA also specifically excludes organizational or
administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15378.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 464_ Page 5 2023-2027 CIP - General Plan Consistency
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
Attachment 2 General Plan Policies and Strategies
Land Use and Transportation
Policy LUT-1.2: Regional Land Use and Transportation Planning: Promote integrated and coordinated regional land use and transportation planning.
Policy LUT-1.4: Regional Traffic Management: Lead and participate in initiatives and functions to manage regional traffic and to reduce congestion on area roadways.
Strategy LUT-1.3d: Regional Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths: Cooperate with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and
pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad right-of-way that are safe, convenient and visible for commuting and recreational use.
Policy LUT-2.1: Multi-modal Transportation: Develop and implement a multi-modal transportation network that balance transportation options aimed at reducing automobile traffic and
greenhouse gas emissions while promoting healthier travel alternatives for all users
Strategy LUT-2.1b: Bicycle Plan Implementation: Use the development review process and the Capital
Improvement Program to identify opportunities to implement bicycle connections, parking, storage and other related improvements.
Strategy LUT-2.1h: Pedestrian Plan: Develop and implement a pedestrian plan that is safe, convenient and functional creating a network connecting neighborhoods with services, recreation,
transit and employment centers and consistent with the City’s ADA Implementation Plan.
Strategy LUT-2.1i: Street Design and Improvements: Design streets and sidewalks so as to provide a comfortable, accessible and safe pedestrian experience.
Strategy LUT-2.1r: Safe Routes to Schools: Promote and support Safe Routes to Schools policies and programs for all schools serving Campbell including safe and convenient walking and
bicycle connections.
Policy LUT-2.3: Roadway and Intersection Disruption Minimization: Minimize traffic disruptions
along arterial roadways and major intersections.
Strategy LUT-2.3a: Intersection Level of Service: To the extent possible, maintain level of service (LOS)
on designated intersections consistent with the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan.
Street Appearance and Public Improvements
Policy LUT-7.1: Road Maintenance: Maintain and repair roads.
Strategy LUT-7.1b: Roadway Repair and Maintenance: Conduct roadway repair and routine maintenance as necessary.
Policy LUT-7.2: Public Utilities and Improvements: Provide a comprehensive network of sidewalks, public utilities and multi-modal improvements that are safe, attractive, efficient, well
maintained and accessible for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Strategy LUT-7.2j: Sidewalks: Inventory sidewalks and develop a program to address filling the gaps.
Design sidewalks that are separated from the automobile travel way, on arterial streets. Sidewalks along other streets should be consistent with the neighborhood.
General Plan Policies and Strategies Page 2 of 3
Policy LUT-7.3 Transportation Safety: Make safety a priority of citywide transportation design and
planning.
Strategy LUT-7.3a: Intersection Design: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle features and auto safety
components in intersection design and improvement projects, such as curb cuts to accommodate bicycle trailers, bicycle crossing buttons at traffic signals, appropriately
designed bulb-outs to shorten pedestrian crossings but still facilitating bicyclists, and bicycle sensors at major intersections. Develop a comprehensive policy incorporating
strategies that facilitate the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists through intersections that includes periodic safety risk evaluations and corresponding safety
measures.
Amenities, Open Space and Community Linkages
Policy LUT-11.1: Physically Connected Transportation Infrastructure: Strive to achieve physically connected transportation infrastructure.
Strategy LUT-11.1g: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the ADA during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects.
Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities
Policy OSP-1.1: Regional Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities: Support efforts to enhance,
enlarge and provide public access to regional open space, parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of Campbell residents.
Strategy OSP-1.1a: Santa Clara County Parks and Trails: Work with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to renovate and improve access to the Los Gatos Creek
Trail and Los Gatos County Park,
Policy OSP-2.2: Maintain and Renovate Existing Open Space, Park and Recreation Facilities: Maintain
and renovate existing open space, park and recreation facilities to improve their usefulness, safety and appearance.
Strategy OSP-2.2b: Park Improvement Budget: Coordinate the budget for park improvement projects with the development of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Strategy OSP-3.2a: Park Impact Fees: Utilize park impact fees for the acquisition and development of parks and recreation facilities.
Policy OSP-9.2: NPDES: Comply with the federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
Strategy OSP-9.2a: Storm Water Management Plan: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to implement the Storm Water Management Plan.
Strategy OSP-9.2b: West Valley Clean Water Program: Implement the Work Plan for the West Valley Cities, including implementing Campbell’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
and Best Management Practices.
Public Facilities and Services
Policy OSP-6.2: Community Facilities: Ensure functional, attractive and well-maintained community facilities that serve Campbell’s residents.
Strategy OSP-6.2a: New or Renovated Facilities: Design, construct or renovate facilities to ensure adaptability for changing community needs and on-going use.
General Plan Policies and Strategies Page 3 of 3
Strategy OSP-6.2b: Aging Facilities: Renovate and modernize aging facilities to improve their usefulness
and appearance and to maximize their potential life and avoid the high cost of deferred maintenance.
Strategy OSP-6.2d: Accessible Facilities: Modernize City facilities to provide full accessibility to all residents and visitors, including those with disabilities.
Policy OSP-6.3: Public Spaces and Amenities for Community Gatherings: Ensure safe, convenient and attractive public spaces and amenities for community gatherings and activities.
Strategy OSP-6.3a: Features and Maintenance of Public Spaces and Amenities: Encourage community gatherings and individual use of public spaces and amenities by providing attractive
landscaping, outdoor furniture, recycling and trash facilities and adequate maintenance of the facilities.
Historic Resources Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic
resources as much as possible.
Policy LUT-8-1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community.
Strategy LUT-8.1j: Heritage Theater: Support efforts to restore the Heritage Theater.
Strategy CNR-2.1b: Historic Amenities: Use amenities such as signs and historical lighting in key public access areas. Consider incorporating public art to reflect historical elements.
Downtown Development Plan
Policy CPT-3.1: Adequate Parking: Encourage the joint utilization of parking.
Strategy CPT-3.1b: Develop a plan with the property/business owners to develop a parking management plan to maximize the use of existing parking…
Strategy CPT-1.1d: Pedestrian connections shall be enhanced between the downtown and the Community Center on the west and the Los Gatos Creek Trail/Pruneyard Shopping Center on the east.
Strategy LU-4.1a The historic character of Downtown shall be preserved through the protection and restoration of its historic buildings and landmarks.
Ainsley House Roof and Foundation Assessment
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Est. Start Date 08/01/2022
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2023
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 23-NN
Description
This project will assess current drainage issues associated with the roof of the Ainsley House. It will include an inspection of the roof and
foundation from ICC-certi ed inspectors. The inspection will provide a framework to determine future work and repairs needed for the
Ainsley House roof and foundation. The budgetary requests for this project are estimates at this point to conduct the inspections and
de ne the scope of repairs. Staff will not know full scope of the construction phase of the project until the inspection is completed.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
780
Useful Life 50+ years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Critical (Can't do without it)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
General Plan OSP 2-2; Maintain and renovate existing open space, park and recreation facilities to improve their usefulness,
safety, and appearance.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Fund in a further out year. Repair cost may be higher.
Other Cost Savings (If Applicable)
Performing this work within the next scal year may avoid more signi cant repair costs in future years. However, the
magnitude of potential cost savings is unknown at this point.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023
Staff Personnel Costs $20,000
Professional Services $100,000
Total $120,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$120,000
Total Budget (all years)
$120K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Professional Servi…
2023 $120,000.00
$0 $30K$60K$90K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $120,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (17%)$20
Professional Services (83%)$10
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023
CIPR $120,000
Total $120,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$120,000
Total Budget (all years)
$120K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR
2023 $120,000.00
$0 $30K$60K$90K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $120,000.00
CIPR (100%)$120,000.00
Projected Timeline
Aug 1, 2022
Issue RFP for consultant services
Oct 3, 2022
Begin Assessment
Mar 31, 2023
Assessment completed
Bridge Conditions Assessment Report
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Amy Olay, City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2023
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2024
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 24-MM
Description
The project will provide a conditions assessment of local bridges under the maintenance jurisdiction of the City including pedestrian
bridges. The report will be used to guide future programming of necessary bridge improvements.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 10 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Other
Funding Type New
Location
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project will address Strategic Plan Objective 5.3 - Safe, attractive, and ef cient parks and buildings that operate for
maximum community use, bene t, and enjoyment.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Defer the assessment.
Other Type of Project (If Applicable)
Assessment Report
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024
Staff Personnel Costs $10,000
Professional Services $50,000
Total $60,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$60K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Professional Servi…
2024 $60,000.00
$0 $15K$30K$45K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $60,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (17%)$10,
Professional Services (83%)$50
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024
VIF (Building)$60,000
Total $60,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$60K
Funding Sources by Year
VIF (Building)
2024 $60,000.00
$0 $15K$30K$45K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $60,000.00
VIF (Building) (100%)$60,000.0
Campbell Water Tower Light Replacement
Overview
Submitted By Cecil Lawson, IT Manager
Request Owner Cecil Lawson, IT Manager
Est. Start Date 08/01/2022
Est. Completion Date 10/30/2023
Department MIS Services
Type Capital Equipment
Project Number 23-OO
Description
The Campbell Water tower lighting system consists of two separate and distinct components; the light control system and the lights
themselves. The lighting control system was replaced in 2020. The upgrade allowed more acceptable levels of control of the light arrays
and wireless remote access capabilities. After the project was completed, many noticed the existing lights had dimmed over time. LED
light bulbs naturally lose intensity (luminous ux) called degradation. The average lifespan of LEDs is 50,000 hours, about six years. LED
lights don't burn out; they degrade in intensity - usually by 30-40%.
The goal of this project is to replace the existing LEDs with longer lasting versions and to double the amount of lighting on the top
portion of the tower.
Images
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
547
Useful Life 15 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority High (Can function without it, but not very
well)
Type of Project Replacement
Funding Type New
Location
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project addresses Strategic Plan Objective 1.5 - An attractive community with an enhanced image and Objective 1.8 - A
vibrant downtown that serves as the focal point of the community.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Do not replace current lights and continue operating as is.
Other Capital Costs (If Applicable)
There may be a need to increase the total available wattage at the water tower.
Other Operating Costs (If Applicable)
Other Funding Sources (If Applicable)
Other Type of Project (If Applicable)
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023 FY2024
Professional Services $47,500 $47,500
Construction $2,500 $2,500
Total $50,000 $50,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$50,000
Total Budget (all years)
$100K
Capital Cost by Year
Professional Servi…Construction
2023
2024
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$4…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $100,000.00
Professional Services (95%)$95
Construction (5%)$5,000.00
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023 FY2024
CIPR $50,000 $50,000
Total $50,000 $50,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$50,000
Total Budget (all years)
$100K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR
2023
2024
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$4…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $100,000.00
CIPR (100%)$100,000.00
Citywide ITS Enhancements Phase 2
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Matthew Jue, Traf c Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2024
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2026
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 24-NN
Description
Purchase and install or replace ITS equipment including traf c signal controller cabinets; battery backup systems for traf c signals at
railroad crossings and school crossings; video detection systems, emergency vehicle preemption equipment, and service pedestals at
various locations.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
720
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority High (Can function without it, but not very
well)
Type of Project Replacement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: 70 North 1st Street
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
Supports Strategic Objective 3.7 - Streets that operate ef ciently and effectively.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Do nothing.
2. Use City funds to purchase and install equipment.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024
Design $100,000
Construction $400,000
Total $500,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$500K
Capital Cost by Year
Design Construction
2024 $500,000.00
$0 $120K$240K$360K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $500,000.00
Design (20%)$100,000.00
Construction (80%)$400,000.0
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024
CIPR $100,000
VRF $400,000
Total $500,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$500K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR VRF
2024 $500,000.00
$0 $120K$240K$360K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $500,000.00
CIPR (20%)$100,000.00
VRF (80%)$400,000.00
Projected Timeline
Jul 1, 2023
Design
Oct 1, 2024
Bids Received
Jan 1, 2025
Bid Award
Apr 1, 2025
Construction
Campbell Community Center - Heritage Theater Boiler Replacement
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Dave Fanucchi, Building Maintenance Supervisor
Est. Start Date 07/31/2023
Est. Completion Date 06/28/2024
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 24-OO
Description
Replacement of the existing Heritage Theater boiler unit. The existing boiler has out lived the useful and ef cient life expectancy to
provide optimum heating operations. It has shown signs of operational malfunctions and should be replaced within the next two years.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
780
Useful Life 40 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Critical (Can't do without it)
Type of Project Replacement
Funding Type New
Location
Supplemental Attachments
Campbell Community Cntr - Heritage Theater Boiler
Rplcmnt
(/resource/cleargov-
prod/projects/documents/e5fd061fea0b804c874b.pdf)
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project will address Strategic Plan Objectives 5.3 - Safe, attractive, and ef cient parks and buildings that operate for
maximum community use, bene t, and enjoyment.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Continue to repair the existing unit until it catastrophically fails or until parts are no longer available.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024
Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment $90,000
Total $90,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$90K
Capital Cost by Year
Furniture, Fixture…
2024 $90,000.00
$0 $25K $50K $75K
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $90,000.00
Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipm
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024
CIPR $90,000
Total $90,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$90K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR
2024 $90,000.00
$0 $25K $50K $75K
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $90,000.00
CIPR (100%)$90,000.00
Cost Savings Breakdown
Cost Savings FY2023
Maintenance $4,000
Total $4,000
Cost Savings
FY2023 Budget
$4,000
Total Budget (all years)
$4K
Cost Savings by Year
Maintenance
2023 $4,000.00
$0 $1K $2K $3K$…
Cost Savings for All Years
TOTAL $4,000.00
Maintenance (100%)$4,000.00
Campbell Community Center Fire Alarm Panel Replacements
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Dave Fanucchi, Building Maintenance Supervisor
Est. Start Date 08/01/2022
Est. Completion Date 10/31/2022
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 23-PP
Description
This project will replace the existing Edwards main re alarm panel and four sub-panels. The existing panels are beyond their life
expectancies and are creating false alarms and re department callouts. The project will install new modern Edwards panels to
accommodate the existing Edwards eld re alarm activation devices and will be expandable to incorporate additional appliances
when needed.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
780
Useful Life 40 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Critical (Can't do without it)
Type of Project Replacement
Funding Type New
Location
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project will address Strategic Plan Objectives 5.3 - Safe, attractive, and ef cient parks and buildings that operate for
maximum community use, bene t, and enjoyment.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. No alternative solutions - the main panel is failing.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023
Construction $75,000
Total $75,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$75,000
Total Budget (all years)
$75K
Capital Cost by Year
Construction
2023 $75,000.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $75,000.00
Construction (100%)$75,000.0
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023
CIPR $75,000
Total $75,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$75,000
Total Budget (all years)
$75K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR
2023 $75,000.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $75,000.00
CIPR (100%)$75,000.00
Cost Savings Breakdown
Cost Savings FY2023
Maintenance $7,000
Total $7,000
Cost Savings
FY2023 Budget
$7,000
Total Budget (all years)
$7K
Cost Savings by Year
Maintenance
2023 $7,000.00
$0 $2K $4K $6K
Cost Savings for All Years
TOTAL $7,000.00
Maintenance (100%)$7,000.00
2016 Meas B Bike/Pedestrian Educ & Encourage - FY22 & FY23
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Matthew Jue, Traf c Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2022
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2023
Department Transportation Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 23-QQ
Description
This annual project provides bicycle and pedestrian education and encouragement efforts such as parent and student surveys, Safe
Routes to School maps, citywide bike map, bike rodeos, bicycle corral check-ins at Farmers Market, before-and-after traf c counts, online
questionnaires, and educational videos. The annual allocation of 2016 Bike/Ped Education and Encouragement (EE) funds serve as the
source of project funding. This project represents the FY22 and FY23 allocations of $45,505.19 and $34,650.10, respectively, or a total of
$80,155.29.
Images
Kids on Bikes Walk to School
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
720
Useful Life 10 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Other
Funding Type New
Location
Address: 70 North 1st Street
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
Supports Strategic Objective 3.3 - Streets that safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Do not use annual allocation.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023
Staff Personnel Costs $10,000
Professional Services $70,155
Total $80,155
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$80,155
Total Budget (all years)
$80.155K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Professional Servi…
2023 $80,155.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $80,155.00
Staff Personnel Costs (12%)$10,
Professional Services (88%)$70
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023
Measure B $80,155
Total $80,155
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$80,155
Total Budget (all years)
$80.155K
Funding Sources by Year
Measure B
2023 $80,155.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $80,155.00
Measure B (100%)$80,155.00
Projected Timeline
Jul 1, 2022
Planning
Oct 1, 2022
Bids Received
Jan 1, 2023
Bid Award
Mar 1, 2023
Professional Services
Annual Accessibility Ramps - FY27
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Amy Olay, City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2026
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2027
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 27-FF
Description
This project will install accessibility curb ramps in compliance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards and is consistent with
the City's ADA Transition Plan.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: Campbell City Hall
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project addresses Strategic Plan Objective 3.3 - Streets that safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrians and
bicycles, and Objective 3.4 - Streets that are safe, clean, and well maintained.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Reduce or increase the number of ramps for installation each year.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2027
Staff Personnel Costs $5,000
Construction $45,000
Total $50,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Construction
2027 $50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (10%)$5,0
Construction (90%)$45,000.00
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2027
Construction Tax $50,000
Total $50,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Funding Sources by Year
Construction Tax
2027 $50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
Construction Tax (100%)$50,00
Annual ADA Transition Plan Improvements - FY27
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Amy Olay, City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2026
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2027
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 27-HH
Description
Consistent with the City's Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan, this project continues to implement identi ed
improvements at the Community Center, Service Center, City Hall, and other City facilities. Scope of work includes modi cations to doors,
bathroom xtures, and public counters.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority High (Can function without it, but not very
well)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: Campbell City Hall
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project will address Strategic Plan Objective 5.3 - Safe, attractive, and ef cient parks and buildings that operate for
maximum community use, bene t, and enjoyment.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Phase improvements and revise funding levels.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2027
Construction $50,000
Total $50,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Capital Cost by Year
Construction
2027 $50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
Construction (100%)$50,000.0
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023 FY2027
CIPR $50,000
Other $0
Total $0 $50,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$0
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR Other
2023
2027
$.0000
$50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$4…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
CIPR (100%)$50,000.00
Other (0%)$.0000
Annual Street Maintenance - FY23
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Amy Olay, City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2023
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2025
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 23-BB
Description
This project is for annual street maintenance per the City's Pavement Management Program. Funding allocations in CIP FY23 and
FY25 will provide pavement treatment on an arterial street. In addition to the Capital Improvement Program Reserve (CIPR), other
anticipated funding sources are the City's Vehicle Impact Fee (separate allocations from construction and solid waste collection vehicles),
Santa Clara County Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), State SB1 - Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), Santa Clara County
Measure B, and one-time grants (One Bay Area and CalRecycle). A maintenance of effort is required for cities to receive Measure B and
RMRA funds. The City must maintain an annual expenditure of $917,000 in general fund monies which are satis ed through the use of
CIPR and Vehicle Impact Fees.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority High (Can function without it, but not very
well)
Type of Project Resurface Current Street, Road or Sidewalk
Funding Type Previously Approved - No Additional
Funding Requested
Location
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project addresses Strategic Plan Objective 3.4 - Streets that are safe, clean, and well-maintained.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Only pursue stop-gap maintenance.
2. Reduce the project limits resulting in decreased Pavement Condition Index (PCI).
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023 FY2024 FY2025
Staff Personnel Costs $389,000 $389,000 $389,000
Professional Services $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Construction $2,496,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000
Total $2,935,000 $2,789,000 $2,789,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$2,935,000
Total Budget
$8.513M
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Professional Servi…
Construction
2023
2024
2025
$2,935,000.00
$2,789,000.00
$2,789,000.00
$0 $800K$1.6M$2.4M
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $8,513,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (14%)$1,16
Professional Services (2%)$150
Construction (85%)$7,196,000.
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023 FY2024 FY2025
CIPR $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
VIF (Building)$300,000 $300,000 $300,000
VIF (Garbage)$477,000 $477,000 $477,000
SB1 $946,000 $800,000 $800,000
VRF $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Measure B $797,000 $797,000 $797,000
Total $2,935,000 $2,789,000 $2,789,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$2,935,000
Total Budget
$8.513M
Funding Sources by Year
CIPR VIF (Building)
VIF (Garbage)SB1
VRF Measure B
2023
2024
2025
$2,935,000.00
$2,789,000.00
$2,789,000.00
$0 $800K$1.6M$2.4M
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $8,513,000.00
CIPR (7%)$600,000.00
VIF (Building) (11%)$900,000.00
VIF (Garbage) (17%)$1,431,000.0
SB1 (30%)$2,546,000.00
VRF (8%)$645,000.00
Measure B (28%)$2,391,000.00
Projected Timeline
Jul 1, 2022
Design
Jul 1, 2024
Bid and Award
Jun 30, 2025
Complete Construction
Annual Bike/Pedestrian and Traf c Safety Improvements - FY27
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Matthew Jue, Traf c Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2026
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2029
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 27-JJ
Description
This annual project provides minor improvements to streets and signals to increase safety as deemed necessary by the City's Traf c
Engineer and City Engineer. This project also constructs Class II bike lanes, sidewalks, paths, and other improvements to enhance
pedestrian and bicyclist safety on City streets. The Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds represent the majority of the project
funding. Currently estimated at $40,000 annually, the amount can vary; annual adjustments may be necessary.
Images
Class II Bike Lane
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
720
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: Campbell City Hall
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
Supports Strategic Objective 3.3 - Streets that safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Allow the current conditions to remain.
2. Submit each minor project/improvement to the City Council for approval.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2027
Staff Personnel Costs $5,000
Construction $60,000
Total $65,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$65K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Construction
2027 $65,000.00
$0 $20K $40K$60K
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $65,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (8%)$5,0
Construction (92%)$60,000.00
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2027
Construction Tax $25,000
TDA $40,000
Total $65,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$65K
Funding Sources by Year
Construction Tax TDA
2027 $65,000.00
$0 $20K $40K$60K
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $65,000.00
Construction Tax (38%)$25,000
TDA (62%)$40,000.00
Projected Timeline
Jul 1, 2025
Design
Jul 1, 2026
Design
Oct 1, 2026
Bids Received
Jan 1, 2027
Bid Award
Apr 1, 2027
Construction
Miscellaneous Storm Drainage Improvements - FY27
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Amy Olay, City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2026
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2027
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 27-EE
Description
This biennial maintenance project provides minor drainage improvements to streets to increase safety and decrease pavement
deterioration. Environmental Services Funds support this project.
Images
Storm Drainage
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: Campbell City Hall
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
This project addresses Strategic Plan Objective 3.4 - Streets that are safe, clean, and well- maintained; and Objective 3.6 -
Streets that serve the needs of adjacent land uses.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Allow the current conditions to remain and continue stop gap maintenance efforts.
2. Submit each individual location/project site and improvement to the City Council for approval.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2027
Staff Personnel Costs $7,000
Construction $43,000
Total $50,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Capital Cost by Year
Staff Personnel C…Construction
2027 $50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$…
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
Staff Personnel Costs (14%)$7,0
Construction (86%)$43,000.00
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2027
Environmental Services $50,000
Total $50,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Funding Sources by Year
Environmental S…
2027 $50,000.00
$0 $12K$24K$36K$…
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $50,000.00
Environmental Services (100%)
Annual Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter Improvements - FY27
Overview
Submitted By Todd Capurso, Public Works Director
Request Owner Ron Taormina, PW Maintenance Supervisor
Est. Start Date 07/01/2025
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2026
Department Public Works
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 27-GG
Description
This annual project proposes to replace newly damaged sidewalks that are identi ed for replacement or grinding. The City uses concrete
and no longer uses asphalt as sidewalk replacement material when removing sections of sidewalk. Sidewalk grinds are performed on
raised sidewalks where the sidewalk de ection is less than 1 and 1/2 inches. Curb and gutters are replaced in kind when the damaged or
raised curb and gutter prohibits safe pedestrian access to travel ways. These locations are typically at intersections or in front of
crosswalks. Curb and gutter water ow issues are not a criteria for replacement under this ongoing maintenance project proposal.
Details
Program (Budget
Unit)
730
Useful Life 20 years
Projected Carryover N/A
Priority Medium (Get to it when you can)
Type of Project Improvement
Funding Type New
Location
Address: Campbell City Hall
Relationship to Strategic Goals and Objectives
Strategic Plan Objective 3.1 - Safe residential neighborhoods.
Strategic Plan Objective 3.3 - Streets that safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian and bicycles.
Possible Alternative Solutions
1. Continue to replace damaged sidewalk with asphalt.
2. Do not replace any curb and gutter.
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2027
Construction $75,000
Total $75,000
Capital Cost
Total Budget (all years)
$75K
Capital Cost by Year
Construction
2027 $75,000.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K
Capital Cost for All Years
TOTAL $75,000.00
Construction (100%)$75,000.0
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2027
Construction Tax $75,000
Total $75,000
Funding Sources
Total Budget (all years)
$75K
Funding Sources by Year
Construction Tax
2027 $75,000.00
$0 $20K$40K$60K
Funding Sources for All Years
TOTAL $75,000.00
Construction Tax (100%)$75,00
MEMORANDUM
City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
To: Members of the Planning Commission Date: May 24, 2022 From: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
I. CITY COUNCIL: The City Council met on Tuesday, May 17th, 2022 and considered the
following items of interest to the Planning Commission:
Public Hearing to Consider a City-Initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-193) to Amend the Side-Yard Setback Requirements for Properties Located Within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts (Ordinance/Roll Call Vote) The City Council adopted an Ordinance authorizing the Zoning Code Text Amendments. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning amendments at their April 12, 2022 meeting
II. UPCOMING COMMISSION MEETINGS A. Next Special Planning Commission Meeting of May 31, 2022: Receive report from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo City and Regional Planning Students
regarding Downtown and Winchester Station Vision Plans
III. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Publication of “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” Draft Housing Element: The Department anticipates publishing the Draft Housing Element for public review sometime during the week of May 23, 2022. The Draft Housing Element will be available for public
review for 30 days and then be sent to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for comment.
I.
To: Chair Stuart Ching and Planning Commissioners
Date: May 24, 2022
From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Item #2 – 601 Almarida (PLN-2018-202)
In advance of the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Kamkar contacted staff identifying concerns that the Civil Drawings included in the Project Plans for the subject item included: 1) an outdated engineering stamp; and 2) proposed treatment areas which may be more than 6 inches in depth.
While technical details are typically addressed as part of the building permit submittal, this desk item serves to provide updated Civil Drawings which may be used to replace those included in the packet (addressing concerns on the depth of the treatment area) and provide expanded responses to the two areas of concerns that have been identified.
Further, this desk item includes an additional condition of approval recommended by the Public Works Department to address the long-term maintenance of stormwater treatment areas that was not included in the Resolution. To facilitate incorporation of these changes as part of the motion, an amended action has also been provided at the end of this memo
for reference.
Expanded Response to Areas of Concern 1. Engineering Stamp is Out of Date
At the time the permit was found ‘complete’ the stamp was not expired and staff does not request updated plans beyond the completeness review of an application. As part of the building permit submittal process, all plans and licenses are checked using the California Department of Consumer Affair’s online database. Although
the stamp is out of date on the plans, the license is not reported as expired using
this tool:
City of Campbell
MEMORANDUM
Desk Item - Item #2 Page 2 of 3 601 Almarida | Site and Arch. Review Permit & Tree Removal Permit (PLN-2018-202)
2. Treatment Depth in Excess of 6-Inches The updated Civil Drawings (reference Exhibit A) address the concern identified by Commission Kamkar. Detailed comments in response to Commissioner Kamar’s concern have been provided by the City’s Public Works Engineering
Division as follows:
• Drainage Area 1 & 2 - Treated by bio-retention area IMP-1 will be fed via a pump from the 36" pipe used as storage to ensure the required treatment volume is conveyed to the bio-treatment area. The bio-treatment area includes an overflow inlet that would limit any ponding to 6 inches
max. We will make sure the pumps are sized accordingly during the
construction plan phase to ensure the required treatment flow is maintained.
• Drainage Area 3 - Treated by bio-retention area IMP-2 with a calculated ponding depth of 4.3 inches, and an overflow inlet that would limit ponding
to 6 inches max.
• Drainage Area 4 - Treated by bio-retention area IMP-3 is assumed to have no ponding as the treatment area is in excess of 4% of the impervious area, but the design does provide an overflow inlet that would limit ponding to 6 inches max.
Additional Condition of Approval: As noted, the Public Works Engineering Division is recommending inclusion of the following additional condition of approval as part of the project resolution. The applicant
has been provided a copy of this condition and has not expressed a concern with its inclusion in the project resolution.
Stormwater Treatment: The proposed storm pump system will be subject to further review during the construction plan check process. Given the critical nature of the
pump in meeting stormwater quality requirements, two pumps shall be required for
redundancy. Applicant shall provide an alert system that notifies the on-site
maintenance staff in the event of a pump malfunction. Pumps shall be tested
regularly (minimum of twice per year) and kept in good working order.
Amended Action:
To reference both changes as part of the motion, staff recommends the Planning Commission refer to the following, amended action: That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution, approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit incorporating the 1) updated Civil Drawings in place of those provided
Desk Item - Item #2 Page 3 of 3 601 Almarida | Site and Arch. Review Permit & Tree Removal Permit (PLN-2018-202)
in the Project Plans; and 2) Condition of Approval regarding Stormwater Treatment provided by staff as a Desk Item. Attachments:
Exhibit A – Updated Civil Drawings
DRAWING NAME: P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160 C01 GRAD.dwgPLOT DATE: 08-20-20 PLOTTED BY: EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:OFZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN SET601 ALMARIDA DRIVECALIFORNIASANTA CLARA COUNTYCITY OF CAMPBELL418160ScaleNo. 61148EXP. 12/31/20VICLIStamp:DateJob No.07/31/20PROJECT SUMMARYENGINEER'S STATEMENTEASTON C. MCALLISTER, PEDATEUTILITIES:AT&T / COMCASTPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRICCITY OF CAMPBELLWEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICTCOMCASTSANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPT.SAN JOSE WATER COMPANYCABLE TELEVISION:TELEPHONE:SEWAGE DISPOSAL:FIRE PROTECTION:WATER SUPPLY:GAS & ELECTRIC:STORM DRAIN:CIVIL ENGINEER:TOTAL AREA:DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:SURVEYOR:325,763 SF (GROSS) | 283,946 SF (NET)ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: APN: 279-30-043PROPERTY ADDRESS:P.E. #61148 EXP 12/31/16RAINTREE PARTNERS28202 CABOT ROAD, SUITE 300LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677(949) 365-5650TALUS, INC.811 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD.DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526(925) 837-3780LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE36017TH STREET, SUITE 200PAKLAND, CA 94612(510) 836-5400ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY1900 EAST LA PALMA AVENUEANAHEIM, CA 92805(714) 774-1763THE FRANCISCAN601 ALMARIDA DRIVECAMPBELL, CA 95008CIVIL ENGINEERING WORK ON THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDCIVIL ENGINEERING PRACTICE.07/31/20201) THIS PLAN IS BASED ON AN ALTA SURVEY PROVIDED BY THECLIENT AND PREPARED BY ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANYDATED JUNE 9, 2017.2) SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC DATA IN THE PROJECT AREA WASCOLLECTED BY DEBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING IN A FIELD SURVEYDATED APRIL 16, 2018.3) PUBLIC UTILITY INFORMATION IN ALMARIDA DRIVE WAS OBTAINEDFROM CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITY RECORD DRAWINGS.SURVEYOR NOTES:ZONE 'X' PER FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATEMAP COMMUNITY PANEL NO:06085C 0237HEFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 18, 2009FLOOD ZONE:GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN1" = 10'C.011
NATIVE SOILCOMPACTED @85% MIN R.C.STORM DRAINCATCH BASIN12" DRAINROCK LAYER4" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PERF PIPE;FACE PERFORATIONS DOWNWARD.6" STORAGE18" LOAMY SAND PER SCVURPPPTECHNICAL GUIDANCEHANDBOOK APPENDIX C.NO LINEROUT2" MIN COVERFINISH GRADEGRATE ELEV.BASE ELEV.CLASS II PERMEABLE,CALTRANS SPEC. 68-1.025LANDSCAPE PLANTING IN ACCORDANCEWITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBANRUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTIONPROGRAM TECHNICAL GUIDANCEHANDBOOK.NOTE:REFER TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFFPOLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SCVURPPP)TECHNICAL GUIDANCE HANDBOOK FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION ON FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS.12" DRAINROCK LAYERBASE ELEV.12" DRAINFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEC.3 FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER-1CONCRETE BOX PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER'SRECOMMENDATIONSSTORMWATER CONTROL PLANDRAWING NAME: P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160 C02 SWCP.dwgPLOT DATE: 07-31-20 PLOTTED BY: EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:OFZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN SET601 ALMARIDA DRIVECALIFORNIASANTA CLARA COUNTYCITY OF CAMPBELL418160ScaleNo. 61148EXP. 12/31/20VICLIStamp:DateJob No.07/31/20STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN1" = 20'C.022SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #1SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #2SIZING CALCULATIONS - DMA / IMP #3THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE MAINTAINED SUCH THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT:1) VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGEREQUIREMENTS OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE ORGROUND WATER QUALITY.2) SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITHGROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT THE PROJECT MAY IMPEDESUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT OF THE BASIN.3) SUBDSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTENR OF THE SITEAREA, INCLUDING THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF THE COURSE OF A STREAMOR RIVER OR THROUGH THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, IN AMANNER WHICH WOULD:- i. RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF-SITE;- ii. SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURGFACE RUNOFFIN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE;- iii. CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE RUNOFF WATER WHICH WOULD EXCEED THECAPACITY OF EXISTING OR PLANNED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMSOR PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF POLLUTED RUNOFF;OR- iv. IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOOD FLOWS.4) IN A FLOOD HAZARD, TSUNAMI, OR SEICHE ZONES, RISK RELEASE OFPOLLUTANTS DUE TO PROJECT ININDATION.5) CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITYCONTROL PLAN OR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.CEQA COMPLIANCE NOTES:VOLUME TO BE STOREDIN UNDERGROUND PIPEFOR IMP-1 ONLYPROVIDES MINIMUM DEPTH FORREQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME. ACTUALPONDING DEPTH SHALL BE 6" MIN. PERSCVURPPP DESIGN STANDARDS, TYP.
DRAWING NAME: P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160 C03 SITE.dwgPLOT DATE: 07-31-20 PLOTTED BY: EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:OFZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN SET601 ALMARIDA DRIVECALIFORNIASANTA CLARA COUNTYCITY OF CAMPBELL418160ScaleNo. 61148EXP. 12/31/20VICLIStamp:DateJob No.07/31/20OVERALL SITE PLAN1" = 40'C.033
DRAWING NAME: P:\p18160\PLANNING_SET\18160 C04 AREAS.dwgPLOT DATE: 07-31-20 PLOTTED BY: EastonRevisionsNo.Drawing Number:OFZONING COMPLIANCE PLAN SET601 ALMARIDA DRIVECALIFORNIASANTA CLARA COUNTYCITY OF CAMPBELL418160ScaleNo. 61148EXP. 12/31/20VICLIStamp:DateJob No.07/31/20EARTHWORKS AND SITE AREA CALCULATIONS1" = 40'C.04412,020 C.Y. CUT TO SUBGRADE 1,435 C.Y. ENGINEERED FILL10,585 C.Y. (EXPORT)EARTHWORKS: