Loading...
Site & Arch - 1984MEMORANDUM To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Date: CITY OF CAMPBELL September 21, 1984 From: Planning Staff Subject: Landscape & Irrigation Plans (S 84-16) 535 Westchester Dr. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1) Approval, as red-lined and 2) Submittal of more detailed plans for approval of the Planning Director. STAFF DISCUSSION At its meeting of September ll, 1984, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's Site and Architectural application for a proposed research and development complex on the subject property. Condition 3 of that approval · required the applicant to submit a landscaping and irrigation plan for the review of the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant at this time has submitted plans so that this condition may be satisfied. The presented plans indicate an acceptable combination of trees, shrubs and ground covers. Staff is recommending approval of the presented plans and is recommending that the applicant submit additional Pl:ans addressing the fellowing items: l) Berming of landscaping areas along main entry road, where practical. 2) Provision of landscaping plan for triangular shaped parcels along McGlincey Lane. 3) Expansion of landscape areas along the north elevation of Building 4A and east elevation of Building 1. 4) Provision of more detailed plans for the directory area and the water fountain. 5) Revision of the planting area at the northwest corner of Building 4A to provide improved truck access. 6) Indication of all shrubs to be 5 gallon size except where sizes are noted and 7) Provision of screening shrubs adjacent to loading area at Building 1. COND ! T IONS OF APPROVAL : S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: (~-'[~ B. s ~ T£ ADDR£SS: 535 Westchester Dr. P c ~T~: 8/14/84 I1/a Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by'the Site & Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commiss~o-~5-n--Qlth- in 30 days of City Council approval. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. n/a Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Plannin9 Director prior to application for a building permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to application for building permit. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $ S0~O00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip- ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit. Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning Director. Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: Phase I - 300,000 gross sq. ft.; Phase II - 420,000 gross sq.ft. Research and Development use. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~a, 5. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester D~. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. A B C D All parking and driveway areas to be developed in comoliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision cables, etc. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. G Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De- partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level, and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the handicapped. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time the subdivision map is submitted. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. Ail existing structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PAGE 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant shall submit evidence, satisfactory to the City Attorney, indica- ting that off-site improvements have been completed or will be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In the event that Cristich Lane access is not obtained within two years from the date of approval, then revised plans shall be submitted indicating how the ~ndeveloped acres of the site will be used. FIRE DEPARTMENT J. Ail buildings shall be provided with an automatic sprirJder system supervised by Central Station Alarm Company. K. On-site fire hydrants shall be provided within the complex spaces at 300' intervals along access roads. L. Individual fire hydrants shall supply 1500 gpm fireflow. 20 ft. wide access roads shall be provided throughout the complex with a turning radius not less than 40 feet on curves. N. Declaration of intended occupancy shall be provided for each building. O. Storage and use of hazardous materials is not allowed in B-2 occupancies. BUILDING DEPARTMENT P. 30' separation between buildings may affect unprotected windows. Sect. 2005(b) 1979 U.B.C. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Developer to enter into an agreement and post security (a bond amount of $1,200,000) to provide all costs for acquisition of right legal costs, administrative costs, and construction of improvements, reconstruction of Cristich Lane as a public street between ~cGlincey Lane and the pro- ject site to provide projects access as approved by the City Engineer. The developer's responsibilities outlined above are dependent on the formation of a Local Improvement District (assessment district which may be created by future City Council action). (Condition adopted by City Council on January 17, 1984.) Re Install an actuated signal at Curtner and McGlincey, provide left turn and through lanes on Curtner eastbound and left turn and right turns on southbound McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: $ 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, 5. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. S. Improvements as required by City Engineer to increase visbility on Curtner from McGlincey to Camden. T. Project is approved for construction as follows: (a) Build-out of all 7 buildings in one phase. In this case, the applicant shall provide additional access to the project from ~,~Glincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be im- proved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from ~kGlincey Lane to project site; or (b) Project to be constructed in two phases, as follows: Phase One - Five (5) buildings having a total of not more than 300,000 gross square feet of floor area may not be constructed on the site without providing access to the site over Cristich Lane. Phase Two - Two (2) buildings having a total of not more than 120,000 gross square feet of floor area may be con- structed on the site provided that the applicant is able to provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be improved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from ~,~cGlincey Lane to project site. Ue In the event this project is built in two phases, applicant shall modify the intersection of Cristich Lane and McGlincey Lane in Phase One, as per the requirements of the Public Works Director. ~odify McGlincey Lane striping and signing to provide a left turn lane at the site entrances. We Install an actuated signal at Union and McGlincey. Build ultimate street improvements on McGlincey and Union within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. X. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements to provide southbound right turn lane on Union Avenue north of Bascom Avenue. City of San Jose and Comty of Santa Clara approval to be obtained by developer for this improvements. Y. ~odify the intersection of Union and Campbell to provide two northbound left turn lanes. This will include acquisition of right-of-way and ultimate street improvements on Union Avenue within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. ge Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements at the Curtner-Highway 17 intersection as required by Campbell City Engineer to mitigate the impact of this project to the extent that the level of service does not deterio- rate in excess of 2% during peak hour movements. City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, and State Department of Transportation approval to be obtained by developer for this improvement. NOTE: ALL CONDITIONS TO BE M~TUNDERPHASE ONE, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. POLICE DEPART~FF AA. Conditions as indicated in memorandum dated November ?, 1983 from Donald R. Burr, Chief of Police (attached as page 6 of these conditions). The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. Page 6 S 84-16 MEMORANDUM Conditions, ~f Approval To .Subject: Art KL'v l'lannin~ l)ir,,('tor Donald R. Burr Chief of Police Mark Disbrow'- EquiRea] Development Corp. CITY OF CAMPBELL Date Nove,'.l)ur 7, 1983 Art, In reviewing the plans for the research and development complex proposed for the Winchester Drive-in property, I would like to make the following suggestions. Signal lights at: a) Union at McGlincey; b) Curtner at McGlincey; and, further consideration for some type of traffic control on McGlincey at the project entrance. A 3-way stop sign at Cristich and McGlincey. We would be concerned with a great number of vehicles driving through the residential section of Westchester Drive, avoiding the intersection of Union and McGlincey. The entry/exit driveway to Wes.tchester should be closed, or make Westchester a dead-end street at the property line between the industrial and residential sections. The widening of McGlincey at either the proposed entrance or the alternate entrance of Westchester to provide a right turn lane for westbound traffic and a left turn lane for eastbound traffic. Provide a northbound Union Avenue left turn lane at McGlincey, and a right turn lane for southbound Union at McGlincey. Provide keys for the emergency road gates at the end of Cristich and the end of the entrance road at 295 Union Avenue. Require clear marking of the buildings with letters or numbers for easy identification for emergency vehicles. --~ro~nald R.Burr, Chief of Police /kc AVE. Ct vi Ave. ? / cot AVl. // P~rk Ln.. PLANNING COb{MISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 -2- S 84-16 Chin, B. Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design ~ Engineering Systems, Inc., for approval of modi- fications to a previously approved application to allow the construction of a research ~ development complex on property known as 535 Westchester Dr. (currently Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Conmissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Con~nittee. The Committee is recommending approval, sub- ject to conditions indicated in the Staff Co~Inent Sheet, and with the recom- mendation of a 12' wall along building #1 as well as landscaping along this wall on the east elevation. Commissioner Kasolas asked if this project was still connected to EquiReal Development. Mr. Kee indicated that the application was Barry Chin, on behalf of Design & Engineering Systems. There was brief discussion concerning the phasing of the project, and the traffic situations as they pertained to the phasing. Mr. Kee noted that the presented project is the same square footage as the one originally approved by the Commission and-the City Council, with the same traffic analysis; however, the footprint and design are different. The intent of the "Phase II" indicated on the presented plans would be to come back in the next 60-90 days to develop the rear area of the site (Phase II). Mr. Kee continued that this is almost a new application in terms of building design and site layout. Commissioner Kasolas asked what condition the rear portion of this property would be left in prior to it's development. Mr. Kee indicated that it is his understanding that the movie screens and speaker posts will be taken out. Mr. Frank Donaldson, 609 Summit Ave., Mill Valley, noted that the developer will be removing the screens and posts, and will keep the existing asphalt in place until the development of that portion of property is started. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the number of acres indicated on the plans for the "future site". ~. Kee noted that the area would be approximately 5 acres. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-16, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the addition of a 12' wall in the truck area of building #1, including landscaping in this area; and, subject to redlining of the presented plans. -3- Mr. Donaldson stated that the 12' wall was discussed with the mobilehome park residents adjacent to this development. The residents were asked if they would prefer a concrete wall or a landscaping buffer in this area. Mr. Donaldson felt that a landscaping buffer would accomplish the goal of deadening any noise from the site, which would be minimal and be most aesthically pleasing than a concrete wall. ' Commissioner Howard noted that it was the opinion of the Architectural Advisor that a wall would provide for better sound buffering. Mr. Ted Mueller, 29S S. Union Ave., Paseo de Palomas Mobilehome Park, spoke in favor of this project. Mr. B~ueller added that the location of trash enclosures were satisfactory to the mobilehome park residents pro- vided a late morning pick-up was provided. He continued that he was not in favor of a 12' wall, and would rather see landscaping in the area nearest the mobilehome park, and noted his understanding that the nearest building would be approximately 180' from the mobilehome property line. Commissioner Howard noted that the referenced 12' wall is really an extension of a building at one of the truck loading areas. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-16, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Co~nent Sheet, the redlining of presented plans, and the deletion of the 12' wall between the mobilehome park property ' and the subject property. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 15, 1985 CITY 03DNCIL - ~I~ ~'~k'i~ - NE~ ~ · inchester Drive-in Councilman Podgo~ stated that the non-conforming sign Site - Sign located on the Winchester Drive-in property bas not yet been taken down,~d expressed concern that it should be. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : APPL I CAT ION OF': C~1~, B. $ I TE: ADDRE:SS: S~ Wes~'lester D~'. P C I~.,T(;: 9-11-84 n/a 3 n/a 4 7 Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by'the Site & Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Con~ission with- in 30 days of tit7 Comcil approval. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for a building permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Site and ~c~tectural Rev-i_e~ Connittee prior to application for bu~lcl~g permit. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $ SO,O00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or {2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip- ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit. Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility {transformer) boxes, indicating thp location of the boxes and screening{if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning Director. Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: t~nase I - 300,000 g~o$$ sq. ft.; Phase II - 420,000 gross sq.ft. Research and Development use. 8 9 All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch/n, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she ts required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. A C D G All parking and driveway areas to be developed in conmliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Plans submitted to the Building Oepartment for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision cables, etc. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the. City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all conmmrcial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De- partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete tqoor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Oepartment. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level, and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the handicapped. n/a Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay Park Oedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time the subdivision map is submitted. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEHENT COHM~WT: The applicant is hereb9 nmtified that the propertw is to be maln~ained free of an~ combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction co~Mnces. Ail existlng structures shall be kept secured b~ havlngwindowsboarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the propertW. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. UnlformFire Code. PAGE 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: He Applicant shall mbmit evidence, satisfactory to the City Attorney, indica- ting that off-site improvements have been completed or will be completed prior to issuance of occt~ancy permit. In the event that Cristich Lane access is not obtained within two years from the date of approval, then revised plans shall be submitted indicating how the undeveloped acres of the site will be used. FIRE IEPART~iENT All buildings shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system supervised by Central Station Alarm Company. Ch-site fire hydrants shall be provided within the complex spaces at 300' intervals along access roads. L. Individual fire hydrants shall supply 1S00 gpm fir. flow. 20 ft. wide access roads shall be provided throughout the complex with a turning radius not less than 40 feet on curves. N. Declaration of intended occupancy shall be provided for each building. O. Storage and use of hazardous materials is not allowed in B-2 occupancies. P. Provide a Class I standpipe in both stairwells of Building 6. BUILDING 30' separation betw~m buildings 4 ~ 5 may require protected openings. (Sec. 2003 (b) UBC) PUBLIC ~0RKS I~PARTA~Cr Re $~veloper to enter into an agreement and post security (a bond amount of ,200,000) to provide all costs for acquisition of right legal costs, administrative costs, and construction of improvements, reconstruction of Cristich Lane as a public street between ~4:Glincey Lane and the pro- ject site to provide projects access as approved by the City Engineer. The developer's responsibilities outlined above are dependent on the formation of a Local Improvement District (assessment district which may be created by future City Council action). (Condition adopted by City Council on January 17, 1984.) So Install an actuated signal at Curtner and McGlincey, provide left turn and through lanes on Curtner eastbound and left turn and right trams on southbound McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. T. Improvements as required by City Engineer to increase visbility on Curmer from McGlincey to Camden. U. Project is approved /or construction as follows: (a) Build-out o£ all 5 buildings in one phase. In this case, the spplicant shall provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane alonl Cristich T~ne. Cristich Lane to be proved in accordance with require~mts of the City Engineer from McClincey Lane to project site; or (b) Project to be constructed in two phases, as follows: l~ase One - Four (4) buildings having a total of not more than $00,000 gross square feet of Cloor area may be cor~structed on the site withaut providing access to the site over Cristich Lane. One (1) building having a total of not more than 120,000 gross square feet of irloor area may be con- structed on the site provided that tb~ applicant is able to provide additional access to the project f~m McGlince~ Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be improved in accordance with require~nts of the City Engineer from McGlincey Lane to project site. In the event this project is 1~,!l't in two phases, applicant shall modify the intersection of Cristich Lane and McGlincey lane in Phase one, as per the requir~ents of the Public Norks Director. W. ~dify McGlincey ~ne striping and signhl to provide a left tun lane at the site entrances. X. Install an actuated si/hal at Union and McGlincey. Build ultimate street improvements on McGlincey and Union within $00 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal tnstalhtion. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvemnts to provide southbo~md right mm lane on Union Avenue north of Bascc~ Avenue. City of San Jose and Cotrity of Santa Clara approval to be obtained by developer ~or this imp~ts. Ze Hodify the intersection of Union and (~pbell to provide t~o northbound left turn lanes. This will include acquisition of right-of-my and ultimate street imp~ts on Union Avenue ~rithin 3~)0 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. The applicant ts notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLZCATION OF: Ch~, B. SITE ADDRESS: S35 Westchester ]~. AA. Acquire right-o£-~ay and construct improvements at the Curtner-Highway 17 intersection as required by Campbell City Engineer to mitigate the impact of this project to the extent that the level o£ service does not deterio- rate in excess o£ 2% during peak hour movements. City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, and State Department o£ Transportation approval to be obtained by developer for this improvement. BB. Process and £ile a parcel map to combine the lots. NOTE: ALL CCNDITIONS TO BE MET II~ER PHASE ONE, IIqLESS UI'rtE~ISE STATED. POLICE I)EPAR~rr Conditions as indicated in memorandum dated November 7, 1985 from Donald R. Burr, Chief of Police (attached as page 6 of these conditions). The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PLANNING CO~ISSION AUGUST 14, 1984 -6- S 84-16 Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on beh~alf of Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., for approval of re- vised plans and elevations for a previously approv- ed application (S 83-13) to allow the construction of a research & development complex on property known as S3S Westchester Drive (currently Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Comnissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Comnittee is recon~nending approval. Commissioner Howard noted that the new blueprint is exceptional in design, and that details will be coming back to the Comnissicn at a later date. Mr. Kee reviewed Staff's recomnendations for accepting the addendum to the previously approved EIR, the approval of this project in concept, and the forwarding of the plans to City Council for ratification; as well as the building heights, floor areas, and circulation patterns. Mr. Kee noted that the total floor area is the same as what was previously approved by the Con~nission and Council. It is the opinion of the Architectural Advisor that this proposal presents a better project from the standpoints of circulation and visual impact. Mr. Stafford indicated that the addend~n referred to in the Staff Report is a graphic format presenting visual impact of the project. Comnissioner Fairbanks asked if there has been any discussion in the EIR addendum regarding the loss of a recreational use, i.e. the drive-in. Mr. Kee stated that this subject has not be discussed in the addendum. Staff's position is essentially that the previous EIR had been accepted, and is a matter of record. The major change to that approval is one of visual impact which is presented this evening as an addendum. Comnissioner Fairbanks asked about the parking ratios for the project. Mr. Kee indicated that the parking w~uld need to be in accord with City ordi- nances, and that it is his understanding that the ratio is 1:250. Details of the parking layout will be brought back to the Commission when more com- plete plans are presented. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the open space areas in front of buildings 3 and 6, and areas for employees recreational use. Mr. Kee noted that there is a condition of approval requiring the landscape plans to come back to the Commission for approval. Comnissioner Fairbanks asked about a Westchester Drive access. Mr. Helms indicated that it is his understanding that the entrance on West- chester Dr. will not be used as part of the design. Access will be directly out to McGlincey Lane and through Cristich Lane on the westerly side. -7- Chairman Dickson asked about the nunber of 4 story buildings in this area. Mr. Frank Donaldson, representing CAZ Development Co., stated that the recreational facilities plans for the project have not been completed at this time; however, a par course is anticipated, and an eating £acility somewhere close to the internal areas (although this may not be on the inmediate property). Mr. Donaldson continued that the par course would probably be included as part of Phase II, and that it is the intention that the landscaping for the project be a high quality. Mr. Jim Blackburn, 75 Cristich Lane, asked what has happened regarding Cristich Lane, and cited traffic conditions along this street. Mr. Helms noted that the conditions on this project are exactly the same as previously approved by the City Council and discussed with the area property owners. Mr. Helms continued that one of the conditions was that the developer attempt to acquire access along Cristich Lane, and to develop guidelines on how to improve Cristich Lane. This analysis of Cristich Lane has begun but is not complete at this time; however, when this design ana- lysis is completed, property owners will be notified and will have an opportunity to conment. Mr. Ted Moeller, Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park, 295 Union Avenue, stated that the mobilehome park association is anxious to have some sort of change take place on this property. He continued that the developer has talked with park residents and asked for their concerns. Mr. Moeller noted that the park association is concerned with the debris from the eucalyptus trees lining the property, and with excessive noise from traffic along the westerly perimeter. Mr. Donaldson has indicated that the park will be approximately 90 feet from the nearest building, and the association feels that this will take care of it's concerns in this area. Conmissioner Christ noted that the Site Committee Was also concerned with Bldg. 2, the closest to the mobile home park, and the location of the trash enclosure and the loading dock. In going over these concerns with the developer, he is in agreement to relocate these facilities to mitigate any noise impact on the park. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission accept the addendum (visual impact) to the previously approved Fmviron- mental Impact Report which has been prepared in con- junction with the proposed revisions. Motion carried unanimously (S-0-1). Conmissioner Fairbanks stated that she would like the record to show that the loss of a particular recreational use (the drive-in theatre) has not been addressed, and this loss does have an impact on the City of Campbell as well as surix)unding cities. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission recon~nend that the City Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Conment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). ~" 7 I T T T~ -8- Conmissioner Fairbanks stated that she has difficulty approving plans, in concept; however, she felt in this instance there is some safeguard in that the plans are to come back to the Comnission. Chairman Dickson stated that he is still unsure of the City's policy on heights; however, in looking at the rendering of this project, it appears to be an exceptional design with the 4-story building fitting in nicely with the total project. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Co~nission forward its reconmenda- tion to the City Council for ratification. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : S 84-16 APPLICATION OF': [~-~, B. S I TE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester D~. P c ~TG: 8/14/84 3 4 Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Plannin9 Director upon recon~endation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by'the Site & Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission with- in 30 days of Cit¥ Council app~ova/. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for a building permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Site and A~chitectural Review Co~nittee prior to application for building permit. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $ SO~O00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or {2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip- ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit. Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility {transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning Director. Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: Phase ! - 300,000 gTOSS sq. ft.; Phase II - 420,000 gross sq.ft. Research and Development use. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: C~, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westc~ester I~. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. ~ A B D All parking and driveway areas to be developed in conm. liance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell MuniciDal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision cables, etc. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with Drovisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all con~nercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De- partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level, and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the handicapped. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. 11/8 Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time the subdivision map is submitted. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATF~ENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PAGE 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Cb_in, B. SITE ADDRESS: 555 Westchester Dr. PLANNING DEPARTMt~rr Ho Applicant shall submit evidence, satisfactory to the City AttOrney, indica- ting that off-site improvements have been completed or will be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In the event that Cristich Lane access is not obtained within two years from the date of approval, then revised plans shall be submitted indicating how the undeveloped acres of the site will be used. FIP~ D~PART~ J. All buLldings shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system supervised by Central Station Alarm Company. K. On-site fire hydrants shall be providedwithin the complex spaces at 300' intervals along access roads. L. Individual fire hydrants shall supply 1SO0 gpm fireflow. M. 20 ft. wide access roads shall be provided throughout the complex with a turning radius not less than 40 feet on curves. N. Declaration of intended occupancy shall be provided for each building. O. Storage and use of hazardous materials is not allowed in B-2 occupancies. BUILDING DEPARTMENT P. 30' separation between buildings my affect unprotected windows. Sect. 2003(5) 1979 U.B.C. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT lVeloper to enter into an agreement and post security (a bond amount of ,200,000) to provide all costs for acquisition of right legal costs, administrative costs, and construction of improvements, reconstruction of Cristich Lane as a public street between McGlincey Lane and the pro- ject site to provide projects access as approved by the City Engineer. The developer's responsibilities outlined above are dependent on the formation of a Local Improvement District (assessment district which may be created by future City Council action). (Condition adopted by City Council on January 17, 1984.) Re Install an actuated signal at Curtner and McGlincey, provide left turn and through lanes on Curtner eastbound and left turn and right turns on southbound McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: $ 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: $35 Westchester Dr. Improvements as required by City Engineer to increase visbility on Curtner from McGlincey to Camden. T. Project is approved for construction as follows: (a) Build-out of all 7 buildings in one phase. In this case, the applicant shall provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be im- proved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from ~Glincey Lane to project site; or lb) Project to be constructed in tw~ phases, as follows: Phase One Five (S) buildings having a total of not more than 300,000 gross square feet of floor area may not be constructed on the site without providing access to the site over Cristich Lane. Phase Two - Two (2) buildings having a total of not more than 120,000 gross square feet of floor area may be con- structed on the site provided that the applicant is able to provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be improved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from McGlincey Lane to project site. Ue re In the event this project is built in two phases, applicant shall modify the intersection of Cristich Lane and McGlincey Lane in Phase One, as per the requirements of the Public Works Director. ~dify McGlincey Lane striping and signing to provide a left turn lane at the site entrances. Install an actuated signal at Union and McGlincey. Build ultimate street improvements on McGlincey and Union within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. X. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements to provide southbound right turn lane on Union Avenue north of Basccm Avenue. City of San Jose and Couuty of Santa Clara approval to be obtained by developer for this improvements. Y. ~.bdify the intersection of Union and Campbell to provide two northbound left turn lanes. This will include acquisition of right-of-way and ultimate street improvements on Union Avenue within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE $ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: S35 Westchester Dr. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements at the Curtner-Highway 17 intersection as required by Campbell City Engineer to mitigate the impact of this project to the extent that the level of service does not deterio- rate in excess of 2% during peak hour movements. City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, and State Department of Transportation approval to be obtained by developer for this improvement. NOTE: ALL C~qDITIONS TO BE MET tNDER PHASE ONE, LNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. POLICE DEPART~5~Tr AA. Conditions as indicated in memorandum dated November 7, 1983 from Donald R. Burr, Chief of Police (attached as page 6 o£ these conditions). The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. Page 6 - Conditions. of Approval S 84-16 MEMORANDUM Art K,.,. Date Novend)~.r ?. 19~3 ?o . ]'lam] inK l)J rector -. From. Donald R. Burr Chief of Police Subject: Mark Disbrow - EquiRea] Development Corp. CITY OF CAMPBELL Art, In reviewing the plans for the research and development complex proposed for the Winchester Drive-in property, I would like to make the following suggestions. Signal lights at: a) Union at McGlincey; b) Curtner at McGlincey; and, further consideration for some type of traffic control on McGlincey at the project entrance. A 3-way stop sign at Cristieh and McGlincey. We would be concerned with a great number of vehicles driving through the residential section of Westchester Drive, avoiding the intersection of Union and MeGlineey. The entry/exit driveway to Wes.tehester should be closed, or make Westchester a dead-end street at the property line between the industrial and residential sections. The widening of McGlineey at either the proposed entrance or the alternate entrance of Westchester to provide a right turn lane for westbound traffic and a left turn lane for eastbound traffic. Provide a northbound Union Avenue left turn lane at McGlincey, and a right turn lane for southbound Union at MeGlincey. Provide keys for the emergency road gates at the end of Cristieh and the end of the entrance road at 295 Union Avenue. Require clear marking of the buildings with letters or numbers for easy identification for emergency vehicles. -~nald R. Burr, Chief of Police /kc ITtB4 NO. 3 STAFF COMV~NT SHE. F.T - PIANNING COF~4ISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1984 S 84-16 Chin, B. Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design & Engineering Systems Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a re- search and development complex of approximately 420,000 sq.ft, on property known as 535 Westchester Drive (currently ~'~inchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. STAFF RE CO~qENDATION That the Planning Conmission accept the addendum to the previously approved Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared in conjunction with the proposed revisions; and 2. That the Planning Comnission recommend that the City Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the attached conditions; and 3. That the Planning Comission forward its recor~nendation to the City Council for ratification. STAFF DISCUSSION At its meeting of January 17, 1984 the City Council approved the Site and Architectural application of Mr. Mark Disbrow, on behalf of EquiReal Develop- ment Corp., to allow the construction of a research and development complex of 420,000 sq.ft. The project was approved in two phases: Phase 1 - 5 buildings (300,000 sq.ft.) without the provision of Cristich Lane access; and Phase 2 - 2 buildings (120,000 sq.ft.) with the Cristich Lane access. The total project, at buildout, was 7 two-story structures with a total square footage of 420,000 sq.ft. The project site is currently developed as a drive-in theatre and occupies approximately 24 acres. The project has subsequently been acquired by another developer who at this time is requesting approval of a revised project layout and design. The previously approved square footages and building uses will remain essentially the same, with modifications to the building heights, designs, and layouts. Addendum to Previous EIR As the Planning Cormnission may recall, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-03) was prepared in conjunction with the previously approved application. The Plan- ning Comission, at its meeting of December 13, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 2248 certifying the Draft EIR as complete (Vote: 3-1-2, with Commissioner Fairbanks voting "no", and Commissioners Campos and Howard being absent). The applicant has submitted an addendum to this previous report to address the visual impact of the proposed revisions in building design and site layout. This addendum is in a graphic format and will be presented to the Commission at the meeting. The addendum to an EIR is premitted pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [attached for the Commission's review). S 84-16 Chin, B. -2- August 14, 1984 Revised Pro~ect Proposal The applicant, at this time, is requesting approval of revised plans which would allow the construction of 6 buildings. The submitted plans indicate the construction of one 4-story building, two 3-story buildings, and three 2-story buildings. A summary of the proposed buildings and square footages is as follows in Table 1. Building No. Height Sq. Ft. PHASE I Bldg. 1 3 stories (50') 64,076 sq.ft. -B~=-~- Bldg. 3 2 stories (40') 40,678 sq.ft. Bldg. 4 2 stories (40') 80,408 sq.ft. Bldg. 5 3 stories (50') 64,076 sq.ft. Bldg. 6 4 stories (74') 60,436 sq.ft. PHASE i TOTAL ..... 309,674 sq.ft. PHASE II Bldg. 2 2 stories (40') 116,349 sq.ft. PHASE I & II TOTAL ....... 426,023 sq. ft. As~noted in the sunmary above, the project is proposed in two phases. Phase I includes 5 buildings (309,674 sq. ft.) and Phase II a 6th building (116,349 sq.ft.). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed square footages are not consistent with the previous approval by the City Council, which allowed Phase I (300,000 sq. ft.) and Phase II (120,000 sq. ft.). Staff is recommending that the applicant submit revised plans consistent with the previously approved gross square footages within 30 days of City Council approval. The applicant has increased the amount of landscaping and introduced a water element with this revised submittal. A perimeter landscape buffer of existing trees has been retained along the perimeter of this project. A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted with this proposal. Building elevations indicate the construction of 5 individual building designs. The two-and-three story buildings are of a concrete tilt-up construction with tinted blue glass. The building entrances and elevations are accented with deck areas, ceramic tile, and glass blocks. The four-story building is essentially a glass facade and is intended to be the focus of the project. The applicant has indicated the provision of 1140 parking spaces in Phase I and a total of 1650 parking spaces in Phase II. The proposed parking results in a parking ratio of 1:271 and 1:258 respectively. As the Conmission may recall, the parking ratio for a research and development use is 1:250 as specified in the parking code. The applicant has indicated that 2% of the floor area would be dedicated to stairwells and mechanical rooms. This figure would reduce the square footage of the building area, if the Conmission would choose to accept this reduced square footage. Staff is of the opinion S 84-16 Chin, B. -3- August 14, 1984 that parking should be provided at 1:250 for the total gross square footage of the project. It should be noted that the project previously approved indicated 1650 parking spaces for a total square footage of 420,000 square feet. The previously-approved project and the most recent submittal require a substantial number of off-site improvements to mitigate traffic which would be generated by the development of this proposal. These measures are re- flected in the attached conditions of approval and are illustrated on the attached Exhibit A. Staff is of the opinion that the revised plans present a design concept which is superior to the previously approved plan. The Architectural Advisor con- curs with this opinion and finds the revision generally acceptable. He does recomnend further study of the directional sign location on the site. Staff is recomnending approval of the proposed revisions in concept, however, a number of concerns as outlined below must he addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans. Items to be addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans: Revised site plan to indicate reduction in floor areas to be consistent with previous approval (Phase I - 300,000 sq. ft.; and Phase II - 120,000 sq.ft.). 2. Revised site plan to indicate proposed fencing, use of properties at entrance to project along McGlincey Lane. e Site plan to indicate provision of parking facilities at a ratio recommended by the Planning Commission [1:250 is recommended), for Phase I and II. Revised site plan to clarify additional access to project from Cristich Lane. A site plan without Cristich Lane access should also be provided. 5. Revised site plan to indicate provision of perimeter fencing. 6. Building elevations to accurately reflect all truck doors. 7. Truck loading areas to be eliminated along south elevation of Bldg. 2 and from the elevation of Bldg. 1. 8. Detail to be provided of loading areas, trash enclosures, and on-site directional information. , Page I of 3 Sections 15162-15~4 Califonia Enviromental Quality Act Guidelines Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary in order to include the most com- monly used type of EIR among the range of permissible variations allo~ed by this article. This section is neces- sary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs frcm the other types discussed in this article. 15162. (a) Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the cir- ~m~tances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located, which will require impor- tant revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and (A) The information ~as not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR ~as certified as complete or the Negative Declaration ~ras adopted, and (B) The ne~ information shows any of the following: 1. The project ~rill have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible ~ould in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce ome or more sig- nificant effects of the project; or 8ub~quent EIR 12--75894 1.$9 Supplement to an EIR Page 2 of ~ 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would sub- stantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an ap- proval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067. Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which call for preparation of a subsequent EIR in certain situations. This Guideline section was originally adopted several years ago to provide essential interpreta- tion of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process and to avoid pos- sible extreme applications of the statutory standards. Subsections (b) and (c) are necessary to explain which agency ~ould have responsibility for preparing a subsequent EIR under different circumstances. 15163. (a) The Lead or Responsible Agencymay choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to m~_ke the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the infor- mation necessary to m~ke the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c) A supplant to an EIR shall be given the s~_me kind of notice and public revie~ as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. r (d) A ~U~pl~nent t:,~ an EIH may bt, circulated by ttse] f wit~,lt p~'irct~llatin~ t.h~ pr~vious draft or final EIR. pr~;je,?t, the decision-~king ~My sha]i ~)nsider the v[ous EIH as revisc~ by ~he supplemental EIR. A finding .nder Section 1[~91 s~ll ~ ~e for each significant ef- feet shc~ [n the previous EIR as revis~l. Note' Authority cited- Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference- Section 2116~, Public Resources Cc×te. Formerly Section 15067.5. Discussion: This section provides a short-form method for preparing a subsequent EIR where only minor additions or changes would be necessary in the previous EIR to make that EIR apply in the changed situation. The section also provides essential interpretations of how to handle public notice, public review, and circulation of the supplement. Telephone calls received by the Resources Agency have shown a need for this guidance. Page 3 of 3 15164. (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under C~QA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about tile significant effects on the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-making body .~hall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Note: Authority cited- Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Discussion: The concept of an addendum to an EIR is new in the CEQA Guidelines, although such a device has been used by many 161 ~ddendum to a~u EIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~T1, B. s I TE ADDRESS: S3S Westchester Dr. P C I~.,TG: 9-11-84 1 Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Planning Director upon reconlnendation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by'the Site & Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission with- in 30 days of City Comcil approval. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 5 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Plannin9 Director prior to application for a building permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to application for building permit. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $ SO~O00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip- ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit. Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning Di rector. 7 Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: Phase I - 500,000 gross sq. ft.; Phase II - 420,000 gross sq.ft. Research and Development use. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Cl~, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester D~. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. A B C D G All parking and driveway areas to be developed in comnliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision cables, etc. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, qarbaqe, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of th~ Cit~ of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De- partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level~ and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the handicapped. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time the subdivision map is submitted. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. Ail existing structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PAGE 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Cloth, B. SITE ADDRESS: S35 Westchester ]7~. PLANNING DEPAR~ He Applicant shall submit evidence, satisfactory to the City Attorney, indica- ting that off-site improvements have been completed or will be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In the event that Cristich Lane access is not obtained within two years from the date of approval, then revised plans shall be submitted indicating how the undeveloped acres of the site will be used. FIRE EMPARTMENT J. All buildings shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system supervised by Central Station Alarm Company. K. On-site fire hydrants shall be provided within the complex spaces at 500' intervals along access roads. L. Individual fire hydrants shall supply 1S00 gpm fireflow. M. 20 ft. wide access roads shall be provided throughout the complex with a turning radius not less than 40 feet on curves. N. Declaration of intended occupancy shall be provided for each building. O. Storage and use of hazardous materials is not allowed in B-2 occupancies. P. Provide a Class I standpipe in both stairwells of Building 6. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 30' separation between buildings 4 & S may require protected openings. (Sec. 2005 (b) UBC) PUBLIC WORKS DEPART~NT Developer to enter into an agreement and post security (abond amount of $1,200,000) to provide all costs for acquisition of right legal costs, administrative costs, and construction of improvements, reconstruction of Cristich Lane as a public street betweenMcGlincey Lane and the pro- ject site to provideprojects access as approved by the City Engineer. The developer's responsibilities outlined above are dependent on the formation of a Local Improvement District (assessment district which may be created by future City Council action). (Condition adopted by City Council on January 17, 1984.) S? Install an actuated signal at Curtner and McGlincey, provide left turn and through lanes on Curtner eastbound and left turn and right turns on southbound McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: $ 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~n, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester I)~. T. Improvements as required by City Engineer to increase visbility on Curtner from McGlincey to Camden. U. Project is approved for construction as follows: Build-out of all $ buildings in one phase. In this case, the applicant shall provide additional access to the project from b~Glincey Lane along Cristich Lane. CristichLane to be im- proved in accordancewith requirements of the City Engineer from S~Glincey Lane to project site; or Co) Project to be constructed in two phases, as follows: Phase One -Four (4) buildings having a total of not more than 500,000 gross square feet of floor area may be constructed on the site without providing access to the site over Cristich Lane. Phase Two - One (1) building having a total of not mere than 120,000 gross square feet of floor area may be con- structed on the site provided that the applicant is able to provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be improved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from },~:Glincey Lane to project site. In the event this project is built in two phases, applicant shall modify the intersection of Cristich Lane and McGlincey Lane in Phase one, as per the requirements of the Public Works Director. W. Modify McGlincey Lane striping and signing to provide a left turn lane at the site entrances. Install an actuated signal at Union and ~cGlincey. Build ultimate street improvements on McGlincey and Union within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements to provide southbound right turn lane on Union Avenue north of BascomAvenue. City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara approval to be obtained by developer for this improvements. Modify the intersection of Union and Campbell to provide two northbound left turn lanes. This will include acquisition of right-of-wayand ultimate street improvements on Union Avenue within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: C~, B. SITE ADDRESS: $35 Westchester I~. AA. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements at the Curtner-Highway 17 intersection as required by Campbell City Engineer to mltig~te the impact of this project to the extent that the level of service does not deterio- rate in excess of 2% during peak hour movements. City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, and State Department of Transportation approval to be obtained by developer for this improvement. BB. Process and file a parcel map to combine the lots. NOTE: ALL CCNDITIONS TO BE MBT UNDER PHASE ONE, UNLESS 01'HERWISE STATED. POLICE DEPAR~{ENT Conditions as indicated in memorandum dated November 7, 1983 from Donald R. Burr, Chief of Police [attached as page 6 of these conditions). The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. STAFF COFIMENT SHEET - PLANNING COF~4ISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 S 84-16 Chin, B. Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., for approval of modifications to a previously approved application (S 84-16) to allow the construction of a research & development complex on property known as 535 Westchester Dr. (currently Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. STAFF RECObi~ENDAT ION Approval, subject to the attached conditions. STAFF DISCUSSION At its meeting of August 14, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval, in concept, of the applicant's proposal to construct a research and development park on property known as 535 Westchester Drive. The City Council,subsequently, recommended approval of this proposal at its meeting of August 21, 1984. Condition 1 of this approval required the applicant to submit revised plans addressing the following concerns: 1. Revised site plan to indicate reduction in floor areas to be consistent with previous approval (Phase I - 300,000 sq. ft.; and Phase II -120,000 sq. ft.). 2. Revised site plan to indicate proposed fencing, use of properties at entrance to project along McGlincey Lane. 3. Site plan to indicate provision of parking facilities at a ratio recommended by the Planning Commission (1:254 is recommended) for Phase I and II. 4. Revised site plan to clarify additional access to project from Cristich Lane. A site plan without Cristich Lane access should also be provided. 5. Revised site plan to indicate provision of perimeter fencing. 6. Building elevations to accurately reflect all truck doors. 7. Truck loading areas to be eliminated along south elevation of Bldg. 2 and from the elevation of Bldg. 1. 8. Detail to be provided of loading areas, trash enclosures, and on-site directional information. The applicant has submitted revised plans so that these concerns may be addressed. The revised plans additionally indicate a change in Phase I of the project, so that buildings 1 and 3 as previously proposed are in- dicated in one structure. A review of the revised plans follows in Table I. PHASE I TABLE ONE .£]~.fl' sca. 3 stories 87,960 2 stories 80,200 3 stories 64,000 4 stories 67,345 PHASE I TOTAL 299,505 PHASE II Future building Not specified PHASE I & II TOTAL 120,495 420,000 Staff is of the opinion that the revised plans have addressed the concerns with the exception of No. 7. Building 1 shown adjacent to the mobile home park still retains truck loading areas which in Staff's opinion are not screened adequately. Staff is recommending that more substantial screening walls be provided and that the landscaping plan also address this concern. The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the site and building design are acceptable. He does request some clarification of building materials. This concern will be discussed at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the presented plans subject to the at- tached conditions. Condition 1 of this approval requires that the ap- plicant submit a revised site plan which indicates some minor changes as indicated in red on the presented plan. A copy of the previous Staff Comment Sheet and the City Council recom- mendation are attached for the Commission's review. CITY (IF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning September 13, 1984 Mr. Fred Sakamoto Design and Engineering Systems 303 Bradford St. Redwood City, CA 94063 S 84-16 535 Westchester Dr. Mr. Barry Chin, Applicant Dear Mr. Sakamoto: Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 11, 1984, approved the above-referenced site and architectural application, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Note that Condition 1 of this approval requires that a revised site plan be submitted to the Planning Director addressing the red-lining on the enclosed plans. Section 21.42.090 of the Campbell Municipal Code provides that any approval granted under this section shall expire one year after the date upon which such approval was granted, unless _an extension is approved. The Planning Commission's approval is effective ten days after its decision of approval, unless an appeal is filed in that ten day period. It is important to note that prior to issuance of a building permit, a substantial number of the conditions of approval must be satisfied. Additionally, the approval of the building proposed in phase 2 of this project will require approval of another site and architectural application. If you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Office. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNER I I ITIBI NO. 3 STAFF (/)NNMxrr ~ - PLANNING COB~flSSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1984 S 84-16 Chin, B. Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design & Hngineering Systems Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a re- search and development complex of approximately 420,000 sq.ft, on property known as 535 Westchester Drive (currently Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. STAFF RE CO~MNDATION That the Planning Conmission accept the addend~n to the previously approved Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared in ~conjunction with the proposed revisions; and 2. That the Planning Comnission recomnend that the City Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the attached conditions; and 3. That the Planning Con~nission forward its recomnendation to the City Council for ratification. STAFF DISCUSSION At its meeting of January 17, 1984 the City Council approved the Site and Architectural application of Mr. Mark Disbrow, on behalf of EquiReal Develop- ment Corp., to allow the construction of a research and development complex of 420,000 sq.ft. The project was approved in two phases: Phase 1 - 5 buildings (300,000 sq.ft.) without the provision of Cristich Lane access; and Phase 2 - 2 buildings (120,000 sq.ft.) with the Cristich Lane access. The total project, at buildout, was 7 two-story structures with a total square footage of 420,000 sq.ft. The project site is currently developed as a drive-in theatre and occupies approximately 24 acres. The project has subsequently been acquired by another developer who at this time is requesting approval of a revised project layout and design. The previously approved square footages and building uses will remain essentially the same, with modifications to the building heights, designs, and layouts. Addendum to Previous EIR As the Planning Conmission may recall, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-03) was prepared in conjunction with the previously approved application. The Plan- ning Comnission, at its meeting of December 13, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 2248 certifying the Draft EIR as complete (Vote: 3-1-2, with Comnissioner Fairbanks voting "no", and Conm~issioners Campos and Howard being absent). The applicant has submitted an addendum to this previous report to address the visual impact of the proposed revisions in building design and site layout. This addendum is in a graphic format and will be presented to the Conmission at the meeting. The addendun to an EIR is premitted pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (attached for the Comnission's review). S 84-16 (~m, B. -2- August 14, 1984 Revised Pro~ect Proposal The applicant, at this time, is requesting approval of revised plans which would allow the construction of 6 buildings. The submitted plans indicate the construction of one 4-story building, two 3-story buildings, and three 2-story buildings. A s~p,~mry of the proposed buildings and square footages is as follows in Table 1. PHASE I TABLE; ! BuildinF NO. Heiqht Sq. Ft. Bldg. 1 3 stories (50') 64,076 sq.ft. -B~g=-~- Bldg. 3 2 stories (40') 40,678 sq.ft. Bldg. 4 2 stories (40') 80,408 sq.ft. Bldg. 5 3 stories (50') 64,076 sq.ft. Bldg. 6 4 stories (74') 60,436 sq.ft. PHASE i TOTAL ..... 309,674 sq.£t. PHASE II Bldg. 2 2 stories (40') 116,349 sq.ft. PHASE I & II TOTAL ....... 426,023 sq.£t. As noted in the summary above, the project is proposed in two phases. Phase I includes 5 buildings [309,674 sq. ft.) and Phase II a 6th building (116,349 sq. ft. ). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed square footages are not consistent with the previous approval by the City Council, which allowed Phase I (300,000 sq. ft.) and Phase II (120,000 sq.ft.). Staff is rec~,,]-,ending that the applicant submit revised plans consistent with the previously approved gross square footages within 30 days of City Council approval. The applicant has increased the amount of landscaping and introduced a water element with this revised submittal. A perimeter landscape buffer of existing trees has been retained along the perimeter of this project. A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted with this proposal. Building elevations indicate the construction of 5 individual building designs. The two-and-three story buildings are of a concrete tilt-up construction with tinted blue glass. The building entrances and elevations are accented with deck areas, ceramic tile, and glass blocks. The four-story building is essentially a glass facade and is intended to be the focus of the project. The applicant has indicated the provision of 1140 parking sp~.ces ~ Phase ~I_ and a total of 16S0 parking spaces in Phase II. The proposed parKzng resu~s in a parking ratio of 1:271 and 1:2S8 respectively. As the Con~nission may recall, the parking ratio for a research and development use is 1:250 as specified in the parking code. The applicant has indicated that 2% of the floor area would be dedicated to stairwells and mechanical rooms. This figure would reduce the square footage of the building area, if the Conmission would choose to accept this reduced square footage. Staff is of the opinion S 84-16 Chin, B. -3- August 14, 1984 that parking should be provided at 1:250 for the total gross square footage of the project. It should be noted that the project previously approved indicated 1650 parking spaces for a total square footage of 420,000 square feet. The previously-approved project and the most recent submittal require a substantial number of off-site improvements to mitigate traffic which would be generated by the development of this proposal. These measures are re- flected in the attached conditions of approval and are illustrated on the attached Exhibit A. Staff is of the opinion that the revised plans present a design concept which is superior to the previously approved plan. The Architectural Advisor con- curs with this opinion and finds the revision generally acceptable. He does recon~nend further study of the directional sign location on the site. Staff is recon~nending approval of the proposed revisions in concept, however, a number of concerns as outlined below must be addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans. Items to be addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans: Revised site plan to indicate reduction in floor areas to be consistent with previous approval (Phase I - 300,000 sq.ft.; and Phase II - 120,000 sq.ft.). 2. Revised site plan to indicate proposed fencing, use of properties at entrance to project along McGlincey Lane. Site plan to indicate provision of parking facilities at a ratio recomnended by the Planning Commission C1:250 is recomnended), for Phase I and II. Revised site plan to clarify additional access to project from Cristich lane. A site plan without Cristich Lane access should also be provided. 5. Revised site plan to indicate provision of perimeter fencing. 6. Building elevations to accurately reflect all truck doors. 7. Truck loading areas to be eliminated along south elevation of Bldg. 2 and from the elevation of Bldg. 1. 8. Detail to be provided of loading areas, trash enclosures, and on-site directional information. CITY COUNCZi,/ADYISORY IX~ZSSZON/s'rAFF .I~FF, ARAL PoJLq . ~.' DuWa[ne Dickson~. Chainuan · Planning COnm:i ssion · SEPO 6 1984 I:XI3N: · 131.'l'Y OF 5AMPBELL · ~ ' PI~ANNINB DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONS POR ~ OF ~S ~s Po~ s~uld ~ ~ilized ~enewr a ~feml is ~e ~ ~e elect~ or 8dviso~ ~ to ~e ~ty ~cil ~ ~viso~ ~issl~ or ~ty h{er. ~e ~omti~ ~~ to ~lete ~e fora Sh~Id b p~vlded ~ ~e ~itittor et ~e t~ ~e ~feml is rode. ~ staff ~visor ~11 b ~s~nsible for ' ~let~ ~e fora for ~vioe spectflc sumary of the referral.) RE: S 84-16 - 535 Westchester Drive - ~'. The City Council~ at its regular meetin~ of September 4, approved the above referenced project, 1984 Meeting, in 'concept, subjec, t to the recoranended conditions of approval, and referred ~o th~ Plannin~ Comaission for action. INFORMATION ONLY P~rXEW I ItECOJ4D~ ALUION TAI~ ACTION necessary) ~.SPO~S£ ~Eqt~.~D BY: (By u~at ~ate tho action should be ~l~. If ~ ~te ' '9/6/84 " - ' .... MayO~ ~Iph ~tsch/by: ~ne ~yne, City Clerk ~l~~ ~r ~ ~vtso~ ~sston . · - .. _ _~.~?-~--~ .... ~ ltate: CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 ADVISORY COMMI~I~S AND OC~MITIt~S - MINUTES AND ACTION C~ RFX/]NNENDATIONS Planning Ccflmission - M~nute Action - approving revised plans for previously approved application - 535 WestchesterDrive - S 84-16 - B. Chin Planning Director Kee - Report dated September 4, 1984. Based on information provided by Mr. Barry Chin, applicant, that Syufy is no longer involved with this application, City Attorney I~mpster advised the Council that there was no conflict of interest. Councilman Podgorsek stated that he would abstain due to his absence frcm previous discussion on this matter. Following discussion, M/S: Ash~orth, Kotowski - that the Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the conditions of approval; and refer its recannendation to the Planning Commission for action. Motion adopted by a 4-0-1 vote, Councilman Podgorsek voting 'No". S 84-16 Chin, B. Application of ~lr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design & Engineering Systems Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a research and development complex of approximately 420,000 sq. ft. on property known as 535 M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. PLANNING COb~ql SS ION RECO~.~NDATION 1. That the City Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the attached conditions; and 2. That ~he City Council refer its recor~nendation to the Planning Commission for action. DISCUSSION At its meting of January 17, 1984 the City Council approved the Site and Architectural application of Mr. Mark Disbrow, on behalf of EquiReal Develop- ment Corp., to allow the construction of a research and development complex of 420,000 sq. ft. The project was approved in two phases: Phase I - 5 buildings (300,000 sq. ft.) without the provision of Cristich Lane access; and Phase 2 - 2 buildings (120,000 sq.ft.) with the Cristich Lane access. The total project, at buildout, was 7 two-story structures with a total square footage of 420,000 sq. ft. The project site is currently developed as a drive-in theatre and occupies approximately 24 acres. The project has subsequently been acquired by another developer who at this time is requesting approval of a revised project layout and design. The previously approved square footages and building uses will remain essentially the same, with modifications to the building heights, designs, and layouts. Addendum to Previous EIR As the City Council may recall, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-03) was prepared in conjunction with the previously approved application. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 13, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 2248 certifying the Draft EIR as complete (Vote: 3-1-2, with Commissioner Fairbanks voting 'Mo", and Commissioners Campos and Howard being absent.) The applicant submitted an addendum to this previous report to address the visual impact of the proposed revisions in building design and site layout. This addendum was accepted by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 14, 1984. The addendum to an EIR is permitted pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. S 84-16 Chin, B. -2- Revised Project Proposal The applicant, at this time, is requesting approval of revised plans which would allow the construction of 6 buildings. The submitted plans indicate the construction of one 4-story building, two 3-story buildings, and three 2-story buildings. A shin,mary of the proposed buildings and square footages is as follows in Table 1. PHASE I TAB~.E ! Building No. B1 dg. 1 -B~=-~- Bldg. 3 Bldg. 4 Bldg. 5 Bldg. 6 Height 3 stories (50') Sq. Ft. 64,076 sq.ft. 2 stories (40') 2 stories (40') 3 stories (50') 4 stories (74') 40,678 sq.ft. 80,408 sq.ft. 64,076 sq.ft. 60,436 sq.ft. PHASE i TOTAL ..... 309,674 sq.ft. PHASE II Bldg. 2 2 stories (40') 116,349 sq.ft. PHASE I & II TOTAL ....... 426,023 sq.ft. As.noted in the summry above, the project is proposed in two phases. Phase I includes 5 buildings (309,674 sq. ft.) and Phase II a 6th building (116,349 sq.ft.). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed square footages are not consistent with the previous approval by the City Council, which allowed Phase I (300,000 sq. ft.) and Phase II (120,000 sq.ft.). Staff is recommending that the applicant submit revised plans consistent with the previously approved gross square footages within 30 days of City Council approval. The applicant has increased the amount of landscaping and introduced a water element with this revised submittal. A perimeter landscape buffer of existing trees has been retained along the perimeter of this project. A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted with this proposal. Building elevations indicate the construction of 5 individual building designs. The two-and-three story buildings are of a concrete tilt-up construction with tinted blue glass. The building entrances and elevations are accented with deck areas, ceramic tile, and glass blocks. The four-story building is essentially a glass facade and is intended to be the focus of the project. The applicant has indicated the provision of 1140 parking spaces in Phase I and a total of 1650 parking spaces in Phase II. The proposed parking results in a parking ratio of 1:271 and 1:258 respectively. As the Council may recall, the parking ratio for a research and development use is 1:250 as specified in the parking code. The applicant has indicated that 2% of the floor area would be dedicated to stairwells and mechanical rooms. This figure would reduce the square footage of the building area, resulting in a ratio of 1:254. Staff is of the opinion that the provided parking S 84-16 Chin, B. -3- September 4, 1984 would be consistent with the previous approval of 1:254 based on the gross square footage of this project. It should be noted that the project previously approved indicated 1650 parking spaces for a total square footage of 420,000 square feet. The previously approved project and the most recent submittal require a substantial number of off-site improvements to mitigate traffic which would be generated by the development of this proposal. These measures are re- flected in the attached conditions of approval and are illustrated on the attached Exhibit A. Staff is of the opinion that the revised plans present a design concept which is superior to the previously approved plan. The Architectural Advisor concurs with this opinion and finds the revision generally acceptable. He does recon~nend further study of the directional sign location on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed revisions in concept, however, a number of concerns as outlined below must be addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans. Items to be addressed with the submittal of more detailed plans: Revised site plan to indicate reduction in floor areas to be consistent with previous approval (Phase I -300,000 sq. ft.; and Phase II - 120,000 sq. ft.). 2. Revised site plan to indicate proposed fencing, use of properties at entrance to project along McGlincey Lane. e Site plan to indicate provision of parking facilities at a ratio recon~nended by the Planning Commission (1:254 is recommended), for Phase I and II. o Revised site plan to clarify additional access to project from Cristich Lane. A site plan without Cristich Lane access should also be provided. 5. Revised site plan to indicate provision of perimeter fencing. 6. Building elevations to accurately reflect all truck doors. 7. Truck loading areas to be eliminated along south elevation of Bldg. 2 and from the elevation of Bldg. 1. 8. Detail to be provided of loading areas, trash enclosures, and on-site directional information. The minutes of the August 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting are attached for the Council's review. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the revised plans, in concept, subject to the attached conditions. Con- dition 1 would require that the applicant submit revised plans for the Commission's review addressing the above concerns. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~'l, B. s ! TE ADDRESS': 535 Westchester Dr. P c ~'.,TG: 8/14/84 n/a 3 n/a 7 Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Plannin9 Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval° Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by'the Site & Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission with- in 30 days of City Council approval. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for a building permit. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to application for building permit. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $S0,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip- ing of parking areas prior to application for a building permit. Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning Director. Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: Phase I - 300,000 gross sq. ft.; Phase II - 420,000 gross sq.ft. Research and Development use. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. PAGE 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~n, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester D~. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. A B C D All parking and driveway areas to be developed in comoliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision cables, etc. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Hunicipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De- partment. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level, and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. G Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the handicapped. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. Applicant is hereby notified that he will be required to pay Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time the subdivision map is submitted. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. Ail existing structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PAGE 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant shall submit evidence, satisfactory to the City Attorney, indica- ting that off-site improvements have been completed or will be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In the event that Cristich Lane access is not obtained within two years from the date of approval, then revised plans shall be submitted indicating how the undeveloped acres of the site will be used. FIRE DEPAR~ All buildings shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system supervised by Central Station Alarm Company. On-site fire hydrants shall be provided within the complex spaces at 300' intervals along access roads. L. Individual fire hydrants shall supply 1S00 gpm fireflow. M. 20 ft. wide access roads shall be provided throughout the complex with a turning radius not less than 40 feet on curves. N. Declaration of intended occupancy shall be provided for each building. O. Storage and use of hazardous materials is not allowed in B-2 occupancies. BUILDING DEPARTMENT P. 30' separation between buildings may affect unprotected windows. Sect. Z003Co) 1979 U.B.C. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Developer to enter into an agreement and post security (a bond amount of $1,200,000) to provide all costs for acquisition of right legal costs, administrative costs, and construction of improvements, reconstruction of Cristich Lane as a public street between B~Glincey Lane and the pro- ject site to provide projects access as approved by the City Engineer. The developer's responsibilities outlined above are dependent on the formation of a Local Improvement District (assessment district which may be created by future City Council action). (Condition adopted by City Council on January 17, 1984.) Install an actuated signal at Curtner and McGlincey, provide left turn and through lanes on Curtner eastbound and left turn and right turns on southbound McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- $ 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Chin, B. SITE ADDRESS° SSS Westchester Dr. S. Improvements as required by City Engineer to increase visbility on Curtner from McGlincey to Camden. T. Project is approved for construction as follows' (a) Build-out of all 7 buildings in one phase. In this case, the applicant shall provide additional access to the project from ~Glincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be im- proved in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer from ~Glincey Lane to project site; or lb) Project to be constructed in t~o phases, as follows: Phase One Five (5) buildings having a total of not more than 300,000 gross square feet of floor area may not be constructed on the site without providing access to the site over Cristich Lane. Phase Two (2) buildings having a total of not more than 120,000 gross square feet of floor area may be con- structed on the site provided that the applicant is able to provide additional access to the project from McGlincey Lane along Cristich Lane. Cristich Lane to be improved in accordance with requirements of the City ~ngineer from ~cGlincey Lane to project site. Ut In the event this project is built in two phases, applicant shall modify the intersection of Cristich Lane and McGlincey Lane in Phase One, as per the requirements of the Public Works Director. V. ~difyMcGlincey Lane striping and signing to provide a left turn lane at the site entrances. Wo Install an actuated signal at IMion and McGlincey. Build ultimate street improvements on McGlincey and Union within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. Ko Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements to provide southbound right turn lane on Union Avenue north of Bascom Avenue. City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara approval to be obtained by developer for this improvements. Ye ~dify the intersection of Union and Campbell to provide two northbound left turn lanes. This will include acquisition of right-of-way and ultimate street improvements on Union Avenue within 300 feet of the intersection to facilitate signal installation. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PAGE S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-16 APPLICATION OF: Ch~n, B. SITE ADDRESS: 535 ~stchester Dr. Acquire right-of-way and construct improvements at the Curtner-Highway 17 intersection as required by Campbell City Engineer to mitigate the impac~ of this project to the extent that the level of service does not deter}o- rate in excess of 2% during peak hour movements. City of Campbell, Co~mty of Santa Clara, and State Department of Transportation approval to be obtained by developer £or this improvement. NOTE: ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET UNDER PHASE ONE, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. POLICE DEPART~V1TM AAe Conditions as indicated in memorandum dated November 7, 1983 from Donald R. Burr, Chief of Police (attached as page 6 of these conditions). The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. MEMORANDUM Ar t Kt.~, l'iam~ in~ Di r~,(' Lot Donald R, Burr Chie[ o[ Poi ice Sobiecl: Mark Disbrow - EquiRea] Development Corp. Oate CITY OF CAMPBELL Art, In reviewing the plans for the research and development complex proposed for the Winchester Drive-in property, I would like to make the following suggestions. Signal lights at: a) Union at McGlincey; b) Curtner at McGlincey; and, further consideration for some type of traffic control on McGlincey at the project entrance. A 3-way stop sign at Cristich and McGlincey. We would be concerned with a great number of vehicles driving through the residential section of Westchester Drive, avoiding the intersection of Union and McGlincey. The entry/exit driveway to Wes.tchester should be closed, or make Westchester a dead-end street at the property line between the industrial and residential sections. The widening of McGlincey at either the proposed entrance or the alternate entrance of Westchester to provide a right turn lane for westbound traffic and a left turn lane for eastbound traffic. Provide a northbound Union Avenue left turn lane at McGlincey, and a right turn lane for southbound Union at McGlincey. Provide keys for the emergency road gates at the end of Cristich and the end of the entrance road at 295 Union Avenue. Require clear marking of the buildings with letters or nun~ers for easy identification for emergency vehicles. --~r6~ald R. Burr, Ct,ief of Police /kc AUGUST 14, 1984 -6- S 84-16 Chin, Application of Mr. Barry Chin, on behalf of Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., for approval of re- vised plans and elevations for a previously approv- ed application (S 83-13) to allow the construction of a research & development complex on property known as 535 Westchester Drive (currently Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Conmissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recomnending approval. Commissioner Howard noted that the new blueprint is exceptional in design, and that details will be coming back to the Comnissien at a later date. Mr. Kee reviewed Staff's reco~nendations for accepting the addendum to the previously approved EIR, the approval of this project in concept, and the forwarding of the plans to City Council for ratification; as well as the building heights, floor areas, and circulation patterns. ~fr. Kee noted that the total floor area is the same as what was previously approved by the Commission and Council. It is the opinion of the Architectural Advisor that this proposal presents a better project from the standpoints of circulation and visual impact. Mr. Stafford indicated that the addendum referred to in the Staff Report is a graphic format presenting visual impact of the project. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if there has been any discussion in the EIR adder~dum regarding the loss of a recreational use, i.e. the drive-in. Mr. Kee stated that this subject has not be discussed in the addendum. Staff's position is essentially that the previous EIR had been accepted, and is a matter of record. The major change to that approval is one of visual impact which is presented this evening as an addendum. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the parking ratios for the project. Mr. Kee indicated that the parking would need to be in accord with City ordi- nances, and that it is his understanding that the ratio is 1:250. Details of the parking layout will be brought back to the Conmission when more com- plete plans are presented. Conmissioner Fairbanks asked about the open space areas in front of buildings 5 and 6, and areas for employees recreational use. Mr. Kee noted that there is a condition of approval requiring the landscape plans to come back to the Comission for approval. Comuissioner Fairbanks asked about a Westchester Drive access. Mr. Helms indicated that it is his understanding that the entrance on West- chester Dr. will not be used as part of the design. Access will be directly out to McGlincey Lane and through Cristich Lane on the westerly side. -7- Chairman Dickson asked about the number of 4 story buildings in this area. Mr. Frank Donaldson, representing CAZ Development Co., stated that the recreational facilities plans for the project have not been completed at this time; however, a par course is anticipated, and an eating facility somewhere close to the internal areas (although this may not be on the immediate property). ~r. Donaldson continued that the par course would probably be included as part of Phase II, and that it is the intention that the landscaping for the project be a high quality. Mr. Jim Blackburn, 75 Cristich Lane, asked what has happened regarding Cristich Lane, and cited traffic conditions along this street. Mr. Helms noted that the conditions on this project are exactly the same as previously approved by the City Council and discussed with the area property owners. Mr. Helms continued that one of the conditions was that the developer attempt to acquire access along Cristich Lane, and to develop guidelines on how to improve Cristich lane. This analysis of Cristich Lane has begun but is not complete at this time; however, when this design ana- lysis is completed, property owners will be notified and will have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Ted Moeller, Paseo de Palomas ~bbile Home Park, 295 Union Avenue, stated that the mobilehome park association is anxious to have some sort of change take place on this property. He continued that the developer has talked with park residents and asked for their concerns. Mr. Moeller noted that the park association is concerned with the debris from the eucalyptus trees lining the property, and with excessive noise from traffic along the westerly perimeter. Mr. Donaldson has indicated that the park will be approximately 90 feet from the nearest building, and the association feels that this will take care of it's concerns in this area. Con~nissioner Christ noted that the Site Committee was also concerned with Bldg. 2, the closest to the mobile home park, and the location of the trash enclosure and the loading dock. In going over these concerns with the developer, he is in agreement to relocate these facilities to mitigate any noise impact on the park. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission accept the addendum (visual impact) to the previously approved Environ- mental Impact Report which has been prepared in con- junction with the proposed revisions. Motion carried unanimously ($-0-1). Con~nissioner Fairbanks stated t~at she would like the record to show that the loss of a particular recreational use (the drive-in theatre) has not been addressed, and this loss does have an impact on the City of Campbell as ~ell as sumunding cities. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission recon~nend that the City Council approve this project, in concept, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Con~nent Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). -8- Con~nissioner Fairbanks stated that she has difficulty approving plans, in concept; however, she felt in this instance there is some safeguard in that the plans are to come back to the Con~nission. Chairman Dickson stated that he is still unsure of the City's policy on heights; however, in looking at the rendering of this project, it appears to be an exceptional d~sign with the 4-story building fitting in nicely ~ith the total project. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Con~nission forward its recon~nenda- tion to the City Council for ratification. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). September 16 1987 Ca z imir S zlendak Caz Development 3077 Corvin Dr Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear Mr Szlendak: We are owners of property adjacent to the property formerly known as the Winchester Drive-In of which you are the owner of record. We have been experiencing a great deal of diffucuity with the eucalyptus trees overhanging our~property, particularly the branches which overhang the roof lines. We have had an estima,te for the trimming of these trees from DaveyTree Co, in the amount of $840.00 and enclose a copy of this estimate. We request, at this time, that you have this matter taken care of within the next thrity (.30) days or we shall have to have thework done ourselves and bill you for same. May we please hear from you regarding this matter. Sinc er ely, BARBARA ALDRIDGE 260~ Cristich Lane Campbell, CA 95008 cc: ty of Campbell Certified Mail #P24-5725632 SEP ! ? 1987 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPAI~TM ENT WONG & ASSOCIATES 1211H STREET, SUITE F SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 442-7023 April 8, 1986 83004 Mr. Frank Donaldson CAZ Company 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Re: Final Parcel Map Campbell Business Park Campbell, CA Dear Frank: Sometime ago we discussed the Tentative Parcel Map for Campbell Business Park. As I mentioned then, the map will expire September 26, 1986. I spoke with Mr. Tim Haley of the planning Department and explained that the Project is presently in litigation. He suggested, and it is our recommendation, that you request an extension for the Tentative Map. This will give you an additional 12 months to decide if you want to record the map as approved, or whatever. Only one extension per map is Permitted by State law. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a standard letter which we use in such circumstances. You should address the letter to Mr. Arthur Kee, Planning Director. Please feel free to call if we can be of further assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, Gary Timothy Wong GTW:am Enclosure CC: Tim Haley Dick Lloyd APR 0 1986 CITY OF CAMPBELL SURVEYING · ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING PI.~NNING D£PARTME:N~ I~*INO, FILICE AND .ARATA SAN' dOSE, CALIFORNIA 1~,5126 May 22, 1985 Caz Company 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, California 95051 Re: Campbell Business Park My Clients: Ida Petersen and Petersen Brothers Gentlemen: I represent Ida Petersen, Henry T. Petersen and John W. Petersen. My clients own property located at 563 McGlincy Lane, Campbell, California. I have just received information through my clients that the City Council of Campbell has approved a plan of development with respect to the property formerly known as the Winchester Drive-In property. Over the years proposals have been submitted in utter disregard to my clients' property rights with respect to access in and out of their property. In addition, some of the projects have actually imposed a greater burden on the easements that exist because property that did not have the benefit of the easement when it was created are given the benefits through the project. On January 27, 1984 I wrote a letter on behalf of my clients to EquiReal Development Corporation with a copy to the City Attorney for the City of Campbell. We received no response to that letter. I have now been advised by my clients that the City has approved the project and at page 1.6, showing access Caz Company Page Two May 22, 1985 from the project to McGlincy Lanes, there is a substan- tial roadway that not only interferes with the ingress and egress of my clients to their property but actually destroys any access to McGlincy Lane. If this plan is to be put into effect my clients lose all access to their property. The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice that the plan you have prepared and the plan that has been approved by the City will and does interfere with my clients' full enjoyment of their property. Notice is further given that if and when the project commences we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect my clients' interests including obtaining such court orders as are necessary to enjoin the construction of the road. We are putting you on notice at this point so that you have ample opportunity to rectify the problem before any work or construction commences. Should any work or construction commence, you do it at your risk since you have been given ample warning of my clients' rights. Moreover, my clients' rights are a matter of public record and I find it difficult to believe that this plan could have gone as far as it has without consideration given to my clients' rights. Moreover, one of my clients is an elderly woman. At this stage of her life she does not need to have the mental and emotional trauma associated with someone taking her property or interfering with her property rights. Finally, this may interfere with the marketability of my clients' property at the present time. Although my clients have no present intention of selling the property, nonetheless with the plan as approved by the City there aren't many people interested in landlocked property. I'm sending a copy of this letter to the City Attorney, to EquiReal Development Corporation and ~trongly urge Caz Company Page Three May 22, 1985 that whatever plan you have adopted be modified so as to leave my clients property unencumbered by this project. Very truly yours, WILLIAM G. FILICE WGF:ds cc: City Attorney City of Campbell EquiReal Development Corporation IT¥ OF AMPBI LL 7O NORTH FIRST CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA (408) 866-2100 STREET 95008 Department: Planning January 14, 1984 Mr. Burch Bachtold District Director State of California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 7310 San Francisco, CA 94120 A~ENTION: Mr. Joe Kcski Permits Department RE: Campbell Business Park 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell Dear Mr. Bachtold: Pursuant to a request from Mr. Byron Larson of George Nolte & Associates (San Jose), I am pleased to transmit the following information for your files: 1. One copy of the environmental impact report for the pro- posed development, dated July 1983 2. One copy of the supplemental traffic report for the pro- posed development, dated September 1983 3. A copy of the Notice of Determination filed with the County Clerk on January 24, 1984 e A copy of a letter to Mr. Fred Sakamoto, dated September 13, 1984, indicating that the application for approval of a revised site plan and development had been approved by the Planning Con~nission on September 11, 1984 5. A copy of the minutes of the Planning Conmission, as they pertain to this development, dated September 11, 1984. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at this telephone number - (408) 866-2140. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR PHILIP J. STAFFORD PRINCIPAL PLANNER Santa Clara\ .,ey Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY ~r ,~ SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 June 21, 1984 Mr. William J. Wuerthner Design Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr. Wuerthner: Subject: Campbell Business Park Soils Investigation This is in reference to your letter of May 21, 1984 to Tom Iwamura. A preliminary review of the proposed land exchange indicates that it may be feasible. In general, the District will need to have a detailed engineering report, from a consulting firm expert in the field of groundwater recharge, that shows beyond any doubt that the amount of water being percolated will meet or exceed the recharge ability of the existing facility. The report should also be detailed enough to indicate that water transfer, by gravity, to the new ponds is possible and that overflow conditions are being considered. We also wish to advise that we have no interest in your constructing a building above the existing ponds. Sincerely yours, W. F. Carlsen Division Engineer Design Coordination Division CC.' Mr. Frank Donaldson, Caz Company, 3077 Corwin Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95051 ~M.r. Arthur Kc_e, Director of Planning, City of Campbell, 70 North First Street, ~'-~mpbell, CA 95008 Public Works Department, City of Campbell JUN 2 5 1984 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATE~SS CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS ' PLANNERS, SURV[~ SAN JOSE January 25, 1984 193-83-00 ~iT¥ ~.F~ PLANNING 0 EPA~-i'MENT Mr. Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 750 N. Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Campbell Business Park Dear Mr. Kee: As a follow-up to my discussion with Keith Manley, i am submitting for your records the attached calculation sheet showing AM levels of service at Camden/Curtner. These calculations reflect the street improvements currently proposed by the City. The previously submitted PM calculation sheet is still valid. Yours truly, GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES Byron L. Larson Chief Traffic Engineer /jdc attachment cc: Mark Disbrow EquiReal Development Corporation 1~__31North First St. RO.Box820 San Jose, CA95112 408/287-~ Sacramento San Diego San Jose Walnut Creek D£$ 'SS~ED ~Y C~EC~ED BL ._3 : o. g°3 D I'lq r"t,-i TO: FROM: KEVIN DUGGAN, CITY MANAGER ART KEE. JOE ELLIOTT, BILL HELMS, PHIL STAFFORD FILE (S84-16) CAZ DEVELOPMENT CO. Heating with Mr. Frank Donaldson on October 9, 1984 OOTOBER 13, 1984 DISCUSSION: It was brought to the Planning and Building Departments' attention that the Building Department has received s request for issuance of building permits to allow construction of Phase I of S 84-16 (Caz Development Co.) to begin. The Planning and Public Works Department staff were concerned that if building permits were issued at this time, the City has no assurance that the off-site improvements, required ss conditions of approval, would be installed by the time the buildings were ready for occupancy. Because of this concern, staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Donaldson to review the status of the pro3ect and the off-site improvements. Mr. Donaldson indicated that in his opinion the off-site improvements could all be completed prior to s request for s certificate of occupancy. Staff indicated that since other 3urisdictions such as the City of San Jose and CalTrans had authority over some of the off-site improvements, the City of Campbell was not able to control the time needed to obtain the necessary approvals, and the scheduling of their installation. Mr. Donaldson indicated that he would prepare a time schedule for the pro3ect and the off-site improvements and deliver it to the City on October 10, 1984. ~taff then indicated to Mr. Donaldson that some form of bonding, or cash deposit, or letter of credit sufficient to cover the full cost of the required off-site improvements should be considered. As of this date, Staff has not received the time schedule indicated by Mr. Donaldson. PJS/ cc: Joe Elliott Bill Helms TO: FROM: RE: KEVIN DUGGAN, CITY MANAGER OCTOBER 1~, 1984 ART KEE. JOE ELLIOTT, BILL HELMS, PHIL STAFFORD FILE (S84-16) CAZ DEVELOPMENT CO. Meeting with Mr. Frank Donaldson on October 9, 1984 DISCUSSION: It was brought to the Planning and Building Departments' attention that the Building Department has received a request for issuance of building permits to allow construction of Phase I of S 84-16 (Caz Development Co.) to begin. The Planning and Public Works Department staff were concerned that if building permits were issued at this time, the City has no assurance that the of£-site improvements, required as conditions of approval, would be installed by the time the buildings were ready for occupancy. Because of this concern, staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Donaldson to review the status of the pro3ect and the off-site improvements. Mr. Donaldson indicated that in his opinion the off-site improvements could all be completed prior to a request for a certificate of occupancy. Staff indicated that since other 3urisdictions such as the City of San Jose and CalTrans had authority over some of the off-site improvements, the City of Campbell was not able to control the time needed to obtain the necessary approvals, and the scheduling of their installation. Mr. Donaldson indicated that he would prepare a time schedule for the pro3ect and the off-site improvements and deliver it to the City on October 10, 1984. Staff then indicated to Mr. Donaldson that some form of bonding, or cash deposit, or letter of credit sufficient to cover the full cost of the required off-site improvements should be considered. As of thi~ date, Staff ha~ not received the time schedule indicated by Mr. Donaldson. PJS/ cc: Joe Elliott Bill Helms GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATE,SI October 15, 1984 193-83-05 SAN JOSE Mr. Frank Donaldson CAZ Development Company 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear Mr. Donaldson: Attached is a timetable of estimated design and construction target dates for the off-site improvements for Campbell Business Park. This timetable assumes that we receive the City of Campbell's comments on our August 8, 1984 submittal of conceptual plans' by October 22, 1984. Very truly yours, GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES Byron L. Larson Chief Traffic Engineer /jdc cc:~ll Helms City of Campbell ' 1731NorthF~t.~: I~BoxD20 San Jose, CA95112 4C)8r287' · .~,~:r-'~.-.~,.-~ San D,ego San Jose Waln~ Creek/ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, California 95051 408-749-1300 October 12, 1984 Mr. Joe ElIiott Public Works Director City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Elliott: RECEIVED 001' Per your request, this letter confirms that Caz Development Company is aware of the condition requiring off-site traffic mitigation to be complete prior to occupancy permits being obtained for facilities to be constructed at the Campbell Corporate Center. I have asked Byron Larson of George Nolte & Associates, the engineers employed to coordinate the project and implement the engineering necessary to bring the traffic projects to construction, to bring us all up-to-date on the work yet to be done. I have further asked him to inform us as to the reasons behind the engineering not being advanced further than it has at present. That will be delivered under separate cover. It had been our intent, and still is, to commence construction on the various projects in the early spring of 1985. This would give us adequate time to complete these measures prior to the buildings being completed and available for occupancy. As you know, I had inquired of Bill Helms as to the possibility of obtaining some relief on the occupancy requirement in the event that certain measures had not been complete at the time the buildings were ready for occupancy. I was specifically concerned about concerned authorities which were outside your jurisdiction, i.e., Cai Trans and Santa Clara County. This was simply a request and we are prepared to abide by the conditions of approval. We shall continue to do our part to expedite and refine all the project parameters, be they within the project area or outside of them. Mr~ Joe Elliott October 12, 1984 Page 2 I trust this will satisfy your request. Please let me know if there is anything else that you would like us to consider at this time. Very truly yours, Frank T. Donaldson Managing Partner FTD:cls cc: Byron L. Larson October 5, 1984 Mr. Arthur A. Kee Director of Planning City of Campbeli 75 N. Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 RE: File No. S84-16 Dear Mr. Kee: As you know, we have applied for a building permit on building 4A-4B and are planning to get started with"our project shortly. As per the conditions of approval, I am writing,you this letter to respond to the remaining areas to be ~overed under your conditions of approval. As to condition 5, please consider this letter as a written commitment on our part to complete the landscaping, fencing, and striping of the parking areas per the approved plans:: submitted and approved at an earlier date. We intend to commence construction of.buildings 4A-4B and building 5 immediately, and intend to follow up on or about the.-first of February with buildings 1 and !6. I expect that the site. should be~in shape to complete the landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas coincidental with our building program in the early summer of 1985. As to condition 7 of our conditions of approval, we intend to proceed with Phase I, consistingt~p~Slfgh~ZYi.~ess than':~j'300,O00 square feet, with Phase'rlI~compr'i-S'~g,~i~he~,:i~i~?~f:,.:~20'~,'O00 gross square feet allowed;~ :'-'TH~'!!p'~iO~'~'i!:'~il~:l'be Y~?~'~l.l~d- the Campbell CorpoE. ate Cente~',-.::and'it'}i.iS:our:.Lhope',that..We.~'Will. be able to attrac~ users.~from Prim~nil~;i~hbi~i}'eleC~'o~ilcSi~'.i!;industry and associated~ servicedareaS?~li~:Whi'c'hvWili~e~!?.iinter~sted~:.in occupying the buildings for reseaWCH;:an~.'i'd~v~'~°~ent"a~d~'iadmi'ni_ strative type activities. We shall:'aIso endeavor to attract retail establishments to serve'the general industrial-business community, as- well as our tenant base with eating establishments, stationery-printing shops, and other related retail uses that could effectively service the general business community in the area. Mr Arthur A. Kee October 5, 1984 Page 2 I trust that this will satisfy the balance of the requirements of the conditions of approval so that a building permit can be issued once proper review by the Building Department has been completed. On behalf of Caz Development Company, I would like to express my thanks to you and your staff for the professional spirit that enabled us to move from a somewhat somber project, to one which we believe will be a credit to the City of Campbell, Caz Development Company, and the business community in the area. Sincerely, Frank T. Donaldson Project Manager FTD:cls CITY OF CAMPBELL LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT The applicant/owner of above-re£erenCed proper~y does hereby agree to the following conditi~m, which was approved as a part of this applica- tion: In lieu of the landscape bond requested as a condition of the above-referenced approval, I do hereby agree to the alternate condition that the proposed development as deScribed above shall not receive final Building Department clearance until the landscaping which was required, and accepted, as a part of such approva2 hms been completely installed and accepted by the Plan- ning Director of the City of Campbell. OCT ;: ::-; 1984 :ITY DF CAMPBELL PLANNING OEImARTM ENT Signed: * Authority: Date: *Note: This a~nt shall be signed before a Notary by the owner, developer or his agent, or any person having an equitable in- terest in the development. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 4th DAY OF October , . N~ar~ Public inZa. nd f~__~unt~ of Santa Clara, State o~!~fornia. CAROL LEE[ SINZ NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA ~~~ S~t. 30, 1985 Santa Clara Va,, Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 October 4, 1984 Mr. Arthur Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Attention Mr. Tim Haley Planner II Subject: Your File: S 84-16 Applicant: Mr. Barry Chin Site Address: 535 Westchester Drive, Campbell Project Description: Research and Development Complex We have reviewed the site plan for the Campbell Business Park near McGlincey Lane and Westchester Drive sent to us on August 29. Comments contained in our letter of July 17, 1984 still apply (copy of letter enclosed). / Sincerel~ ~;~ Division Engineer Design Coordination Division Enclosure: Letter of 7/17/84 cc: Public Works Department - w/enclosure City of Campbell Design & Engineering Systems, Inc. - w/enclosure 303 Bradford Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER File: City of Campbell Sub'd. McGlincey Perc Ponds Nly of McGlincey Lane; Ely of Highway 17 July 17, 1984 Mr. Arthur Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Site Plan for Campbell Business Park File S 84-16 84A411A, 84S411A (Old Winchester Drive-In) Attention Mr. Yim Haley Dear Mr. Kee: Subject: Your File: S 84-16 Applicant: Mr. Barry Chin Site Address: 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell Project Description: Research and Development Complex This is in reference to site plans sent to us on July 9th for the Campbell Business Park near McG1Lncey Lane and Westchester Drive. :.:cGlzncey Percolation Pond right of way, The exJ. sting District "~ ' both fee and easement should be shown and labele~ on the map and ail subsequent plans. · , ..~nce gates and concrete drive The existing DLstrict pond ~ , pad along the 40-foot entrance road from McGlincey Lane should be shown on subsequent plans, be left as is, and unobstructed by site development. Flooding has occurred along the southerly property line due to ~ond spilling from a low point at the northeast corner of ti~e pond. The ~ite should be graded in this area to prevent this flooding. onoulu be incorporated into an Site storm drainage ~' ~ existing storm ,drainage ~ystem since no drainage can be allowed to dis- charge into the pon~s. In accordance with District Ordinance 7~-6 ~ the owner should show any existing well(~-~) on the plans and inform us regarding OCl 1984 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT their proposed use. Please contact Mr. David Zozaya at 265- 2600, extension 416 for information about well permits. Dccause it can affect the operation and maintenance of the perco- la%ion facility, grading adjacent to the right of way should be done in accordance with District Detail Sheets 20-20B. The details of the grading should include the cross-sectional view at the right of way and be shown on the improvement plans. Detail sheets will be furnished on request. ~mDr_vemen~ ~!ans should be sent for our review and issuance of a hermit prior to ~a_t of site construction. ~incerely yours, ~G~NAL S~GNED Division Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Public Works Department, City of Campbell Design & Engineering Systems, ~nc. 303 Bradford St., Redwood City, CA 94063 S. Wolfe W. Carlsen J. Sutcliffe L. Wilson A. Codiroli E. Sullivan WFC:RAL:bp July 17, 1984 Santa ClaraVc, :y Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 Mr. Arthur Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Attention Mr. Tim Haley [:]ITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Kee: Subject: Your File: S 84-16 Applicant: Mr. Barry Chin Site Address: 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell Project Description: Research and Development Complex This is in reference to site plans sent to us on July 9th for the Campbell Business Park near McGlincey Lane and Westchester Drive. The existing District McGlincey Percolation Pond right of way, both fee and easement should be shown and labeled on the map and all subsequent plans. The existing District pond, fence, gates and concrete drive pad along the 40-foot entrance road from McGlincey Lane should be shown on subsequent plans, be left as is, and unobstructed by site development. Flooding has occurred along the southerly property line due to pond spilling from a low point at the northeast corner of the pond. The site should be graded in this area to prevent this flooding. Site storm drainage should be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system since no drainage can be allowed to dis- charge into the ponds. In accordance with District Ordinance 75-6, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform us regarding AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER their proposed use. Please contact Mr. David Zozaya at 265- 2600, extension 416 for information about well permits. Because it can affect the operation and maintenance of the perco- lation facility, grading adjacent to the right of way should be done in accordance with District Detail Sheets 20-20B. The details of the grading should include the cross-sectional view at the right of way and be shown on the improvement plans. Detail sheets will be furnished on request. Improvement plans should be sent for our review and issuance of a permit prior to start of site construction. ,.~ncerely yours-~ . .f .y .,' I/ ~. F. CarlSen Division Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Public Works Department, City of Campbell Design & Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford St., Redwood City, CA 94063 CAZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, California 95051 408-749-13o0 October 5, 1984 Mr. Arthur A. Kee Director of Planning City of Campbell 75 N. Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Oc'r 984 I~IT¥ OF' i~AMPBELL RE: File No. S84-16 Dear Mr. Kee: As you know, we have applied for a building permit on building 4A-4B and are planning to get started with our project shortly. As per the conditions of approval, I am writing you this letter to respond to the remaining areas to be covered under your conditions of approval. As to condition 5, please consider this letter as a written commitment on our part to complete the landscaping, fencing, and striping of the parking areas per the approved plans submitted and approved at an earlier date. We intend to commence construction of buildings 4A-4B and building 5 immediately, and intend to follow up on or about the first of February with buildings 1 and 6. I expect that the site should be in shape to complete the landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas coincidental with our building program in the early summer of 1985. As to condition 7 of our conditions of approval, we intend to proceed with Phase I, consisting of slightly less than 300,000 square feet, with Phase II comprising the balance of the 420,000 gross square feet allowed. The project will be called the Campbell Corporate Center, and it is our hope that we will be able to attract users from primarily the electronics industry and associated service areas, which will be interested in occupying the buildings for research and development and admini- strative type activities. We shall also endeavor to attract retail establishments to serve the general industrial-business community, as well as our tenant base with eating establishments, stationery-printing shops, and other related retail uses that could effectively service the general business community in the area. Mr. Arthur A. Kee October 5, 1984 Page 2 I trust that this will satisfy the balance of the requirements of the conditions of approval so that a building permit can be issued once proper review by the Building Department has been completed. On behalf of Caz Development Company, I would like to express my thanks to you and your staff for the professional spirit that enabled us to move from a somewhat somber project, to one which we believe will be a credit to the City of Campbell, Caz Development Company, and the business community in the area. Sincerely, Frank T. Donaldson Project Manager FTD:cls I AMPBi tl 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 9§008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning October 2, 1984 Mr. Fred Sakamoto Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford Street Redwood City, CA 94063 RE: Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (S 84-16) 535 Westchester Drive Dear Mr. Sakamoto: Please be advised that the Site and Architectural Review Committee conditionally approved the landscaping and irrigation plans at its meeting of September 24, 1984. This approval is subject to the submittal of revised plans for the approval of the Planning Director which would address the following concerns: l) Berming of landscaping areas along main entry road, where practical. 2) Provision of landscaping plan for triangular shaped parcels along McGlincey Lane. 3) Expansion of landscape areas along the east elevation of Building 1. 4) Provision of more detailed plans of the directory area and the water fountain. 5) Indication of all shrubs to be 5 gallon size except where sizes are noted and 6) Provision of screening shrubs adjacent to loading area at Building 1. It is the Planning Department's understanding that this project is to be constructed in two phases as indicated in the Site and Architectural Application. The phasing indicated on the most recent plans is assumed only for contracting purposes, and does not relieve the responsibility of the developer to construct parking areas in conjuction with this development. ~iTY OF ~AMI)I[ELL Mr. Fred Sakamoto October 2, 1984 If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact the Planning Office at 866-2140. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM d. HALEY PLANNER II TJH/dc cc: Frank Donaldson, The Caz Company. C. IlY OF C kMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning August 29, 1984 Mr. William Carlsen, Division Engineer Design Coordination Division Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Attn: Mr. E. H. Sullivan Our File: S 84-16 Applicant: Mr. Barry Chin Address: 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell Project Description: Research and Development Complex 420,000 square feet Dear Mr. Sullivan: Please be advised that the Planning Department has received revised plans for the above-referenced project. In that the proposed project is adjacent to Santa Clara Valley Water Dis- trict property, a copy of the revised plans is being referred to your office for comments. The Planning Commission will be reviewing these plans at their n~eting of September 11, 1984, and your comments regarding this revised proposal would be appreciated by September 6, 1984. Your comments on the original plans are enclosed for your in- formation. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning De- partment. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM J. HALEY ~' PLANNER II ~ TJH: lj Enclosures STAFF PROCESS LIST AND CASE SHEET SITE ADDRESS: PROPOSED USE: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: 535 Westchester Dr. Modification to prior approval Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Brad~rd St. ~dwood City, CA 94063 FILE NO. AGENDA DATE: S 84-16 DATE FILED: 6-29-84 FEE: ~ PAID: ~-~ 413-49-016 APN NO: 413-11-90, 91 and 088 ZONING: M-1-S GENERAL PLAN: PHONE NO: (415) 364-6453 DATE PUBLISHED IN CAMPBELL PRESS: DATE PROPERTY WAS POSTED (IF APPLICABLE)~,,I~-~-~ DATE LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT: DATE OF FIRST (PUBLIC) HEARING: CONTINUED TO: APPROVED DATE: DENIED DATE: RESOLUTION NO: RESOLUTION NO: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COUNCIL: FINAL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED Copies to: July 20, 1984 Tim Haley Planner II city of Campbell 70 N. 1st Street Campbell, cA 95008 Dear Mr. Haley, EquiReal Development Corporation is aware of the development of the Winchester Drive-In property; and that 555 McGlincey Lane, 559 McGlincey Lane, and 571 McGlincey Lane will be used as access for land development by Caz Company. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (408) 249-5400. Sincerely, EQUIREAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mark S. Disbrow Vice President Development MSD/ml cc: Frank Donaldson - Caz Company ~iTY OF GAMPBi~'I-L PLANNING OEFIARTM E:NT EquiReal Development Corporation 333 W. Maude Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 408-720-1038 July 26, 1984 City of Campbell Planning Department 75 North Campbell Street Campbell, CA 95008 624-2036.01 RE: Application for modification to the approval for Campbell Business Park, Application No. S84-16. As requested by City of Campbell to clarify application. References: Letter dated July 9, 1984 from City of Campbell to Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. Me Confirmation of verbal communication dated July 10, 1984 from Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., to the City of Campbell. Gentlemen: The following information is herewith submitted in response to the concerns addressed in the above referenced documents. Increased impact resulting from 2000 employees (City of Campbell letter, Item 2) The application reflects the potential inclusion of carpooling to the site as an alternative to single occupant private automobiles. This would not increase the traffic volume. me Potential increase in demand for public services (fire services) (City of Campbell letter, Item 3) The project will be provided with a 2000 gpm fire flow that San Jose Water Company has indicated is available for this area. At a meeting between the City of Campbell Fire Marshal and our Fire Protection Consultant, Eric Sitzenstatter on July 24, 1984 it was determined that this would be adequate service to accommodate fire sprinklers for each building, and fire hydrants located according to the specifications of the City of Campbell Fire Department. The Fire Department has reviewed the plan and had no adverse comments. O00 DESIGN& ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS · ENGINEERS 303 BRADFORD ST. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 (415) 364-6453 City of Campbell Campbell Business Park Be -2- July 26, 1984 624-2036.01 Missing Signature of Parcel Owner (D.E.S. CVC, Item 4) The ownership amd status of the properties in question are verified by the letter from EquiReal Development Corporation to City of Campbell, dated July 20, 1984 (copy enclosed). Sincerely, DESIGN & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. Fred Sakamoto, A.I.A. FS/lfb Campbell Enclosure cc: Frank Donaldson, The Caz Company July 20, 1984 RECEIVED JUL 2 1984 Tim Haley Planner II City of C~pbell 70 N. 1st Stree~ Campbell, cA 95008 Dear Mr. Haley, , EquiReal Developmen~ Corporation is aware of the development of the Winchester Drive-In property; and that 555 McGlincey Lane, 559 McGlincey Lane, and 571McGlincey Lane will be used as ~ccess for land development bY Caz Company. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (408) 249-5400. Sincerely, EQUIREAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mark S. Disbrow Vice President Development MSD/ml cc: Frank Donaldson - Caz Company EquiReal Development Corporation 333 ,'. .%~.r:'~...". e CA ~056 4C~-727-'33S July 26, 1984 Tim Haley Planner II City of Campbell 70 N. 1st Street Campbell, CA 95008 ~LA~NIN~ D~A~TMF. NT RE: 555 McGlincey Lane, 571 McGlincey Lane, and 559 McGlincey Lane Dear Mr. Haley, As owners of above mentioned property, EquiReal Development Corporation is aware of the development of the Winchester Drive-In property; and that said property will be used as access for land development by Caz Company. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (408) 249-5400. Sincerely, EQUIREAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mark S. Disbrow Vice President Development MSD/ml cc: Frank Donaldson - Caz Company EquiReal Development Corporation 333 W. Maude Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 408-720-1038 CAZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, California 95051 408-749-1300 July 25, 1984 Mr. Phil Stafford, Planner Building Department City of Campbell City Hall Campbell, CA RE: July 18, 1984 Meeting Dear Phil: As a follow-up to our meeting regarding the Winchester Drive-In Project for Caz Development Company, we are submitting this letter outlining the points that were agreed to. If you feel any of these points are incor- rectly stated, please contact us as quickly as possible so that our efforts can be redirected. The meeting was called to review your letter regarding environmental review of our revised submittal. During the discussion the following points were agreed to: 1. The reference to traffic in the initial study is to be corrected to be consistent with the plan submittal. This will negate the need for further review since an EIR had been approved utilizing those figures (1,650 parking spaces). 2. A property owner signature for the street front parcels will be submitted indicating agreement with application submittal package (property owner is EquiReal). This will provide a complete appli- cation, so a hearing date could be set for August 14, 1984, at the Planning Commission. 3. Cross-sections are to be submitted to allow for Planning Commission review of building heights and impacts on adjacent property, as well as views from Highway 17. This, along with general appear- ance, will be reviewed by the Planning Commission without further environmental review processing. Public notice of the Planning Commission meeting will allow for full public input on final building and site designs. ,JUL [JO 1984 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Phil Stafford July 25, 1984 Page 2 We appreciate your time with us to reach an agreed upon conclusion for this matter. We trust this completes all outstanding items and that upon submittal of the above, a full hearing can be given at the August 14, Planning Commission meeting as indicated. Sincerely, ~ Frank T. Donaldson Project Manager FTD:cls CONFIRMATION OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION TO: C IT"I ADDRESS: ~ CITY' STATE: ATTENTION:~[ ~ DATE: SUBJECT: 0_..,,~,~~ !~,0~"'~""5~"=~ p,Z~,~.-- JOB NO.: ~.~:~::~ 'Z~'"'~,~, THIS MEMORANDUM CONFIRMS THE CONVERSATION: BETWEEN ~ O_..,[.-~,.-..~ or-. ~>,~.~ ON (DATE) 1,0 .~-,"f Ict~l~ ON the TELEPhOnE~ AND '"'["[~' ~"~'/~ °1~ C-".'~'~[~'r~..J-' AT (TIME) ~.. : '~c:~ ~ IN PERSON O "IN BRIEF" DISTRIBUTION: BY: JUL 1,t' 1984 DESIGN & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. ARCHITECTS ° ENGINEERS ° PLANNERS 303 BRADFORD ST. REDWOOD CITY, CALIF. 94063 (415) 364-6453 ORIGINAL ®s CITY OI I AMPBEtt 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning July 9, 1984 Mr. Barry Chin Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford St. Redwood City, CA 94063 RE: Site and Architectural Application (S 84-16) 535 Westchester Dr., Campbell Dear Mr. Chin: Please be advised that the Planning Director has reviewed the above referenced application and determined that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report will be required in conjunction with this project. This determination is made pursuant to Section 21166(A) of the CEQA (1984). Based upon the Planning Department's review of this proposal, the supplemental environmental document should focus on the following concerns: 1) Aesthetic impact of the proposed buildings 2) Increased inpact resulting from 2)00 employees versus the previously projected 1680 employees 3) Potential increase in demand for public services (Fire services) 4) Potential impacts caused by additional light and glare produced from this proposal A copy of the City Council Resolution No. 5164 pertaining to En- vironmental Impact Reports is enclosed for your records. Reference is made to Sect. 6, Para. C, on Pg. 2, which relates to expenses in- curred in the preparation of an BIR. Please note that once a Draft EIR is accepted by the Planning Director, a mandatory review period of 30 days is required before the project could be set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. A list of consultants who have been approved for the preparation of EIR's in the City of Campbell is enclosed. You are invited to obtain estimates for the preparation of this EIR from as many consultants on this list as you choose. Prior to con~encement of any work on the EIR, the Planning Director must approve the consultant's scope of work and methodology. In addition, the applicant must deposit with the City a sum of money to cover the full cost of preparing the BIR. The applicant will receive an accounting of the disbursement of these funds. Mr. Barry Chin 2. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call or visit the Plannfing Departnmnt at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR · ~.~ . ~ - ,/. ./ , . . ..×.- m~r~ J: STA~m~ PRINCIPAL PLAN~£R ~j ~nclosures cc: ~r~n~ Donaldson CAZ Development STAFF CALCULATION SHEET DATE: NAME: ADDRESS: PROPOSED USE: AGENDA DATE: FILE NO. __.~~ APN: ZONE: GROSS LOT AREA: NET LOT AREA: ~(5~FT) ~I BUILDING AREA BY USE: 1. sq.ft. sq.ft. acres acres TOTAL FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA: ~O(m~ COVERAGE: ~ % of net lot area. TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAVING: sq.ft. sq. ft. % of net lot area. LANDSCAPING: CODE: PROVIDED: EXISTING LARGE TREES: sq. ft. sq. ft. ~Yes No % of net lot area. % of net lot area. SETBACKS: AS PROVIDED Front ~r} I~'~ Left ~ '~ ~ Right ~ ~0 Rear ~1 CODE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS: AS PROVIDED BUILDING HEIGHT: Building Wall TOTAL HEIGHT CODE PARKING SPACES: PARKING RATIO: TYPE Regular Compact Handicap Total Covered Uncovered PROVIDED AS PROVIDED CODE CODE PARKING DESIGN: ACCEPTABLE Stall Size Driveway Width Backup Distance Distance from Bldgs. J Turnaround Area ~// UNACCEPTABLE IAL):. Total No. of Units ~ DENSITY (RESIDENT Type~ ~~ _ ~IDED CODE Units per yos.~_re . ~-~ Units peking ~ormula ~_ Open. ce EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West The above calculations are intended for Staff review and summaries. These calculations are approximations and should be used as such. Kw' MEMORANDUM To; ROBERT DEb~STER CITY ATTORNEY Date: From: Subject: ARTHUR A. KEE PLAteN ING DIRECTOR~ (TIM J. HALEY) / [~" SITE AND AROtlTECTURAL APPLICATION (S 84-16) 535 WESTCHESTER DR. (rDtE CAZ COMPANY) JULY 2, 1984 CITY OF CAMPBELL q~ne Planning Department has received the above referenced application which proposes the construction of a research ar, d development complex on the approximately 24 acre site. This application is proposing the construction of six buildings accomodating approximately 420,000 square feet of research and development use. A summary of the project is attached. The City Council at its meeting of January 17, 1984, approved the application of EquiReai Development Corporation on this site. The approved project was approved in two phases. Phase One: the construction of 5 buildings without Cristich Lane access accomoda-ting 300,000 square feet; and Phase Two: the construction of an additior, al 2 buildings accomodating another 120,000 square feet. The newly submitted application proposes a project with the same use and square footage, but a new design and site layout. Previously, all of the proposed buildings were two story. At this time the proposed project indicates the construction of two, three and four story buildings. The Planning Department requests your determination if a supplemental Environ- mental Impact Report is required in conjunction with this new application. Ap- plicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act and the guidelines are attached for your information. Your review of this matter and your advice on how these requirements should be interpreted would be appreciated. Your t/mely response is appreciated as well. Campbell Business Park Summary of Project The project site, 24.2 acres in size, is currently the location for the Winchester Drive-in. The site is bounded on the south by the Santa Clara Valley Water District's McGlincey Percolation ponds, on the north and west by highway 17, and on the east by a mobile home park. The exisitng surrounding neighborhood is primarily light industrial and commercial use of mixed character. There is currently no definable visual character present in the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to provide a six building research and development park that would act as a unifying element in the area. The project will include two, three and four story buildings that will contain a total of 420,000 feet of space. The project will serve medium sized regionally oriented businesses in the high technology sector and provide approximately 2,000 new jobs. Circulation onto and through the site will be accommodated by a sweeping semi-circular drive which surrounds a four story building set on a reflecting pool. The building and pool will act as a focus for visitors to the site. On site parking would be provided for 1650 automobiles and each building will be provided with loading docks serviced by a landscape screened perimeter service road. Site amenities include plazas, fountains, a formal internal landscaping plan and landscape screening at the project boundaries. The buildings are sited to minimize the visual impact of their size. building exteriors will be finished in light colors, and tinted (as opposed to reflective) glass to emphasize the human aspects of the project. As the site is currently used soley as a drive-in theatre, the project should not be considered as displacing any significant services or public uses. However, as the area is currently non-industrial is use the project will increase the demand for municipal services. Notices of (~mpletion Lead Agency Determination prohibit the exchange of properly designated trade secrets between public agencies who have lawful jurisdiction c~er the preparation of the impact report. ~ 21161. Whenever a public agency has completed an Environmental Impact Report, it shall cause a notice of completion of such report to be filed With the Secretary of the Resources Agency. the notice of completion ~hall briefly identify the project and ~hall indicate that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Failure to file the notice re- quired by this section shall not affect the validity of a project. (I{APTER 6. LI~IITATIONS (Added: Chapter 1154, Statutes of 1972) 21165. When a project is to be carried out or approved by two or more public agencies, the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect c~ the e~vironment shall be made by the Lead Agency; and such agency shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, the Environmental Impact Report for the project, if such a report is required by this division. In the event that a dispute arises as to which is the Lead Agency, any public agency, or, in the case of a project described in subdivi- sion (c) of Section 21065, the applicant for such project may submit the question to the Office of Planning and Research, and the Office of Planning and Research shall designate, within 21 days of receiving such request, the Lead Agency, giving due consideration to the capacity of such agency to adequately fulfill the requirements of this division. (Amended: Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1977) 21166. When an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supple- mental Envirommental Impact Report shall be required by the Lead Agency or by any Responsible Agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the Environmental Impact Report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the cir- cmnstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the Enviromnental Impact Report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not 7.° a 36 have been known at the time the Environmental Impact Report was certified 'as complete, becomes available. (Amended: Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1977) 21167. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the following acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division shall be comnenced as follows: (a) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency is carrying out or has approved a project which may have a significant effect oa the environment without having deter- mined whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be oo~nenced within 180 days of the public agency's decision to carry out or approve the project, or, if a project is undertaken without a formal decision by the public agency, within 180 days after com- mencement of the project. (b) Any action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a sig- nificant effect on the environment shall be commenced within 30 days after the filing of the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 21108 or subdivision (a) of Section 21152. (c) Any action or proceeding alleging that an Environmental Impact Report does not comply with the provi- sions of this division shall be commenced within 30 days after the filing of the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 21108 or subdivision (a) of Section 21152 by the Lead Agency. (d) Any action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly determined that a project is not subject to the provisions of this division pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 21080 or pursuant to Section 21085 or 21172 shall be commenced within 35 days after the filing by the public agency, or person specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 21065, of the notice authorized by subdivi- sion (b) of Section 21108 or subdivision (b) of Section 21152. If such notice bas not been filed, such action or proceeding ~hall be commenced within 180 days of the public agency's decision to carry out or approve the project, or, if a project is undertaken without a formal decision by the public agency, within 180 days after con~encement of the project. (e) Any action or proceeding alleging that any other act or emission of a public agency does not comply with the provisions of this division shall be ccm~aenced within 30 days after the filing of the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 21108 or subdivision (a) of Section 21152. (Amended: Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1977) 37 8tatutos of l.imt ration 180 days .3O Days 30 Days 35 Days 30 Days preps, red earlier in the process ~ould still provide an ade- quate description of the broad effects considered at that stage. Section 15152 follows the provision in AB 1185 that limits use of tiering to projects that are consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project would be located. This approach reinforces local planning and zoning as fundamental environmental controls and avoids a potential significant effect resulting from inconsistency with applicable plans. Tiering has been used more under NEPA than it has been un- der CEQA. This section is intended to promote consistency with the federal system for the benefit of projects subject to both laws. Even where a project will not be subject to NEPA, following the federal experience with tiering should improve the efficiency of the C~A process. To make the process understandable to the public, any EIR or Negative Declaration using the tiering principle must refer to the prior EIR, state where a copy of that document may beex,mined, and state that tiering is being used. 15153. (a) The Lead Agency may employ a single EIR to describe more than one project, if such projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact. Further, the Lead Agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with an earlier project to apply to a later project, if the cir- cumstances of the projects are essentially the same. (b) When a Lead Agency proposes to use an EIR from an ear- lier project as the EIR for a separate, later project, the Lead Agency sh_all use the following procedures: (1) The Lead Agency ~h~ll review the proposed project with an Initial Study, using incorporation by reference if necessary, to determine whether the EIRwould ade- quately describe: (A) The general environmental setting of the project, (B) The significant environmental impacts of the project, and (C) Alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant effect. (2) If the Lead Agency believes that the EIR v~ould meet the requirements of subsection (1), it shall provide public review as provided in Section 15087 stating that it plans to use the previously prepared EIR as the draft EIR for this project. The notice shall include as a minimum: U~e of an fr~m an Emrlier Project (A) An identification of the project with a brief description; (B) A statement that the agency plans to use a cer- tain ErR prepared for a previous project as the EIR for this project; (C) A listing of places where copies of the EIR may be examined; and (D) A statement that the key issues involving the EIR are whether the EIR should be used for this project and whether there are any additional, reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered as ways of avoiding or reducing the significant effects of the project. (3) The Lead Agency shall prepare responses to co~nents received during the review period. (4) Before approving the project, the decision-maker in the Lead Agency shall: (A) Consider the information in the EIR including comments received during the review period and responses to those ~nts, (B) Decide either on its own or on a staff recommen- dation whether the EIR is adequate for the project at hand, and (C) Make or require certification to be made as described in Section 15090. (D) Make findings as provided in Sections 15091 and 15093 as necessary. (5) After making a decision on the project, the Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination. (c) An EIR prepared for an earlier project may also be used as part of an Initial Study to doc~ent a finding that a later project will not have a significant effect. In this situation a Negative Declaration will be prepared. (d) An ErR prepared for an earlier project shall not be used as the EIR for a later project if any of the condi- tions described in Section 15162 would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental ErR. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21100, 21151, and 21165, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15068. 156 Discussion: The purpose of this section is to grant Lead Agencies clear authority to use an EIR prepared for one project over again for a second project which is essentially the same as the project for which the EIR was originally prepared. The section places necessary conditions on the use of a prior EIR to avoid abuse of this approach. Where two projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact, there is little reason to require preparation of a separate EIR for the second project. This section is essentially the same as the amendments to Section 15068 adopted in Dec~nber of 1981 but disapproved by the Office of Administrative Law. Since that action by O.A.L., the Resources Agency has continued to receive phone calls asking how to hmndle the problem addressed by this section. The need still exists for the interpretations and efficiencies provided here. Subsection (b) prescribes the procedures for an agency to use in implementing this authority. The need for these procedures was shown by the many telephone calls the Resources Agency received frcm people asking how to handle this situation. Apparently, many agencies have used a Negative Declaration for the later project when they thought that the EIR from an earlier project would analyze all the significant effects of the later project. Use of a Negative Declaration is not appropriate. Although a Negative Declaration does state than an EIR will not be prepared, the reason for preparing a Negative Declaration is that the project will not have a significant effect. An EIR is needed if the project may have a significant effect. The procedures prescribed in subsection (b) should reduce the confusion that has often been experienced in this situation. Subsection (c) involves a slightly different situation. Here the project would appear to have the potential for causing a significant effect but an EIR prepared for an earlier project analyzed the same kind of effect under similar circ,,a~tances and showed that the effect would not be significant. In this situation, the earlier EIR could be used as the supporting documentation for a Negative Declaration on the current project. Subsection (d) adds necessary limitations. The subsection ,~kes it clear that an EIR prepared for one project shall not be used for a later project if important revisions in the EIR would be necessary due to changes in the project, changes in the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken, or important new information becomes avail- able about new significant impacts. In these situations, CEQA requires preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supple- ment to an EIR. See Sections 15162 and 15163. 157 Subsection (d) is also necessary for clarity. The subsec- tion provides a short and clear statement limiting the uso of the section. This separate statement is clearer than the inferences that readers might draw frcln subsection (a). Further, subsection (d) refers to stadldards used throughout the Guidelines for requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR. This cross-reference prc~otes clarity. This section is different frcm tiering in that this process does not involve a series of approvals moving from the general to the specific with EIRs ~nitting issues fully ad- dressed at the earlier stages. The use of a previously prepared EIR is most appropriate where an EIR was prepared earlier for a project very similar to the one currently being examined by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency can use the earlier EIR as the EIR for the second project after determining that the earlier EIR would be adequate'for analyzing the environmental effects of the project at hand. General Article 11. Types of EIRs. 15160. This article describes a number of examples of variations in EIRs as the documents are tailored to different situa- tions and intended uses. These variations are not exclusive. Lead Agencies my use other variations consis- tent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances. All EIRs must meet the content requirements discussed in Article 9 beginning with Section 15120. Note: Authority cited': Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 9.1061, 9.1100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessar~ in order to describe the contents of this article and to explain that the types of EIRs described here are not the only possibilities. This inter- pretation is provided in response to the many people who had believed that the types of EIRs described in the exist- lng Guidelines were the only types they could use. P~oject EH{ 15161. The most c~,.,on type of EIR examines the environmental im- pacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. 158 Note: Authority cited" Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary in order to include the most com- monly used type of EIR among the range of permissible variations allowed by this article. This section is neces- sary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs fr~m the other types discussed in this article. 15162. (a) Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the cir- c,m~tances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located, which will require impor- tant revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and (A) The information was not known and could not have been knowa at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, and (B) The new information shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible ~ould in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce o~e or more sig- nificant effects of the project; or 8ubseq~t EIR 12--75894 159 Suppl~ent to an RIR 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would sub- stantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency mhall grant an ap- proval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section ~.1166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067. Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which call for preparation of a subsequent EIR in certain situations. This Guideline section was originally adopted several years ago to provide essential interpreta- tion of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process and to avoid pos- sible extreme applications of the statutory standards. Subsections (b) and (c) are necessary to explain which agency would have responsibility 'for preparing a subsequent EIR under different circumstances. 15163. (a) The Lead or Responsible Agencymay choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to .m__ke the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the infor- mation necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. (d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. (e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the pre- vious EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant ef- fect shown in the previous EIR as revised. Note: Authority cited' Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067.5. Discussion: This section provides a short-form method for preparing a subsequent EIR vahere only minor additions or changes would be necessary in the previous EIR to make that EIR apply in the changed situation. The section also provides essential interpretations of how to handle public notice, public review, and circulation of the supplement. Telephone calls received by the Resources Agency have shown a need for this guidance. 15164. (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CBQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about tile significant effects on the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-m~_king body mhall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Note: Authority cited- Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference- Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Discussion: The concept of an addendum to an EIR is new in the CEQA Guidelines, although such a device has been used by many 161 Addend~ to sm EIR ~gencles previously. This section is designed to provide clear authority for the practice and to encourage other agencies to use the device as a way of making minor correc- tions in EIRs without recirculating the EIR. The addend~n is the other side of the coin from the supplement to an EIR. This section provides an interpretation with a label and an explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public review. The need for this section was shown by the many telephone calls received in the Resources Agency asking how to handle this situation. ~ltiple ~d ~ Project~ 15165. Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed a part of a larger- undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case cc~,ent upon the cumulative effect. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 397. Formerly Section 15069. Discussion: This is a re-enactment of a section which has been con- tained in the Guidelines for many years. It codifies NEPA case law which California courts can be expected to follow. The main cases in this area dealt with highway segmentation. The courts ruled that the agency preparing the EIS could not limit the EIS to the particular section of highway which was proposed for construction but had to address the effects of the entire highway which was ul- timately planned. This section follows the principle that the EIR on a project must show the big picture of what is involved. If the approval of one particular activity could be expected to lead to many other activities being approved in the same general area, the EIR should examine the ex- pected effects of the ulti,m.te environmental changes. This section is also consistent with the Whitman decision cited in the note interpreting C~A. 162 RECEIPT CITY OF CAMPBELL CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA FUND NUMBER DATE AMOUNT THIS RECEIPT MUST BE MACHINE VALIDATED AND SIGNED BELOW. 24198 CITIZEN COPY BY Thank CITY OF CAMPBELL Campbell Business Park Campbell, California NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES TO RECEIVE AGENDA INFORMATION Applicant: Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford Street Redwood City, CA 94063 (415) 364-6453 Attention: Fred Sakamoto O%rnMr: The Caz Company 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 (408) 749-1300 Attention: Frank Donaldson ITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Pl ap_n_ J3~g June 13, 1984 Frank T. Donaldson Project Manager CAZ Development Company 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear I~@. Donaldson: Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1984, in which you indicate that Hr. Fred Sakamoto of Design and Engineering Systems, Inc., would be sending modified site drawings for the Campbell Business Park. We are in receipt of these drawings. In addition, you asked for advice as to how to proceed in processing the revised site plan. In order for us to process the site plan revisions, it will be necessary for you to provide 5 sets of detailed site plans and elevations for the project. A copy of the checklist of items to be included in the plans and elevations is included for your reference. A fee of $125.00 is also required to be paid at the time the revised plans are submitted. Once the plans have been received by the Planning Director, it will be necessary for the Planning Director to review the re- vised project's Environmental Impact and to determine whether the previously prepared EIR is adequate. If the previous EIR is found inadequate in any area(s), revisions will be necessary before the application can be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have any further questions regarding these procedures, please feel free to call. Sincerely, PHILIP J. STAFFORD PRINCIPAL PLANNER CAZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, California 95051 408-749-1300 June 5, 1984 Mr. Arthur Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Kee: Fred Sakamoto of DES is sending under separate cover modified site drawings of the Campbell Corporate Center. We have realigned the buildings and altered the sizes and shapes in order to produce a more campus-like setting, and allow for an increased variety to better serve the corporate community. In order that we could accomplish this goal without disturbing the overall character as approved, we have not disturbed the square footage in Phase I or Phase II of the project. We are satisfied that the modified site drawings reflect the intent of the City of Campbell in approving the earlier site plans, and we are anxious to move ahead, subject to your agreement. I would be grateful if you could inform us as to how we could proceed to a rapid conclusion of the planning process. In order to get construction underway before the winter rains hit, we must proceed with working drawings almost immediately, and I am hopeful that the City can assist us through the approval process in a timely manner. Thank you for your past assistance, and I look forward to your advise as to how to proceed. Very truly your~..~ Frank T. Donaldson Project Manager FTD:cls JUN 6 1984 CITY OF CANIPBI!LL PLANNING DEPAI~TM ENT CITY OF CAMPBELL APPEl CAT ! ON CITY OF' CAMPBELL P/-ZANNINB DEPARTMEN~ PLEASE bDTE: STAFF IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO NOTIFY APPLICANTS OF THE COb~PLETENESS OF 2'HEIR APPLICATIONS. ONLY T~3SE APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE COMPLETE CAN BE POSTED ON A PLANNING COB{qlSSION AGENDA. DATE: 413-11-90, 91, and 088 PROPERTY LOCATION: 535 Westchester Drive, APN: 413-49-016 bounded by highway 17, Westchester and McGlinceyZONING: APPLICATION: Architectural Approval Planned Development Permit General Plan Amendment Other: Modification to prior approval. Use permit Zone Change Variance APPLICANT: Name: Design and Engineering Systems,IncTelephone:(415) 364-6453 Address: 303 Bradford Street City/State: Redwood City, CA Zip: 94063 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: The Caz Company Address: 3077 Corvin Drive City/State: San~a Cl~ra~ GA Telephone:(408) ,749-1300 Zip: 95051 I/We the undersigned person(s) having an interest in the above described property hereby make the above application(s) in accordance with the pro- visions of the Campbell Municipal Code, and I/We hereby certify that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my/our know- ledge and belief. /Date t~roperty (~mer Signature /Da~ Campbell Business Park Summary of Project The project site, 24.2 acres in size, is currently the location for the Winchester Drive-in. The site is bounded on the south by the Santa Clara Valley Water District's McGlincey Percolation ponds, on the north and west by highway 17, and on the east by a mobile home park. The exisitng surrounding neighborhood is primarily light industrial and commercial use of mixed character. There is currently no definable visual character present in the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to provide a six building research and development park that would act as a unifying element in the area. The project will include two, three and four story buildings that will contain a total of 420,000 feet of space. The project will serve medium sized regionally oriented businesses in the high technology sector and provide approximately 2,000 new jobs. Circulation onto and through the site will be accommodated by a sweeping semi-circular drive which surrounds a four story building set on a reflecting pool. The building and pool will act as a focus for visitors to the site. On site parking would be provided for 1650 automobiles and each building will be provided with loading docks serviced by a landscape screened perimeter service road. Site amenities include plazas, fountains, a formal internal landscaping plan and landscape screening at the project boundaries. The buildings are sited to minimize the visual impact of their size. building exteriors will be finished in light colors, and tinted (as opposed to reflective) glass to emphasize the human aspects of the project. The As the site is currently used soley as a drive-in theatre, the project should not be considered as displacing any significant services or public uses. However, as the area is currently non-industrial is use the project will increase the demand for municipal services. Campbell Business Park S~mmary of Project The project site, 24.2 acres in size, is currently the location for the Winchester Drive-in. The site is bounded on the south by the Santa Clara Valley Water District's McGlincey Percolation ponds, on the north and west by highway 17, and on the east by a mobile home park. The exisitng surrounding neighborhood is primarily light industrial and commercial use of mixed character. There is currently no definable visual character present in the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to provide a six building research and development park that would act as a unifying element in the area. The project will include two, three and four story buildings that will contain a total of 420,000 feet of space. The project will serve medium sized regionally oriented businesses in the high technology sector and provide approximately 2,000 new jobs. Circulation onto and through the site will be accommodated by a sweeping semi-circular drive which surrounds a four story building set on a reflecting pool. The building and pool will act as a focus for visitors to the site. On site parking would be provided for 1650 automobiles and each building will be provided with loading docks serviced by a landscape screened perimeter service road. Site amenities include plazas, fountains, a formal internal landscaping plan and landscape screening at the project boundaries. The buildings are sited to minimize the visual impact of their size. building exteriors will be finished in light colors, and tinted (as opposed to reflective) glass to emphasize the human aspects of the project. The As the site is currently used soley as a drive-in theatre, the project should not be considered as displacing any significant services or public uses. However, as the area is currently non-industrial is use the project will increase the demand for municipal services. TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Campbell DATE: June 26~ 1984 ADDRESS: 75 North Central Avenue VIA: MAIL CITY: Campbell, MESSENGER STATE: CA ZIP' 95008 PICK UP ATTENTION: BLUEPRINTER SUBJECT: Campbell Business Park - 535 Westchester Dr. JOB NO: 624-2036.01 TRANSMITTED HEREWITH: FOR YOUR: © INVOICE © INFO (]) CHECKSET (]) USE O SAMPLES ]~ APPROVAL X~ OTHER Application O REVIEW PRINTS SPECS DETAILS CALCS CHANGE ORDER ADDENDUM SHOP DRNGS LETTER modification to ~pproval for the above referenced project. The items include: 1) Signed application 2) Color board 3) Amended drawings, sheets 1, 4, 5 and 8 4) Legal description 5) Names and addresses of parties to receive agenda information 6) Project summary 7) Environmental information form BY: Barry Chin DISTRIBUTION: Frank Donaldson, The Caz Company DESIGN & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. ARCHITECTS , PLANNERS - ENGINEERS 303 BRADFORD ST. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 (415) 364-645.~ EIR-1 C_.Y OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA INITIAL STUDY ENVIRO~IMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: o The Caz Company, 3077 Corvin Drive~ Santa Clara, California 95051 Address of project: 535 Westchester Drive Assessor's Block and Lot Number 413-11-90. 91 and 088; 413-49-016 Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Fred Sakamoto, Barry Chin at Design and Engineering Systems, Inc. 303 Bradford Street, Redwood City, California 94063 (415) 364-6453 Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: o List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: ~-I°~ 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Research and Development Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)* 8. Site size. *SEE PLANS 9. Square footage. 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plans. 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. 15. Anticipated incremental development. 1 of 3 pages 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhooH, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employ- ment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and co~m~unity benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No x 21. X 22. x 23. 24. x 25. x 26. 27. x 28. x 29. _I_ 3O. 31. x 32. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quanity, or alteration of existing drain- age patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibrat'ion levels in the vicinity. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 2 of 3 pages ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photo- graphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information 'required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ])ate Signature For 3 of 3 pages ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED FOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL BY CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION B. C. D. Lot Size, indicate: 1. Gross lot area. 24.27 acres - 1,057,201 sq.ft. 2. Net lot area (after any required dedication to the City). Floor.Area - Commercial/Office/Industrial Projects (if applicable), indicate: 1. Gross floor area - by each floor and total building. 2. Net leasable floor area - by each floor and total building. Residential Project Information (if applicable), indicate: 1. Number of units. 2. Square footage of individual units. 3. The number of bedrooms per unit. Parking - indicate the number of parkin9 stalls as follows: 1. Standard: 996 - 60% Compact: 636 - 40% Total: 1650 Handicapped: 18 2. Covered: 0 Total: 1650 Uncovered: 1650 Site Utilization, indicate: 1. Sq. Ft. Percentage Building Coverage ~ ~7~ Landscaping Coverage Paving Coverage Total 100% Surrounding Land Uses, indicate land uses surrounding site as follows: Front Perculation pond 2. Left Side 3. Right Si de 4. Rear Photographs 1. Mobile Home Park tlighway 17 Provide photographs of the property and the adjacent properties. Indicate the subject of each photo. ENV ! RONMENTAL ! MPACT ASSESSaVlENT ENVIR~MENTAL CHECKLIST ~ BE USED BY ~E Cl~ OF CAMPBELL IN ~KING :INITIAL STUDY NAME OF PROPONENT: ADDRESS OF PROPONENT: k Mr. Barry Chin (Design & Engineering ~ystems, Inc.) 303 Badford Street Redwood City, CA 94063 TELEPHONE: ( 4]5 ) 364-6453 DATE OF CHECKLIST SUBMITTED: AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST: NAME OF PROPOSAL (IF APPLICABLE): 535 Westchester Dr. Campbell? CA July 9, 1984 City of Campbell Campbell Businees Park !!. ENV ! ROI~g~ITAL IMPACTS (EXPLANATIONS OF ALL AND ~ ANSgERS ARE R~QUIRED ON ATTACHED SHEET) ~S MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or. off ~he site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? [] [] ~ n o [] ~( 1 of 6 pages MAYBE NO 2. AIR. Will proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or tempera- ture, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera- tion of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? [] 2 of 6 pages YE:S MAYBE: NO 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna) .9 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: We 10. a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: 11. 12. a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? n [] ~ n D [] [] o [] ~ [] [] 3 of 6 pages MAYBE: NO 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? o o [] o O D D [] [] [] o ~ [] o ~ o 4 of 6 pages YE:S ~ MAYB£ NO 17. 18. 19. 20. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indiv- idually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o ~ n n ~ n n ~b o ~a [] n ~ o 5 of 6 pages ! I !. DISCUSSION OF ENVi~TAL EVALMATIGN F- see attached sheets k IV. I:ETERM INAT ION AF'T1;R REVIEWING THE ENVIRONMENTAL. INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND AFTER COMPLETING TILE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST USE BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELl- IN MAKING AN ~"NVIIK)NME-"NTAL ASSESSMENT I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the miti- gation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DA T£ July 9, 1984 T~TLE Planner II ~R Arthur A. Kee Planning Director 6 of 6 pages