Site and Architectural - 1992CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department - Current Planning
Junel3,1~6
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, Ca 95126
Re: Installation of Additional Trees
10-70 East Hamilton Avenue
Dear ~
In August of 1993 the City Council adopted Streetscape Standards for arterial
streets in Campbell. This standard requires the installation of street trees
along both sides of the public sidewalk in a staggered arrangement. Your
project approval preceded the adoption of these standards and consequently
did not provide trees along both sides of the sidewalk along the E. Hamilton
Avenue frontage.
In an attempt to provided consistency with recently approved project in the
general vicinity and to develop an identifiable landscaping theme along
Hamilton Ave. the Community Development Department would appreciate
your efforts in installing four additional street trees behind the sidewalk as
depicted on the enclosed plan.
If you should have any questions regarding this request, you may contact me
at 866-2144.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Tim J. ~
Associate Planner
cc:
File
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
enclosure: Conceptual Landscape Plan
70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 . ~'EL 408.866.2140 - F^x 408.379.2572 · ~rDO 408.866.2790
cc:Mail for: TimH
Subject: Gateway Sqaure
From: darrylj 6/10/96
To: timh
12:07 PM
Tim,
Gateway was one of the earlier projects to implement the Streetscape Standards,
and in that process it seems to me that we omitted a few trees back of sidewalk
on both Hamilton and Winchester. I also understand that the Parks Commission
does not the project very much. They think the building is too close to the
street without adequate landscaping. I would like you to look at a couple of
options for installing additional street trees behind the sidewalk at this
center. Based on what seems reasonable we can talk to the developer or property
owner about geting this done. It looks like we may be talking about 4-6 trees.
Let's talk about this once you've looked at this, and meet this Thursday.
Thanks
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
April 8, 1993
Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: Proposed restaurant use -- 10 E. Hamilton Avenue -- Campbell-Gateway
Square
Dear Brad:
In response to your letter, dated March 29, 1993, wherein you discuss the
proposed restaurant use in a portion of the retail building located on the
referenced property, please be advised that a Conditional Use Permit would be
required for the restaurant use as proposed. The requirement for the
Conditional Use Permit is to accommodate exterior seating in conjunction
with the use.
Additionally, the Planning Commission could consider a variation in the
approved parking ratios for this development beyond the 60 seats which have
currently been permitted for the proposed use to occupy approximately 3,000
square feet of the retail building.
If you should have any questions regarding the Use Permit approval process
or an analysis of the parking that would be required, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned.
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:misclet
Toeniskoetter &Breeding; Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite Z0, San lose, California 9.5126
(408) 246- 3691
DEVELOPMENT
March 29, 1993
RECEIVED
Mr. Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
MAR 8 ! 1993
CITY OF CAMPBELl
PLANNING DEPT
Re:
Proposed Restaurant Use, 10 E. Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA
Parking Allocations/Requirements for Campbell Gateway Square
Dear Tim:
I am writing in response to your March 16, 1993 letter and our conversations
regarding the bakery/cafe that will be locating in our building at 10 East
Hamilton Avenue. It is my understanding that the Planning Department is
recommending that a Conditional Use Permit be processed for a restaurant, or
restaurants, which exceed sixty (60) seats. Based on our conversation early
today, I further understand that a restaurant, or restaurants, with seating
of up to sixty (60) seats would not require a Conditional Use Permit.
We have signed a lease with a bakery/cafe that would like to provide up to
seventy (70) interior seats and twenty (20) exterior seats on the patio that
fronts on Winchester Boulevard. Based upon the Planning Department's current
recommendation, we are unable to proceed with the plans necessary to
accommodate this use. The Conditional Use process creates uncertainties and
delays that impact our ability to move forward.
It is our opinion that we can provide, or have provided, the Planning
Department with the necessary information to ensure the adequacy of parking
at Campbell-Gateway Square without the need for processing a Conditional. Use
Permit for a 3,080 square foot restaurant. Please refer to the summary
below:
Description
Square Parking
Feet Allocation
Parking Ratio/
Square Foot
1660 S. Winchester Blvd.
14,820 64 Spaces
1/232 Sq. Ft.
10 E. Hamilton Ave.
13,600 68 Spaces
1/200 Sq. Ft.
50 E. Hamilton Ave.
Z0,000 87 Spaces
!/230 Sq.. Ft.
Campbell-Gateway Sq.- Totals 48,420
219 Spaces
1/221 Sq. Ft.
The above summary represents actual/current conditions. As you are aware,
Campbell-Gateway Square is comprised of three (3) separate properties, each
property benefiting from cross easements for parking use and access. We
Mr. Tim Haley
March 29, 1993
Page 2
believe that the actual parking demand for Campbell-Gateway Square will be in
line with estimates provided to the City by our traffic engineer during the
project review process (see attached letter from Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc. dated March 19, 1992). Included in this estimate is 4,000 square feet
of restaurant use with a parking demand for thirty six (36) cars.
The summary below allocates parking demand based on current tenancy. Where
we don't have parking demand information for a tenant or for space that is
currently unleased, I have used the City's required parking ratio of one
space for every 225 square feet for medical office, and one space for every
200 square feet for retail. You will note that Walgreen's actual peak hour
parking demand is fifty (50) spaces (see attached letter from Walgreen's
dated March 26, 1993).
Tenant Square Parking
Feet Demand
Parking Ratio/
Square Foot
Walgreens
Charles Schwab
South Bay Oncology
O'Connor Hospital
Unleased Retail
Unleas~d Medical - 50
14,820 50 Spaces
3,632 16 Spaces
7,000 31 Spaces
10,000 44 Spaces
6,888 34 Spaces
3,000 13 Spaces
1/296 Sq. Ft.
1/225 Sq. Ft.
1/225 Sq. Ft.
1/225 Sq. Ft.
1/200 Sq. Ft.
1/225 Sq. Ft.
Subtotal 45,340 188 Spaces
1/241 Sq. Ft.
Restaurant
3,080 31 Spaces
1/100 Sq. Ft.
Project Totals
48,420 ~ 219 Spaces
1/221 Sq. Ft,
Based on the information provided to the Planning Department by our traffic
engineer and our assessment of actual parking demand, we do not feel that a
restaurant consisting of 3,080 square feet with a maximum capacity of ninety
(90) seats requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Please review our request, together with the enclosed information.
appreciate your reply as soon as possible. Thanks for your
cooperation.
We would
continued
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
A California Limited Partnership
By TB~WAY SQUARE,
~/ B~ad W. Krouskup
~eneral Partner
Enclosures
cc:
David S. Wilson w/enclosures (via fax)
April Glover w/enclosures (via fax)
Charles J. Toeniskoetter w/enclosures
March 26, 1993
Walgreen Co.
Corporate Offices
200 Wilrnot Road
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Brad W. Krouskup
T.B.I.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
1660 S. Winchester
Campbell, CA
Dear Mr. Krouskup,
Pursuant to our discussions, I have researched the amount of
parking used by Walgreens during peak hours at the above
referenced location and we have concluded that the maximum usage
is 45-50 cars at one time. The peak hour occurs between
5pm - 6pm during the work week.
If you have any more questions please do not hesitate to call me
at 708/940-2697.
SeniOr Reil ~e
Manager
jk
Attachment
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573UNIVERSITY AVENUE · P.O. BOX 1227 · LOS GATOS, CA 95031-1227 · PHON[-
March 20, 1992
Brad W. Krouskup
Executive Vice President
TOENICKOETTER & BREERINS INC.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Campbell - Gateway Square
Hamilton - Winchester Blvd.
Disposal Service
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Green Valley Disposal Company, will not begin service at
the Campbell - Gateway Square before 7:00 A.M., Monday thru
Saturday.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact us.
Sincerely
Anna Di Campli
GREEN VALLE~ DISPOSAL
RECEIVED
CITY OF C/-4V':,.,. ,.:~..~
PLANNING DEP~
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
March 16, 1993
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: Proposed Restaurant Use -- 10 E. Hamilton Avenue
Dear Brad:
The Planning Department has reviewed the issue of a proposed bakery at the
south end of the multi-tenant retail building in the Campbell-Gateway
Square project. Based upon your description of a 60 seat restaurant, 20
parking spaces should be provided. A tenant space of 3,000 square feet would
provide 15 parking spaces or a deficit of five parking spaces. This calculation
does not take into consideration any proposed outside seating.
A review of the proposed tenant improvements for the Charles Schwab office
indicated a square footage of approximately 3,632 square feet. This less
intensive office use would generate an additional two parking spaces.
The Planning Department consequently would recommend that you process
a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed tenant mix at Campbell-Gateway
Square. This application could address the following issues:
1. The provision of outside seating in conjunction with the bakery.
o
Late night operation(s) beyond 11 p.m. in conjunction with the
proposed retail uses, and
ge
An analysis of the proposed parking and tenant mix to ensure
adequacy of parking.
C ITY OF
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Re: Proposed Restaurant Use
March 16, 1993
Page 2
If you wish to discuss any of the above issues or the approval process, please
do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:misclet
cc: Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Curtis Banks, Planner II
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-16-93 ; 3:40PM ; 8056524856- 408 379 2572;~ 2
J~'ANN~. L, NO~:ONNeL%'~
ANPI NeW ~[¥ ~&~, ONLY
C)AVID B. DOUD$ & ASSOCIATES
C. OUNiiI. OMB, AT LAW
Ill WIlT BTANLE¥ AVP'Ni.I~
YENTURA, ~:ALIFOMNIA ~300a-2088
March 16, 1993
T&k[PHON£
FAX ME$SAGE 1-408-379-2572
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 North First Street
Campbell, California 95008
aRi?
~LANNINB OE:PAI~TM£NT
Attn: Planning Department
Proposed Kiako's Copies
G&~eway Square
SEC Hamilton Avenue and
winohester Boulev&=d
Campbell, C&lifo=nl&
F~le No, 122,gg9
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that this law firm represents Kinko's
Copies, L.P., a California Limited Partnership.
Kinko's Copies,
approximately 5,400
Center.
L.P. is currently negotiating a lease for
square fee located at the Gateway Square
The premises will be used as a copy center including printing,
binding, desktop publishing, passport photos and film processing,
mail and facsimile services, word processing and typing services,
retail sales of office supplies, stationery and related sales and
services.
The back room will contain no printing presses or analogous
equipment. Ail equipment will be on the sales floor.
Please interpret the City of Campbell's Cl (Neighborhood
Commercial) zoning provisions to determine if Kinko's proposed use
is consistent with the Zoning statute.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier ?020 ; 3-16-93 ; 3:41PM ; 8056524856- 408 3?9 25?2;# 3
DAVID El, DOUDS & ASSOCIATES
COUN~ELOI~$ AT CAW
City of Campbell
March 16, 1993
Paqe 2
JLM:jlr
Enclosure
cc: Curtis Banks
Joseph Wynne
David B. Douds
I understand that this process will take approximately one
month. Kinko' s appreciates your cooperation in this matter.
Please feel free to contact me with any ~uestions.
CITY OF CAMPBEtL
70 NORTH F~RST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
March 12, 1993
Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: Final Inspection -- S 92-02 -- 1660 S. Winchester Boulevard -- Walgreens --
10 E. Hamilton Avenue -- Retail Building
Dear Brad:
Please be advised that the Planning Department has conducted a final
inspection of the above referenced projects to allow release to the Building
Division for occupancy. Based upon this inspection, the following items were
noted:
1. It is recommended that the south precast wall adjacent to the
Walgreens building be painted.
2. It is recommended that larger shrubs be provided adjacent to the
transformer located along the Winchester Boulevard frontage.
3. It is recommended that the vines planted adjacent to the trellis
structure on the Walgreens building be attached to the support posts
in some manner, and
4. That the seasonal color be installed in the landscape areas as called
for in the approved landscaping plan.
If you need clarification of any of the above items or would like to discuss any
of these items, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
CC:
Frank Mills, Building Division
Frank Murphy
Toeniskoetter & Breeding
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier ?020 ; 3-10-95 ; 1:14PM ; 8056524856- 408 3?@ 2572;~ 2
DAVID
DAVID El. DOUD$ & A$$OCIATE~
POST OlrflC& BOX
V;'NTI.~ RA, CALl P'ORN IA
March 10, 1993
FAX MESSAGI 1-408-379-2~i72
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 North First Street
Campbell, California 95008
Curtis Banks
P=opoled Kinko's Copies
Gateway Scjuare
SEC Hamilton Avenue and
Win~heater Boulevard
Cam~be11, California
File No, 122,~Q8
RECEIVED
friAR 1 0 1993
"'~NING DEPT,-
Dear Mr. Banks:
This letter shall confirm our telephone conversation of today.
Kinko's Copies is interested in leasing approaimaCely 5,400
square fee located at the Gateway Square Center.
The premises will be used as a copy center including printing,
binding, desktop publishing, passport photos and film processing,
mail and facsimile services, word processing and typing services,
reCail sales of office supplies, stationery and related sales and
services.
The back room will contain no printing presses or analogous
equipment. Ail equipment will be on the sales floor.
It is anticipated that this particular site will similar to
the sites located in San Jose. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions you may have.
Very tru~
JLM:Jlr
cc: David B. Douds
CITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(4O8) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
February 24, 1993
Lewis Alvernas
The Hagman Group
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: S 92-02 -- Proposed awning 1660 South Winchester Boulevard, Walgreens
Dear Lewis:
Please be advised that the Planning Director has conditionally approved your
request to install an awning along the south elevation of the new Walgreens
building located on the referenced property. This approval is subject to the
following Conditions of Approval:
1. That the Walgreens' portion of the awning be deleted.
2. That the applicant obtain any necessary Building Permits.
If you should have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
CC:
Brad Krouskup
Campbell Gateway Square
Toeniskoetter and Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda, San Jose, 95126
Frank Mills, Building Department
S-apps, S92-02.pg.24
j
CITY O! C MPBEII
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95OO8
(4O8) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
February ll, 1993
Lewis Alvernas
The Hagman Group
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: Site Plan Revisions -- Transmittal of February 8, 1993 -- 10-70 E. Hamilton
Avenue -- S 92-02
Dear Lewis:
Please be advised that the Planning Director has conditionally approved your site
plan modifications as delineated in the plans submitted February 8, 1993. This
approval is subject to the condition that you modify the walkway along the
easterly side of the office building, providing a straight walkway out to the street.
If you should have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate
to contact the Planning Department.
Prior to installation, please secure any necessary approvals from the Campbell
Building Division.
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:misdet/p9
Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding
1960 The Alameda
San JOse, CA 95126
Frank Mills, Building Division
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Tim Haley
February 8, 1993
Gateway Square
91016
2 copies
2 copies
Site Plan
Planting Plan
Tim, Please review these plans and let me know if everything
meets with your approval. As you can see we removed the section
of walk connecting the sidewalk at the north end of the retail
building. We also extended the walk at the east side of the office
building. This gets us a direct connection to the bus stop and
sidewalk from Hamilton Avenue to the project. This conection
meets all handicap codes in regard to slope: and width. If you
have any questions give me a call.
Lewis J. Alvernas
Brad Krouskup
I ITY OF gAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-210o
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
January 26, 1993
Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: Amendments to the C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District
Dear Brad:
Please be advised that the City Council at its meeting of December 7, 1992,
adopted amendments to the Commercial Zoning Districts within Campbell.
Ordinance No. 1865, which is attached for your information, amends the C-1-
S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. These amendments require
that an applicant or business operation, which operates between 11:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. If any of the
tenants proposed for Campbell-Gateway Square intend to operate during
these hours, it will be necessary that they obtain approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
If you should have any questions regarding this action or the approval
process, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
cc:
Deke Hunter
Hunter Properties
20725 Valley Green Drive
Suite 100
Cupertino, CA 95014
Steve Piasecki, planning Director
I1Y Ol
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
January 20, 1993
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20
San Jose, CA 95126
Re:
Campbell-Gateway Square Facade Changes and Patio Modification --
10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1660 South Winchester Boulevard --
S 92-02
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Please be advised that the Planning Director has approved your proposed
modifications as outlined in Lewis Alvernas's letter, dated December 17, 1992,
subject to the following conditions and comments:
Item No. 6 - Bollards were eliminated at the rear of Walgreens and
replaced with wall packs. The Planning Department should review
the design and the height of the proposed wall packs along the back
of the Walgreens store.
The Planning Department has a concern regarding the tentative
modifications shown for the patio area adjacent to Winchester
Boulevard. It is recommended that a landscape buffer area be
retained around the transformer pad and that any enlargement of
the patio area be carried out into the parking area. The concept of a
concrete bench at this location is considered acceptable by the
Planning Department.
o
The proposed expansion of the patio area adjacent to the bicycle rack
east of the proposed office building is considered acceptable.
All of the proposed modifications and changes should be reviewed by the
Campbell Building Division, prior to installation.
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Re: Campbell-Gateway Square Facade Changes and Patio Modifications
January 20, 1993
Page Two
If you should have any questions regarding any of the above comments,
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (408) 866-2140.
Tim J! Hal
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:misclet/p3
Attachment:
1. Letter from Lewis Alvernas, dated December 17, 1992
CC:
Lewis Alvernas
The Hagman Group
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Frank Mills, Building Division
CITY OF I AMPBI LL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Public Works
December 29, 1992
Toensketter & Breeding, Inc.
Attn: Brad Krouskup
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20
San Jose, CA 95126
Subject: Permit Number 92-183, Campbell Gateway
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
With this letter, the City approves your proposed change from a
standard 36' driveway to a standard 36' alley-type approach at
station 4+41 on the Winchester side of your property.
We received the drawing prepared by your engineer, Kier & Wright,
on December 11. However, this and all other changes to the
approved plans must be reflected on the as-builts which are to be
submitted to the City prior to acceptance of this project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. Fuller
Assistant Engineer
f: KROUS (WP/JD)
December 17, 1992
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20 ~iT~ ~--
San Jose, CA 95126 PLANNIrW~
RE: Campbell Gateway, Facade Changes
As ~per our meeting this morning, I am provid/ng you with a list of
exterior changes that have been made during construction, q~ese
changes are minor in nature, but should be reviewed by Tim Haley
at the City of Campbell. Planning. De~t.~
1. ~e portion of trellis on the Winchester elevation was
removed.
2. Addltional scrolling was added to the ends of the trellis
m~bars.
Screed were removed below the base trim and the plastar
dm~rzjed to matc~h the rest of~ the
FiVe additional windows were articulated with arches on the
5. ~he louver vents were Changed to a rectangular shape.
6. Bollards were eliminated at the rear of Walgreens and replaced
7. ~ne shape ~ changed on the tower windows.
8. ~he overhang (9") was added to the towers.
These items represent all the' cosmetic changes that have been done
thus far. If you have any questions, please call.
IJA:kj
The Hagm;~ Group, Inc
Architecture/Planning
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
408-241-1433
408-244-6805 Fax
Ci ¥ OF I MPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
December 14, 1992
Ms. Evelyn Nigro
350 Dunster Drive #19
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Letter of Inquiry -- Building Colors - Campbell-Gateway Square
Dear Ms. Nigro:
Thank you for your letter, dated October 17, 1992, wherein you expressed
concern regarding the main color of the Walgreens building as being white.
The Planning Department has contacted the project architect which has
reviewed this issue and is proposing that the main building color be a off-
white or creme color.
If you should have any questions regarding the building color or the project,
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Tim I. ~
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:s92-02/p23
( ITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
October 2, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alamdea, Suite 20
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Pre-cast fencing proposal - 1660 South Winchester Boulevard - S 92-02
Dear Brad:
Please be advised that the Planning Director has approved your fencing
request to construct a pre-cast wall between the residential properties and the
Campbell Gateway Square Project. This approval allows the construction of
an 8 foot wall along the rear of the properties to be stepped down to 6 feet
along the side of Mr. Anderson's property and another step down to 4 feet
along the Esther Avenue frontage. Prior to installation of the fencing, please
secure any necessary building permits.
If you should have any questions regarding the the fencing, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Tim I. Haley
Associate Planner
CC:
Mr.
431
& Mrs. Don Anderson
Esther Avenue
Mr. Joseph Chike
419 Esther Avenue
Ms.
409
Margaret Sbrana
Esther Avenue
Mrs. Beatrice Perez
10615 Santa Luzia Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
Sierra Precast Inc.
P.O. Box 53207
San Jose, CA 95153
Building Division
k,, j
,Toe n iskoetter 8 d reed i Inc.
ol 960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San lose, California 95126
RO. Box 28426, San lose, California 95159
(408) 246-3691
DEVELOPMENT
Hand Delivered
September 30, 1992
Mr. Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
Campbell-Gateway Square, Campbell, CA
Common Fencing Plan/Approval of Esther Street Neighbors
Dear Tim:
I have attached a copy of my letter to our adjacent property owners
dated September 10, 1992. As you can see, two of the four
residential neighbors whom we share common property lines with have
approved our plan for the perimeter fencing plan. The two
remaining neighbors are located out of the state and rent their
properties. Every indication suggests that they agree with our
plans; however, coordinating their written confirmation has been
difficult. I have spoken with Beatrice Perez, the owner of 401
Esther Street, and she has verbally agreed to the fencing plan and
will be sending me a letter confirming her approval.
Based upon our conversation earlier today, as well as the fact that
two neighbors have approved the plan and a third has verbally
accepted our plan, it is my understanding that you will be
releasing the planning approval.
Thanks for your help and cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
tnership
~T~d W. Kgouskup ---
~neral Partner, TBI-Gateway Square
BWK:le
Enclosure
i ECEIVED
cc: F. Gary Dam
SEP 2 9 1992
~ITY OF CAMP~-L~.
PLANNING DEPT.
Toeniskoetter&Breedin$ Inc.
1900 The Alameda, Suite Z0. San lose. California 95
P.O. Box 2842-6, San Jose. California QS159
(408) Z46- 369I _
September 10, 1992 ~ ~ '
Mr. & Mrs. Don Anderson,'% ~r ..... -'~ ~'~'~--~ %~'''~'
;~ ~MS Margaret Sbrana
431 Esther Street .-.V ~ ~409 Esther Street
Campbell, CA 95008
0 9 199Z
~. 5oe Chlke
419 Esther S~Eee~ ~¢";' '..
Campbell, CA 95008
DEVELOPMENT
Hand Delivered
Campbell, CA 95008
Ms. Beatrice Perez
401 Esther Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
Campbell-Gateway Square, Campbell, CA
Common Fencing Plan/Approval with Esther Street Neighbors
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing to follow up the meeting we had on August 26, 1992
with Mr. Anderson and Ms. Sbrana in connection with the fencing
plan for our common property line. In that meeting we agreed on
several design and construction issues. These issues are
highlighted on the enclosed site plan and are outlined as follows:
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Limited Partnership,
will contract for, and pay for all costs associated with the
design and construction of our common fence.
(2)
The fence, as shown, on the enclosed plan, will be eight feet
(8') in height for the entire length of the common property
line which runs parallel to Esther Street. ~he fence will
return toward, and run perpendicular to Esther Street, along
the common property line with the Anderson's residence at 431
Esther Street. The fence height w~ll transition ("step down")
to six feet (6') along the co:m~.on property line with the
Anderson's as shown on the enclosed plan. Once the fence
returns back onto Campbel!-Gateway's property, the fence will
transition ("step down") to four feet (4'), again, as shown on
the enclosed plan.
(3)
The portion of the fence which runs parallel to Esther Street
will be installed on Campbell-Gateway's property twelve to
eighteen inches (12"- 18") from th~ co]mnon property kine. The
portion of the fence running perpendicu!a~ to Esther Street
will be installed on the property line.
(4)
During installation of the new fence, existing fences will
remain in place. Once installation is compiete, Campbell-
Gateway Square will contract and pay for the costs of removing
existing fences, if requested, by the property owner.
Campbell-Gateway's con5ractors sha].! use their best efforts
not to damage any property. However, Campbell-Gateway and its
contractors shall not be liable for property damage as a
result of remcving existing fences at the request of the
property owner.
(5)
The fence will be precast concrete with a textured finish as
shown on the attached pictures provided by Sierra Precast,
Inc.
The items outlined above, together with the enclosed site plan and
pictures, are intended to summarize our plans as they relate to the
installation of our new common fence. We would appreciate you
providing your consent to this plan by signing this letter below.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
A Ca~~neral Partnership
By/7~.~W~.'~~~
' J/Br~d Mi ~ro~skup
U-G-=eneral Partner for TBI-Gateway Square
BWK: le
Enclosures
cc:
Tim Haley, City of Campbell
Charles J. Toeniskoetter, TBI
F. Gary Dam, TBI
APPROVED BY-
43~-'Esther Street
419 Esther Street
46~/Esther Str-e.,~_~
401 Esther Street
MEMORANDUM
To;
F rom:
Subject:
Tim Haley
Associate Planner
Lynette Dias
Planner I
..... _St_at_up _of_ C_ a_m_p_be_ll-G ateway
Date:
CITY OF CAMPBELL
September 10, 1992
The
1.
2.
following are outstanding items relating to Campbell-Gateway
Fencing plan needs to be submitted and approved.
Tree locations for three 36 inch box trees must be determined. These tree
will replace the Chinese Pistache and Pine tree that were suppose to be
retained.
o
The Sycamore tree along Hamilton Avenue may be removed and
replaced with one 36 inch box tree (location to be determined), if the
applicant wishes.
On August 26, 1992, I met with Brad and the adjacent residential property
owners at the site. The following items were discussed:
ao
The masonry wall-- the residents all agreed that they would like an
eight foot fence and TBI agreed.
bo
Along Don Anderson's side property line, the wall will drop to six
feet at the back of his house, then at the second 90 degree turn (at
the rear corner of the landscape area adjacent to Don Anderson's
property and Esther Avenue) it will drop to four feet. This was at
Don Anderson's request.
Co
TBI expressed an interest in providing a break in the wall along
Esther Avenue to provide pedestrian access to the project. The
neighbors were very supportive of this and I stated that staff would
also be supportive.
do
Brad also showed me revised plans for the rear of Walgreens. The
plans indicated a smaller truck loading door and area, relocating the
trash enclosure so that it is adjacent to the loading area, and
continuing the walk along the north side of the building sot that it
connects with the west side of the parking lot. I indicated that staff
would not have a problem with any of these changes and requested
that a revised site plan be submitted with these changes and the
masonry wall modifications.
TBI stated they would install the wall approximately eight inches in
front of the existing fence to allow the old fence to remain during
the construction of the new wall. After the new wall is completed
TBI will remove the old fences. I told them that staff would not
have a problem with this.
On Monday August 31, 1992, you and I met with Brad to discuss several
proposed minor changes to the project. These proposals are
summarized below:
Lighting Plan--the applicant proposed several changes to the
project's lighting plan. The only change we were concerned with
was the proposal to replace the light bollards along the residential
property line with standard pole lights. Staff requested a
photometric study to determine if the light would overflow onto
the adjacent residential properties.
bo
Light Fixtures on Elevations--TBI would like to put four additional
light fixtures on the multi-tenant retail building. Staff requested a
cut sheet to determine if the lights are too ornate.
Co
Trellis--TBI is not happy with the trellis. They are concerned that it
is not architecturally compatible and it will appear as an after
thought. They understands that the City would require this to go
back to the Planning Commission and City Council if they choose to
pursue removing the trellis. Also, TBI made it clear that it is not for
financial reasons and they would be willing to put the money that
the trellis would have cost back into the project.
I iTY Ol I AMPBULL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Planning
Department:
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
September 9, 1992
RE: S 92-02t10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-1690 S. Winchester Blvd.
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
The Planning Department has approved the location of the transformer and box for the
multi-tenant retail building as indicated on the attached plan. This approval is subject to
the following conditions:
1. Locate transformer pad a minimum of 15 feet from the face of curb and orientate
the transformer unit so that the front faces the parking lot area;
2. Provide screening shrubs on three sides of the transformer;
3. Provide screening shrubs on all sides of the splice box;
Submit a revised landscape plan that indicates the above conditions, as well as,
the locations of the three 36 inch box trees to be provided.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Tim Haley
Associate Planner
cc: Public Works
S 92-02
Chron File
Bill Hagman
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
Mr. Reuben T. Tsujimura
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
10900 North Blaney Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 9, 1992
RE: S 92-02--10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-1690 S. Winchester Blvd.
Dear Mr. Tsujimura:
The Planning Department has approved the location of the transformer and box for the
multi-tenant retail building as indicated on the attached plan. The transformer must be
located a minimum of 15 feet from the face of curb and so that the front of the transformer
faces the parking lot area.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Tim Haley
Associate Planner
cc:
Public Works
S 92-02
Chron File
Brad Krouskup, TBI
Gary Damm, TBI
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
~ 0900 ~Jc, rih Blaney Avenue
Cupertino OA 95014
4o~,'9~a-~o1: C E i V i~ D
August 25, 1992
AUG2 8 1992
(CITY OF CAA/~BELL
PLANNING D~c~P ~T,
Mr. Tim Haley
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Mr. Haley:
Campbell Gateway Square - Winchester-Hamilton & Esther
Enclosed you will find a drawing with the new location of the transformer and box as
requested by the City.
Please return this drawing with a letter of approval so we can proceed with this project.
If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 725-2011.
Sincerely,
~Reuben T. Tsujimura
New Business Representative
Enclosures
cc:
Gary Dam
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
glTY Ol gAMPBEtt
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (4'38) 379-2572
Planning
Department:
Mr~ Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
August 20, 1992
RE: S 92-02--10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-1690 S. Winchester Blvd.
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
The Planning Department has approved the release of the building permit for the above
referenced project. However, the following items are outstanding and must be addressed:
A fencing plan must be submitted and reviewed by the adjacent residential property
owners and approved by the Planning Director.
The walkway extending from the Walgreen's entrance to South Winchester Blvd.
must be colored to match the other walkways.
o
The street improvements at the bus shelter on Hamilton Avenue must be installed
per the street improvement plans not the site plan.
°
The planting area at the northeast corner of Walgreens shall be enlarged and three 36
inch box trees shall be provided to replace the two trees that were to be relocated.
These items are redlined on the enclosed plans. If you have any questions, please contact
me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Lynette Dias
Planner I
cc:
Building Department
S 92-02
Chron File
Building Permit General File
Bill Hagman
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Paul Reed
477 South Taaffe Street
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
HAGMAN
August 19, 1992
Ms. Lynette Dias
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Gate~ay S~are
Dear Lynette:
This letter is in response to co~m¥~_nts dated August 18, 1992,
which I received via facsimile. I will address each comment as it
appears in your letter.
Item 1:
The transformers are all shown in the same location as
required. The changes are shown in the revised plans
submitted here for your review.
Item 2: Colored concrete is shown on the plans. See Sheet Al.1
of the drawing set(s).
Item 3:
Cut sheets are submitted for your review on the design of
the sound wall. Precast walls have columns occurring at
intervals of 14' to 17'
Item 4:
The landscape is fairly dense in this area. Perhaps you
are not reading the plant designations. Reed Associates'
plans resubmitted here are per discussion with you or Tim
this mo ing.
Item 5: The bus shelter has been relocated on the plans as
requested to match the off site drawings.
Item 6:
The current design was agreed upon by David Fox. It was
resolved at a meeting with Brad Krouskup, Paul Reed and
Mr. Fox. No changes have been made.
Item 7: The trees along the south and east property lines have
been revised as requested.
Item 8: Brad Krouskup will provide you with this agreement as
required.
Item 9: The sign details have been removed from the plans.
Ms. Lynette Dias
August 19, 1992
Page Two
I hope this resolves your concerns with this project. If there
are any further items, please call. It is important that we get
our permit released right away. Thank you.
Sincerel~ y, . /,
Lewis J. At~ernas
IJA:kj
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
August 18, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: S 92-02--10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-1690 S. Winchester Blvd.
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
The Planning Department has reviewed the most recently submitted (August
11, 1992) building permit plans for the above referenced project. The following
items still must be addressed prior to the Planning Department releasing the
building permit for the project.
Eliminate all inconsistencies on the various plans (i.e. the landscape
drawings are not consistent with architectural site plan, transformer
locations are not shown consistently, etc.). The location of the
transformers must be approved by the Planning Director.
Provide colored and banded concrete treatment, similar to that used in
the main plaza, for all the walkways throughout the project.
Provide further details on the masonry soundwall (show posts/columns
in elevation and specify the spacing). Indicate wall height and approval
of the wall by the residents. The fencing plan must also be approved by
the Planning Director (COA 9).
Provide more substantial landscaping along the south elevation at the
west end of the Walgreen's building.
Revise the site plan at the bus shelter on Hamilton Avenue, so that it is
consistent with the street improvement plans.
Enlarge the planting area and eliminate the sod at the comer of
Winchester Blvd. and Hamilton Avenue.
CITY OF AMPBELL
Provide a variation in the trees along the south and east property lines.
The plan currently indicates all of the trees as Redwoods.
Provide a performance bond or a written agreement to ensure the site
improvements, per Condition of Approval 33.
Remove sign details from the plan, a separate sign application must be
filed.
Once all of these items have been addressed, the Planning Department will
approve the Landscape plans and Fencing Plan for the project, per conditions
of approval numbers six and nine, and sign off for the release of the building
permit. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincer~y,
~Lynette Dias
Planner I
CC:
Building Department
S 92-02
Chron File
Building Permit General File
Bill Hagman
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Paul Reed
477 South Taaffe Street
Sunnyvalle, CA 94086
MEMORANDUM
To-
From:
Subject:
Tim Haley
Planing Dept.
Jan ~
Depu~ City Clerk
Comm~cial and Medical Complex - 10-70 E.
Blvd.
CITY OF CANt
Date:
RECEi%
May 21, 1992
CITY OF CAMPBi.
PLANNING DEP1
Hamilton and 1620-1690 S. Winchester
At its regular meeting of May 19, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution
8304 upholding the Planning Commission's approval of a Site and Architectural
Review Permit for a commercial and medical office complex located at the
above site. Please find certified copy of this Resolution attached for your
records.
Copies of the Resolution have been forwarded to Mr. Krouskup and Mr. Hunter.
CITY OF I .MPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
July 31, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: PG&E Utility Connections -- 10-70 E. Hamilton Avenue -- S 92-02
Dear Brad:
Please accept this letter as confirmation of the Planning Department's review
of the proposed utility connections for the Campbell-Gateway Square project.
The Planning Department has reviewed the issue of utility connections to
your project from the Esther Avenue frontage.
Based upon this review and the requirement that utilities be underground on
site, the Planning Department is recommending that services be provided
from the easterly side of Esther Avenue to the project. This requirement will
require that you obtain excavation permits from the Public Works
Department for work in the public right-of-way across Esther Avenue.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Tim I. I-~ley
Associate Planner
cc: Mike Fuller, Public Works Department
Reuben Tsujimura
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
10900 N. Blaney Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF ]PBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: . Planning
July 24, 1992
Mr. Brad W. Krouskup
Campbell Gateway Square
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Campbell Gateway Square Landscape Plans
S92-02
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Please be advised that the Site and Architectural Review Committee has
reviewed the landscape plans for the above referenced project. The plans
have been approved subject to the following conditions:
Replace the African Sumac trees along the Esther Avenue frontage
with a fast growing evergreen or deciduous tree type (Deodar Cedar
recommended).
Replace the African Sumac trees along the south property line with
a/ast ~rowin~ Ever~:reen varietv (Pine recommended).
Modify driveway at the south end of Walgreens to 12 feet and
provide landscaping.~Pr0~Jlde W10Fz 'L,~rl6a, Jaad6cc,(p.e.;)
Provide an additional street tree along Winchester Blvd. in front of
Walgreens.
Provide additional sod along Winchester Blvd. in front of
Walgreens.
wha/- 4 vh,q
Enlarge the expanded patio ~trea, per discussions with staff.
Eliminate street tree on Winchester Blvd. at the Hamilton Avenue
intersection.
Enlarge planting area and eliminate the sod at the corner of
CITY OF C PBELL
Winchester Blvd. and Hamilton Avenue.
tProvide a bus shelter on Hamilton Avenue per the street
improvement plans and modify the landscape to accommodated
he shelter.
.. Indicate street tree Winchester Avenue Chinese
type
along
as
Pistache and along Hamilton Avenue as Pyrus Calleryania,
"Bradford Pear."
. Provide details for the relocation of the Redwood and the Palm tree.
. Revise the plant legend, there are two T6 and two T7; and
Accurately depict the street right-of-way.
I have enclosed the red lined plans for your reference, if you have any
questions, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely'~
· Lynette Dias
Planner I
CC:
Bill Hagman
Deke Hunter
Ed Storm
Paul Reed
To:
Michelle Quinney
July 16,1992
From: Vince Huppe
Subject: L.D. Plans-No. S 92-02-10-70 E. HamiltOn Avenue
· The type of tree the Parks Section would recommend for this project
for installation next to the curb is either Chinese Pistache or Pyrus
Calleryana. There is a mature, healthy Ginko tree on the Hamilton
side that will have to be planted around or removed.
· The sidewalk on Esther Ave. is only 4.5 feet wide and is not wide
enough to install a tree without blocking pedestrian traffic. Trees
could be installed, Pyrus Calleryana, if planted behind the walk. If
trees are installed on Esther, they should not be the same as those
installed on Hamilton in order to break up a monotonous landscape
which would extend around to Winchester Blvd.
· The grates as shown on the plans is a maintenance concern. The
plans do not show the weight nor if the grates are one piece or two
pieces. If the grates are heavier than what a reasonable man can
lift to remove litter etc.. then a lighter grate should be
installed. A two section grate would not only be lighter, but would
enable maintenance to lift off the grates away from the tree as
opposed to lifting the grates straight up and holding the grate due
to the tree being in the center.
Wood chips should have a minimum depth of 2'' to control weeds and
to conserve moisture.
· The plans do not indicate if irrigation is going to be installed
for the City trees.
· Seeding of the lawn areas should not be done in the fall or winter
if the temperature of the soil drops below the temperature needed for
proper germination.
The plans indicate as part of installing trees to first fill the
tree hole with "prepared soil" then install tree, then add planters
mix to 2/3rds of the root ball then backfill with soil. This is not
the norm for planting trees. Usually prepared soil is soil that has
had planter mix mixed into it prior to backfilling of the entire tree
hole. The practice of separating out the soil from mix brings some
concern, namely: 1) Will the different gradients between the soil and
planter mix cause a percolation problem? Because of the higher
moisture retention properties of the planter mix, even if a gradient
problem did not occur, drainage and consequently root rot may be a
problem. Another concern is the possibility of soil settling due to
the decomposition and compaction of the planter mix thus exposing
feeder roots to the enviroment and consequently causing the roots
demise. These questions need to be addressed to the Archetect before
planting begins.
An Agency of the County of Santa Clara P.O. Box 611900, San Jose, CA 95161-1900
June 23, 1992
Mr. Dzien Nguyen
The Hagman Group~ Inc.
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
ECEIVEn
JUN'. 1992
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 1992
Subject:
Campbell Gateway Square ,~ .......
S/E corner of Hamilton & Winchester
Job. No. 91016, Winchester
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
We have reviewed your transmittal letter dated May 12, 1992 along with a
site plan, shown last updated on 5-1-92, for the subject project.
Our comments are as follows:
Be
The relocation of the existing bus stops on Hamilton Avenue and
Winchester Boulevard adjacent to the proposed site, to the locations
shown on the subject site plan is acceptable.
Provide 22' curb lane or the County standard duckout in accordance with
Figure 21, attached, for both the new locations of bus stops on
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Blvd.
Provide 12' x 5' County standard bus pads in accordance with Figures
37, 38 & 39, attached, for both new locations of bus stops on Hamilton
Avenue and Winchester Blvd.
Incorporate the above mentioned bus stop facilities in the project's
improvement plan and submit the plan for our review and approval prior
to construction.
Be
Please contact Mr. Ron Wong at (408) 299-4901 for coordination during
the relocation and construction of aforementioned bus stop facilities.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to
call me (408) 299-2362.
SADEGH SADEGHi" '
Project Engineer
SMS:kh
Attachments
cc: City of Campbell Planning Department
RW
KU
RGH
Files
BoardofSupe~isors:M~haelM. Hon~,ZoeLo~ren, R°nG°nzales, R°dDid~n'DianneMcKenna
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
From:
Subject:
Frank Mills
Senior Buildin_.~,~. pector
Tim J. Haley"~ ~
Associate Planner
Date: June 16, 1992
Grading & Drainage Plan - Campbell-Gateway Sq. - 10-70 E. Hamilton Ave.
The Planning Department has reviewed the grading and drainage plan for the
above referenced project. The review and approval of the grading and
drainage plan is somewhat premature in that the project's landscaping plan,
as well as a revised site plan has not been approved by the Planning
Department.
A Condition of Approval of the development proposal required submittal of
a plan eliminating access to the Esther Avenue frontage and a revision to the
parking area in this portion of the project.
The Planning Departr~ent does not have a problem approving a preliminary
grading plan for this proposal, however, the following issues should be
addressed:
The extent of the interlocking pavement treatment throughout
the project.
A tree protection detail should be provided for all trees to be
retained.
A review of the utility transformer and boxes must be performed
in conjunction with the review of the landscaping and building
plans.
Details of the plaza area adjacent to the retail comer pad building
must still be approved.
The details of the bus shelters must still be resolved, and
Details of the proposed walls or fencing must still be approved.
.I have attached to the memorandum a standard protection detail for the
existing trees which would be retained on the site.
If the engineer has any questions regarding any of the above items, he may
contact the Planning Department at (408) 866-2140.
cc: Mark Watson, Kier & Wright
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county):
GP 91-06/ZC 91-04 -- 10-70 E. Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1690 S.
Winchester Boulevard -- Campbell, CA 95008/Santa Clara County
Project Description:
General Plan and Zone Change from Public Facilities to Commercial for
a 3.7 acre site.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The City Council found that the proposed project will not have a
potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources and granted a negative
declaration.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and
that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
Cl~ief Planning O~fici~l
Title: ~/t'd.. f'~t~.- c_~ --
City of Camp~_ell .
CiTY
70 NORTH
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
t IMPBELL
FIRST STREET
95008
Planning
May 20, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re:
S 92-02 -- 10-70 E. Hamilton Avenue and
1620,1690 S. Winchester Boulevard
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Please be advised that the City Council at its meeting of May 19, 1992, adopted
Resolution No. 8304, approving your Site and Architectural application for
the above referenced property. If you should have any questions regarding
the City Council action, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
CC:
Bill Hagman
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Deke Hunter
20725 Valley Green Dr., #100
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ed Storm
104 Park Center Plaza
San Jose, CA 95113
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Building Division
I ITY OF I AMPBEtt
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: City Clerk
RECEIVED
MAY 2 2 1992
CITY OF CA/V'~P~cL~,
PLANNING DEPT.
May 21, 1992
Mr. Deke Hunter
Hunter Properties
20725 Valley Green Dr., #100
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Hunter:
At its regular meeting of May 19, 1992, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 8304 upholding the Planning Commission's approval
of a Site and Architectural Review Permit for a commercial and
medical office complex located at the southeast corner of East
Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard, on property located
at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester Boulevard.
Please find enclosed certified copy of Resolution 8304 which embodies
the Conditions of Approval and Findings.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2117) if you
should have any questions on the City Council's action.
Sincerely,
barbara ~ee
City Kee
Enclosure
cc. Tim Haley, Planning Department
JH
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
RECEIVED
MAY 199
CITY OF CAMPI~I~LL
PLANNING DEPT.
Department: City Clerk
May 20, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
At its regular meeting of May 19, 1992, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 8304 upholding the Planning Commission's approval
of a Site and Architectural Review Permit for a commercial and
medical office complex located at the southeast corner of East
Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard, on property located
at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester Boulevard.
Please find enclosed certified copy of Resolution 8304 which embodies
the Conditions of Approval and Findings.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2117) if you
should have any questions on the City Council's action.
Sin.cerely,
Barbara Kee
City Clerk
Enclosures
cc. Tim Haley, planning Department
JH
RESOLUTION NO. 8304
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION, APPROVING A SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST
HAMILTON AVENUE AND SOUTH WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-70 EAST
HAMILTON AVENUE AND 1620-1670 SOUTH
WINCHESTER BOULEVARD IN A PF (PUBLIC
FACILITIES), AND 1690 SOUTH WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD IN A C-2-S (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICATION OF MR. BRAD
KROUSKUP, ON BEHALF OF CAMPBELL GATEWAY
SQUARE, LTD., FILE NO. S 92-02.
After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of
Mr. Brad Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., approving a
Site and Architectural Review Permit allowing the construction of a
commercial and medical office complex, as per the application filed in the
Planning Department on March 5, 1992; and, after presentation by the City
Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council does find
as follows in relationship to the Planning Commission's action per
Application File No. S 92-02:
o
°
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning District
which permits commercial land uses.
The proposal exceeds the General Commercial Zoning District
requirement for 12% landscape area with a continuous landscape
treatment along public street frontages, and
The proposed parking adequately addresses the parking needs of the
proposed uses with the concept of shared parking and varied uses.
The project layout and design is supportive of the "gateway" function
of this site.
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Pala~e 2
o
o
10.
11.
12.
The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is
compatible with the existing commercial and residential development
in the area.
The proposed project will add an estimated 2,960 daily trips to the
surrounding roadway system.
The proposed project will add an additional 121 morning peak-hour
trips, and 297 p.m. peak-hour trips to the surrounding roadway system.
Of the foregoing additional traffic, 25 percent would approach
&om/depart to the north on Winchester Boulevard, 25 percent would
approach from/depart to the south on Winchester Boulevard, 30
percent would depart to/approach from the east on Hamilton Avenue,
and 20 percent would depart to/approach from the west on Hamilton
Avenue.
The project will contribute 169 vehicles to the current 7883 vehicles at
the p.m., peak-hour at Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue.
The project will contribute 95 vehicles to the current 4114 vehicles at
the p.m. peak-hour at Winchester Boulevard and Latimer Avenue.
The left turns out of the two driveways on Winchester Boulevard are
projected to operate at Level of service E with very long delays making
access to the site extremely difficult absent the installation of a traffic
signal interconnect system on Winchester Boulevard.
The contributions to the traffic signal interconnect system were
computed as follows:
a. Interconnect on Winchester between Hamilton Avenue and
bo
Latimer Avenue: Installation of the entire interconnect system is
required for this development only to provide gaps in traffic to
allow left turns out of the two Winchester driveways.
Interconnect on Hamilton:
a.m. peak critical volume -- 3102 (no project)
p.m. peak critical volume = 3889 (no project)
Total peak critical volume = 6991 (no project)
Total a.m. and p.m. peak project voume on critical movements = 17
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Pal~e 3
175/6991 = 2.5 percent
2.5 percent of $80,000 interconnect system = $2,000
deduct $500 for westbound traffic already interconnected= $1,500.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further
finds and concludes that:
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, is consistent with the
General Plan; and
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed is consistent with the
General Commercial zoning ordinance requirements relating to parking,
landscaping standards, and
o
The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of the
immediate area; and
The proposal complies with the purpose of the Site and Architectural Review
Area to enhance the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
o
The conditions relating to traffic will mitigate any traffic impacts from the
project.
There is a reasonable relation between the contribution for the interconnect
system and the type of commercial and office development proposed.
o
There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the interconnect system
and the proposed commercial and office development.
There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the contribution to
the interconnect system and the cost of the system attributable to the proposed
development.
Approval is subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
1. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised site plan reflecting the
following Conditions of Approval to be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review
Committee and Planning Director upon recommendation of the
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Page 4
Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit.
(Planning)
Public Occupancy: Building occupancy will not be allowed until public
improvements are installed. (Public Works)
Approved Project: This approval is for a 20,000 square, ft. medical office
building and 27,900 square feet of retail space located on a 3.73 acre site
identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 279-37-88, 12. Development
shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below,
except as may be modified by conditions contained herein:
A. Project drawings for Campbell Gateway Square prepared by The
Hagman Group, dated 4/17/92.
B. Color board on-file in the Planning Department.
C. Perspective Drawings.
Multi-Tenant Retail Building: Submit 1/4 inch scale drawing detailing
the entrance plaza located at the southwest corner of the building
fronting onto Winchester Blvd. and the plaza at the main entrance for
approval by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the
Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance of building permits.
(Planning)
Walgreen's Trellis: Submit a detail of the trellis located along the north
building elevation for approval by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance of
building permits. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING
6. Landscaping: Revised landscape plan addressing the following items
shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the
Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning
Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. (Planning)
Existing trees being removed shall be replaced with 24 inch box
trees or equivalent along the street frontages and the portion of
the site adjacent to residential uses.
/B. Irrigation Plan.
Calling out of type and size of existing trees to be removed and
those to remain.
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Pal~e 5
7. Median and Parkway:
VA. Submit landscape and irrigation plan for the ten foot parkway
treatment along E. Hamilton Avenue.
Bo
Applicant to pay for and install median island improvements for a
total cost not to exceed $5000. (Public Works)
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
,/8. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be
developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Munidpal
Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs
or bumper guards.
J 10.
J 11.
13.
14.
Fences and Sound Walls: Fencing/Sound Wall plan indicating
location and design details to be submitted to the Planning Department
and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building
permit. Walls shall include decorative architectural features on both
sides. (Planning)
Signs: Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions
of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign shall be installed until
application is approved and a permit issued by the Planning and
Building Departments (Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
Project signing as presented on plans is not approved. (Planning)
Grading and Drainage: Submit three sets of Grading and Drainage
Plans for review by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
Hamilton Sidewalk: Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten foot
parkway on Hamilton frontage.
Esther Driveway: Eliminate the driveway on Esther Avenue. (Public
Works)
Interconnect System: In order to accommodate the in and out left turns
on Winchester Boulevard the following are required:
A. Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system. (Public
Works)
B. Install and pay for the entire interconnect system between the
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Pat~e 6
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
signals at Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer. (Public
Works)
Curb and Gutter Replacement:
go
Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on Winchester
Boulevard from the south boundary of the property to the first
driveway (60 feet more or less). Cost for curb and gutter
replacement shall be paid for by City based on construction bid
prices. (Public Works)
Be
Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on Hamilton
Avenue beginning 13 feet east of the first street light. Cost for curb
and gutter replacement shall be paid by the City based on
construction bid prices. (Public Works)
Bus Pads: Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester Boulevard and
Hamilton Avenue to Santa Clara County Transit District specifications.
Relocate Winchester Boulevard bus shelter and provide bus shelter on
East Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Dedication:
go
Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to
accommodate "Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot
sidewalk, with right of way at back of walk). (Public Works)
Be
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther Avenue to a 30 foot half
street. (Public Works)
Co
Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd. as needed
to accommodate and construct a 10 foot sidewalk within public
right of way and install street trees at 40 feet on center. If required
by City Council, provide and install tree grates. (Public Works)
Parcel Map: Process and file a Parcel Map.
Boulevard Treatment: Show transition from Boulevard Treatment to
existing sidewalk at the east boundary of the property on Hamilton
Avenue. (Public Works)
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Pab, e 7
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES
20. Property Maintenance: 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 secured by having windows boarded up and doors
sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Section
11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. (Fire Department)
21.
Garbage Collection: 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. (Fire Department)
22.
Garbage Collection Limited Hours: Garbage collection hours shall be
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. (Planning)
23.
Trash Containers: Trash container(s) of a size and quality necessary to
serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire
Department. 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. (Fire Department)
Utility Boxes: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department,
prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the
location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for
approval of the Planning Director. (Planning)
25.
Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as
required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public
Works)
26.
Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan
check indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television
cables, etc. (Building)
PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE
27. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all
appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped.
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Palaje 8
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
(Building)
Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all
utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director.
(Planning)
Noise Levels: 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. (Building)
Permits: Prepare plans, pay fees and post securities and deposits as
required to obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the public
right of way. (Public Works)
Fire Safety Requirements:
A. Provide two on-site fire hydrants located as directed by the Fire
Department, U.F.C. Section 10.301(c). (Fire)
B. All driveways shall be no less than 20 feet in clear width, U.F.C.
Section 10.207(e). (Fire)
C. Modifications to the turn radius at the one-story retail building
trash enclosure is required for fire truck access, U.F.C. Section
10.207(g). (Fire)
D. All buildings require fully supervised fire sprinkler protection,
U.F.C. Section 10.308 and 10.309. (Fire)
Storm Drain Fee: Pay storm drain area fee of $4,725.
Performance Bond: Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance
bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure landscaping, fencing, and
striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of
construction; or (2) file a written agreement to complete landscaping,
fencing and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed
with the Planning Department prior to application for a building
permit. (Planning)
Lighting Plan: Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of
a building permit. (Planning)
Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required
Campbell-Gateway Square
City Council Resolution
May 19, 1992
Page 9
to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinance of the City of Campbell
and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not
herein specified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers: Kotowski, Conant, Ashworth, Watson, Burr
NOES:
Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
~ // C~r~k
Barbara Kee, City
Donald R. Burr, Mayor
FILE I~ THIS OFFICE;-
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor Burr and
Members of the City Council
Date:
From:
Lynette Dias,
Planner I
Subject: Campbell Gateway Square Revised Resolution
CITY OF CAMPBELL
May 19, 1992
Attached is a Revised Resolution approving Campbell-Gateway Square for the City
Council's consideration. The Resolution modifies the Findings, as recommended by
the City Attorney, and modifies three Conditions of Approval adopted by the
Planning Commission.
All modifications to the Planning Commission's Resolution are shown in italics.
These modifications are summarized below:
Findings of Fact numbers six through 12 and Conclusionary Findings six
through eight were added per the City Attorney's recommendation to support
the Conditions of Approval relating to the applicant's participation in the
funding of the interconnect system. Please see attached Public Works
Memorandum dated May 13, 1992.
Condition of Approval six(B) was deleted and seven was modified to reflect the
Public Works Department's concerns relating to the applicant paying the entire
cost of landscaping the median on Hamilton Avenue. The modified condition
requires that the developer execute a deferred improvement agreement. This
agreement requires that the developer only pay a pro-rata share of the median
landscape design and construction costs. Please see attached Public Works
Department Memorandum dated May 19, 1992.
Condition of Approval 15 was modified to reflect the Public Works
Department's concerns regarding the applicant's contribution to the
interconnect system. Please see attached Public Works Memorandum dated
May 13, 1992.
Attachments:
1. Revised Resolution
2. Public Works Memorandum dated May 13, 1992
3. Public Works Memorandum dated May 19, 1992
CC:
Robert Quinlan, City Manager
Steve Piasecki, Director of Planning
Joan M. Bollier, City Engineer
Don Wimberly, Public Works Director
Brad Krouskup, TBI
MEMORANDUM
To: Don C. Wimberly
Public Works Director Date:
CITY OF CAMPBELL
May 19, 1992
Joan M. Bollie~e~
From: City Engineer ~
Subject:CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE, MAY 19, 1992 CITY COUNCIL REPORT
CLARIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE MEDIAN CONDITION
This memo is to clarify the Public Works' position on 2 issues
regarding the requirement that the developer construct a landscaped
and irrigated median island on Hamilton Avenue.
I. The first issue is the requirement that the island be equipped
with an automatic irrigation system, which is stated in the Council
Report under Analysis paragraph 4.
In recent years it has been City policy to allow the installation
of street trees, behind the curb , without permanent irrigation
systems. In this case the City Maintenance Division or the
Landscape Contractor has been responsible for hand watering the
trees for the first 2 to 3 years. After this period the trees are
fully established and need watering less frequently.
However, in the case of trees within median islands, it is not
feasible to hand water from the Departments tank mounted truck.
This is due to the unsafe traffic condition that is created by a
water truck stopping in the No. 1 lane. The alternative is to
water before morning traffic begins (7 AM) or begin after the
evening traffic (7 PM). This would require split shifts or
overtime. With our small crew size, neither is desirable or cost
effective. Therefore, we require that landscaped median islands be
equipped with automatic irrigation systems.
Thus, if a landscaped median island is to be constructed by the
Campbell-Gateway Square Development, it should include an automatic
irrigation system.
II. The second issue is the cost sharing arrangement for design
and construction of the landscaping and irrigation improvements
within the Hamilton Ave. median island. Based on discussions
between Public Works and Planning Department staff, we have
determined that the costs associated with landscaping median
islands on arterials should be shared by the City and the
developers adjacent to the island. In this instance, the City
currently does not have funds allocated for the median island
improvements. Therefore, the condition of approval for this
development has been changed to require that the developer execute
a deferred improvement agreement for installation of the median
island improvements. This agreement requires that the developer
Page 2
D. Wimberly
May 19, 1992
contribute a pro-rata share for all costs associated with design
and construction of the improvements. The pro-rata share will be
determined at the time the improvements are to be installed. No
security is required with this agreement.
cc:
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Michelle Quinney, Senior Civil Engineer
oty
Council
Report
ITEM NO.:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Public Hearing
May 19, 1992
TITLE
Appeal of Site and Architectural Application for Commercial and Medical
Office Complex at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-90 South
Winchester Boulevard (Campbell-Gateway Square) -- S 92-02
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission
following action:
recommends
that the City Council
take the
1. Grant a Negative Declaration for this project. (See attached findings).
Adopt the attached resolution upholding the Planning Commission's
approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit for a commercial
and medical office complex located at the southeast corner of East
Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard, on property
located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester
Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District and 1690 South
Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
BACKGROUND
On April 21, 1992, the Council authorized Mayor Burr to file a courtesy appeal
of the Planning Commission's Site and Architecture Permit approval for
Campbell Gateway Square on property located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue
and 1620-1670 South Winchester Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning
District and 1690 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General
Commercial) Zoning District. The appeal was filed by Mayor Donald Burr on
April 30, 1992.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant seeks approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit to
allow the construction of a 47,900 square foot retail and medical office
complex at the southeast corner of East Hamilton Avenue and South
Winchester Boulevard on a 3.73 acre site. The complex consists of three
buildings: a 14,300 square foot retail building proposed as Walgreens, a 13,600
Campbell Gateway
City Council Staff Report
May 19,1992
Page2
square foot multi-tenant retail building, and a 20,000 square foot two-story
medical office building. There are two existing single family homes and a one-
story medical office building on the site that are proposed to be removed from
the site with the construction of the three new buildings. None of the
buildings are historically significant.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
1. General Plan Designation: The proposed use is consistent with the site's
Commercial land use designation. The City Council gave second reading
to an ordinance amending the site's land use designation to Commercial
on May 5, 1992.
o
Zoning Consistency: The proposed development is consistent with the
C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. On May 5, 1992, the
City Council gave second reading of the ordinance changing the site's
zoning to Neighborhood Commercial.
The proposed development is consistent with the C-1-$ (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District development standards for setbacks, open
space, and building height.
ANALYSIS
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1992 the following three
main issues were discussed.
Esther Avenue Access: The Planning Commission's approval requires
the applicant to submit a revised site plan eliminating the driveway on
Esther Avenue.
o
East Hamilton Avenue/East Latimer Avenue Interconnect System: The
Planning Commission modified the staff recommendation for the
applicant to pay the complete cost of an interconnect system between the
signals at South Winchester Boulevard and East Hamilton Boulevard
and South Winchester Boulevard and East Latimer Avenue, so that the
applicant would only pay a pro-rata share. See attached Public Works
Memorandum.
Preservation of Oak Tree: Staff recommended that a revised parking
layout be presented which accommodated a significant oak tree on the
site. This required a revised site plan, which would impact the number
of parking spaces provided. The Commission found that adequate on-
Campbell Gateway
City Council Staff Report
May 19, 1992
Pa~e 3
site landscaping had been provided and concluded that the oak tree
could be removed.
Landscape Median: The Planning Commission modified the staff
recommendation that required the developer to landscape and irrigate
the median island along the Hamilton Avenue frontage. This
Condition of Approval was modified to allow the landscaping to be
watered by City trucks versus requiring the applicant to provide and
install an in-ground irrigation system. The Public Works Department
staff is not supportive of this irrigation method due to the increased
liability.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration and adopted
Resolution No. 2798 approving the applicant's request for a Site and
Architectural Review Permit.
At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission also placed an item
on their May 12, 1992, agenda to make a determination regarding the
establishment of medical or dental laboratories as a permitted use in a C-1-S
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, pursuant to Section 21.59.070.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a Resolution denying the application.
2. Adopt a Resolution approving the application with modifications to the
Planning Commission's approval.
3. Recommend modifications to the applicant's proposal and refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission for its consideration.
Prepared by: .... /
Lynett~e Dias
~-" Plan~~I ~
Submitted by: ~
~/Steve Piasecki, AICP
Director of Planning
Approved by:
Robert Quinlan
City Manager
Campbell Gateway
City Council Staff Report
May 19,1992
Pa~e4
Attachments:
6.
7.
8.
Draft Resolution Approving the Site and Architectural Review Permit
Planning Commission Resolution 2798
Draft Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 28, 1992
Reduced Exhibits
Findings for Negative Declaration
Letter Requesting Courtesy Appeal
Public Works Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
Tim Haley
Associate Planner
Date: May 13, 1992
rom:
Michelle Quinney ~
Senior Civil Engineer
Subject:
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NECESSARY FOR S 92-02 (CAMPBELL GATEWAY)
Attached please find a memo from Bill Selligman indicating
the need for additional findings to support the conditions
of approval for the interconnect systems. Bill Selligman
has provided most of the additional findings, we have filled
in the blanks for him.
We also need to eliminate the condition of approval that
required a $1,000 contribution to the Winchester
interconnect system. We have done further evaluation of the
new Winchester interconnect system and determined that it is
undesirable to include the Latimer to Hamilton portion of
Winchester Blvd. Therefore, we would like to eliminate the
previous condition for contribution to the Winchester
interconnect.
On page two of the staff report, under Analysis, item #2
discusses the pro-rata share of the Hamilton/East Latimer
interconnect. We would like to see the last sentence of
this modified to read "See attached Public Works Memorandum
which recommends that the developer pay the entire cost."
Please incorporate these revisions into the Council packet
for the May 19th meeting. Let me know if you need any other
information. Thanks!
MQ:S9202B
RECEIVED
MAY1
~ DEpT
From: GaryK
Date: 5/8/92
TO: JoanB
TimH
MicheleQ
Subject: Campbell Gateway & Winchester Interconnect
Tony Rucker and I met with Mark Watson of Kier and Wright
and Brad Krouskup regarding the interconnect on Winchester.
I gave him the bad news that PW staff was recommending the
developer pay 100% of the interconnect cost. Krouskup
stated he was quite irritated, but that's just the start of
the story. I reviewed our position and aqain stated that I
actually did not want to interconnect the signal at Latimer,
ever.
Then we reviewed possible methods of interconnection. There
are three: 1) trench lip of gutter all the way down the west
side of the street @ $10/foot, or $13K; 2) qo down the east
side and drop conduit in bare ground under new sidewalk,
then lip of qutter remainder of distance, then trench across
Winchester to get to controller at Latimer for about $9K,
and 3) consider using microwave only for about $5K. We will
get back to Kier and Wright in about 3 to 4 weeks regarding
whether we will accept microwave (now beinq installed in
Santa Clara and in Cupertino). Tony wants to complete some
additional research on maintenance costs before committing.
In addition, I offered to share the cost of trenching across
Winchester at Latimer: the conduit there is 24 years old and
completely full, so it would be good to replace it when we
cross for the interconnect - very cost effective. Conduits
have been failing in these situations, and this is a real
candidate for failure.
The sum total of all this is a much happier Krouskup: the
$30K (for going down the sidewalk) is now probably no higher
than $13 K and more likely $5K. We also got Kier and Wright
all the necessary as-builts and aerial photos today so they
can begin preliminary design.
I ITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 886-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: PlaTll%i.'~
DECLARATI(~ Q]{AT AN ~
IMPACT REP~ IS NOT~
(~ D~CLARATI~)
APPLICANT : Campbell- Gateway Square
ADDRESS : 1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Fr~R NO. : GP 91-06 & ZC 91-04
SITE AIX)RESS : 10-70 E. Hamiliton &
Campbell, CA 95008
1620-1690 S.
Win chester
Pursuant to the applicable secticm~s of the California Er~'irc~m~Lal
Quality Act of 1970 ar~ City of Campbell Resolution No. 5164; an~
After review of plans and information supplied by the applicant
initial study, the undersigned does hereby determine that the captioned
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact)
onthe ' t within the terms and meaning of said Act and
P~solution.
Exeoated at Campbell, California this (Ql1~ day of H~4 ,
19 ~Z..
c: eirdec
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 5, 1992
Amendment to the Land Use Element of~~.:~,~.~ Plan
Public/Sem~-Public to Commercial --'~.~ ........ ~ ', .... , ~ .
1 2 ~.~,~,~~w and
6 0-1670 South Winchester Bouleva~~nd Reading)
a) Zone Change from PF (Public Facilities) to C-I-S (Neighborhood
Co~~;~'~i~-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South
Winchester Boulevard, and from C-2-S (General Commercial) to C-1-S
at 1690 Winchester Boulevard (Ordinance/Second Reading)
Ordinance No. 1852 amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan
from Public/Semi-Public to Commercial for 10-70 East Hamilton
Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester Blvd.
Ordinance 1853 amends the zoning map for this property.
MEMORANDUM
TO'
FROM:
DATE:
DON WIMBERLY, JOAN BOLLIER
WILLIAM R. SELIGMANN, CITY ATTORNEY
MAY 4, 1992
RE: Findings in Support
Interconnect System: 292-02
of Contribution to
BACKGROUND
As a condition of approving S92-02, Staff recommended
that the Developer contribute money to the winchester and
Hamilton interconnect systems. However, no AB 1600 findings were
set forth to support the condition.
DISCUSSION
Government Sections 66000 et seq. requires cities to
specify the following information and findings anytime a city
requests money to mitigate a development impact:
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
(2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification
may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or
66003, may be made in applicable general or specific
plan requirements, or may be made in other public
documents that identify the public facilities for which
the fee is charged.
(3) Det_~rm]ne bow there is a reasonable relationship
between the fee's use and the type of development
project on which the fee is imposed.
~o~lonship
(4) Determine how there is a reasonable re
between the need for the public facility and the type
of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(b) In any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency on
or after January 1, 1989, the local agency shall
determine how there is a reasonable relationship
between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility or portion of the public facility
attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed. (Gov Code Sec. 66001).
In order to facilitate the requested contribution to
the interconnect system in S92-02, I have attached some proposed
findings. You will need to complete the information in A.12.
In the future, anytime a monetary contribution is
required of a project as a condition of approval, AB 1600
findings should be. included. It is recommended that such
findings be made even for imposition of park fees.
( ITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
May 1,1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd.
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re:
Application No. S 92-02
10-70 E. Hamilton Avenue and
1620-1690 S. Winchester Boulevard
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Please be advised that the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 28,
1992, adopted Resolution No. 2798, approving the above referenced Site and
Architectural Approval to allow the construction of two retail buildings and a
medical office building on the subject properties. This approval is subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval, as amended by the Planning
Commission, and is effective ten days following their decision, unless
appealed.
A copy of the approved plans and the adopted resolution is enclosed for your
records.
Please note that the Mayor has filed a courtesy appeal of this application,
which will be heard by the City Council on May 19, 1992.
I ITY Ol I A PBEII
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Re: S 92-02
May 1, 1992
Page Two
If you should have any questions regarding this approval or any of the above
information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:s92-02/p5
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2798
2. Reduced plans.
CC:
Bill Hagman
The Hagman Group
1990 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Deke Hunter
Hunter Properties
20725 Valley Green Drive #100
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ed Storm
Storm Land Company
104 Park Center Plaza
San Jose, CA 95113
Public Works Department
Building Department
Fire Department
( ITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 30, 1992
Barbara Kee, City Clerk
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Subject: Courtesy Appeal (S 92-02)
Dear Barbara:
On April 21, 1992, the City Council directed me to file a courtesy appeal of the
Planning Commission action for the Campbell Gateway Project (S 92-02)
located at the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton
Avenue.
The City Council wanted to review the project due to the location of this site,
at an important entrance to the community, and the size of the development.
Therefore, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to enable
Council review.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Burr
Mayor
cc: Planning Commission
Director of Planning
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county):
S92-02 10-70 E. Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1690
Boulevard, Campbell, CA 95008/Santa Clara County
S. Winchester
Project Description:
Site and architectural application to allow the construction~f 2 retail
buildings (27,900 sq. ft.) and (1) medical office building (20,000 s~. ft.)
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The Planning Commission found that the proposed project~.l~l not
have a potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources an~ted anegative declaration.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and
that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect
on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Chief Planning Offi/:ial
Title: Planning Director
City of Campbell
Date April 30, 1992
RESOLUTION NO. 2798
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
APPROVING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE
COMPLEX LOCATED AT TI-IE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
EAST HAMILTON AVENUE AND SOUTH
WINCHESTER BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 10-70 EAST HAMILTON AVENUE AND 1620-1670
SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD IN A PF (PUBLIC
FACILITIES), AND 1690 SOUTH WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD IN A C-2-S (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICATION OF MR. BRAD
KROUSKUP, ON BEHALF OF CAMPBELL-GATEWAY
SQUARE, LTD., FILE NO. S 92-02.
After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of
Mr. Brad Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., allowing a
Site and Architectural review permit for a commercial and medical office
complex located in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commerdal) Zoning District, as
per the application filed in the Planning Department on March 5, 1992; and,
after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the
hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission
did find as follows with respect to File No. S 92-02:
o
The Proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
District which permits commercial land uses.
The proposal exceeds the General Commercial Zoning District
requirement for 12% landscape area with a continuous landscape
treatment along public street frontages, and
The proposed parking adequately addresses the parking needs of
the proposed uses with the concept of shared parking and varied
uses.
The project layout and design is supportive of the "gateway"
function of this site.
The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is
compatible with the existing commercial and residential
development in the area.
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 2
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further
finds and concludes that:
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, is
consistent with the General Plan; and
o
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed is
consistent with the General Commercial zoning ordinance
requirements relating to parking, landscaping standards, and
The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development
of the immediate area; and
°
The proposal complies with the purpose of the Site and
Architectural Review Area to enhance the character and
integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
o
The conditions relating to traffic will mitigate any traffic impacts
from the project.
Approval is effective ten days after decision of approval of the Planning
Commission, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, unless an
appeal is filed:
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
1. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised site plan reflecting the
following Conditions of Approval to be submitted to the
Planning Department and approved by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee and Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to
application for a building permit. (Planning)
Public Occupancy: Building occupancy will not be allowed until
public improvements are installed. (Public Works)
o
Approved Project: This approval is for a 20,000 sq. ft. medical
office building and 27,900 sq. ft. of retail space located on a 3.73
acre site identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 279-37-88, 12.
Development shall be substantially as shown on the project
materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions
contained herein:
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 3
Project drawings for Campbell-Gateway Square prepared
by The Hagman Group, dated 4/17/92.
Color board on-file in the Planning Department.
Perspective Drawings.
o
Multi-Tenant Retail Building: Submit 1/4 inch scale drawing
detailing the entrance plaza located at the southwest corner of
the building fronting onto Winchester Blvd. and the plaza at the
main entrance for approval by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance
of building permits. (Planning)
Walgreen's Trellis: Submit a detail of the trellis located along
the north building elevation for approval by the Planning
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor,
prior to issuance of building permits. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING
6. Landscaping: Revised landscaping addressing the following
items shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee
and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building
permit. (Planning)
Existing trees being removed shall be replaced with 24
inch box trees or equivalent along the street frontages and
the portion of the site adjacent to residential uses.
Bo
Landscape median along East Hamilton Avenue north of
the project site.
C. Irrigation Plan.
Do
Calling out of type and size of existing trees to be removed
and those to remain.
o
Median and Parkway: Submit landscape and irrigation plan for
the ten foot parkway treatment along E. Hamilton Avenue.
Submit a landscape plan with similar treatment used on West
Hamilton Avenue with minimum 24 inch box trees irrigated by
deep watering perforated pipes. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 4
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
8. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be
developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell
Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with
appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
o
Fences and Sound Walls: Fencing/Sound Wall plan indicating
location and design details to be submitted to the Planning
Department ~nd approved by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit. Walls shall include decorative
architectural features on both sides. (Planning)
10.
Signs: Sign application to be submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign shall be
installed until application is approved and a permit issued by
the Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.53 of the
Campbell Municipal Code). Project signing as presented on
plans is not approved. (Planning)
11.
Grading and Drainage: Submit three sets of Grading and
Drainage Plans for review by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
12.
Hamilton Sidewalk: Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten
foot parkway on Hamilton frontage.
13.
Esther Driveway: Eliminate the driveway on Esther Avenue.
(Public Works)
14.
Interconnect System: In order to accommodate the in and out
left turns on Winchester Boulevard the following are required:
go
Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system.
(Public Works)
Bo
Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system.
(Public Works)
Co
Install the entire interconnect system between the signals
at Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer, and
pay a pro-rata share. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 5
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Curb and Gutter Replacement:
Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on
Winchester Boulevard from the south boundary of the
property to the first driveway (60 feet more or less). Cost
for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid for by City
based on construction bid prices. (Public Works)
Bo
Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on
Hamilton Avenue beginning 13 feet east of the first street
light. Cost for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid
'by the City based on construction bid prices. (Public
Works)
Bus Pads: Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester Boulevard and
Hamilton Avenue to Santa Clara County Transit District
specifications. Relocate Winchester Boulevard bus shelter and
provide bus shelter on East Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Dedication:
Ao
Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to
. accommodate "Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip
and 7 foot sidewalk, with right of way at back of walk).
(Public Works)
Bo
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther Avenue to a 30
foot half street. (Public Works)
Co
Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd.
as needed to accommodate and construct a 10 foot
sidewalk within public right of way and install street trees
at 40 feet on center. If required by City Council, provide
and install tree grates. (Public Works)
Parcel Map: Process and file a Parcel Map.
Boulevard Treatment: Show transition from Boulevard
Treatment to existing sidewalk at the east boundary of the
property on Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 6
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES
20. Property Maintenance: 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 secured by having windows
boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed
from the property. Section 11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform
Fire Code. (Fire Department)
21.
Garbage Collection: 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. (Fire Department)
Garbage Collection Limited Hours: Garbage collection hours
shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. (Planning)
23.
Trash Containers: Trash container(s) of a size and quality
necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s)
approved by the Fire Department. 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. (Fire Department)
24.
Utility Boxes: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning
Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer)
boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes
are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director.
(Planning)
Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as
required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
(Public Works)
26.
Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division
for plan check indicate clearly the location of all connections for
underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone
and television cables, etc. (Building)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 7
PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE
27. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all
appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped.
(Building)
28.
Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and
all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning
Director. (Planning)
29.
Noise Levels: 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.
(Building)
30.
Permits: Prepare plans, pay fees and post securities and deposits
as required to obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the
public right of way. (Public Works)
31. Fire Safety Requirements:
Ao
Do
Provide two on-site fire hydrants located as directed by the
Fire Department, U.F.C. Section 10.301(c). (Fire)
All driveways shall be no less than 20 feet in dear width,
U.F.C. Section 10.207(e). (Fire)
Modifications to the turn radius at the one-story retail
building trash enclosure is required for fire truck access,
U.F.C. Section 10.207(g). (Fire)
All buildings require fully supervised fire sprinkler
protection, U.F.C. Section 10.308 and 10.309. (Fire)
32. Storm Drain Fee: Pay storm drain area fee of $4,725.
33.
Performance Bond: Applicant to either (1) post a faithful
performance bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure
landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3
months of completion of construction; or (2) file a written
agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and striping of
parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning
Department prior to application for a building permit.
(Planning)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 8
34.
~ Plan: Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit. (Planning)
Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required
to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinance of the City of Campbell
and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not
herein specified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1992, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alne, Higgins, Dougherty, Meyer-Kennedy,
Fox
None
Perrine
Wilkinson
APPROVED:
David Fox, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page I of 6
o
S 92-02
Krouskup, B.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd.,
for approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit for
a commerdal and medical office complex located at the
southeast corner of East Hamilton Avenue and South
Winchester Boulevard, on property located at 10-70 East
Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester
Boulevard, in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District, and
1690 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-$ (General
Commercial) Zoning District.
Chairperson Fox read the application into the record.
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting the
following:
· Applicant's request.
· Location on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard.
· The applicant is providing landscaping for 21 percent of the site, however,
staff is requesting a detailed landscape plan as a Condition of Approval
addressing 24 inch box trees along the project perimeter.
· The applicant has submitted a traffic report indicating that the street can
accommodate the traffic volumes accessing the site. Staff is recommending
the applicant's participation in the installation of an interconnect system.
· Available parking is deficient, however, a parking analysis was prepared by
Barton Aschman and submitted by the applicant demonstrating necessary
parking would be available. Staff recommends reducing parking in order to
retain a mature Oak tree.
· The City Council supported the General Plan Amendment for this project,
except requested access along Esther Avenue to be eliminated.
· Architectural details require a more substantial transition between the retail
building and the parking area, and staff is requesting that these details be
submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) or staff
for approval.
· The staff recommends granting a Negative Declaration and approving the
application subject to the revised Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Alne presented discussion from the April 20, 1992, meeting of the
Site and Architectural Review Committee, as follows:
· Modifications to the original site plan provided some resolutions to uses
abutting the residential district.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 6
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page 2 of 6
A trellis element was added to the Walgreens store location.
The Committee recommends approval.
Chairperson Fox opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
Mr. Brad Krouskup, General Parmer, Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., provided a
quick overview of the proposal using overhead slides of the current site,
illustrations and a model representing that the architectural design which is similar
to Heritage Village. Further, he noted three concerns relating to the Revised
Conditions of Approval, requesting changes be made, as follows:
1. Delete Condition No. 6 (c) relating to preservation of an existing Oak tree. A
Tree Preservation Report was prepared by Barry Coats, Arborist and
Horticulturist, recommending removal of the existing mature Oak tree. Mr.
Coats had indicated that the tree may not survive the development. Further,
he pointed out that the majority of the existing trees will be retained or
transplanted.
Commissioner Wilkinson arrived at 8:30 p.m.
In response to the Chairperson's question regarding the size and location of the
tree, Mr. Krouskup stated that the tree is 28 inches in diameter, and that Palm
trees and a 36 inch Coast Live Oak will be imported to the site to mitigate the Oak
tree removal.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the tree could be transplanted and Mr.
Krouskup stated that he did not know. Chairperson Fox suggested that
transplanting of an Oak tree of that size would be costly and survival would be
questionable.
Modify Condition No. 7 relating to Staff's recommendation that the median
island on Hamilton Avenue be landscaped with 24 inch box trees. Campbell
Gateway Square, Ltd., suggested that the irrigation of the median island would
be too costly.
Amend Condition No. 14 (c) requiring the applicant to install the traffic signal
interconnect system between Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue,
and between Winchester Boulevard and Latimer Avenue.
Mr. Krouskup also expressed a concern relating to the Architectural Advisor's
recommendation to align the buildings. He noted that the recommendation was
contrary to numerous conversations with staff, wherein discussion of building
orientation indicated that the accent should be placed to the corner to provide a
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 7
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page 3 of 6
gateway entrance to the City of Campbell.
Mr. Deke Hunter, General Parmer, briefly discussed retention of the Oak tree,
noting that its potential survival during the construction phase could not support
the costs associated with attempting to retain the tree.
Further, Mr. Hunter addressed the following concerns:
· Relating to the median island improvements, he stated that the Gateway
Square Project, including the parkway and median island concept was an
outgrowth of the City's Community Design Study conducted a few years ago,
and that the full burden to carry out goals established in the study should not
rest solely upon the developer. He asked that Condition No. 7 be deleted.
· Relating to the interconnect system, Mr. Hunter asked for specifications of
requests made by the Public Works Department. He stated that during a
recent meeting with Public Works, Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., agreed to
participate in the interconnect system by paying a fair share, and asked that
the "fair share" be defined.
· Noted that at a recent City Council meeting, Councilmember Kotowski had
requested clarification relative to uses within a C-1 Zoning District. He asked
that the Commission make the clarification for the record.
Commissioner Alne and Mr. Hunter discussed the driveway access through Esther
Avenue. Mr. Hunter explained that elimination of access to Esther Avenue was
not an issue, that often Planning Staff will seize the opportunity to limit traffic
penetration into residential neighborhoods from commercial activities.
Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki, stated that the General Plan policies
dictate that whenever possible the City should protect neighborhoods from
impacts caused by commercial uses.
In response to Commissioner Dougherty asking about the cost for the
landscaping of the parkway and median island along Hamilton Avenue, Mr. Hunter
estimated it would be in the tens of thousands of dollars, much of which was due
to the irrigation requirement. This would involve tearing up the streets.
Mr. Joseph Shaklee, Esther Avenue resident, expressed concern regarding levels
of noise created by the drive-up window at the Walgreens store, and the location
of the dumpsters. He asked that the proposed soundwall be buffered with
foliage.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, it was unanimously
ordered that the Public Hearing be closed.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 8
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page 4 of 6
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Alne asked about the drive-up window mentioned by Mr. Shaklee.
Tim Haley, Associate Planner, explained that there is a drive-up window located at
the southern elevation to accommodate persons having trouble getting in and out
of cars to obtain their prescriptions from the Walgreens store. He stated that the
use of the drive-up window would be minimal and that its use would be restricted
to the store's hours of operation.
Commissioner Alne asked about Condition No. 14 (c), whether the applicant is
required to install the entire interconnect system between signals. In response,
Joan Bollier, City Engineer, stated that the sole purpose for installation of the
interconnect system is to provide gaps in traffic so that patrons of the site can
enter and exit safely.
Commissioner Dougherty asked Ms. Bollier if other retail developers are required
to fund entire interconnect systems. Ms. Bollier stated that developer's are
required to pay their prorata share.
Commissioner Dougherty asked if any other developer in the City was required to
fund an entire interconnect system. Ms. Bollier indicated that Prometheus
Development was required to fund the entire interconnect system along Hamilton
Avenue.
Commissioner Dougherty further asked about Home Depot, and Ms. Bollier
stated that Home Depot is required to pay their prorata share.
Commissioner Dougherty asked why Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., would be
required to pay more than a prorata share, and when money is collected in this
manner, is it then returned to the developer. Ms. Bollier indicated that would be a
reasonable assumption.
Chairperson Fox spoke about the following:
· Access to Esther Avenue has been eliminated, and the applicant is being
asked to provide a median island along Hamilton Avenue that would
essentially hide the entrance to the site because 24 inch box trees which are
to be planted along the median island.
· He suggested that the City provide truck watering until the trees develop a
substantial root system, since the City currently truck waters various trees
already.
· Suggested removal of the Oak tree.
· Suggested that the Condition relating to funding of the signal interconnect
system deleted.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 9
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page 5 of 6
Discussion ensued relating to deletion of the developer's requirement to install the
entire interconnect system. The Chair pointed out that the Prometheus project
was substantially larger project than Campbell Gateway Square. Ms. Bollier
pointed out that although the Prometheus project may be larger, the cost of the
signal interconnect system installed by Prometheus was, in order of magnitude,
more expensive than the system to be installed by Campbell Gateway.
Commissioner Dougherty suggested that the developer pay his prorata share
only. Ms. Bollier stressed the necessity for the system to be in place prior to
occupancy. Further, she suggested that perhaps the applicant could pay his share
up front, and that the City could fund the remaining cost.
Recognized by the Chair, Mr. Hunter suggested that Campbell Gateway Square,
Ltd., would be favorable to funding 2/3 of the entire interconnect system, the
street improvements along Hamilton Avenue, and the remaining improvements
could be taken out of. the City's General Fund.
Commissioner Alne expressed concern with the City providing an expensive
irrigation system.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, it was unanimously
ordered that a Negative Declaration be granted, that
Resolution No. 2798 be adopted, approving the Site and
Architectural Review Permit, incorporating the findings,
and subject to amended Conditions of Approval, as
follows: Delete Condition No. 6 (c) requiring the applicant
to retain the existing Oak tree; modify Condition No. 7
requiring the applicant to provide the 24 inch box trees
for the median island and eliminate the requirement for
irrigation; and, amend Condition 14 (c) requiring the
applicant to pay his prorata share for installation of the
signal interconnect system.
Commission discussion on the motion: Commissioner Alne asked if the
Commission would like to add to the motion the definition of the C-1 Zoning as
requested by the applicant.
Discussion ensued relating to whether or not the Commission could define the
Zoning District, and the City Attorney, Mr. William Seligmann explained that the
Commission needs to find that uses within a C-1 Zoning District are similar to
those proposed by the applicant, and not detrimental to the neighborhood.
Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., offered an opinion that since a medical clinic
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 10
Planning Commission Draft Minutes of April 28, 1992
page 6 of 6
would be beneficial to the adjoining residents, in that it would provide medical
services, a finding could be made. Further, they asked that the matter be decided
tonight. It was the general consensus of the Commission that this issue be placed
on the May 12, 1992, Planning Commission agenda for discussion and/or action.
Motion was approved as stated, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Dougherty, Meyer-Kennedy, Higgins,
A!ne, Fox
None
Perrine
Wilkinson
Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1992 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2798
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
APPROVING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE
COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
EAST HAMILTON AVENUE AND SOUTH
WINCHESTER BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 10-70 EAST HAMILTON AVENUE AND 1620-1670
SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD IN A PF (PUBLIC
FACILITIES), AND 1690 SOUTH WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD IN A C-2-S (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICATION OF MR. BRAD
KROUSKUP, ON BEHALF OF CAMPBELL-GATEWAY
SQUARE, LTD., FILE NO. S 92-02.
After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of
Mr. Brad Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., allowing a
Site and Architectural review permit for a commercial and medical office
complex located in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, as
per the application filed in the Planning Department on March 5, 1992; and,
after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the
hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission
did find as follows with respect to File No. S 92-02:
o
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
District which permits commercial land uses.
The proposal exceeds the General Commercial Zoning District
requirement for 12% landscape area with a continuous landscape
treatment along public street frontages, and
The proposed parking adequately addresses the parking needs of
the proposed uses with the concept of shared parking and varied
uses.
The project layout and design is supportive of the "gateway"
function of this site.
The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is
compatible with the existing commercial and residential
development in the area.
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 2
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further
finds and concludes that:
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, is
consistent with the General Plan; and
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed is
consistent with the General Commercial zoning ordinance
requirements relating to parking, landscaping standards, and
The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development
of the immediate area; and
The proposal complies with the purpose of the Site and
Architectural Review Area to enhance the character and
integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
The conditions relating to traffic will mitigate any traffic impacts
from the project.
Approval is effective ten days after decision of approval of the Planning
Commission, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, unless an
appeal is filed:
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
1. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised site plan reflecting the
following Conditions of Approval to be submitted to the
Planning Department and approved by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee and Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to
application for a building permit. (Planning)
Public Occupancy: Building occupancy will not be allowed until
public improvements are installed. (Public Works)
o
Approved Project: This approval is for a 20,000 sq. ft. medical
office building and 27,900 sq. ft. of retail space located on a 3.73
acre site identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 279-37-88, 12.
Development shall be substantially as shown on the project
materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions
contained herein:
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 3
ao
Project drawings for Campbell-Gateway Square prepared
by The Hagman Group, dated 4/17/92.
Color board on-file in the Planning Department.
Perspective Drawings.
o
Multi-Tenant Retail Building: Submit 1/4 inch scale drawing
detailing the entrance plaza located at the southwest corner of
the building fronting onto Winchester Blvd. and the plaza at the
main entrance for approval by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance
of building permits. (Planning)
Walgreen's Trellis: Submit a detail of the trellis located along
the north building elevation for approval by the Planning
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor,
prior to issuance of building permits. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING
6. Landscaping: Revised landscaping addressing the following
items shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee
and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building
permit. (Planning)
Existing trees being removed shall be replaced with 24
inch box trees or equivalent along the street frontages and
the portion of the site adjacent to residential uses.
Bo
Landscape median along East Hamilton Avenue north of
the project site.
C. Irrigation Plan.
Do
Calling out of type and size of existing trees to be removed
and those to remain.
o
Median and Parkway: Submit landscape and irrigation plan for
the ten foot parkway treatment along E. Hamilton Avenue.
Submit a landscape plan with similar treatment used on West
Hamilton Avenue with minimum 24 inch box trees irrigated by
deep watering perforated pipes. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 4
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
8. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be
developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell
Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with
appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
Fences and Sound Walls: Fencing/Sound Wall plan indicating
location and design details to be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit. Walls shall include decorative
architectural features on both sides. (Planning)
10.
Signs: Sign application to be submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign shall be
installed until application is approved and a permit issued by
the Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.53 of the
Campbell Municipal Code). Project signing as presented on
plans is not approved. (Planning)
11.
Grading and Drainage: Submit three sets of Grading and
Drainage Plans for review by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
12.
Hamilton Sidewalk: Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten
foot parkway on Hamilton frontage.
13.
Esther Driveway: Eliminate the driveway on Esther Avenue.
(Public Works)
14.
Interconnect System: In order to accommodate the in and out
left turns on Winchester Boulevard the following are required:
go
Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system.
(Public Works)
Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system.
(Public Works)
Co
Install the entire interconnect system between the signals
at Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer, and
pay a pro-rata share. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 5
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Curb and Gutter Replacement:
go
Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on
Winchester Boulevard from the south boundary of the
property to the first driveway (60 feet more or less). Cost
for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid for by City
based on construction bid prices. (Public Works)
Bo
Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on
Hamilton Avenue beginning 13 feet east of the first street
light. Cost for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid
by the City based on construction bid prices. (Public
Works)
Bus Pads: Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester Boulevard and
Hamilton Avenue to Santa Clara County Transit District
specifications. Relocate Winchester Boulevard bus shelter and
provide bus shelter on East Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Dedication:
go
Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to
accommodate "Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip
and 7 foot sidewalk, with right of way at back of walk).
(Public Works)
Bo
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther Avenue to a 30
foot half street. (Public Works)
Co
Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd.
as needed to accommodate and construct a 10 foot
sidewalk within public right of way and install street trees
at 40 feet on center. If required by City Council, provide
and install tree grates. (Public Works)
Parcel Map: Process and file a Parcel Map.
Boulevard Treatment: Show transition from Boulevard
Treatment to existing sidewalk at the east boundary of the
property on Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 6
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES
20. Property Maintenance: 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 secured by having windows
boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed
from the property. Section 11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform
Fire Code. (Fire Department)
21.
Garbage Collection: 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. (Fire Department)
22.
Garbage Collection Limited Hours: Garbage collection hours
shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. (Planning)
23.
Trash Containers: Trash container(s) of a size and quality
necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s)
approved by the Fire Department. 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. (Fire Department)
24.
Utility Boxes: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning
Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer)
boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes
are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director.
(Planning)
25.
Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as
required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
(Public Works)
26.
Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division
for plan check indicate clearly the location of all connections for
underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone
and television cables, etc. (Building)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 7
PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE
27. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all
appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped.
(Building)
28.
Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and
all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning
Director. (Planning)
29.
Noise Levels: 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.
(Building)
30.
Permits: Prepare plans, pay fees and post securities and deposits
as required to obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the
public right of way. (Public Works)
31. Fire Safety Requirements:
go
Do
Provide two on-site fire hydrants located as directed by the
Fire Department, U.F.C. Section 10.301(c). (Fire)
All driveways shall be no less than 20 feet in clear width,
U.F.C. Section 10.207(e). (Fire)
Modifications to the turn radius at the one-story retail
building trash enclosure is required for fire truck access,
U.F.C. Section 10.207(g). (Fire)
All buildings require fully supervised fire sprinkler
protection, U.F.C. Section 10.308 and 10.309. (Fire)
32. Storm Drain Fee: Pay storm drain area fee of $4,725.
33.
Performance Bond: Applicant to either (1) post a faithful
performance bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure
landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3
months of completion of construction; or (2) file a written
agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and striping of
parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning
Department prior to application for a building permit.
(Planning)
Resolution No. 2798
adopted April 28, 1992
page 8
34.
Lighting Plan: Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit. (Planning)
Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required
to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinance of the City of Campbell
and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not
herein specified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1992, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alne, Higgins, Dougherty, Meyer-Kennedy,
Fox
None
Perrine
Wilkinson
APPROVED:
David Fox, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Secretary
Toeniskoetter &breed in3 inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San Jose, California 95176
RO. Box Z84Z6, San lose, California 95159
(408) 246-3691
DEVELOPMENT
April 22, 1992
R E C E V ·
Mr. Tim Haley
Planning Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
APR
CITY OI-
PLANNING
Re:
Campbell-Gateway Square
Barrie D. Coate and Associates/
Tree Preservation RecommendaTions
Dear Mr. Haley:
Enclosed you will find Barrie D. Coate and Associates' "Tree
Preservation Recommendations" for our project at the corner of
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The plans that are
currently on file in your office show us savings three (3) trees.
We are in the process of revising our plans in order to conform to
Mr. Coate's recommendation to save or transplant eight (8) existing
trees. These changes will not require any changes to current
building locations.
While we are willing to conform to Mr. Coate's recommendations, our
preference is to remove existing trees numbered 6, 17 and 24.
Please contact me with any questions you may have in connection
with the enclosed report.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
A California Limited Partnership
.,
skup
General Partner of TBI-Hunter Storm
cc:
Charles J. Toeniskoetter
Deke Hunter, Jr.
Bill Hagman
I IT¥ OF t .MPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
D£PU~y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell,
California, will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., for approval of a Site
and Architectural Approval for a commercial and medical office complex
located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-90 South Winchester
Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities) and C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
Districts. APN: 279-37-088, 012. Planning Department File No. S 92-02.
Notice is further given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project. This certifies that no significant environmental impacts are
anticipated with the project.
Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration, Initial Study, project plans and other
documentation are available for review at the Planning Department located at
70 North First Street, Campbell, California. The Public Review period for this
Negative Declaration ends on April 27, 1992. All written comments should be
received by the Campbell Planning Department by this date.
The Public Hearing on the project and the Draft Negative Declaration will be
held during the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 1992. The
meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 70
North First Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised
that if you challenge the City's decision on this matter in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Campbell Planning Department, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please call the Planning
Department at (408) 866-2140. Refer to the above mentioned file number.
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF CAMPBELL
STEVE PIASECKI, AICP, SECRETARY
Item No. 4
STAFF REPORT--PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
April 28, 1992
S 92-02
Krouskup, B.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, A
California Limited Partnership, for approval of a Site and
Architectural Review Permit for a commercial and medical
office complex located at the southeast corner of East
Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard, on
property located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-
1670 South Winchester Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities)
Zoning District and 1690 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-
2-$ (General Commercial) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. GRANT a Negative Declaration for this project.
2. ADOPT a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings approving a
Site and Architectural Review Permit, subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit to
allow the construction of a 47,900 square foot retail and medical office
complex at the southeast corner of East Hamilton Avenue and South
Winchester Boulevard on a 3.73 acre site. The complex consists of three
buildings: a 14,300 square foot retail building proposed as Walgreens, a 13,600
square foot multi-tenant retail building, and a 20,000 square foot two-story
medical office building. There are two existing single family homes and a one-
story medical office building on the site that are proposed to be removed from
the site with the construction of the three new buildings. None of the
buildings are historically significant.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is currently zoned PF (Public Facilities) with a General Plan
designation of Public/Semi-Public, except a small portion along South
Winchester Boulevard that is zoned C-2-$ (General Commercial) with a
Commercial General Plan designation.
Campbell-Gateway Square
Pa]~e 2
April 28, 1992
On April 21, 1992 the City Council gave first reading of an ordinance
amending the existing General Plan Land Use designation and the Zoning for
the subject site. The proposed General Plan designation is Commercial and
the proposed Zoning is C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) for the entire site.
The new ordinance prohibits any access to the site from Esther Avenue.
PROJECT DATA
Parcel Area:
3.73 Acres
Building Data:
Walgreens Building
Multi-Tenant Retail
Medical
TOTAL
Floor Area Ratio:
Area Floors
-14,300 sq. ft.one
13,600 sq. ft. one
20,000 sq. ft. two
47,900 sq. ft.
.29
Height
40.5 ft.
34.5 ft.
33.0 ft.
Site Utilization:
Building 29.5%
Paving 49.0%
Landscaping 21.5%
TOTAL 100.0%
Parking
Required:
140 stalls @ 1:200 retail; and 89 @ 1:225 medical
TOTAL 229 stalls
Provided:
125 standard stalls; 86 compact stalls; and 6 handicap stalls
TOTAL 217 stalls
Deficit: 12 stalls
Attached report prepared by Barton Aschman supports adjustment to
parking.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
A. General Plan Desilznation: The proposed use is consistent with the site's
proposed Generai' Plan Amendment that will change the land use
designation from Public/Semi-Public to Commercial.
The first reading of the ordinance adopting this amendment included a
clause prohibiting access to the site from Esther Avenue. The proposed
site plan is not consistent with this requirement.
Campbell-Gateway Square
Pa~e 3
April 28, 1~92
Zoning Consistency: The proposed development is consistent with the
site's proposed Zone Change that will amend the zoning from PF (Public
Facilities) and from C-2-S (General Commercial) to C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial).
The proposed development is consistent with the C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) development standards for setbacks, open space, and
building height.
A. SITE PLAN
Overall the plan presents a reasonable site layout and on-site circulation.
The applicant has worked with staff for over six months in trying to
meet the City's expectations of developing this site as a gateway to the
community. The buildings have been brought up dose to the street and
a traditional style of architecture has been used. Staff believes that the
applicant has met the City's desires to develop this site as a gateway to
the City.
BUILDING DESIGN AND ELEVATIONS
1. Overall
The project is presented with an early Californian traditional style
of architecture similar to Heritage Village and the Campbell
Community Center. The proposed buildings are very similar in
their building style. Plaster is the primary building material with
mission style clay roof tiles. The building elevations are accented
with archways, tile accents, and raised plaster trim.
Multi-Tenant Retail Building
This building provides a significant gateway into the City. Since the
building is oriented toward the corner of South Winchester Blvd.
and East Hamilton Ave., it provides an anchor at the corner as
defined in the "Campbell Community Design Guidelines" prepared
by Sasaki and Associates. The building elevations are accented with
revealed store fronts, archways, and various roof elements. In order
to provide pedestrians access to the building from Winchester Blvd.
an entry plaza is provided at the southwest end of the building.
Staff would like to see some additional detail for both plaza areas for
this building.
Medical Building
This two story building has many of the same architectural features
Campbell-Gateway Square
Pa~e4
April 28, 1~92
as the retail building described above. Staff is supportive of the
buildings design and elevations.
o
Walgreen's Building
In relationship to the other buildings on the site, the Walgreen's
building is fairly simple. The building's entry is defined with a
substantial tower element that reflects the other retail building's
tower. A horizontal trellis element and walkway are proposed
along the north elevation to help provide a transition from the
parking lot to the building. The other elevations are accented with
vertical trellis element and landscaping. A drive-up window is
located along the south elevation. Staff requests further detail of
the horizontal trellis element.
Co
PARKING
A letter from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. analyzing the parking
supply is attached for your review. Based on the proposed building
square footage, there is a parking deficiency of twelve spaces. However,
staff does not feel this deficiency will be significant in relationship to the
entire center, due to the various peak hour time demands of retail use
versus office uses and the concept of shared parking. Staff would like to
see a reconfiguration of the parking to preserve the Oak tree if at all
possible, which may impact the number of parking stalls provided.
Do
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan. However, staff
recommends that the plan be reviewed further and that a revised plan
addressing the following concerns be submitted and reviewed by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee.
Existing trees to be removed are to be replaced with 24 inch box trees
or equivalent along the street frontages;
2. Landscape median along East Hamilton Avenue; and
3. Preservation of Oak tree.
Eo
TRAFFIC
A traffic impact study was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
evaluating the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development.
Campbell-Gateway Square
Pal~e 5
April 28, 1992
The study concluded that these additional vehicles will not cause a
significant impact on the roadway system. The report also recommends
that the applicant contribute to the signal interconnect systems for East
Hamilton Ave. and South Winchester Blvd.
Staff is not supportive of the entrance only driveway on Esther Avenue,
and is recommending the submittal of a revised site plan eliminating
this driveway access.
HOURS OF OPERATION
The applicant has not specified hours of operation at this time. Staff is
currently preparing an amendment to the C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C-2-$ (General Commercial) Zoning Districts limiting
permitted business hours to between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISOR
The architectural advisor was generally supportive of this proposal. He did
express minor concerns regarding the roof elements on the two-story medical
office building and the pedestrian connections between the buildings.
However, he felt the project overall presented an acceptable architectural
design.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Site and Architectural Review Committee reviewed this application on
April 20, 1992. The Committee is supportive of the applicant's proposal,
subject to the submittal of the following:
A. Plan detailing the trellis structure along the north elevation of the
Walgreen's building; and
Be
Landscape plan addressing tree types, sizes, and the protection of
existing trees.
RECOMMENDATION/SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
incorporating the attached findings and approve the applicant's proposal,
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Findings
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Plans
4. Letter from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Re: Parking Supply
5. Environmental Assessment
6. Letter from Green Valley Disposal
7. Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Barton-Aschman Assodates,
Inc.
8. Location Map
Prepared ~ LY~nette Dias
Planner I
Approved By:'~ffL ~fiJ~ ~ tk~
Tim Hal~y u
Associate Planner
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. S 92-02
ADDRESS: 10-70 E. HAMILTON AVENUE AND 1620-1690
WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
APPLICANT: B. KROUSKUP, CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE, LTD.
P.C. MEETING DATE: APRIL 28, 1992
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell finds as follows with
regards to Site and Architectural Permit Application No. $ 92-02:
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
District which permits commercial land uses.
· The proposal exceeds the General Commercial Zoning District
requirement for 1:~% landscape area with a continuous landscape
treatment along public street frontages, and
The proposed parking adequately addresses the parking needs of the
proposed uses with the concept of shared parking and varied uses.
o
The project layout and design is supportive of the "gateway"
function of this site.
o
The proposed project is of an appropriate scale and design and is
compatible with the existing commercial and residential
development in the area.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further
finds and concludes that:
1. The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, is
consistent with the General Plan; and
o
The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed is
consistent with the General Commercial zoning ordinance
requirements relating to parking, landscaping standards, and
o
The proposed project will aid in the harmonious development of
the immediate area; and
The proposal complies with the purpose of the Site and
Architectural Review Area to enhance the character and integrity of
the surrounding neighborhood.
o
The conditions relating to traffic will mitigate any traffic impacts
from the project.
Item No. 4
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL* (4/28/92)
FILE NO:
SITE ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
P.C. MEETING DATE:
S 92-02
10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-90 S.
Winchester Blvd.
B. Krouskup, Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
April 28, 1992
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is
required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinance
of the City of Campbell and the State of California. Additionally, the
applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
SITE
1.
o
AND BUILDING DESIGN
Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised site plan reflecting the following
Conditions of Approval to be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and Planning
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to
application for a building permit. (Planning)
Public Occupancy: Building occupancy will not be allowed until public
improvements are installed. (Public Works)
Approved Project: This approval is for a 20,000 sq. ft. medical office
building and 27, 900 sq. ft. of retail space located on a 3.73 acre site
identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 279-37-88, 12. Development
shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below,
except as may be modified by conditions contained herein:
a. Project drawings for Campbell-Gateway Square prepared by The
Hagman Group, dated 4/17/92.
b. Color board on-file in the Planning Department.
c. Perspective Drawings.
Multi-Tenant Retail Building: Submit 1/4 inch scale drawing detailing
the entrance plaza located at the southwest corner of the building
fronting onto Winchester Blvd. and the plaza at the main entrance for
approval by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the
Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance of building permits. (Planning)
* See Condition No. 34
Campbell-Gateway Square
Revised Conditions of Approval
April 28, 1992
Page 2
Walgreen's Trellis: Submit a detail of the trellis located along the north
building elevation for approval by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, prior to issuance of
building permits. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING
6. Landscaping: Revised landscaping plan addressing the following items
shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission
prior to issuance of a building permit. (Planning)
go
Existing trees being removed shall be replaced with 24 inch box trees
or equivalent along the street frontages and the portion of the site
adjacent to residential uses.
Bo
Landscape median along East Hamilton Avenue north of the
project site.
Preservation of Oak tree. Applicant to submit revised parking
layout providing landscape island around tree.
D. Irrigation Plan.
Eo
Calling out of type and size of existing trees to be removed and
those to remain.
o
Median and Parkway: Submit landscape and irrigation plan for the ten
foot parkway and the median island on Hamilton Avenue. Landscape
with similar treatment used on West Hamilton Avenue with minimum
24 inch box trees. (Public Works)
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
8. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be developed
in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All
parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper
guards. (Planning)
o
Fences and Sound Walls: Fencing/Sound Wall plan indicating location
and design details to be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Walls shall include decorative architectural features on both sides.
(Planning)
Campbell-Gateway Square
Revised Conditions of Approval
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
April 28, 1992
Page 3
Signs: Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of
the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign shall be installed until
application is approved and a permit issued by the Planning and
Building Departments (Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
Project signing as presented on plans is not approved. (Planning)
Grading and Drainage: Submit three sets of Grading and Drainage Plans
for review by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
Hamilton Sidewalk: Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten foot
parkway on Hamilton frontage.
Esther Driveway: Eliminate the driveway on Esther Avenue. (Public
Works)
Interconnect System: In order to accommodate the in and out left turns
on Winchester Boulevard the following are required:
A. Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system. (Public
Works)
Bo
Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system. (Public
Works)
Co
Install the entire interconnect system between the signals at
Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer. (Public Works)
15. Curb and Gutter Replacement:
16.
go
Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on Winchester
Boulevard from the south boundary of the property to the first
driveway (60 feet more or less). Cost for curb and gutter
replacement shall be paid for by City based on construction bid
prices. (Public Works)
Bo
Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on Hamilton Avenue
beginning 13 feet east of the first street light. Cost for curb and
gutter replacement shall be paid by the City based on construction
bid prices. (Public Works)
Bus Pads: Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester Boulevard and
Hamilton Avenue to Santa Clara County Transit District specifications.
Relocate Winchester Boulevard bus shelter and provide bus shelter on
Campbell-Gateway Square
Revised Conditions of Approval
April 28, 1992
Page 4
East Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
17. Dedication:
Ao
Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to
accommodate "Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot
sidewalk, with right of way at back of walk) (Public Works)
Bo
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther Avenue to a 30 foot half
street. (Public Works)
Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd. as needed
to accommodate and construct a 10 foot sidewalk within public right
of way and install street trees at 40 feet on center. If required by City
Council, provide and install tree grates. (Public Works)
18. Parcel Map: Process and file a Parcel Map.
19.
Boulevard Treatment: Show transition from Boulevard Treatment to
existing sidewalk at the east boundary of the property on Hamilton
Avenue. (Public Works)
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES
20. Property Maintenance: 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 secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or
be demolished or removed from the property. Section 11.201 & 11.414,
1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. (Fire Department)
21.
Garbage Collection: 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. (Fire
Department)
22.
Garbage Collection Limited Hours: Garbage collection hours shall be
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. (Planning)
23. Trash Containers: Trash container(s) of a size and quality necessary to
Campbell-Gateway Square
Revised Conditions of Approval
April 28, 1992
Page 5
serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire
Department. 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. (Fire Department)
24.
Utility Boxes: Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department,
prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the
location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for
approval of the Planning Director. (Planning)
25. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities to be provided as required
by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. (Public Works)
26.
Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan
check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for
underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and
television cables, etc. (Building)
PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE
27. Handicapped Requirements: Applicant shall comply with all
appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped.
(Building)
28. Equipment Screening: All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility
meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. (Planning)
29.
Noise Levels: 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. (Building)
30.
Permits: Prepare plans, pay fees and post securities and deposits as
required to obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the public
right of way. (Public Works)
31. Fire Safety Requirements:
A. Provide two on-site fire hydrants located as directed by the Fire
Department, U.F.C. Section 10.301(c). (Fire)
Bo
All driveways shall be not less than 20 feet in clear width, U.F.C.
Section 10.207(e). (Fire).
Campbell-Gateway Square
Revised Conditions of Approval
April 28, 1992
Page 6
Co
Modifications to the turn radius at the one-story retail building
trash enclosure is required for fire truck access, U.F.C. Section
10.207(g). (Fire)
D. All buildings require fully supervised fire sprinkler protection,
U.F.C. Section 10.308 and 10.309. (Fire)
32. Storm Drain Fee: Pay storm drain area fee of $4,725.
33.
Performance Bond: Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance
bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure landscaping, fencing, and
striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction;
or (2) file a written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and
striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the
Planning Department prior to application for a building permit.
(Planning)
34.
Lighting Plan: Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of
a building permit. (Planning)
Attachment #5
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FILE NO:
S 92-02
APPLICANT:
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Ltd. Partnership
LOCATION:
10-70 East Hamilton Ave. & 1620-90 S. Winchester Blvd.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The project site includes approximately 3.73 acres of land. The
applicant is requesting Site and Architectural Approval for a
27,900 square foot retail and 20,000 square foot medical office
complex.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following explanations are in response to the California Environmental Quality
Act Checklist. Each explanation is keyed to the number of the item it pertains to on
the checklist.
A change in the diversity of spedes and number of plant spedes is proposed.
Approximately 21 existing trees are planned to be removed from the project
site. According to the Landscape Plan, approximately 115 new trees will be
planted on the project site. While the type of trees proposed do not presently
occur on the site, they are not new to the area and they do comply with the
City's Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (WELS). The landscaping plan
also includes a variety of shrubs and groundcover.
Mitigation
Submit tree report from Barrie M. Coate addressing the preservation of
the existing tree(s) and the condition of those trees planned to be
removed.
Prepare and submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
March 2~, 1992
Pa~2
Submit final Landscape Plan indicating the type, number, and size of
plant material, and irrigation system to be submitted for approval of
the Planning Director prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
Noise
The existing noise level may increase on the project site due to an increase in
automobile traffic and parking, trash pick-up, and loading dock activity.
During construction somme disturbances to people in the vicinity of the site
may also occur. Implementation of the mitigation measures below should
minimize any increase noise impacts.
Mitigation
Construct a six foot high masonry sound wall along the property lines
that are adjacent to residential properties.
Provide a 10-15 foot landscape buffer along the masonry wall adjacent
to residential properties.
o
Restrict trash pick-up service to after 7 a.m., Monday thru Saturday, as
per letter from Green Valley Disposal, dated March 20, 1992.
4. Limit construction activities tO between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Lieht and Glare
Potential increase in light and glare may occur from parking lot and security
lighting, and vehicle lights. To minimize the lighting spillover to the
residential areas adjacent to the project site the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented.
Mitigation
Submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan will be evaluated to ensure
there is no spillover of lighting into the residential areas.
Restrict vehicular traffic at the driveway on Esther Street to entrance
only (no exit). This will minimize the effects of vehicle headlights on
the adjacent residential neighbors.
Caml~ll-Gateway Square
March 2~, 1992
Pa~3
13.
21.
The project proposes to amend the General Plan designation for the site ~rom
Public/Semi-Public to Commercial and rezone the site ~rom Public Fac!_lities
to Neighborhood Commercial. Approved land uses surrounding the project
include commercial and professional office to the north, professional office
and low density residential to the east, commercial and high density
residential to the west, and commercial to the south.
Trans.ortation/Circulation
A traffic impact study ~vas prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
evaluating the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development. The
attached report estimates that a commercial project of this type will add 2,960
daily vehicle trips, 121 AM peak-hour vehicle trips, and 297 PM peak-hour
vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. It is concluded that these
additional vehicles will not cause a significant impact on the roadway system.
Mitigation
Requirements to accommodate in and out left turns on Winchester
a. Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system,
b. Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system, and
c. Install the entire interconnect system between the signals at
Winchester/ Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer.
Establish a program to encourage the tenants to use alternative modes
of transportation. Provide facilities for transit users and alternative
modes of transportation.
Nlandatory Findings
a. Environmental Ouality
The proposed project does not 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 plan or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
Short Term/L0n_~ Term Goals
The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals.
~ampbetl-Gatewa¥ Squa~
March 25,1992
Pase4
o
do
Cumulative Impacts
The proposal does not have the potential to create impacts wkich
cumulatively are considerable.
Environmental Effects
The proposed project will not have environmental effects that cause
substantial adverse, effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
REFERENCE MATERIALS
City of Campbell .General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.
for Campbell Gateway Square (January 29, 1992).
Environmental Site Assessment prepared by E2C Inc. (11/7/91).
Prer)ared B.a.
Lynette Dias, Planner I
Tim Haley, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT 6
FINDINGS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FILE NO: S 92-02
SITE ADDRESS: 10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-90 S.
Winchester Blvd.
APPLICANT: B. Krouskup, Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
Findings for
Acceptance of Negative Declaration
No substantial evidence has been presented which show that the project
as currently presented, and subject to the required conditions, would
have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The proposed project will not have a potential for adverse effect on
wildlife resources.
FINDINGS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FILE NO: S 92-02
SITE ADDRESS: 10-70 E. Hamilton Ave. and 1620-90 S.
Winchester Blvd.
APPLICANT: B. Krouskup, Campbell-Gateway Square Ltd.
Findings for
Acceptance of Negative Declaration
No substantial evidence has been presented which show that the project
as currently presented, and subject to the required conditions, would
have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The proposed project will not have a potential for adverse effect on
wildlife resources.
I ITY Ol I AMPBEt£
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Attachment ?
OFFICE Of THE MAYOR
April 30, 1992
Barbara Kee, City Clerk
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Subject: Courtesy Appeal (S 92-02)
Dear Barbara:
On April 21, 1992, the City Council directed me to file a courtesy appeal of the
Planning Commission action for the Campbell Gateway Project (S 92-02)
located at the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton
Avenue.
The City Council wanted to review the project due to the location of this site,
at an important entrance to the community, and the size of the development.
Therefore, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to enable
Council review.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Burr
Mayor
cc: Planning Commission
Director of Planning
MEMORANDUM
To:
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director Date:
CITY OF CAMPBELL
From:
Subject:
~oan M. Bollier, City Engineer'~.~
Fair Share Payment, Interconnect Systam for Campbell Gateway
This memo addresses the question raised by the Planning
Commission regarding the fair share payment from the
developer of Campbell Gateway for funding the interconnect
improvements on Winchester Boulevard.
The entire reason for the interconnect is to provide
adequate gaps in traffic for the ~ncreased numbers of left
turns into and out of the Winchester driveways at Campbell
Gateway. The only development along the east side of
Winchester that will benefit from an interconnect system will
be Campbell Gateway, because only this development has high
volumes of left turns into and out of the development onto
Winchester.
The level of service concept (LOS) for unsignalized
operations (both intersections and driveways) is based upon
the number of adequate gaps naturally occurring in a stream
of traffic on the main street as well as the side street
traffic trying to cross that stream of traffic. A gap is the
number of seconds needed for the typical driver to turn onto
or cross the main street. LOS E falls in the range of 1 to
100 available gaps per hour remaining after traffic from a
driveway or side street uses available gaps on the main
street. In other words, even though up to 100 additional cars
per hour could turn onto or cross the main street, the LOS is
still undesirable, or E.
LOS D (acceptable) is the range of 101 to 200 available
gaps per hour once entering traffic is considered. The higher
the driveway left turn volumes (left turns both into and out
of the drive), the worse the LOS. The volume of traffic into
and out of the Campbell Gateway driveways is high enough so
that there remain only 34 to 61 adequate gaps per hour, or
LOS E. At the north driveway there are 55 left turns into and
30 left turns out of the driveway resulting in 34 remaining
adequate gaps per hour. At the south driveway there will be
22 left turns into and 21 left turns out of the driveway
GEK: JOANMEMO.004
Steve Piasecki, RE Campbell Gateway
May 1, 1992
Page 2
leaving only 61 adequate gaps per hour.
Accident hazards increase with LOS E operation, so
Public Works does not approve driveway access at LOS E. None
of the other uses along the east side of Winchester between
Latimer and Hamilton operate at LOS E, and therefore, would
not necessarily benefit from interconnected signals. This
interconnection will not provide gaps in the traffic
travelling from the north, resulting in no impact on LOS for
driveways on the west side of Winchester Boulevard, and no
benefit.
The city had no intention of ever interconnecting
Latimer with either the Winchester Interconnect System to the
south, nor with the Hamilton Interconnect System along
Hamilton. The interconnection of Latimer with the Hamilton
system will worsen traffic operations on Latimer due to the
long cycle lengths required, and the artificial creation of
gaps in northbound traffic will likewise impose added delays
on northbound Winchester motorists. Therefore, to accommodate
the needs of the Campbell Gateway development, the city is
offering to impose traffic delays on existing traffic on both
east and westbound traffic on Latimer and on northbound
traffic on Winchester at Latimer.
It is for these reasons we recommend that the Campbell
Gateway developer pay the entire costs of interconnecting the
signal at Latimer and Winchester with the signal at Hamilton
and Winchester. The entire reason for interconnection is to
mitigate the traffic impacts of the Campbell Gateway
development, nothing more.
cc:
Michelle Quinney
Gary Kruger
GEK: JOANMEMO.004
Attachment
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVENUE · P.O. BOX 1227 · LOS GATOS. CA 95031-1227 * PHONE [40~1 354-2i00
March 20, 1992
T. B. I.
Brad W. Krouskup
Executive Vice President
TOENICKOETTER & BREERINS INC.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Campbell - Gateway Square
Hamilton - Winchester Blvd.
Disposal Service
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Green Valley Disposal Company, will not begin service at
the Campbell - Gateway Square before 7:00 A.M., Monday thru
Saturday.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact us.
Sincerely
Anna Di Campli
GREEN VALLEY.DISPOSAL
RECEIVED
CITY OF
PLANNING DEP
Planning
April 17, 1992
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell
has set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, April 28, 1992,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California, for public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., for approval of a Site
and Architectural Review Permit for a commercial and medical office
complex located at the southeast corner of East Hamilton Avenue and South
Winchester Boulevard, on property located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue
and 1620-1690 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District. APN: 279-37-088, 012 File No.: S 92-02.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Plans, elevations,
legal descriptions, and/or other supporting documentation is on file in the
Planning Department, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised
that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Questions may be addressed to the Planning Office at (408) 866-2140.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLEASE NOTE: When calling about this Notice, please
refer to File No. S 92-02; Address: 10-70 East Hamilton
Avenue and 1620-1690 South Winchester Boulevard.
STEVE PIASECKI
SECRETARY
ITY Ol gAMPBI LL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
April 8, 1992
Mr. Brad W. Krouskup
Campbell Gateway Square
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Campbell Gateway Square Site and Architectural ReviewBS 92-02
Dear Brad:
The Planning Department has received the preliminary comments regarding
the Site approval for Campbell-Gateway Square from the other City
departments. I have compiled each departments comments and concerns
into a draft list of Conditions of Approval for the project. The list is attached
for your review and information. Please consider these conditions
preliminary.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
- Lynette Dias
Planner I
cc: Bill Hagman
Steve Piasecki
CITY OF CAMPBELL
7O NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
April 7, 1992
Brad Krouskup
Toeniskoetter & Breeding Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San lose, CA 95126
Re:
Proposed Medical Office Use
File No.: S 92-02
Project Site: 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue
Dear Brad:
Pursuant to your request, please be advised that a medical office use is a
permitted use in the C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. The
Planning Department has previously allowed medical office uses as a
permitted use in this zoning district under the category of office (business, or
professional). An office use is a permitted use in the Neighborhood
Commercial Zoning District, subject to approval of a Site and Architectural
application.
A medical or dental clinic or laboratory is permitted in the C-2-S (General
Commercial) Zoning District as a permitted use. However, it is not
specifically listed in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District.
If you wish to pursue a medical clinic at this location, it is recommended that
you request the Planning Commission to make a determination that a
medical clinic is similar to the other uses permitted in the Neighborhood
Commercial Zoning District, pursuant to Section 21.59.070 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This specific action may be taken at the Planning Commission
meeting of April 24, 1992, if so desired.
Attached for your information are applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance.
I :iTY 01: CAMPBELL
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Re: Proposed Medical Office Use
April 7, 1992
Page Two
If you should have any questions regarding the above information, please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:s 92-02/p2
Attachments:
1. Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District -- Chapter 21.22
2. Section 21.59.070
Campbell-Gateway Square
Issues and Concerns
April 2, 1992
The following is a preliminary list of issues and concerns for the Site and
Architectural Approval for Campbell-Gateway Square. These items will be
addressed in the project's Conditions of Approval.
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
~,,'~. Walkway along north side of Walgreens. (Planning)
Driveway on Esther to be an Entrance only. (Public Works)
Retail building entrance at the south/west corner of the building
fronting onto Winchester Blvd.. enlarge area to create a small plaza.
(Planning)
Improve plaza at the main entrance to the building--provide detail of
area at a larger scale. (Planning)
¥ 5. Provide trellis on the south elevation of the Walgreens building.
(Planning)
Eliminate one parking space at the entrance of Walgreens to provide a
more accessible entry to the building. (Planning)
Setback of retail building along Winchester to allow for a ten foot
sidewalk. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING
1. Tree Preservation (Planning)
2. Submit landscape and irrigation plans for the ten foot parkway and the
median island on Hamilton Avenue.
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
1. Possible relocation of the Hamilton Avenue bus stop/shelter
~' 2. Signage (Planning)
Fencing Plan
- section through sound wall at Esther
- relocation of sound wall that runs parallel with Esther to allow for a
five foot planting strip adjacent to the parking (Planning)
~j7.
15.
Landscape Median on Hamilton. (Public Works)
Process and file a Parcel Map. (Public Works)
Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to accommodate
"Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot sidewalk, with right
of way at back of walk) (Public Works)
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther to a 30 foot half street. (Public
Works)
Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester blvd. as needed to
accommodate and construct a 10 foot sidewalk within public right of
way. (Public Works)
Transition from Boulevard Treatment to existing sidewalk at the East
boundary of the property on Hamilton Avenue. (Public Works)
Proposed street tree locations. (Public Works)
Requirements for accommodating in and out left turns on Winchester:
· Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system
· Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system.
· Install entire interconnect system between the signals at
Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer. (Public Works)
Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on Winchester from
the south boundary of the property to the first driveway (60 feet more or
less). Cost for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid for by City based
on construction bid prices. (Public Works)
Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester and Hamilton to Santa Clara
County Transit District specifications. (Public Works)
Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten foot parkway on Hamilton
frontage. (Public Works)
Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on Hamilton Avenue
beginning 13 feet east of the first street light. Cost for curb and gutter
replacement shall be paid by the City based the construction bid prices.
(Public Works)
Submit three sets of Grading and Drainage plans. (Public Works)
Recommend installation of landscape median islands on Hamilton with
opening at Esther Avenue. (Public Works)
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES
viC. Pay storm drain area fee of $4,725. (Public Works)
PUBLIC SAFETY WELFARE
1. Provide two on site fire hydrants located
Department, U.F.C. section 10.301(c). (Fire)
as directed by the Fire
All driveways shall be not less than 20 feet in clear width, U.F.C. section
10.207(e). (Fire).
o
Modifications to the turn radius at the one story retail building trash
enclosure is required for fire truck access, U.F.C. section 10.207(g). (Fire)
All buildings require fully supervised fire sprinkler protection, U.F.C.
section 10.308 and 10.309. (Fire)
CITY
I AMPBELL
70 NORTH
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
FIRST STREET
95008
April 1, 1992
Mr. Brad W. Krouskup
Campbell Gateway Square
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Campbell Gateway Square Site and Architectural Review--S 92-02
Dear Brad:
The Planning Department has reviewed your Site and Architectural Review Permit
application resubmittal for Campbell Gateway Square. It has been determined that
your application is complete and the following meetings have been scheduled for
review of your proposal.
It is recommended that you or an authorized representative be present during these
meetings.
Site and Architectural Review Committee:
70 North First Street, Ralph Doetsch Room
Monday, 04/06/92, 9:30 a.m.
or shortly thereafter for a pre-
liminary review
o
Site and Architectural Review Committee:
70 North First Street, Ralph Doetsch Room
Monday, 04/20/92, 9:00 a.m.
or shortly thereafter
o
Planning Commission:
70 North First Street, Council Chambers
Tttesday, 04/28/92, 7:30 p.m.
or shortly thereafter
Although your application has been determined complete for the purpose of
remaining on the Planning Commissions Agenda, the following issues still need to
be addressed and/or submitted to the Planning Department.
o
Tree report
Detail of the driveway at Esther as entrance only (Please coordinate
with Gary Kruger)
Material sample board
CITY OF C~MPBELL
e
Information regarding Walgreen's hours of operation so staff can address
the residents' concerns
Refined perspectives
If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Lynette Dias
Planner I
cc: Bill Hagman
Steve Piasecki
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES.
Horticultural Consultants
408--353-1052
23535 Summit Road., los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELL
PrePared at the Request of:
Brad K(ouskup
Toeniskoetter & Brffeding, Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
March 31, 1992
Job #1-092-016C
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408--353-1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
, CAMPBELL
Site Description
Table of Contents
Page
POrpose of This Report
Tree Inventory
Condition of Inventc~ry
Specimens Worthy of Transplanting
2
Specific Recommendations for Preservation
2
Tree Preservation Procedures
3
Pruning
4
Recommended Removals
BARRIE D. COATE
and AssOcIATES
Horticulturhl Consultants
408~353-1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT TH'E GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELL
Site Descripfi'on ,
The site is located on the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue
in Campbell.
Currently, apProximately two-thirds of it is unoccupied bare ground-with scattered
trees, and the balance of it is occupied by a one-story office building.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to analyze the health, structure and long term viability of
the twenty-six significant trees on the property toward the goal o~ either recommending
their removal or suggesting specific ways in v~hich they can be preserved during and
after construction activity.
The charts used for evaluation of these various trees will analyze all of the major factors
which go into the decision making process and to 'facilitate. the undemtanding by the
developers and the City Planning Department regarding reasons for the specific
recommendations which are enclosed.
This report includes pictures of each of the trees to facilitate understanding of the report
recdmmendations as well.
Tree Inventory ~
The significant trees on the property include CoaSt Redwoods, Sequoia sempervirens,
Chinese Elm, Ulmus parvifolia, Japanese Privet, Ligustrum japonicum, London Plane
Trees, Platanus acerifolia, California Pepper, Schinus molle, Coast Live Oak, Q'uercus
agrifolia, Canary Island Pine, Pinus canariensis, Chinese Pistacio, Pistacia chinensis,
Japanese Persimmon, Diospyros kaki and assorted smaller trees'and shrubS.
Condition of Inventory
'The Iree species which are tolerant of drought and neglect have remained in reasonably
good health and condition, in spite of lack of care over the last few years. Examples of
this are Chinese Elm, London Plane Trees, and Coast Live Oak.
-1-
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELL
In contrast, species which are not drought tolerant such as Coast Redwood have suffered
significantly due to this condition of neglect.
The JaPanese Privets which are in open areas have reached their optimum age and more,
and are in marginal health, while specimens which are volunteers beneath other tree
canopies are very poor specimens.
Specimens Worthy of Transplanting
There are two trees on site which cannot be preserved in their present location but
which are certainly worthy of transplanting to another portion of this site and are of a
size and condition which would make that transplanting procedure successful.
They are the excellent Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens, (unnumbered) on the west
side of the building in front of the front door, and the Windmill Palm, Trachycarpus
fortunei (tree #19), to the south of that west entrY.
Specific Recommendations for Preservation
1. London Plane Trees, #24 and 6 are fine specimens which have many more years of
useful life remaining and since this species adapts so readily to adj..cent construction and
construction activities, I suggest that those should be preserved.
"If tree #24 is preserved, the proposed street tree closest to the street corner must not
be installed as shown to avoid competing between their canopies.
The other two London Plane treeS on site, trees #22 and 4 cannot be preserved if
bUildings are installed as planned.
Tree #22 is so close to a proposed building wall that it cannot be preserved. Tree #4 is
directly in front of a building entrance.
2. Chinese Pistacios #14 and 17 are well formed trees which have a potentially long
lifespan and which are certainly worth preservation.
Another Chinese Pistacio, tree #15, has two very long, poorly formed ,lower limbs, one
facing east, and one west, which should be removed before the grading process.
-2-
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
~AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELL
Tree Preservation'Procedures
Where trees are to be retained on site, but are to be surrounded by parking area paving
and parking island curbs, I suggest that those curbs be poUred on top of paving, rather
than be installed in an "L" design below grade. This is an effort to prevent severing of
roots of the preserved tree during the paving procedures.
Grading adjacent to treeS which are to be preserved should involve only the mechanical
re[rnoval of the blacktop which exists near them where there is existing blacktop and the
removal of the sub-base material, leaving the soil grade beneath that pavement at the
same level which existed before grading began. "
Where no pavement is currently near the trees which are to be preserved but pavement
will be installed with the new construction, pervious paving materials must be installed
within areas 5 times the diameter of the trunk .or larger. A construction period fence
must be placed at the margin of the perforated paving area which will be installed around
those trees and should be retained intact until time for installation of the perforated
paving arrives'.
This pervious paving may consist of brick on sand on gravel, or interlocking pavers on
sand on gravel, or any other material which will ~llow movement of air and water into
the root zone of the trees which are to be retained.
I commend you for plahning to use perVious paving around trees which you are retaining.
The space retained around a tree for this pervious paving must equal at least five times
the diameter of the trunk at chest height (DBH). In other words, a 16" DBH tree would
need an 80" diameter opening which is covered by perviouS paving.
Where parking islands are involved in this procedure, the total opening around the tree
including the islands open soil area must conform to those dimensions as well. ·
If .larger spaces can be left in any of these cases, they certainly should be.
Note the enclosed schematic regarding this procedure provides detail on the method-of
installation.
Note that an impervious sub-grade may not be used beneath the pervious sudace since
that would prevent movement of 'air and water into the root zone beneath the pavement.
-3-
TREE PRESERVATION-RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELE
To repeat, the construction period fences which are designed to protect these trees
during construction procedures must be installed at the margins of those pervious
paving areas before grading begins if damage to the trees which will be retained is to be
prevented..
In the case of the California Pepper, #12, this imPlies that the undisturbed area beneath
the 'canopy near the trunk must be 16-2/3' square.
Trees #15 and 24 will have building construction very close to them.
Trees #15 and 24 can be preserved by use of a pier and beam foundation design which
lays the grade beam on top of existing grade to avoid severing roots.
Pruning
Any pruning required for construction procedures, as in trees #22, #24 and 15, which
are needed for grading equipment clearance must be done by an. International Society of
Arboriculture Western Chapter Certified Arborist or by carefully-using Western
Chapter ISA Pruning Standards according to the enclosed specifications.
This pruning must be done before grading begins and no contractors or sub-contractors
must be allowed to do tree Pruning for any reason. Only an ISA Certified Arborist or
Climber shoUld be allowed to prune trees on the site.
Recommended Removals
Most of the Redwood trees on site are severely drought stressed and although some of
them could be rejuvenated with an extensive program of monthly irrigation and annual
fertilizing, this species is typically severely damaged by construction activity and often
decline severely after construction has occurred.
For this reason, considering the long:term benefit of the community and as balance
against the potential developm'ent of the site, it seems logical to allow their removal.
The Japanese Privet on the site are for the most part small, unimportant understorY
trees which are of no importance. The only exception may be the one tree #23 on
Winchester Boulevard. Unfortunately, that tree is misshapen due to the competition
'4-
TREE PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE GATEWAY SQUARE PROJECT
CAMPBELL
with the adjacent London Plane Tree and for this reason, is not a fine specimen in any
case.
When its considered that that species is poorly adapted to adjacent c~nstruction activity,
and would no doubt decline over the next few years if it is retained, I recommend that it
be removed.
The Chinese Eim, tree #20, is a healthy specimen but whiCh is leaning entirely away
from the point at which the trunk enters the ground. Even a cursory look at the tree
makes it obvious that its removal is the wisest course.
Coast Live Oak #7 is a good specimen which is directly in the middle of parking area, and
considering the' proximity of the California Pepper #11, must be removed. Since it it
too large to move with any high degree of success, ,I suggest that the installation of one
36" box Coast Live Oak adjacent to Esther Street be considered a fair trade. A 36" boxed
Oak is in cost to three 24" boxed trees.
The retention of trees #6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 24 will no doubt cause more design
problems than if they were not present and will cost extra money for additional pervious
paving material, but Will help tO compensate for removal of the various other trees
whose removal is recommended' in this report.'
The recommendation for removal seem, in our .opinion, to be the best procedures for the
long term benefits of the site and the community.
It should be noted that the landscape plan shows addition of numerous trees to the site
which may help compensate for some removals.
BDC:Ia
Enclosures: Charts
Chart Definitions
Pervious Paving Schematic
Photos
Map
Respectfully submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
-R-
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408t353-I052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
DEFINITION OF TERMS'ON TREE EVALUATION CHARTS
DBH 1
MULTI-STEM TREE
DBH 2 AND DBH 3
HEIGHT
SPREAD
HEALTH
STRUCTURE
NEEDS THINNING
REMOVE
END WEIGHT
ROOT COLLAR
COVERED
ROOT COLLAR
DISEASES
TRUNK DECAY
Diameter at breast height, or 4-1/2 feet. Possible numbers in that column could
be from 2" to 50".
Self-evident in the definition. Numbers that could be listed in that column would
be 1 for yes, or 2 for no.
Diameter at breast height for the multi-stem trunks, if any.
As explained, listed by feet.
Canopy spread listed by feet.
A judgment of relative health for the species in the subject area and soil. Number
1 signifies excellent health. A rating of number 5 represents specimens which are
dead or actively dying.
Judgment of relative structure: 1 = perfect structure; 2 = good to average struc-
ture; 3 = potentially hazardous and repairable; 4 = actively hazardous, but repair-
able; 5 = actively hazardous and not repairable.
Defined as requiring removal of pieces to reduce the canopy mass to allow wind
to travel through it. This can be accomplished by thinning of interior branches, as
well as removal of end of branches by thinning, not by stub-cutting. Possible
entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning little is needed, 5
meaning attention is badly needed.
Defined as requiring the removal of the ends of major limbs or major branches in
sufficient quantity to prevent the breakage of the limb in question. This is done by
thinning. Different species will require different amounts of end-weight removal
depending on the inherent structure of the tree. As an example, Elm trees must
not be allowed to develop heavy end weights, where the same amount of end
weight on a Magnolia may not be dangerous. Possible entries in that column
would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning no attention is needed, 5 meaning
immediate attention is needed.
When the root collar of many species is covered, Armillaria mellea, PhvtoDhthora
cactorum, or other diseases, may kill vascular tissue.
This column defines the amount of disease activity discovered. When more than
50 percent of the trunk circumference has been killed, the tree would be rated
number 5, and a removal recommendation made.
Trunk decay would signify the proportionate amount of decay in the trunk of the
tree. This is usually a result of removal of large limbs or branches from which
decay travels and is a far more serious problem in some species than in others.
Significant amounts of trunk decay in Elms would be a very serious potential
problem, where the same amount of trunk decay in a Magnolia might not be
neady so dangerous. Potential entries in that column would be 1 through 5.
Number 1 signifying no decay, 5 signifying so much decay that the tree should be
immediately removed.
, 2
CAMPBELL GATEWAY SQUARE
S.E.CORNER OF WINCHESTER BLVD.AND HAMILTON AVENUE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1. Process and file a Parcel Map.
2. Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to accommodate
"Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot sidewalk,with
right of way at back of walk)
3. Provide a 5 foot Public Utilities Easement behind the existing right
of way on Esther Avenue.
4 Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd. as needed to
accommodate and construct a 10 foot sidewalk within the public right
of way.
5 Show transition from "Boulevard Treatment" to existing sidewalk at the
East boundary of the property on Hamilton Avenue.(on site plan)
6. Show existing handicap ramps at corners on site plan.
7 Show proposed street tree locations (40 feet on centers) on site plan.
8. Reconfigure parking layout so that no stalls fall within 20 feet of a
street access driveway.(Eliminate conflicts ~etween cars backing out
of parking spaces and cars entering driveway)
9. Recommend reconfiguring lot to save significant healthy trees as
determined by City arborist.
10. Prepare plans,pay fees and post securities and deposits as required to
obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the public right of way.
ll No driveway will be allowed on Esther Avenue.
12. Requirements fo~ accommodating in and out left t __ns on Winchester.
A. Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system.
B. Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system.
C. Install the entire interconnect system between the signals at
Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer.
13. Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter on Winchester from the
South boundary of the property to the first driveway.(60 feet more or
less) Cost for curb and gutter replacement shall be paid for by City
based on construction bid prices.
14. Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester and Hamilton to Santa Clara
County Transit District specifications.
15. Construct seven foot sidewalk with ten foot parkway on Hamilton
frontage.
16. Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on Hamilton Ave.
beginning 13 feet East of the first street light. Cost for curb and
gutter replacement shall be paid by the City based the construction
bid prices.
17. Pay Storm Drain Area Fee of $4,725
18. Submit three sets of Grading and Drainage Plans.
19. Submit landscape and irrigation plans for the ten foot parkway and
the median island on Hamilton Avenue for approval by City Engineer and
Planning Director.
20. All conditions are to be addressed prior to r~lease of the building
permit.
21. Recommend installation of landscaped median islands on Hamilton with
opening at Esther Ave.
MEMORANDUM
Yo: Traffic/FSD Watch Commanders
Date: March 24, 1992
CITY OF CAMPBELL
From: Sgt. Beaudry
Subject: Review of Plans
Here are plans for the intersection of Hamilton and Winchester. They have
been resubmitted by Planning for review.
Please review, and pass any comments on; I will forward all comments to Planning
on April 13.
Note that this is a "resubmission"-this generally means something has been
changed. Good Luck-I couldn't find the change!
RECEIVED
APR 0
PLANNING DEPT.
City of Campbell
epart ent of Plannin
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:.
Bill Hagman
The Hagman Group
FAX Telephone No.: (408) 244-6805
FROM: Lynette Dias
Campbell Planning Department
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Number of Pages Transmitted (including this page) 1
Transmitted from (408) 379-2572
DATE: Tuesday, March 17, 1992
MESSAGE: Below is a list of Public Work's comments regarding the
completeness of the Site application for Campbell-Gateway
Square. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 866-
2140.
1. Process and file a Parcel Map.
~ Show distance from center line of street to right of way line for all
three streets on site plan.
~-3~~ Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to facilitate
. "Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot sidewalk).
Dedicate additional right of way on Esther to a 30 foot half street.
~ Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd. as needed to
accommodate a 10 foot sidewalk.
~ Show transition from "Boulevard Treatment" to existing sidewalk at the
East boundary of the property on Hamilton Avenue.(on site plan)
~ Show existing handicap ramps at corners on site plan.
--~. Show street tree locations (40 feet on centers) on site plan.
~---9. Reconfigure parking layout so that no stalls fall within 20 feet of a
street access driveway.
10 Driveway on Esther avenue is to be an ENTRANCE ONLY, (no exit).
A hard copy will follow:
A hard copy will not follow: X
If there are any problems with this transmission, please
call the Planning Department at (408) 866-2140.
MARCH 17,1992
CAMPBELL GATEWAY SQUARE
S.E.CORNER OF WINCHESTER BLVD.AND HAMILTON AVENUE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1. Process and file a Parcel Map.
2. Show distance from center line of street to right of way line for all
three streets on site plan.
3. Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue to facilitate ,.
"Boulevard Treatment" (10 foot park strip and 7 foot sidewalk).
4. Dedicate additional right of way on Esther to a 30 foot half street.
5 Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester Blvd. as needed to
accommodate a 10 foot sidewalk.
6 Show transition from "Boulevard Treatment" to existing sidewalk at the
East boundary of the property on Hamilton Avenue.(on site plan)
7. Show existing handicap ramps at corners on site plan.
8. Show street tree locations (40 feet on centers) on site plan.
9. Reconfigure parking layout so that no stalls fall within 20 feet of a
street access driveway.
10 Driveway on Esther avenue is to be an ENTRANCE ON~.Y__, (no exit).
1i. ~equ~remen~s for allowing in and out left turns on Winchester.
A. Contribute $1000 to the Winchester interconnect system.
B. Contribute $1500 to the Hamilton interconnect system.
C. Pay for the entire cost of the interconnect system between the
signals at Winchester/Hamilton and Winchester/Latimer.
12. Remove and replace the existing curb, gutter and three feet of
pavement on Winchester from the South boundary of the property to the
first driveway.(60 feet more or less)
13. Install P.C.C. bus pads on Winchester and Hamilton to Santa Clara
County Transit District specifications.
14. Remove and replace 10 ft.x 76ft.of pavement in lane 3 of Hamilton Ave
just East of Winchester Blvd.
15. Remove and replace 14 feet of curb and gutter on Hamilton Ave.
beginning 13 feet East of the first street light.
16. Overlay Esther with pavement fabric and 11/2 inch of asphalt.
17. Pay Storm Drain Area Fee of $8,392.50.
18. Submit three sets of Grading and Drainage Plans.
19. Prepare plans,pay fees and post securities and deposits as required to
obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the public right of way.
20. Submit landscape and irrigation plans for the ten foot parkway and
the median island on Hamilton Avenue.
21. All conditions are to be addressed prior to release of the building
permit.
Toeniskoetter&Breeding Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San Jose, California 95126
RO. Box 28426, San Jose, California 95159
(408) 246-3691
DEVELOPMENT
Hand Delivered
March 26, 1992
Mr. Tim Haley
Planning Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Campbell-Gateway Square
Dear Tim:
Please find enclosed the following items for your use in connection
with the review of our site development application:
(2)
(3)
Topographic and utility survey depicting existing site
conditions. The changes to tree designations that are
shown on plan are based on discussions with Barrie D.
Coate & Associates;
Walgreen's letter dated March 23, 1992 regarding the
"Drive-Up Pharmacy Window;"
Green Valley Disposal's letter dated March 20, 1992
regarding trash pick up hours.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GA?~E~AY SQUARE,
A Califo~fia/_Limited Partnership
L~/ ~rad 'W~. 'Krouskup
~---General Partner for
TBI-GATEWAY SQUARE
Eiiclosures
RECEIVED
MAR 7 1992
Cll'Y OF
PLANNING bEP¥
CITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
March 25, 1992
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell,
California, will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., for approval of a Site
and Architectural Approval' for a commercial and medical office complex
located at 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and 1620-90 South Winchester
Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities) and C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
Districts. APN: 279-37-088, 012. Planning Department File No. S 92-02.
Notice is further given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project. This certifies that no significant environmental impacts are
anticipated with the project.
Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration, Initial Study, project plans and other
documentation are available for review at the Planning Department located at
70 North First Street, Campbell, California. The Public Review period for this
Negative Declaration ends on April 27, 1992. All written comments should be
received by the Campbell Planning Department by this date.
The Public Hearing on the project and the Draft Negative Declaration will be
held during the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 1992. The
meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 70
North First Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised
that if you challenge the City's decision on this matter in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Campbell Planning Department, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please call the Planning
Department at (408) 866-2140. Refer to the above mentioned file number.
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF CAMPBELL
STEVE PIASECKI, AICP, SECRETARY
File March 24, 1992
Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
Zoning Development Standard Comparisons
PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District
Height Limitation -- 35 feet (provision for an exception where height exceeds
35 feet -- 1/2 foot of setback required for each 1 foot height exceeding the
35 foot limit
Setbacks -- Minimum 15 foot front yard setback, minimum 1/2 height of
building wall setback for the rear and side yards.
Coverage Limitation -- 40%
Landscaping -- Minimum 12% with minimum 8 foot landscape areas along
the street frontage.
PO (Professional Office) Zoning District
Height Limitation -- 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories
Setbacks -- 15 feet for the front and 1/2 height of the building wall for the side
and rear.
Coverage -- Maximum 40%
Landscaping -- 12% with the provision of 8 foot planting areas along the street
frontage.
C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District
Height Limitation -- 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories
Setbacks -- None, except as required by the Site and Architectural Review
process and a 10 foot rear yard requirement may be required when
property abuts a residential use.
Coverage Limitation -- None
Landscaping -- 12%, provision of 8 foot landscape areas along the street
frontage
Memo to File
Re: Zoning Development Standard Comparisons
March 24, 1992
Page Two
C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District
Height Limitation -- 75 feet, 6 stories
Setbacks -- None, except as required by the Site and Architectural Review
process and a 10 foot rear yard setback may be required by the
Commission.
Coverage Limitation -- None
Landscaping -- Minimum of 10%, and a minimum 5 foot landscape area
along the street frontage.
tjh:lb
a:memo
OF I AMPBEII
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
March 23, 1992
Pat Tupa
Walgreen Company
200 Wilmont Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
RE: Liquor Sales (Walgreen's Campbell Gateway)
Dear Applicant:
Please find enclosed an application form for a Conditional Use Permit which
will be required in conjunction with the proposed Walgreens at the southeast
corner of East Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard in
Campbell's jurisdiction. The Conditional Use Permit requirement is imposed
because the proposal would include alcohol sales.
If you should have any questions regarding the attached application form,
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
Enclosure: Application
March 23, 1992
Walgreen Co,
Corporate Offices
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Mr. Brad Krouskup
TOENISKOETTER & BREEDING, INC.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, California 95126
SEC Hamilton & WincheSter
Campbell, California
Dear Brad,
It was nice speaking t9 you last week. In response to
your inquiries concerning the "drive-up pharmacy window"
at the above referenced location, Walgreens provides the
window as an additional service to our clientele.
In our experience, the drive-up facility caters to the
individuals who have difficulty in climbing in an out of
the cars such as handicapped or elderly patrons, and
typically accounts for 25-35 prescriptions per day. The
vast majority of the prescriptions are still filled in the
traditional manner within the store. As a result the
elaborate stacking lanes required by "fast food" uses are
not needed.
If your have any additional questions, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Patrick W. T~Pa/
Senior Real Estate Manager
ct
RECEIVED
MAR g ? 992
CITY OF CA/Vtl'~d~L~
PLANNING DEPT,
I ITY OF gAMPBEtL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
March l9, 1992
Mr. Brad W. Krouskup
Campbell Gateway Square
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Campbell Gateway Square--SE Corner of E. Hamilton and South
Winchester
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Please be advised that the Planning Department has reviewed your Site and
Architectural Review Permit application for Campbell Gateway Square. It has
been determined that your application is incomplete. The following items, as
discussed at our March 16, 1992 meeting, must be addressed in order for your
application to be considered complete.
the application.
~"'A. Signature of the property owner on application form
B. Completed Contribution Disclosure Form
C. Conditional Use Permit application for Walgreen's
window and alcohol sales
APPLICATION FOR_M--The following items are needed to complete
drive-up
II.
INCOMPLETE ITEMS ON PLANS--Please reference green check
sheet.
A. Plot Plan
1. Building Location
v' o Sh-e~ building entrances anu t,,~ variou~° pop-o-ttta
nov, plai~s.
~/o Coi'xectly delineate the ~cf thc heuses
2. Existing Driveways
/' .-~,,c~',~,, d~iv~vaya on a~acent parcm~, includi~
C 0
IT¥ gAMPBEtl
~/ · Provide a detail of the ~iriveway at Esther.
3. Parking
~'-~ ~ o.uw ,~ndicap ramps.
~ ~ ~,~cumigure parking layou~
~ .~,, ~, a strut access r
C O ~ 4. Landscaping
............... -~/- Provide a tree inventory that includes the t~e, size
and condition of e~sfing ~s.
coverage;
~.. ~,~,, a,d that shown oxt u,~ .......... o.
· ~ ........... [i~ rotations.
5. Fencing
6. Alternative Transportation
.... ~ ~/ Show existing bus stop locations and proposed bus
shelters.
~, 7. Dedication
O ~ .... ' Dedicate additional right of way on Hamilton Avenue
(~ to facilitate "Boulevard Treatment" (10 f~t park strip
~ ~: and 7 foot sidewalk).
~ " · Dedicate additional right of way on Esther to a 30 foot
"'~ half street.
c~ · Dedicate additional right of way along Winchester
~ ~ Blvd. as needed to accommodate a 10 sidewalk.
8. Miscellaneous
· Show transition from "Boulevard
Treatment"
to
~.~ existing sidewalk at the East Boundary of the property
on Hamilton Avenue.
,' Show ex~,g ' '-- ~: ---
' ~ow ~: ...... ~' ~~y
B. Elevations
and H~milton Ave. include Hoiite ~-]---~ e- -
EMher Ave. tn the Hamilton
e~a,,~,,, .......... o" 1700 S.
-~,,~rer in the Winchester
Provide co,sisrency betwe~!andscaping indica~
~~n and that shown on tl,e ~Icvaficns.
C. Sample Board
OF
Do
Eo
C MPBELL
'- ~nr~vide-wsampie bo ar~i-wi'd'c-m~.er,:al
Sections--Please provide the following
~i Fence
~ ..... h -~
Perspectives ~ 'c e ~--,-~ ,~
Misc.
· cople ' Pla~
· Parking sm~
· DriVe-up window study
In addition, a number of design issues were discussed at our meeting on
March 16, 1992 that you may wish to address in the revised plans. Please
contact me at (408) 866-2140 if you have any questions.
Planner I
CC:
Bill Hagman
Deke Hunter
Ed Storm
Michelle Quinney
Steve Piasecki
Attachment #4
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc,
100 Park Center Plaza. Suite 450
San Jose. California 95113
USA
Phone: (408) 280-6600
Fax: (408) 280-7533
March 19, 1992
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Toenlskoetter & Breedi,~_% Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, California 95126
RECEIVED
IIR 2, 8 1992
CITy OF
'Re: Parking Supply for the Campbell. Gateway ~luare
Dear Mr. Krouskup:
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. has investigated the adequacy of the proposed parlrlng
supply for the Campbell-Gateway Square development by applying published parking
generation rates to the proposed uses. The parlri,~g supply is approximately 215 spaces.
The proposed uses include 20,000 s.f. of medical office building space and 27,900 s.f. of
retail space. Approximately 4,000 s.f. of the retail space may be used by a deli-type
restaurant.
Paring generation rates were obtained from the second edition of the In,titute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) publication, Parking Generation, dated 1987. The rates
applied to the proposed uses, in pari~ng spaces per 1,000 s.f., are 4.11 for medical/dental
clinic/office, 3.23 for shopping centers, and 9.08 for f,~mily restaurants. The parking
demand estimates for each use are s,,,~,~rized in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Parking Demand
Use Rate' Parking Demand
20,000 s.f. medical office
23,900 s.f. retail space
4,000 s.f. restaurant
Total
4.11 82
3.23 77
9.08 36
195
· Occupied parking spaces per 1,000 s.f.
92.5*249/5911.06.02
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Mr. Brad Krouskup
March 19, 1992
Page 2
The estimated parking demand for CA,-pbell-Gateway Sq-A-e based on these rates is 195
spaces. The pari~,~g supply should exceed the pari,~-_~ de,~--d to ~_-~l~tate turnover of
spaces. The proposed supply of 215 spaces will exceed the demand by 10 percent.
Simply adtb~i the individual demand estimates to obtain an overall d_~,-~,~d estimate
ices not take into consideration the concept of shared pari~,~_=. Shared parking can reduce
the overall pari~,~g demand of a mixed-use development due to different uses pe=l~,~g at
cli~erent times and due to the captive market effect, e.g. a medical office employee eating
at the restaurant. Reducing the demand to account for shared parking will provide a
greater margin between the proposed demand and the proposed supply.
In conclusion, the parking supply of 215 spaces is adequate when compared to the
demand of 195 spaces, estimated using ITE rates, plus a reduction due to shared parking.
Should you have any questions regarcli.E the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate
to call me.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC
A. Bierstedt
~'Senior Associate
JAB:mdb
/cc: Tim Haley, City of C~,~pbell
92.3~249/5911.06.02
Toeniskoetter&L.._-edin Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite Z0, San Jose. California 951Z6
RO. Box 284Z6, San Jose, California 95159
(408) 2.46- 3691
DEVELOPMENT
March 19, 1992
Ms. Anna DiCampli
Green Valley Disposal Company, Inc.
573 University Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030-4400
Re:
Campbell-Gateway Square
Southeast Corner Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Dear Ms. DiCampli:
I want to thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss the
disposal service for our project - "Campbell-Gateway Square." I
sincerely appreciate Green Valley's commitment to provide our
service after seven o'clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.)
I look forward to receiving your letter confirming our discussion.
Again, thank you for your interest and cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBEL~TEWAY SQUARE,
A Ca/~~ Limited Partnership
uskup
~neral Partner for
TBI-CAMPBELL GATEWAY SQUARE
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 1992
PLANNING DEPT
BWK:le
CC:
Tim Haley
City of Campbell Planning Dept.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements Form
File Number: GP 91-06 & ZC 91-04
City: Campbell
Project: Hamilton & Winchester Center
Address: S/E Corner of Hamilton & Winchester
Developer: Eunter Properties
ContactfTelephone: Deke Hunter @ 255-41'00
Traffic ConsultanUTelephqne: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. - Jane Bierstedt
(408) 280-6600
Transportation Impact Analysis Required? rL~ Yes; L_] No.
Reasons:
Proposed development generates greater than 100 PM peak hour trips.
Study Area Definition(UstofCMP System Facil~iesto beanalyzed)
Hamilton & San Tomas
Hamilton & Winchester
Hamilton & Bascom
Lead Agency Hearing Date: TBD
Final Report Submitted to CMA:
---01 - August 2. 1991.
t ITY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
March 18, 1992
Gary Schoennauer
Planning Director
City of San Jose
801 N. First Street, Room 400
San Jose, CA 95110
Re:
General Plan Amendment (GP 91-06) and Zone Change (ZC 91-04)
10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and
1620-1670 South Winchester Boulevard
Dear Mr. Schoennauer:
The Campbell Planning Department is currently processing a development
application which proposes to redevelop the southeast corner of East
Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard. The specific proposal
involves a General Plan Amendment from a Public/Semi-Public land use to
a Commercial land use on the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan,
and a Zone Change from PF (Public Facilities) to C-2-S (General Commercial).
The Planning Commission will consider the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change at its meeting of March 24, 1992, wherein it
will forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at its
meeting of April 21, 1992.
The specific development proposal for the site has been scheduled for the
Planning Commission of April 28, 1992.
Your department's review of this proposal and any comments should be
forwarded to the Planning Department by April 20, 1992.
iTY OF A I 13ELL
Mr. Gary Schoennauer
Re: GP 91-06/ZC 91-04
March 18, 1992
Page Two
Please find attached the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for this
project which evaluates intersections that are shared by both San Jose and
Campbell's jurisdictions.
If you should have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Tim J. Haley
Associate Planner
tjh:lb
a:gp91-06/p5
Attachment:
1. Transportation Impact Anaylsis
cc. Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Toeniskoetter&Breedins Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San Jose, California 9SI 26
[tO, Box 2842_6, San lose, California 9S 1.59
(408) 246-3691
DEVELOPMENT
Hand Delivered
March 4, 1992
Mr. Steve Piasecki, AICP
Planning Director
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
MAR 5 199g
Re:
Southeast Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Application for Site and Architectural Permit
Dear Steve:
I have enclosed our application for a Site and Architectural Permit
for the above referenced project. We have included in our
application the basic information required. Prior to meeting with
the Site and Architectural Review Committee we will provide your
staff with additional information that will include an illustrative
site plan, detailed landscape plans, and perspective renderings.
Please call me if you have any questions in connection with the
project.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBE~TEWAY SQUARE,
A Ca~If~rnia Limited Partnership
~By~.' Brad W. Krouskup
-G~neral Partner for
TBI-GATEWAY SQUARE
Enclosures
cc:
Tim J. Haley, Planner II
Cary A. Fox, O'Connor Hospital
Charles J. Toeniskoetter
Deke Hunter, Jr.
Edward D. Storm
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FILE NO:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
GP 91-06 & ZC 91-04
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Ltd. Partnership
Southeast corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester
Boulevard
The project site includes approximately 3.73 acres of land. The
applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change
the site's land use designation from "Semi-Public" to
"Commercial" and the zoning designation from "Public
Facilities" to "General Commercial". Please note that there is no
submittal for any specific development at this time.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This environmental assessment is based upon the change of land use from Public
Facilities to Commercial. Therefore, specific environmental impacts associated with
a development proposal are not analyzed in this assessment.
The following explanations are in response to the California Environmental Quality
Act Checklist. Each explanation is keyed to the number and letter of the item it
pertains to on the checklist.
6. Noise
The possible increase in noise will be evaluated when a specific development
proposal is submitted and mitigation measures will be developed as
necessary.
8. Land Use
The project proposes to amend the General Plan designation for the site from
Public/Semi-Public to Commercial and rezone the site from Public Facilities
to General Commercial. Approved land uses surrounding the project include
commercial and professional office to the north, professional office and low
density residential to the east, commercial and medium density residential to
the west, and commercial to the south.
Environmen~! Impacts
Campbell-Gateway Square
February 13,1992
Pal~e 2
13.
21.
Trans?ortation/Circulation
A traffic impact study was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
evaluating the potential traffic impacts of a commercial development with a
floor area ratio of .297 on this site. The attached report estimates that a
commercial project of this type will add 2,960 daily vehicle trips, 121 AM peak-
hour vehicle trips, and 297 PM peak-hour vehicle trips to the surrounding
roadway system. It is concluded that these additional vehicles will not cause a
significant impact on the roadway system.
Mitigation
Project sponsor must contribute $1,000 toward interconnecting the
traffic signals on Winchester Boulevard.
o
Project sponsor must set up a program to encourage the tenants to use
carpools and transit.
Mandatory Findings
mo
Environmental Quality
The proposed project does not 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 plan or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
be
Short Term/Long Term Goals
The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals.
Co
Cumulative Impacts
The proposal does not have the potential to create impacts which
cumulatively are considerable.
Environmental Effects
The proposed project will not have environmental effects that cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
Environmental Impacts
Campbell-Gateway Square
February 13, 1992
Pal~e 3
o
REFERENCE MATERIALS
City of Campbell General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.
for Campbell Gateway Square (January 29, 1992).
Environmental Site Assessment prepared by E2C Inc. (11/7/91).
Prepared By:
Lynette Dias, Planner I
Tim Haley, Associate Planner
B-96- 4/21/81
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURSUANT TO
DEVELOPMENT Or APN
Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit
shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development
approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance
9.045 by County Santitation District No. 4 of Santa Clara County,
the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer
service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a deter-
mination that the issuance of a sewer connection permit to a
building, or proposed building, on the above described property,
will, in his opinion, cause the District to exceed its ability
to treat adequately the wastewater that would result from the
issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not
be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be issued by
this agency.
If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain
substantive conditions designed to decrease the wastewater
associated with any land use approval.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
By signing below, the applicant~dges, at the
time
of application, that he/she ful~/~ the above.
~'A~canC'~ Signature .
Site Address of Proposed
Development
Distribution:
Original to County Sanitation District No. 4
100 E. Sunnyoaks Ave., Campbell,
Copy to issuing City, Town or County
Copy to Applicant
CA
Campbell Planning Dept.
EIR-1
C] OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIR0~ENTAL INFORMATION FORM - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Date Filed: ~2/13/91
~ENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Limited Partnership
2. Address of project: SE Corner - H~ilton Ave. & Winchester Blvd.
Assessor's Block and Lot Number 279-37-88,12
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted
concerning this project:
BEad W. Krouskup: (408)246-3691
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding? Inc.? Development~ 1960 ~e Alameda~ San 3ose~ CA 95126
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which
this form pertains:
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:
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Architectural Approval
6. Existing zoning district: Pm
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
· Medical Office Building (20,000 Sq. Ft.) and Commercial/Retail (27,900 Sq. Ft.)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
8. Site size. 162,479 Sq. Ft. (3.73 acres +)
9. Square footage. 47,900 Sq. Ft.
10. Number of floors of construction.
Medical Office Building - 2 Floor
Commercial/Retail - 1 Floor
11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 225 Parking stalls
12. Attach plans. (See attached plans)
13. Proposed scheduling. Project scheduled to begin 6/1/92
· Project completion scheduled for ~/30/93
14. Associated projects. None
Total to be proposed:
Existing:
15. Anticipated incremental development.
Proposed: 20,000 Sq.'Ft.
27~900 Sq. Ft.
47,900 Sq. Ft.
(-Iq,000)Sq. Ft.
( 3~O00)Sq. Ft.
Total Incremental
25,900 Sq. Ft.
Medical Office Building
Commercial/Retail
M~dical Clinic/Hospital
Residential
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 neighborhood, 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
community benefits to be derived from the project.
20.
If the project involves a variance,
application, state this and indicate
is required.
conditional use or rezoning
clearly why the application
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.
× 22.
x 23.
x 2~+.
x 25.
x 26.
x 27.
x 28.
x 29.
x 30.
x 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 vibration
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, flan~ables 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 (See Below)
33.
34.
Describe the proJec~'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.
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 scores, 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 infoAmation 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.
December 13, 1991
Date
Signature Brad W. Krouskup
33.
34.
For
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
A California Limited Partnership
The Project site as it currently exists is discussed in detail in the previously submitted
Environmental Site Assessment dated No%ember 7, 1991, performed by E2C, Inc. (Environmental/
Engineering Consultants). The site is flat and soil stability appears to be adequate for
conventional construction (refer to pages 4 and 5, Section 4.0 of report). There is no
significant plant or animal life present on the site and no-historical or cultural significance
(~efer to pages 8-10, Section 6.0). There are two existihg structures on the site which are
described on Page 3, Section 3.0 of the attached report.
The project site is located at a major intersection with surrounding properties used primarily
by commercial buildings. Commercial office buildings are located immediately to the south and
east of the site. Residential properties are located to the southeast of the project site along
Esther Street. Land use and building scale varies from high rise residential and mid rise
commercial to single story residential.
3 of 3 pages
CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSUKE FORM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING COMMISSION
II.
IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE,
CHECK HERE, AND SIGN BELOW IN SECTION III.
TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE
HAVE BEEN MADE.
YOUR NAME:
YOUR ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO:
APPLICATION #
PROJECT ADDRESS:
ZIP:
III.
LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT
MADE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND
THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
DATE(S):
AMOUNT(S):
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
DATE(S):
AMOUNT(S):
(2)
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
atu~e ~f' Applicant/Agent)
(3)
CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING COMMISSION
II.
~ CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE,
CHECK HERE, AND SIGN BELOW IN SECTION III.
TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE
HAVE BEEN MADE.
YOUR NAME: ~,+,,~ ~ ~.. ~ ,+~6~v~ ~,4-~- . ~ ~ _ ~ ~r~.~','+,,
YOUR ~DRESS: ,~/c ~g~ '
TELEPHONE NO: ( q,~ ~ ECg, ZIP: '7(~
#
III.
LIST COMMISSION MEMBER(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OR YOUR AGENT
MADE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE, AND
THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
DATE(S):
AMOUNT(S):
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
DATE(S):
AMOUNT(S):
(2)
NAME OF MEMBER:
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR
(if other than yourself):
~(~ ~re o~Applica.~t/Agent)
(3)
(Dat~:z ~A~---~
I iTY OF I AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
9ZF'EEIId AB: 42
Department: ~0U~: ;'d~':C
Planning ~¥~~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RE~E~W:~ERIOD
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell,
California, will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brad
Krouskup, on behalf of Campbell-Gateway Square, Ltd., for approval of an
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan changing from
Public/Semi-Public to Commercial; and, approval of a Zone Change from PF
(Public Fadlities) to C-2-S (General Commercial), for property located at 10-70 East
Hamilton Avenue and 1620-1670 South Winchester Boulevard (southeast corner
of East Hamilton Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard). A Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this proposal. APN: 279-37-088. Planning
Department File Nos. GP 91-06 and ZC 91-04.
Notice is further given that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project. This certifies that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated
with the associated project. Copies of the Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and
other documentation are available for review at the Planning Department,
located at 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. The Public Review period
for this Negative Declaration ends on March 23, 1992. All written comments
should be received by the Campbell Planning Department by this date.
The Public Hearing on the projects will be held during the Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 1992. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m., in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised
that if you challenge the City's decision on this matter in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Campbell Planning Department, at or prior to, the Public Hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please call the Planning
Department at (408) 8602146. Refer to the ~tbove-rn'e~tioned file number(s).
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF CAMPBELL
STEVE PIASECKI, AICP, SEC~TARY
February 3, 1992
TO: MICHELLE QUINNEY
FROM: GARY KRUGER~~_~
RE: CAMPBELL GATEWAY TRAFFIC STUDY
I have reviewed the traffic study submitted January 29, 1992
by Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc. to support the application for
a general plan amendment and zone change at the southeast corner
of Hamilton and Winchester.
The study is complete and responsive to the issues discussed
with the proponents and their consultants. The completed
analysis, however, shows LOS E for both southbound left turns and
outbound left turns at the Winchester driveways, both south and
north. This is because of the huge traffic volumes for northbound
Winchester. Even if a refuge lane is established for the outbound
left turns, and even if southbound left turns are prohibited at
the north driveway, the outbound LOS remains at E, although it is
improved over the condition shown in the traffic report.
As you are aware, we have not approved driveway access for
left turns if the LOS is E, because such conditions represent
more than delay; in fact, LOS E for unsignalized conditions also
represents an increased traffic hazard as frantic drivers start
accepting shorter and shorter gaps in traffic.
The project proponents say that they must have left turns in
at all costs, and they could live with right turns out on
Winchester (as they will have to do as well on Hamilton).
I would suggest project mitigation which would accommodate
the desired left turns in and out. This mitigation would be the
interconnection of Latimer and Winchester with Hamilton so that
northbound traffic (which is the problem for the inbound as well
as outbound left turns) can be synchronized so that there are
sufficient gaps in traffic to allow such turns. This is the same
strategy used for Kirkwood Plaza, and our coordination plan for
Winchester (which no longer incorporates Latimer and Hamilton)
resulted in significant gaps in northbound traffic which would
allow adquate levels of service for the left turns. Therefore, I
would have them contribute the $1,000 to the Winchester
Interconnect, contribute $1,500 to the Hamilton Interconnect 2
and 3 projects, and fully pay for interconnecting the signal at
Hamilton and Winchester with the signal at Latimer and
Winchester. At $25.00 per foot, this would represent
approximately $30,000 including equipment.
Toen iskoet ter &Breedi Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San Jose, California 9S 126
(408) 246-3691
CONSTRUCTION Lic NO 434020
Hand Delivered
Mr. Steve Piasecki, AICP
Planning Director
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
January 29, 1992
JAN g
Re:
Southeast Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Application for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Dear Steve:
I am writing to follow up the meeting we had with you, Tim Haley, Gary Kruger
and our traffic engineer, Barton-Aschman Associates, on January 22, 1992. As
you know, on December 17, 1991 we submitted our application for a General
Plan and Zoning Change for the above referenced property. On January 14,
1992 we received Tim Haley's letter, together with Gary Kruger's memorandum
dated January 9, 1992, asking that Barton-Aschman provide additional traffic
analysis.
I have enclosed Barton-Aschman's revised Transportation Impact Analysis dated
January 29, 1992 which responds to Gary Kruger's memorandum of January 9,
1992, as well as Gary's memorandum of January 17, 1992, the traffic issues we
discussed in our meeting on January 22, 1992, and the numerous conversations
between Gary and Barton-Aschman. The communication between Gary and Jane
Bierstedt at Barton-Aschman has been critical to successfully analyze our
project and existing traffic conditions. We certainly appreciate Gary's
effort and input.
It is our understanding that the supplemental information provided in the
enclosed report will complete our General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Application. We hope that every effort can be made to have our proposal
reviewed by the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
A Calif~9~Wf~ Limited Partnership
& Breeding Inc.
w! K o .skup
~At~Ccutive VicePresident
Development
CC:
Tim J. Haley, Planner II
Gary Kruger, Public Works Department
Jane Bierstedt, Barton-Aschman Assoc.
Cary A. Fox, O'Connor Hospital
Charles J. Toeniskoetter
Deke Hunter, Jr.
Attachment #7
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE
HAMILTON AVENUE AND WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
TBI Hunter-Storm
Prepared by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
January 29, 1992
Contents
Chapters
!
2
3
4
$
Introduction
Project Setting
Project Impact Analysis
Project Mitigation Measures
Final Project Description and Report Summary
Appendix
Page
1
5
16
29
3O
Tables
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Transit Service near Hamilton and Winchester
Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Trip Generation Equations
Trip Generation Estimates
Future Intersection Levels of Service
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Driveway Levels of Service
8
12
13
19
20
24
26
27
Figures
1 Site Location
2 Site Plan
3 Transit Service Map
4 Pedestrian Facilities
5 Existing Traffic Volumes
6 Lane Geometrics
7 Background Traffic Volumes
8 Project Traffic Volumes
9 Cumulative Traffic Volumes
10 Driveway Volumes
2
3
7
10
11
14
17
21
22
25
1 - 92 .TI A/5911.06.02
Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis conducted for
the proposed Campbell-Gateway Square development in Campbell, California. The
analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines described in the document,
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis
Methodology. The proposed project will contain 28,300 s.f. of retail space and a
20,000-s.f. medical office building. The project site is located on the southeast corner of
the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The site location is
shown on Figure 1. Access to the site would be provided by two full-access driveways
on Winchester Boulevard, and partial-access driveways on Hamilton Avenue and
Esther Avenue. The proposed site plan is presented on Figure 2.
The purpose of the transportation impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the
proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The key
intersections analyzed include those from the Santa Clara County Congestion Manage-
ment Agency's (CMA) list of intersections on which the project may contribute one
percent or more of the peak-hour capacity. The key intersections are:
Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 ltamp/Salmar Avenue
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 ltamp/Creekside Way
Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue.
I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. I
In~roducgon
The impacts of the project on the operating conditions of the key intersections were
evaluated with level of service calculations conducted for the following scenarios for
both the AM and PM peak hours:
Sce.~,-io 1: Existing Conditions--F,-i~ti,~g vol-roes.
Scena,-io 2: Background Conditions--Existing volumes and tr~c projections
from approved developments.
Scen,~io 3: Project Conditions--Tr~t'~c vol-roes for background cauditions
plus project tr~t71c.
ScenR~-io 4: Cumulative Conditions--Background vol-,~es plus expected
growth plus project traffic.
Other issues that were addressed as part of this study include:
· Neighborhood intrusion from the site to Esther Avenue,
· Site access, and
· The projected parld,~g demand incorporating the concept of
shared parking.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 4
Project Setting
The transportation system serving the site, the existing tr~c vol-roes, and the
operating conditions of the key intersections are described in this chapter. Existing
tr~f~c volumes were obtained through turning-movement counts received from the
City of Campbell for the two peak periods. Intersection operations were evaluated
using the CAPSSI-IO intersection level of service software package.
Existing Transportation System
The existing transportation system comprises the roadway system, tree,it service,
bikeway system, and pedestrian facilities.
Roadway System
Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 880 (I-880)/SR 17 and 1-280.
Access to the site from SR 17 is provided via the Hamilton Avenue interchange. Access
to the site from 1-280 is provided via the Winchester Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue
interchanges.
1-880/SR 17 is a four- to eight-lane north/south highway that connects the project site
to Fremont, Osk]and, Santa Cruz, and other cities.
1.280 is a eight-lane east/west freeway with high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the
project vicinity. 1-280 provides regional access from the site to San Jose and the San
Francisco Peninsula.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 5
Project Setting
Roadways that provide local access to the site are described below:
Hamilton Avenue is a six-lane divided arterial that forms the northern bouna~y of the
site. It extends through the City of C~mpbeU from West C,~mpbell Avenue, near
Saratoga Avenue in the west, to Pine Avenue in the east. In the vi~,~ty of the site, it
is primarily lined with commercial uses.
Winchester Boulevard is a four- to six-lane major arterial that for~ the western
boundary of the site. Land uses along Winchester Boulevard are primarily commercial.
San Tomas Expressway is a six-lane (including HOV lanes) expressway that extends
from Camden Avenue in the south to Montague Expressway in the north.
Salmar Avenue is a two-lane north/south roadway that connects Hamilton Avenue to
Harrison Avenue. At Hamilton Avenue, it is located opposite the SR 17 southbound
off-r~mp.
Creekside Way is a five-lane street that connects Hamilton Avenue to C~mpisi Way. At
Hamilton Avenue, it is located on the opposite side of the street from the SR 17
northbound on-ramp.
Bascom Avenue is a six-lane major arterial that ~m~ in a north/south direction to the
east of the site.
Esther Avenue is a two-lane street lined with residential land uses directly adjacent to
the site.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service comprises local transit and regional transit service.
Local Transit Service
Local transit service to the site is provided by the Santa Clara County Transportation
Agency (SCCTA). SCCTA operates one express bus route (Route 101) and three local
bus routes (Routes 60, 61, and 82) near the site. Routes 60 and 61 operate on Winche-
ster Boulevard. Route 82 operates on Hamilton Avenue. Route 101 operates on
Hamilton Avenue west of the site and Winchester Boulevard south of the site.
Figure 3 shows the bus routes and bus stops in the vicinity of the site (wi~.hln a one-
quarter mile radius). Table 1 describes the service frequencies.
i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 6
Project Setting
Regional Transit Service
Caltr~n.~ operates CalTr~in commuter rail service between San Jose and San Francis-
co. The San Jose CalTrain/AMTRAK station is the closest station to the site (at a
distance of approximately four miles). Trains operate between 5:00 AM and 11:30 PM.
Headways vary from 30 minutes to two hours.
Existing Bikeway System and Pedestrian Facilities
The existing pedestrian facilities comprise siclew~li~ and the Los Gatos Creek Trail.
Their locations are shown on Figure 4. There are no designated bicycle lanes on the
streets surround]lng the site. In the City of C~mpbell, all arterials with curb lanes of
15 feet in width, or more, with no parking or with a minim-m width of 23 feet with
parking are considered Class 3 bikeways. Class 3 bikeways are mixed bike-vehicle
lanes with no special striping per Caltrans standards. In general, the streets sur-
rounding the site meet these criteria. The Los Gatos Creek Trail, shown on Figure 4,
is a bicycle facility as well as a pedestrian facility.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the key intersections were obtained from the City of Campbell.
Vol-roes were received for both AM and PM peak hours. The turning-movement
volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are presented on Figure 5.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted to evaluate the existing operating
conditions of the intersections. Level of service is a qualitative description of an
intersection's operating level ranging from Level A, or free-flow conditions with little
or no delay, to Level F, or j~mrned conditions with excessive delay. Delay is a measure
of driver frustration, fuel cons-mption, and lost travel time. Descriptions of the
various levels and their corresponding ranges of delay are found in Table 2.
The level of service methodology used for thi.~ study (CAPSSI-10) is based on the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual Operations and Design method. In addition to evaluating
the intersection's delay as a whole, the critical movement delay and the intersection
capacity utilization (ICU) are also evaluated. The delays, LOSs, and ICU values at
each intersection under existing AM and PM peak-hour conditions are shown in
Table 3. The ex/sting lane configurations used in the calculations are shown on
Figure 6.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 9
Table 2
Intersection
Level of
Service
Level
of Service Definitions Based on Delay
Description
Average
Stopped Delay
Per Vehide
(Sec.)
Project Setting
A
B
C
D
E
-F
Operations with very Iow delay. No approach phase
is fully utilized and no vehicle waits longer than one
red indication.
Stable operations with slight delay. An occasional
approach phase is fully utilized.
Stable operations with acceptable delay. A few
ddvers may have to wait through one signal cycle.
Operations approaching unstable flow with longer,
tolerable delay. Many vehicles stop, and individual
cycle failures are noticeable.
Unstable operations with intolerable delay, and long
queues form.
Stop-and-go operation with excessive delays. Traf-
fic may backup into upstream intersections.
Less than 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
Greater than 60.0
Source:
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209 (Washington, D.C., 1985), pp. 9-4--9.5.
~ Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 12
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
Peak Delay
Hour (Secs.) LOS ICU
Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway
Project Setting
CMP LOS
Standard
AM 43 E 0.79 E
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Salmar Avenue
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Creekside Way
Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue
PM 47 E 0.81
AM 23 C 0.54
PM 39 D 1.00
AM 24 C 0.70
PM 38 D 1.01
AM 7 B 0.56
PM 7 B 0.61
AM 37 D 1.01
PM 34 D 0.91
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
LOS = Level of Service.
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 13
t
Project Setting
The City of C~mpbell defines an acceptable level of service as Level of Service D or
better. The CMP LOS standard for the intersection at H~milton Avenue and Bascom
Avenue is LOS F. The standard for the remaining intersections is LOS E.
Under existing conditions, four of the intersections are operating at LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of H~milton Avenue and
San Tomas Expressway is operating at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak
hours. All of the intersections operate at their CMP LOS standard or better than their
CMP LOS standard.
At the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 southbound off-r~mIl/S~lmar
Avenue, the northbound right-turn movement operates concurrently with the west-
bound left-turn movement. The level of service calculation method (CAPSSI-10)
accommodate these overlapping movements. Therefore the delay and LOS values in
Table 3 are conservative for this intersection.
i Barton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 15
Project Impact Analysis
This chapter describes the process used to estimate the ~mount of project traffic and
the presents results of the evaluation of the impacts of this traffic on the surrounding
roadway system. The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the intersec-
tion levels of service for future conditions without the project (background conditions)
to future conditions with the project (project conditions). Traffic vol-roes for back-
ground conditions comprise existing volumes plus vol-rnes for approved but not yet
constructed developments. The results of the intersection level of service calculations
for cumulative conditions (including future growth) are also presented in this chapter.
Site-specific issues such as site access, parking, and neighborhood intrusion are
addressed. A discussion of the impacts of closing the Esther Avenue driveway is
presented.
Background Traffic Volumes
Background traffic volumes include existing vol-roes plus projected vol-roes from
approved but not yet constructed developments in the project vicinity. One of these
approved developments is the Home Depot to be located on the H~m~]ton High School
site. The AM and PM peak-hour volumes for background conditions are presented on
Figure 7.
Project Traffic
The three-step process of trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment was
used to estimate project tr~f~c. In the first step, trip generation, the ~mount of tm~c
entering and exiting the site is estimated. The directions from which this traffic
approaches the site and to which it departs the site, and the percentage of project
traffic using each direction, are estimated in the trip distribution step. In the trip
assignment step, the project traffic is assigned to the specific intersection turning
i Barton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 16
I
Project Impact Analysis
movements and roadway segments. These steps are described in detail in the following
paragraphs.
Trip Generation
The Amount of traffic entering and exiting a development is estimated by applying
appropriate trip generation rates or equations and inbound/outbound splits to the size
of the component land uses. The trip generation equations and inbound/outbound
splits for the land uses in the proposed project are presented in Table 4. The source of
the equations is the 5th Edition of the Institute of Tr~-~portation Engineers (ITE)
publication Trip Generation.
Some of the retail trips entering and exiting the site will be diverted from tr~t~c
already passing the site. Percentages of passer-by trips are also presented in Table 4.
The retail passer-by rate is estimated to be 25 percent. This rate is based on informa-
tion in the ITE Trip Generation manual.
The trip generation equations, inbound/outbound splits, and passer-by rates were
applied to the various land uses in the project to estimate the n-tubers of trips added
to the surrounding roadway system. The results are presented in Table 5. The project
is estimated to add 2,960 daily trips, 121 AM peak-hour trips, and 297 PM peak-hour
trips to the surrounding roadway system.
Trip Distribution
The directions of approach and departure for project traffic were estimated from the
existing travel patterns in the area. It is estimated that 25 percent would approach
from/depart to the north on Winchester Boulevard, 25 percent to/from the south on
Winchester Boulevard, 30 percent to/from the east on Hamilton Avenue, and 20
percent to/from the west on H~milton Avenue.
Trip Assignment
The net-generated trips were assigned to the roadway segments and intersection
turning movements in the vicinity of the site. The results for the proposed project are
presented on Figure 8.
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
To project traffic volumes for cumulative conditions, the traffic volumes for background
conditions were increased with an Annual growth rate of three percent per year for
Hamilton Avenue, San Tomas Expressway, and SR 17 ramps, and an Annual growth of
1.5 percent per year for Winchester Boulevard and Bascom Avenue, for one year.
These growth rates were provided by the City of CAmpbell. The tr~iBc estimates for
the proposed project were added to these estimates. The results are presented on
Figure 9.
I Barton. Aschman Associates, Inc. 18
Project Impact Analysis
Future Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection level of service calculations were conducted for baclr~round, project, and
c-mulative conditions. There are no pl~ned roadway improvements in the area so the
existing lane cont~gnrations were used in the calculations. The progression factors for
the eastbound and the westbound through and right-turn movements for all intersec-
tions except H~milton Avenue at San Tomas Expressway were reduced to 0.61 to
account for the signal interconnect system to be implemented for H~m~lton Avenue.
The progression factors for northbound Bascom Avenue were also reduced to 0.61. The
results of the level of service calculations are presented in Table 6.
Slight improvements in the delays between existing and background conditions are
shown at some of the intersections due to the signal interconnect system on H~m~lton
and on Bascom Avenues. All of the intersections are projected to operate at the s~me
levels of service under background conditions as under existing conditions with the
exception of H~milton Avenue and S.lmar Avenue in the PM peak hour, which will
change from LOS D to LOS E (see note ' in Table 6). The levels of service are the
same under project conditions as under background conditions with the exception of
H-milton Avenue at Winchester Boulevard, which changes from LOS D to borderline
LOS D/E during the PM peak hour. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E
under cumulative conditions. There are no further changes under cumulative
conditions.
Project Impacts
In the City of C~mpbell, a project is considered to have a significant adverse impact if
it causes an intersection operating at LOS D or better to operate at LOS E or F or if it
adds greater than two seconds of delay to an intersection operating at LOS E or F
prior to the addition of project traffic. According to this definition, the project will not
have a significant impact.
According to the CMP, a project has a significant adverse impact if it causes a CMP
intersection to exceed its LOS standard or if it causes a greater than one percent
increase in the ICU of an LOS F intersection. The proposed project will not violate the
LOS standards at any of the CMP intersections.
Site Access
Access to the site is proposed to be provided by four driveways-two full-access
driveways on Winchester Boulevard, a right-turn-in and -out driveway on H~milton
Avenue, and a right-turn in/left-turn out driveway on Esther Avenue. The estimated
turning movements at the driveways under project conditions are shown on Figure 10.
These volumes include passer-by trips.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Projec~ Irnpacl Analysis
A queue length analysis was conducted to determine if northbound vehicles on
Winchester Boulevard tur~ing lei~ to westbound I-J~ml]ton Avenue or proceeding
straight through the intersection would back up and block the two driveways on
Winchester Boulevard. The proposed driveways are located approximately 300 feet and
450 feet south of H~milton Avenue. The average m~mum queue length (maxim~m
queue divided by the number of lanes) for the northbound lef~ turns obtained from the
CAPSSI-10 output is 275 feet (11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). The average maxi-
m-m queue length for the northbound through movement is 250 feet (10 vehicles at 25
feet per vehicle) per lane. There are two northbound through l~nes. The northern
driveway may be blocked if the vehicles in the northbound through movement queue
are not evenly divided between the two lanes.
Level of service calculations were conducted to project the operating conditions of the
driveways. The level of service method for unsignalized intersections found in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual was used in this analysis. The levels of service of the
controlled movements (left turns from the major street and all driveway movements)
are based on the reserve capacities of those movements. Reserve capacity is defined as
the number of additional vehicles capable of msklng that movement given the
estimated n-tuber of gaps or bre~.~ in the accommodating traffic stream. Reserve
capacity thresholds for the various levels are presented in Table 7. The results of the
level of service calculations are presented in Table 8.
Table 7
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Reserve Capacity
Service Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic (PCPH)'
A Little or no delay. Greater than 400
B Short traffic delays. 300 to 399
C Average traffic delays. 200 to 299
D Long traffic delays. 100 to 199
E Yen/long traffic delays. 0 to 99
F Demand exceeds capacity resulting in extreme de- Less than 0
lays and queuing.
'PCPHtPassenger Cars per Hour
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209
(Washington, D.C., 1985), pp. 9-10.
i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 26
Project Impact Analysis
Table 8
Driveway Levels of Service
Driveway
Peak
Period Movement
Reserve
Capacity LOS
Hamilton Avenue
AM Right turn out of D/W
626 A
Winchester Boulevard North
Winchester Boulevard South
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Right turn out of D/W
Left turn out of D/W
Right turn out of D/W
Left turn into D/W
Left turn out of D/W
Right turn out of D/W
Left turn into D/W
Left turn out of D/W
Right turn out of D/W
Left turn into D/W
Left turn out of D/W
Right turn out of D/W
Left turn into D/W
475 A
53 E
567 A
258 C
7 E
327 B
71 E
61 E
578 A
274 C
34 E
390 B
109 D
D/W = Driveway
The driveway on Homilton Avenue is projected to operate at LOS A during both the
AM and PM peak hours. Left-turns out of the site from the two driveways on
Winchester Boulevard are projected to operate at LOS E, or with very long delays.
This may cause a redistr/bution of project traffic. Some may divert to Esther Avenue
and Latimer Avenue to turn left to southbound Winchester Boulevard. Another
possibility is that project traffic may turn right onto northbound Winchester Boulevard
and make a U-turn at HAmilton Avenue.
TrAfBc turning left into the site at the northbound Winchester Boulevard driveway
during the PM peak hour is also projected to operate at LOS E. This may cause traffic
approaching the site from the north and from the west to use the H~mi]ton Avenue
driveway.
The driveway on Esther Avenue is projected to accommodate approximately 50
vehicles in the PM peak hour. This tr~t~c is projected to approach the site from
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
27
Project Impact Analysis
H~milton Avenue to the east and will be turning right into the site and left out of the
site. No problems are envisioned due to the light driveway vol-roes.
Landscaping near the driveways should be less than 36 inches in height to allow
drivers of vehicles exiting the site to safely see oncoming vehicles.
Parking Analysis
The City of C~mpbell's code requirements are one paring space per 225 s.f. of medical
office building and retail floor area. This yields a total parking requirement of 231
spaces. The site plan, dated January 27, 1992, shows a parking supply of 231 spaces.
The code does not take into consideration the concept of shared parking. Shared
parking can reduce the overall parking demand of a mixed-use development through
the captive market effect (a medical office building employee shopping at the retail
center) and through the variations in pe~klng characteristics of the different uses.
There is not a preponderance of data for the proposed uses at the C~mpboll-Gateway
Center. Most available data are for general office buildings, not medical office build-
ings, and for regional retail centers, not neighborhood shopping centers. However, it is
reasonable to ass-me that the mix of uses will allow some reduction in the overall
parking demand.
Neighborhood Intrusion
Esther Avenue, which forms the eastern boundary of the site, provides access from the
residential neighborhood, to the east and south of the site, to H~milton Avenue. While
the driveway is proposed to be striped to allow left-turns out only, there is no physical
barrier provided on the site plan to prohibit traffic from doing so. It is estimated that
approximately 250 vehicles per day could be added from C~mpbell-Gateway Square to
Esther Avenue south of the site. One way to minimize neighborhood intrusion of
project traffic would be to construct a right-turn restriction out of the site.
Esther Driveway Closure
The driveway on Esther Avenue is projected to bo used by vehicles approaching
from/departing to the east on H~milton Avenue. Closing this driveway will force these
vehicles to continue on H~rnilton Avenue to Winchester Boulevard and to make a
U-turn to use the H~milton Avenue driveway or turn left and use one of the
Winchester Boulevard driveways. This will add more traffic to an intersection project-
ed to operate on the borderline between LOS D and E during the PM peak hour.
However, these vehicles will be added to a non-critical movement and therefore not
directly affect the intersection's level of service.
I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 28
m
Project Mitigation Measures
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on any of the key intersections
according to the City of C~mpbell's policy or to the CMA policy. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required. However, the City of C~mpbell has plgn.~ to interconnect
the tr~t~c signals on Winchester Boulevard to improve the traffic flow on this facility.
Since the project will add tr~fBc to Winchester Boulevard, it is recommended tlmt the
project sponsors pay their fair share of this improvement. The fair share is calculated
as the percentage of the total cost equivalent to the percentage of project tr~t~c ss
compared to the background plus project traffic at the intersection of Winchester
Boulevard and HAmilton Avenue. The project will add 169 vehicles to the intersection
in the PM peak hour. This is two percent of the total volume (169/8,052). The cost of
the interconnect system is estimated to be $50,000. Therefore, the project sponsors
should contribute $1,000.
In addition, the project sponsors should encourage their tenants to use carpools and
transit. This could particularly be effective in reducing the n-~ber of trips generated
by the employees of the medical office building and the retail buildings.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 29
Final Project Description and Report Summary
The Campbell-Gateway Square development contains a 20,000-s.f. medical office
building and 28,300 s.f. of retail space. This project is estimated to add 2,960 daily
vehicle trips, 121 AM peak-hour vehicle trips, and 297 PM peak-hour vehicle trips to
the surrounding roadway system. These additional vehicles will not cause a
impact on the surrounding roadway system. It is recommended that the project
sponsors contribute $1,000 toward interconnecting the traffic signals on Winchester
Boulevard and set up a program to encourage the tenants to use carpools and
Approval of this project shall not cause a violation of any of the CMP standards.
Barton.Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 30
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
From:
Subject:
Tim Haley, Planning Department Date: January 17, 1992
Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer ~ ~. ~~
Supplemental Information - Campbell Gateway Traffic Study
Enclosed is additional information for Barton Aschman,
the traffic consultant on this project. It includes:
Marked copies of the latest CAPPSI printouts of capacity
calculations delivered to me on January 16, 1992.
Supplemental capacity calculations using NCAP at
Hamilton and Salmar because the Congestion Management
Agency capacity software is unable to accurately assess
levels of service at this intersection.
Aerial photos and other design information for
Winchester and Hamilton.
I also have spoken with Jane Bierstedt of Barton Aschman
about the marked-up capacity calculations. Basically, I have
advised her that studies we have taken regarding saturation
flow in double left turn lanes show higher saturation flow
rates and also rather uniform queuing in these lanes.
Therefore, the downward adjustment of saturation flow for
double left turn lanes (while correct in terms of Capacity
Manual procedures) may not be warranted where I have
indicated higher flow rates. I have also called out a minor
adjustment in progression adjustment factors for northbound
Bascom because our studies show that coordination is
potentially very good for this movement. Basically, with a
few adjustments, the volumes and calculations appear to be
correct.
I have also asked Jane to calculate impacts of the
proposal without any access onto Esther, and to more
completely discuss the potential for cut-through traffic if
full access is permitted with an Esther driveway.
The aerials and plans of Winchester and Hamilton will
allow Barton Aschman to assess the feasibility of further
intersection improvements should there be significant impacts
from the project. For your information, it appears that none
of the standards of the Congestion Management Agency are
GEK: CMBLMEMO.387
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 17, 1992
Page
violated in these latest calculations, and the suggested
changes I am making in the enclosed materials will further
improve the estimated operating conditions.
As you know this is the first study we will submit to
the Congestion Management Agency, and this is the main reason
my comments on the original traffic study were so extensive
in my January 9, 1992 memo to you. The standard traffic
analysis for this project would normally conclude that the
project could not be completed within the level of service
standards of the Congestion Management Agency (ie. that the
traffic impacts were unacceptable, and that no real
mitigation is possible). My review was oriented to avoiding
this outcome if possible, and so I emphasized the use of
obscure technical procedures and refinements not usually
considered in such a traffic analysis. We assumed this
particular project would undergo an iterative process between
the consultant and city staff until we are all sure that the
project impacts can be fully mitigated and also avoid
violation of Congestion Management Agency standards. The fact
that it now looks possible is a compliment to the
consultant's diligence, not a criticism.
enclosures
cc:
Joan Bollier
Michelle Quinney
GEK: CMBLMEMO.387
( ITY Ol CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department: Planning
January 13, 1992
Brad Krouskup
Campbell-Gateway Square
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding Inc.
1960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Re:
Application Completeness
GP 91-06/ZC 91-04
10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and
1620-1690 South Winchester Boulevard
Dear Brad:
The Planning Department has reviewed the above referenced General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change application for completeness. Based upon
this review, the application has been found to be incomplete, in that the
traffic analysis associated with the proposal does not adequately evaluate the
proposed land use change.
Please find attached a memorandum from Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer,
outlining the concerns and comments regarding the prepared traffic analysis.
To ensure proper environmental review, an amended report should be
prepared as soon as possible.
Prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of this application, it will
be necessary that this environmental docttment is completed.
CITY OF I AMPBEtt
Mr. Brad Krouskup
Re: GP 91-06/ZC 91-04
January 13, 1992
Page Two
If you should have any questions regarding the necessary information to
complete the application, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or
Gary Kruger at 866-2154.
Sincerer,
Tim I. Haley
Planner II
tjh:lb
a:gp91-06
Attachments:
1. Memorandum from Gary Kruger, dated January 9, 1992
Deke Hunter
Hunter Properties
20725 Valley Green Drive, Suite 100
Cupertino, CA 95014
Cary A. Fox
O'Connor Hospital
2105 Forest Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Michelle Quinney, Public Works Department
Gary Kruger, Public Works Department
Jane Bierdstedt
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450
San Jose, CA 95113
giTY OF gAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
FAX # (408) 379-2572
Department:
Planning
January 10, 1992
Jane Bierdstedt
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450
San Jose, CA 95113
Re:
Traffic Impact Analysis
Campbell-Gateway Square
10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and
1620-1690 South Winchester Boulevard
Dear Jane:
Please find attached a memorandum summarizing the review of the traffic
impact analysis prepared for Campbell-Gateway Square. Based upon this
review, the City of Campbell raises a number of concerns as related to the
specific text and data presented in the report. I am forwarding the attached
memorandum pursuant to Gary Kruger's request.
If you should have any questions regarding the information presented in this
memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact Gary at 866-2154.
Sincerely,
Tim J. Haley
Planner H
tjh:lb
a:gp91-06
Attachment:
1. Memorandum dated January 9, 1992
2. Computer disk prepared by Traffic Engineer
cc: Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer (w/o attachments)
MEMORANDUM
To:
Tim Haley, Planning Dept.
Date:
From:
Subject:
Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer
CITY OF CAMPBELL
January 9, 1992 ,!/~ 0 !i 1992_
Results of Review of Campbell-Gateway Square Traffic Analysis
I have completed my review of the Campbell-Gateway
Square Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Brad W. Krouskup
on December 20, 1991. I have extensive comments, some of
which are related to specific text and data in the report and
others of a more general nature regarding how to proceed from
this point. Finally, I have developed additional information
for the consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., for
their use in evaluating levels of service as well as in
finding mitigation for project impacts consistent with
Congestion Management Agency requirements.
I spoke with Jane Bierstedt earlier this morning
regarding my review, and she is aware of the general
conclusions I have reached. She has suspended technical work
on the study pending receipt of this memo and attachments.
A. Comments Related to Report Text and Data
General: Ail pages should be numbered. Several pages with
figures (eg. Figure 2 on page 6, etc.) lack page
numbers.
Page 1: If the proposed use includes a fast food restaurant
within the potential retail uses, it should be
mentioned because the trip generation
characteristics are quite different from general
retail.
Page 6: Route 126 proceeds through Hamilton as do Routes 60
and 61, I think.
Page 8: The Los Gatos Creek Trail is accessible from
Hamilton Avenue and is near enough to the site to
warrant inclusion as a bikeway system facility
(also include in Figure 3, page 9). Additionally,
all arterials in the vicinity with no parking and
curb lanes 15 feet wide or more (or curb lanes with
parking 23 feet wide or more) are considered to be
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 9, 1992
Page 2
Class 3 bikeways. Ail local and collector streets
in the vicinity should be considered as Class 3
bikeways. Class 3 bikeways are mixed bike-vehicle
lanes with no special striping per Caltrans
standards. All streets meeting the above criteria
should be identified as bikeways.
Page 10: Figure 4 traffic volumes are incorrect. I have
attached corrected copies of Figure 4 to this memo.
Page 12: The Hamilton Avenue intersections with SR 17 at
Salmar and at Creekside are Congestion Management
Agency intersections with a LOS Standard of E
(Table 3).
Page 13: Lane geometrics for eastbound right turns should
show a separate eastbound right turn lane onto
southbound Salmar rather than the shared through-
right in Figure 5. The lane is unstriped, but the
curb to lane-line distance is 20 feet and is used
as a separate right turn lane during peaks.
Page 14: The background p.m. peak traffic volumes appear to
be incorrect for Hamilton and Bascom. There are
negative increments from existing volumes for
northbound through and rights, for westbound
through, and for southbound through and rights. I
have attached a copy of Figure 4 indicating the
specific data which are questionable.
Page 15: Related to the Page 1 comment, if it is known that
a fast food restaurant is to be included in the
retail uses, the trip generation rates will need to
be adjusted. This is consistent with the
recommended procedures for calculating trip
generation for mixed uses in the 4th Edition of
Trip Generation. To the extent that trip generation
changes, appropriate modifications should be made
to Tables 4 and 5 on pages 18 and 19 respectively.
Page 17: Volume growth rates of 3% are appropriate for
Hamilton Avenue and the San Tomas Expressway and
Highway 17 ramps. Volume growth rates of 1.5% are
appropriate for Winchester and Bascom. These rates
are derived from an analysis of traffic counts from
1977 through 1991 using regression analysis. The r2
for both growth rates exceeds 0.95 and can be
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 9, 1992
Page 3
considered valid.
Page 20: Traffic volumes at each driveway at the site should
also be shown (both driveway and street volumes).
In addition, levels of service for each of the
turning movements into and out of the driveway
should be calculated using the 1985 Hiqhway
Capacity Manual, unsignalized intersection
analysis. Any computer program such as HCS or NCAP
are acceptable for this analysis should the
consultant not wish to perform the manual
calculations.
Page 22: The progression adjustment factors should be
adjusted. I have additional details in other
sections of this memo regarding how the consultant
might proceed here.
Page 22: The change in traffic volumes in Figure 4, any
changes in background traffic volumes in Figure 6
and any cumulative traffic volume adjustments due
to different growth rates will change the
discussion of Project Impacts significantly.
Page 22: The curbed northbound left turn lane for Winchester
at Hamilton extends 220 feet south of Hamilton.
With a full-access driveway only 275 feet south of
Hamilton, there is insufficient transition and
storage for southbound left turns, for example. We
will need a more extensive traffic engineering
analysis before we can permit a full-access drive
at this location.
Page 23: The LOS and seconds of delay shown for Hamilton and
Bascom (Cumulative) do not agree with the CAPPSI
output appended to the report. There may be other
discrepancies, but I decided not to check because
the volumes in all calculations will change all
CAPPSI output anyway. Care should be taken in the
final report to match output with tabular values
summarized in the report.
Page 23: The LOS F at Hamilton and Salmar will require a
deficiency plan if the LOS truly stays at F for
cumulative traffic impacts plus the project. For
all similar findings in the revised calculations,
the consultant should notify me prior to publishing
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 9, 1992
Page 4
the final report so that we can discuss an
appropriate deficiency plan should one be needed.
Other:
The TJKMgraphics showing volumes for the Home
Depot Traffic Study are in error. These pages might
be better deleted from the report. This is one of
the reasons for the incorrect traffic volumes used
in this study. A review of the Home Depot traffic
analysis shows that the correct volumes were used,
so the error in that report is restricted to
graphics.
B. How the Consultant Might Proceed
Because several of the CMA intersections are near
capacity, it is likely that project impacts alone, or project
impacts plus cumulative traffic will exceed the various
standards established by the Congestion Management Agency,
especially if default values for capacity calculations are
used in CAPPSI.
The Congestion Management Agency has formally adopted
two, somewhat conflicting guidelines. They are: 1) that LOS
will be based upon the 1985 Hiqhway Capacity Manual methods,
and 2) that certain default values in CAPPSI are to be used.
One of the reasons for adopting the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual LOS methodology was so that traffic operations
improvements could be used as mitigation measures, something
which the "TRC 212" methods normally are not responsive to. I
have enclosed two references for the consultant, a copy of a
1991 article from ITE Journal called "Traffic Progression
Assessment in Traffic Impact Studies," and a copy of page 9-
20, Table 9-13, "Progression Adjustment Factor, PF" from the
Capacity Manual. In addition I have included a disk of the
TRANSYT 7F network for the Hamilton Interconnect System (and
a graphic showing the node numbering scheme). The disk,
corrected volumes and the like can be used by the consultant
to refine LOS calculations at critical intersections.
Unfortunately, the volumes in the T7F model are for a.m.
peaks, and the model is not calibrated. Accordingly, use of
the model should only be for determination of appropriate
progression adjustment factors. Both directions on Hamilton
Avenue should be considered subject to coordination east of
Winchester. West of Winchester, only the westbound direction
can be considered to be coordinated. This is because the
Hamilton Interconnect System ends at Winchester rather than
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 9, 1992
Page 5
Carlyn or Llewellyn to the west. Additionally, northbound
traffic on Bascom should be considered to be coordinated.
North and southbound traffic on Winchester are not
coordinated because the Winchester Interconnect System will
extend south from Campbell Avenue only.
The consultant should note that progression adjustment
factors for actuated control can be set at 0.85 as a default
value. I have included a CAPPSI calculation for CMA default
values for PF at 1.00 and for the Capacity Manual default
value of 0.85. As can be seen, the LOS for p.m. peak
operation at Hamilton and Winchester changes from E to D with
the new values. I believe the Congestion Management Agency
must accept these values because I believe that the Capacity
Manual values are more valid than the default values in the
CAPPSI program, and the City of Campbell will argue this
point when the study is transmitted to CMA.
C. Possible Deficiency Plans
The consultant noted that an interconnect project is
programmed in the 1991-92 CIP for Campbell that will extend
the Hamilton Interconnect System to the west to include
Hamilton at Llewellyn, and Hamilton at Carlyn. This will
allow a potential change in the progression adjustment factor
for eastbound Hamilton at Winchester, and this alone may be
sufficient to mitigate project and cumulative impacts.
Otherwise, there are very few capacity-increasing
strategies available for the Hamilton intersections, because
we have added all the lanes we can possibly have, and are
also implementing state-of-the-art traffic controls. Any
deficiency plan for unacceptable impacts from the project, or
from the project plus cumulative impacts will need to be
developed by improving other areas of the CMA system. The
major location for such an improvement in the San Tomas
Expressway at Highway 17. Should a deficiency plan be needed,
I would suggest that the plan focus in this area, because
substantial system improvements in LOS are possible with
relatively minor improvements.
Attach:
Corrected peak volumes, Figure 4
Possible errors, Figure 6
"Traffic Progression Assessment in Traffic Impact
Studies," ITE Journal, May, 1991
Page 9-20, 1985 Hiqhwa¥ Capacity Manual
CAPPSI calculations for Hamilton & Winchester, p.m.
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Tim Haley, Planning Department
January 9, 1992
Page 6
peak, with 1.00 and 0.85 progression
adjustment factors
Link numbering, T7F Hamilton Interconnect Model
Enclosure:
3.5" disk with T7F Network input and output
GEK: CMBLMEMO.386
Toen iskoetter 8d3reedin$ Inc.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San lose, California 95126
(408) Z46- 3691
DEVELOPMENT
Hand Delivered
December 20, 1991
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Attention: Mr. Tim Haley
RE:
Campbell-Gateway Square
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Tim:
Please find enclosed the Traffic Impact Analysis for our project
at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. If you
have any questions, please feel free to call me or Jane Bierstedt
at Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (408)280-6600.
Sincerely yours,
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE,
AByCa~Limited//)~o.~~ Partnership_.
~J~ad-W.~rouskup
BWK:le
Enclosure
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450
San Jose, California 95113
USA
December 10, 1991
Phone: (408) 280-6600
Fax: (408) 280-7533
Mr. Gary Kruger
City of CAmpbell
70 North 1st Street
CAmpbell, CA 95008
DEC ! 3 1991
Public Works/Engineering
Re: TIAR Form for Hamilton and Winchester Center
Dear Mr. Kruger:
Enclosed is a copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements Form. We have
filled in some of the information for your convenience. Please fill-in the remaining
information and forward it to adjacent cities and the Santa Clara County CMA as per
CMA regulations.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
[ Jane A. Bierstedt
~',,._~Senior Associate
cc.'
Deke Hunter
Hunter Properties
91.12'929/5911.06.01
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
CAMPBELL-GATEWAY SQUARE
HAMILTON AVENUE AND WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
TBI Hunter-Storm
Prepared by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
December 20, 1991
Contents
Chapters
Page
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction
Project Setting
Project Impact Analysis
Project Mitigation Measures
Final Project Description and Report Summary
Appendix
1
4
15
25
26
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
Transit Service near Hamilton and Winchester
Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Trip Generation Equations
Trip Generation Estimates
Future Intersection Levels of Service
7
11
12
18
19
23
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Site Location
Transit Service Map
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing Traffic Volumes
Lane Geometrics
Background Traffic Volumes
Project Traffic Volumes
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
2
6
9
10
13
16
20
21
12-91.TIA/5911.06.02
Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis conducted for
the proposed Campbell-Gateway Square development in Campbell, California. The
analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines described in the document,
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis
Methodology. The proposed project will contain 28,000 s.f. of retail space and a 20,000-
s.f. medical office building. The project site is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The site location is shown
on Figure 1. Access to the site would be provided by full- access driveways on Winche-
ster Boulevard and Esther Avenue, and a partial-access driveway on Hamilton
Avenue.
The purpose of the transportation impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the
proposed development on transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The key
intersections analyzed include those from the Santa Clara County Congestion Manage-
ment Agency's (CMA) list of intersections on which one percent or more of peak-hour
capacity will be composed of project-generated traffic. Other key intersections were
determined by the City of Campbell. The key intersections are:
Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway*
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard*
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Salmar Avenue
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Creekside Way
Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue.*
* CMA intersections
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. I
Introduction
The impacts of the project on the operating conditions of the key intersections were
evaluated with level of service calculations conducted for the following scenarios for
both the AM and PM peak hours:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions--Existing vol-roes.
Scenario 2: Background Conditions-Existing vol-roes and traffic projec-
tions from approved developments.
Scenario 3: Project Conditions-Traffic volumes for background conditions
plus project traffic.
Scenario 4: Future Conditions--Background volumes plus expected growth
plus project traffic.
Other issues that were addressed as part of this study include:
· Neighborhood intrusion from the site to Esther Avenue,
· Site access, and
· The projected parking demand incorporating the concept of
shared parking.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 3
m
Project Setting
The transportation system serving the site, the existing trsMc conditions, and the
operating conditions of the key intersections are described in this chapter. Existing
traMc vol-roes were obtained through turning-movement counts received from the
City of Campbell for the two peak periods. Intersection operations were evaluated
using the CAPSSI-10 intersection level of service software package.
Existing Transportation System
The existing transportation system comprises the roadway system, transit service,
bikeway system, and pedestrian facilities.
Roadway System
Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 880 (I-880)/SR 17 and 1-280.
Access to the site from SR 17 is provided via the H~milton Avenue interchange. Access
to the site from 1-280 is provided via the Winchester Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue
interchanges.
1-880/SR 17 is a four- to eight-lane north/south highway that connects the project site
to Fremont, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and other cities.
1-280 is a eight-lane east/west freeway with high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the
project vicinity. 1-280 provides regional access from the site to San Jose and the San
Francisco Peninsula.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 4
Project Setting
Roadways that provide local access to the site are described below:
Hamilton Avenue is a six-lane divided arterial that forms the northern boundary of the
site. It extends through the City of Campbell from West Csmpbell Avenue, near
Saratoga Avenue in the west, to Pine Avenue in the east. In the vicinity of the site, it
is primarily lined with commercial uses.
Winchester Boulevard is a four- to six-lane major arterial that forms the western
boundary of the site. Land uses along Winchester Boulevard are primarily commercial.
San Tomas Expressway is a six-lane (including HOV lanes) expressway that extends
from CAmden Avenue in the south to Montague Expressway in the north.
Salmar Avenue is a two-lane north/south roadway that connects HAmilton Avenue to
Harrison Avenue. At Hamilton Avenue, it is located opposite the SR 17 southbound
off-rsmp.
Creekside Way is a five-lane street that connects H~milton Avenue to CAmpisi Way. At
HAmilton Avenue, it is located on the opposite side of the street from the SR 17
northbound on-rsmp.
Bascom Avenue is a six-lane major arterial that runs in a north/south direction to the
east of the site.
Esther Avenue is a two-lane street lined with residential land uses directly adjacent to
the site.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service comprises local transit and regional transit service.
Local Transit Service
Local transit service to the site is provided by the Santa Clara County Transportation
Agency (SCCTA). SCCTA operates two express bus routes (Routes 101 and 126) and
three local bus routes (Routes 60, 61, and 82) near the site. Routes 60 and 61 operate
on Winchester Boulevard. Route 82 operates on HAmilton Avenue. Route 101 operates
on H~milton Avenue west of the site and Winchester Boulevard south of the site.
Route 126 operates on Winchester Boulevard south of the site. Figure 2 shows the bus
routes and bus stops in the vicinity of the site (within a one-quarter mile radius).
Table I describes the service frequencies.
Barton-Aschman Associates, /nc. 5
Project Setting
Regional Transit Service
Caltrans operates CalTr~in, commuter rail service, between San Jose and San Fran-
cisco. The San Jose CalTrain/AMTRAK station is the closest station to the site (at a
distance of approximately four miles). Trains operate between 5:00 AM and 11:30 PM.
Headways vary from 30 minutes to two hours.
Existing Bikeway System and Pedestrian Facilities
The existing pedestrian facilities comprise sidewal]~.~. Their locations are shown on
Figure 3. There are no bikeways or bike paths in the vicinity of the site.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic vol-roes for the key intersections were obtained from the City of Campbell from
the traffic analysis for the proposed Home Depot. Counts were received for both AM
(7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods. The turning-
movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are presented on Figure 4.
Summaries of the turning-movement counts for all periods are presented in the
Appendix.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted to evaluate the existing operating
conditions of the intersections. Level of service is a qualitative description of an
intersection's operating level ranging from Level A, or free-flow conditions with little
or no delays, to Level F, or jsmmed conditions with excessive delays. Delay is a
measure of driver frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Descriptions of
the various levels and their corresponding ranges of delay are found in Table 2.
The level of service methodology used for this study (CAPSSI-10) is based on the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual Operations and Design method. In addition to evaluating
the intersect-ion's delay as a whole, the critical movement delay and the intersection
capacity utilization (ICU) are also evaluated. The delays, LOSs, and ICU values at
each intersection under existing AM and PM peak-hour conditions are shown in
Table 3. The existing lane configurations used in the calculations are shown on
Figure 5.
The City of C-mpbell defines an acceptable level of service as Level of Service D or
better. The CMP LOS standard for the intersections of H~milton Avenue at San
Tomas Expressway and Hamilton Avenue at Winchester Boulevard is LOS E. The
standard for the intersection at Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue is LOS F.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 8
Proje~ Se~ng
Table 2
Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay
Average
Stopped Delay
Level of Per Vehicle
Service Description (Sec.)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Operations with very Iow delay occurring with favor-
able progression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with Iow delay occurring with good pro-
gression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures begin to appear.
Operations with longer delays due to a combination
of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or
high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual
cycle failures are noticeable.
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ra-
tios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occur-
rences. This is considered to be the limit of accept-
able delay.
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression,
or very long cycle lengths.
Less than 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
Greater than 60.0
Source:
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209 (Washington, D.C., 1985), pp. 9-4--9.5.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 11
Project Setting
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
Peak Delay CMP LOS
Hour (Secs.) LOS ICU Standard
Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway
Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Salmar Avenue
Hamilton Avenue and SR 17 Ramp/Creekside Way
Hamilton Avenue and Bascom Avenue
AM 43 E 0.79 E
PM 53 E 0.81 E
AM 31 D 0.83 E
PM 30 D 0.77 E
AM 28 D 0.70
PM 44 E 1.01
AM 8 B 0.59
PM 14 B 0.81
AM 34 D 0.93 F
PM 36 D 0.91 F
LOS = Level of Service.
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
12
Project Setting
Under existing conditions, three of the intersections are operating at LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of H~milton Avenue and
San Tomas Expressway is operating at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak
hours. Hsmilton Avenue at Sa]mar Avenue operates at LOS D during the AM peak
hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. The CMP intersections operate at their
LOS standard or better than their LOS standard.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 14
m
Project Impact Analysis
This chapter describes the process used to estimate project traffic and the results of
the evaluation of the impacts of this traffic on the surrounding roadway system. The
impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the intersection levels of service
for future conditions without the project (background conditions) to future conditions
with the project (project conditions). Traffic volumes for background conditions
comprise existing volumes plus volumes for approved but not yet constructed develop-
ments. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for cumulative
conditions (including future growth) are also presented in this chapter. Site-specific
issues such as site access, parking, and neighborhood intrusion are also addressed.
Background Traffic Volumes
Background traffic volumes include existing volumes plus projected volumes from
approved but not yet constructed developments in the project vicinity. One of these
approved developments is the Home Depot to be located on the Hamilton High School
site. The AM and PM peak-hour volumes for background conditions are presented on
Figure 6.
Project Traffic
The three-step process of trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment was
used to estimate project traffic. In the first step, trip generation, the amount of trsffic
entering and exiting the site is estimated. The directions from which this traffic
approaches the site and to which it departs the site and the percentages of traffic
using each direction are estimated in the trip distribution step. In the trip assignment
step, the project traffic is assigned to the intersection turning movements and roadway
segments. These steps are described in detail in the following paragraphs.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 15
Project Impact Analysis
Trip Generation
The amount of traffic entering and exiting a development is estimated by applying
appropriate trip generation rates or equations and inbound/outbound splits to the size
of the component land uses. The trip generation equations and inbound/outbound
splits for the land uses in the proposed project are presented in Table 4. The source of
the equations is the 5th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation.
Some of the retail trips entering and exiting the site will be diverted from traffic
already passing the site. Percentages of passer-by trips are also presented in Table 4.
The retail passer-by rate is estimated to be 25 percent. This rate is based on informa-
tion in the ITE Trip Generation manual.
The trip generation equations, inbound/outbound splits, and passer-by rates were
applied to the various land uses in the project to estimate the numbers of trips added
to the surrounding roadway system. The results are presented in Table 5. The project
is estimated to add 2,940 daily trips, 121 AM peak-hour trips, and 297 PM peak-hour
trips to the surrounding roadway system.
Trip Distribution
The directions of approach and departure for project traffic were estimated from the
existing travel patterns in the area. It is estimated that 25 percent would approach
from/depart to the north on Winchester Boulevard, 25 percent to/from the south on
Winchester Boulevard, 30 percent to/from the east on Hamilton Avenue, and 20
percent to/from the west on Hsmilton Avenue.
Trip Assignment
The net generated trips were assigned to the roadway segments and intersection
turning movements in the vicinity of the site. The results for the proposed project are
presented on Figure 7.
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
To project traffic volumes for cumulative conditions, the traffic volumes for background
conditions were increased with an annual growth rate of three percent per year for one
year. The traffic estimates for the proposed project were added to these estimates. The
results are presented on Figure 8.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 17
Project Impact Analysis
Future Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection level of service calculations were conducted for background, project, and
c]]mulative conditions. There are no plsnned roadway improvements in the area so the
existing lane configurations were used in the calculations. The progression factors for
the westbound through and right-turn movements were reduced to 0.8 to account for
the signal interconnect system to be implemented for westbound Hsmilton Avenue.
The results of the level of service calculations are presented in Table 6.
Slight improvements in the delays between existing and background conditions are
shown at some of the intersections due to the signal interconnect system on Hsmilton
Avenue. All of the intersections are projected to operate at the s~me levels of service
under background conditions as under existing conditions with the exception of
Hsmilton Avenue and Creekside Way in the PM peak hour, which will change from
LOS B to LOS C. The levels of service are the s~rne under project conditions as under
background. One intersection, Hamilton Avenue at Ss]mar Avenue, will deteriorate
from LOS E to LOS F under c]~mulative conditions during the PM peak hour.
Project Impacts
In the City of Csmpbell, a project is considered to have a significant adverse impact if
it causes an intersection operating at LOS D or better to operate at LOS E or F or if it
adds greater than two seconds of delay to an intersection operating at LOS E or F
prior to the addition of project traffic. According to this definition, the project will not
have a significant impact.
According to the CMP, a project has a significant adverse impact if it causes a CMP
intersection to exceed its LOS standard or if it causes a greater than one percent
increase in the ICU of an LOS F intersection. The proposed project will not violate the
LOS standards at any of the CMP intersect/ons.
Site Access
Access to the site will be provided by four driveways--two full-access driveways on
Winchester Boulevard, a right-turn-in and -out driveway on Hsmilton Avenue and a
full-access driveway on Esther Avenue. A queue length analysis was conducted to
determine if the vehicles turning left from northbound Winchester Boulevard to west-
bound Hsmilton Avenue would block the two driveways on Winchester Boulevard. The
proposed driveways are located approximately 275 feet and 450 feet south of H~milton
Avenue. The maximum queue length for the northbound left turns obtained from the
CAPSSI-10 output is 125 feet (5 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). The driveways should
not be blocked.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 22
Project Impact Analysis
No problems are envisioned at the right-turn-in and -out only driveway on Hamilton
Avenue. This driveway is projected to accommodate appro×imately 70 vehicles during
the PM peak hour. This low volume does not require acceleration nor deceleration
lanes.
The driveway on Esther Avenue is projected to accommodate approximately 70
vehicles in the PM peak hour. Most of this traffic will approach the site from H~milton
Avenue to the east and will be turning right into the site and left out of the site.
Again, no problems are envisioned.
Landscaping near the driveways should be less than 36 inches in height to allow
drivers of vehicles exiting the site to safely see oncoming vehicles.
Parking Analysis
The City of C~mpbell's code requirements are one parking space per 200 s.f. of medical
office building and retail floor area. This yields a total parking requirement of 240
spaces.
The code does not take into consideration the concept of shared parking. Shared
parking can reduce the overall parking demand of a mixed-use development through
the captive market effect (a medical office building employee shopping at the retail
center) and through the variations in peaking characteristics of the different uses.
There is not a preponderance of data for the proposed uses at the Winchester H~mil-
ton Center. Most available data are for general office buildings, not medical office
buildings, and for regional retail centers, not neighborhood shopping centers. However,
it is reasonable to assume that the mix of uses will allow some reduction in the overall
parking demand.
Neighborhood Intrusion
Esther Avenue, which forms the eastern boundary of the site, provides access from the
residential neighborhood to the east and south of the site to H~milton Avenue. It
would be possible for traffic from the project to use Esther Avenue to enter this
neighborhood. One way to minimize neighborhood intrusion of project traffic would be
to construct the driveway with a right-turn restriction out of the site.
Barton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 24
am
Project Mitigation Measures
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the key intersections.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, the traffic volumes on the
surrounding roadway system are approaching the capacity of the system and the
project will contribute to this. The City of Campbell has plans to interconnect the
traffic signals on Winchester Boulevard to improve the traffic flow on this facility. It is
recommended that the project sponsors pay their fair share of this improvement. The
fair share is calculated as the percentage of the total cost equivalent to the percentage
of project traffic as compared to the background plus project traffic at the intersection
of Winchester Boulevard and I-I~milton Avenue. The project will add 179 vehicles to
the intersection in the PM peak hour. This is 3 percent of the total volume (179/6,606).
The cost of the interconnect system is estimated to be $50,000. Therefore, the project
sponsors should contribute $1,500.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 25
Final Project Description and Report Summary
The Cnmpbell-Gateway Square development contains a 20,000-s.f. medical office
building and 28,000 s.f. of retail space. This project is estimated to add 2,940 daily
vehicle trips, 121 AM peak-hour vehicle trips, and 297 PM peak-hour vehicle trips to
the surrounding roadway system. These additional vehicles will impact the surround-
ing roadway system by increasing the delays at two intersections by one second. These
impacts are insignificant and therefore mitigation measures are not required. Howev-
er, it is recommended that the project sponsors contribute $1,500 toward interconnect-
ing the traffic signals on Winchester Boulevard. Approval of this project shall not
cause a violation of any of the CMP standards.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 26
Appendix
Phase I Preliminary Site Assessment
San Tomas School Site
Campbell, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Phase I Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA) performed at
the San Tomas School Site in Campbell, California. The site is an approximate 13-acre
parcel located at 1510 Hacienda Avenue as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1, and
Site Plan, Figure 2.
The purpose of this investigation has been to assess conditions or activities at or near the site
which could indicate the potential presence of hazardous materials in the shallow soil or
ground water at the site. It is understood that the proposed development will consist of 36
single-family residential houses serviced by local water and sewer agencies. A 4-acre park is
proposed for the southeastern corner of the site. Our firm has concurrently conducted a
geotechnical investigation for this site, the results of which are presented in a report titled,
"Geotechnical Investigation, San 'Tomas School" dated November 11, 1994.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of work for this study consisted of a site reconnaissance performed on November
3, 1994; research of regulatory agency lists of known contaminated sites; evaluation of
available historic aerial photographs of the site; an electromagnetic survey of the site for
underground tanks; review of a previous asbestos survey; and review of previous reports and
files. Research for the PSA focused on present and past site and near-vicinity conditions and
activities which could indicate the potential presence of hazardous materials in the on-site soil
or ground water. Articles, documents, and a list of aerial photographs reviewed during this
investigation are presented at the end of this report. The results of the asbestos study review
are submitted under a separate cover.
This investigation was performed under the direction of Dennis Laduzinsky, C.E.G./R.E.A.
Mr. Laduzinsky is registered as an Environmental Assessor by the State of California.
K985-G reports\27971
11-14-94
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Reconnaissance
The site is located in the southwest section of Campbell, California. The site is generally
rectangular in shape, and is bounded by Hacienda Avenue to the north, Abbott Avenue to the
east, Pollard Road to the south, and Smith Creek, which runs along the western border of the
subject site. The properties adjacent to the subject site are residential developments.
The southern two-thirds of the site is occupied by little-league baseball fields with a gravel
parking lot in the southeast comer. Four school buildings are located on the northern third
of the site, surrounded by blacktop or landscaped areas. Other features of the site include
irrigation control valve piping, fencing for little league fields, dugouts and concession stands,
and an aboveground cement storm-water culvert housing Smith Creek which extends along
the western border of the site.
The surface of the southern two thirds of the site is predominantly grass and dirt. The south-
central portion of the site was covered with wood chips and several 30- to 40-foot high trees,
including a large palm and a 48-inch oak. The little league fields were variously bordered
by rows of trees.
The school buildings are abandoned, and contain various office and school equipment, much
of which is tagged as if for auction. Some rooms have been vandalized. The three larger
buildings house classrooms, and the northernmost building houses the former kitchen and
auditorium. The buildings are generally surrounded by asphalt playground and parking areas
as well as concrete walkways and grass and dirt surface areas.
3.2 Electromagnetic Survey
Our field investigation included an electromagnetic survey of the site, performed by an
underground utility locating service. The survey revealed the presence of an old septic tank
adjacent to the former kindergarten area of the San Tomas School, and an unidentified, buried
metallic object, measuring approximately 20 feet by 20 feet, in the northern paved parking
area along Hacienda Avenue.
K985-G repo~\27971
11-14-94 2
3.3 Geology and Hydrogeology
The site is generally underlain by unconsolidated to semi-consolidated alluvial deposits of
sand, silt, clay, and gravel to a depth of several hundred feet. Soils encountered in
exploratory borings performed during our firm's geotechnical investigation generally
consisted of firm to hard silt and clay extending to depths of about 21/2 to 10 feet. The
surface materials were underlain by interbedded medium dense to very dense sand and gravel
and very stiff to hard silt and clay which extended to the maximum depth explored of about
45 feet.
Ground water was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation. However, based on
regional topography and consultant engineering reports for nearly sites, shallow ground water
in the site vicinity generally flows to the north or northeast, with seasonal low water
occurring at a depth below 40 feet.
4.0 SITE HISTORY
We reviewed aerial photographs from our files and at Pacific Aerial Surveys in Oakland,
California to assess the changes in land use since 1954; the earliest available aerial
photographs. In the photographs from 1954, the San Tomas School buildings are visible on-
site, as well as several other structures including a house and possibly a barn associated with
a residence along Pollard Road. The area around the residence is occupied by orchard trees
which occupy the southern third of the site. Three baseball diamonds are visible in the
central portion of the site. The area surrounding the subject site is occupied by orchard land
and residences on large lots.
Photographs from 1960 and 1966 show the orchard land on-site becoming smaller until 1971
when orchard trees are no longer visible on-site. The surrounding properties also contain
fewer orchards, and some show residential development.
In the photograph taken in 1974, the on-site residence is no longer visible, having been
replaced by baseball diamonds. Development continues in the area around the subject site,
including a shopping center and gasoline station located northeast of the site at the corner of
Hacienda Avenue and Burrows Road.
K985-0 reports~27971
i 1-~4-~4 3
Photographs from 1976 through 1988 show further development and fewer orchards in the
vicinity of the subject site. In the photograph from 1990, the gasoline station to the northeast
is no longer visible. Much of the surrounding properties had been converted into residential
developments, though some larger single-residence lots remain. The subject site remains
unchanged. In the photo from 1992, the subject site appears in its current condition.
The aerial photograph review did not indicate the presence of obvious on-site contamination
sources.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
5.1 Site Environmental Conditions
The subject property is not listed on any government agency lists of known contaminated
sites reviewed during this investigation (Appendix A). Our review of existing site conditions
and electromagnetic survey of the property indicated the presence of several areas of
potential environmental concern. These potential concerns include the presence of a septic
tank and an unidentified buried metallic object on the grounds of the former San Tomas
School, and the presence of fluorescent light fixtures in the existing school buildings. A less
significant concern is the potential presence of residual pesticides in shallow soil related to
the previous on-site agricultural activities.
The electromagnetic survey of the property revealed the presence of an old septic tank
adjacent to the kindergarten area of the school. The septic tank could be of concern if
volatile organic compounds (solvents or paint thinners, etc.) were ever discharged to the
system in significant quantities.
The electromagnetic survey also revealed the presence of an approximate 20 by 20 foot,
buried metallic object in the northern parking area of the San Tomas School. The nature of
the magnetic anomaly is not known with certainty, but could indicate the presence of buried
underground storage tanks (USTs). No obvious evidence of USTs, such as fill caps or vent
pipes were noted during our site reconnaissance.
K985-G reports\2'/971
11-14-94 4
A previous environmental assessment report prepared for the property by ECOS, Inc.,
indicated the presence of fluorescent lightly fixtures that contain polychorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) in the on-site school buildings. These fixtures also contain mercury vapor tubes.
Both the PCB containing light ballasts and the mercury vapor tubes are regulated hazardous
materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act. These materials should be removed and
disposed of as hazardous waste.
The previous orchard use of the southern portions of the site indicates that residual pesticides
might be present in shallow soils at the site. No historical records or information on
pesticide use were available at the Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner's Office.
However, given that agricultural activities have not occurred on site in over 20 years,
residual pesticide levels, if present, would not be expected to be significant.
An old pit well, 3-feet in diameter and 100-feet deep is reported to have existed in the
vicinity of the former residence along Pollard Road. The well has reportedly been inactive
since 1913, and a field check performed in 1975 by the Santa Clara Valley Water District
found no surface evidence of the well. The well is assumed to have been abandoned and
filled with native material.
5.3 Regional Environmental Conditions
Information on regional environmental conditions is derived from a variety of government
agency sources. To assess whether sites with documented environmental problems exist
within 1 mile of the site, we reviewed several regulatory agency lists as described in
Appendix A.
In addition, we reviewed regulatory agency files for specific information regarding listed
sites identified in this report. The review indicates that there are a total of five agency-listed
sites within a 1 mile radius of the San Tomas School Site. Appendix A includes the names
and addresses of the agency-listed sites, along with a brief discussion of each site based on
information from regulatory agency files. Based on our review, none of the listed sites
appear to have the potential to impact soil or ground water quality at the subject site.
K985-G reports'~27971
11-14-94
6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This investigation included a preliminary site assessment to identify areas of environmental
concern within the site and near vicinity. In addition, an electromagnetic survey of the site
was conducted to determine the presence of any USTs. Based on our investigation, the
subject site appears to have been used for orchard land in the past, and is currently occupied
by buildings associated with the former San Tomas School, and several little-league baseball
fields.
An electromagnetic survey of the property revealed the presence of an old septic tank at the
San Tomas School. The septic tank could be of concern if volatile organic compounds
(solvents or paint thinners, etc.) were ever discharged to the system in significant quantities.
Additional evaluation the potential impact of the septic tank is recommended.
The electromagnetic survey of the property also indicated the presence of a large buried
metal object in the paved parking area along Hacienda Avenue. The magnetic anomaly
measures approximately 20 feet by 20 feet, and could indicate the presence of one or more
USTs. Additional evaluation of the magnetic anomaly is recommended.
The existing school buildings have fluorescent light fixtures which contain PCB-bearing
ballasts and mercury vapor bulbs, and contain localized areas of asbestos-containing building
materials. These materials should be removed and properly disposed .of prior to demolition.
Based on the extent of time that has passed since the site was used as orchard land, it does
not appear that residual pesticides represent a significant environmental concern at the site.
Our investigation did not reveal the presence of other environmental conditions at the site
that would negatively impact residential development of the property.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The purpose of an environmental assessment is to reasonably evaluate the potential for or
actual impact of past practices on a given site area. In performing an environmental
assessment, it is understood that a balance must be struck between a reasonable inquiry into
the environmental issues and an exhaustive analysis of each conceivable issue of potential
concern. The following paragraphs discuss the assumptions and parameters under which
such an assessment (which may include professional opinions) is conducted.
K985-G r~xn~\27971
11-14-94 6
No investigation is thorough enough to absolutely rule out the presence of hazardous
materials at a given site. If hazardous conditions have not been identified during the
assessment, such a finding should not therefore be construed as a guarantee of the absence of
such materials on the site, but rather as the result of the services performed within the scope,
limitations, and cost of the work performed.
Environmental conditions may exist at the site that cannot be identified by visual observation.
Where subsurface work was performed, our professional opinions are based in part on
interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations that may not represent actual
conditions at unsampled locations.
Except where there is express concern of our client, or where specific environmental
contaminants have been previously reported by others, naturally occurring toxic substances,
potential environmental contaminants inside buildings, or contaminant concentrations that are
not of current environmental concern may not be reflected in this document.
Where the scope of services is limited to interview and/or review of readily available reports
and literature, any conclusions, and/or recommendations are necessarily based largely on
information supplied by others, the accuracy or sufficiency of which may not be
independently reviewed by us.
Any opinions and/or recommendations presented apply to site conditions existing at the time
of performance of services. We are unable to report on or accurately predict generally
unforeseeable events which may impact the site following performance of services, whether
occurring naturally or caused by external forces. Therefore, we cannot assume responsibility
of such events or their impact.
We also cannot assume responsibility for changes in environmental standards, practices, or
regulations.
K985-O reports~27971
11 - 14-94
REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs
Pacific Aerial Surveys: Panchromatic Vertical Aerial
Flight No. Date Scale
AV4230-123, 78/79
AV3845-21, 90/91
AV3324-08, 25/26
AV2485-09, 21/22
AV2153-02, 22/23
AV1905-09, 21/22
AV1277-09, 21/22
AVl 138-09, 19/20
AVl006-09, 18/19
AV710-14, 43/44
AV385-09, 10/11
AV129-05, 26/27
July 15, 1992
July 26, 1990
June 28, 1988
July 1, 1984
July 7, 1982
July 2, 1980
October 4, 1976
April 28, 1974
August 11, 1971
April 21, 1966
August 22, 1960
February 25, 1954
Contacts:
Central Fire District (Campbell)
Contacts: Joyce Cosce
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Contact: John West
Santa Clara County Agricultural Commission
Contact: Matt Beauregard
Santa Clam County Department of Public Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
Santa Clam Valley Water District
Contacts: Lori Mascovich
Ellen Fostersmith
Warhan Stejer
Linda Dom
Ramona Ramstead
Zoey Dias
1:12 000
1:12,000
1:12 000
1:12 000
1:12 000
1:12 000
1:12,000
1:12,000
1:12,000
1:36,000
1:36,000
1:9,600
K985-G I~nms\27971
11-14-94
REFERENCES (continued)
Contacts (continued)
West Valley Sanitation District
Contact: Jonathan Lee
Publications and Reports:
California Department of Health Services (BRDR ZONE), dated April 1994.
California EPA, Calsites Database (AWP), dated May 1994.
California EPA, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - CORTESE, November 1992.
California EPA, Toxic Substances Control Division, Calsites Database (ASPIS), dated May 1994.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS),
"Closed, Inactive and Active Landfills", dated March 1993.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SOUTH BAY), dated April 1994.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Division of Loans/Grants (TOXIC PITS),
dated January 1994.
California Water Resources Control Board, Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database
(UST/AST), dated January 1994.
California Water Resources Control Board, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident
Reports (LUST), dated April 1994.
U.S. EPA Superfund Program, (CERCLIS), dated August 1994.
U.S. EPA National Priorities List (NPL), dated May 1994.
U.S. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA-TSD), dated June 1994.
U.S. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Violations and Enforcement Actions
(RCRA VIOLATIONS), dated June 1994.
U.S. EPA RCRA Corrective Action Sites List (CORRACTS), dated January 1994.
K985-G r~m~s\27971
~ ~-~4-~4 ii
REFERENCES (continued)
U.S. EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), dated June 1994.
U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS), dated August 1993.
Geotechnical Investigation, San Tomas School Site, Campbell California, Harza 1994.
K985-G reportsk27971
11-14-94 iii
FIGURES
DESCRIPTIONS OF AGENCY-LISTED SITES
Site No 1, Tabacc0 Bros., 1811 Abbgtt Avenue
The site is a residential home and ranch located approximately 0.1 mile north of the subject
site. Three underground storage tanks (500- and 350-gallon gasoline tanks, and a 1000-
gallon diesel tank) were removed on April 5, 1988. The tanks had been used to store fuel
for cars and trucks used on the property.
Three holes were nOted in the 350-gallon tank when it was removed, and closure samples
collected from the soil beneath the tanks contained up to 790 ppm TPHg and 17 ppm TPHd.
The soil contamination was determined to be isolated as no TPH was detected in the soil
after excavating to 10-feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the USTs.
The case was closed on January 7, 1991, and does not represent a potential impact to soil or
ground water quality at the subject site.
Site No. 2, Rolling Hills Dry_ Cleaners, 1325 Hacienda Avenue
The site is located in the Rolling Hills shopping center at the corner of Hacienda Avenue and
Burrows Road, approximately 0.1 mile northeast of the subject site. The site is listed as a
large generator on the EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as generating at least
1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste, or 1 kg/month of acutely hazardous waste.
The site has not received any notice of violation of regulatory requirements, and does not
represent a potential impact to ground water quality at the subject site.
Site No. 3, Decorative Concrete Products, 1492 Westmont Avenue
The site is a one-story residence located approximately 0.15 mile north of the subject site.
No information on the site was available at the local agencies contacted. Because the site is
down-gradient from the subject site, and because no agency correspondence was available
indicating violations of regulatory requirements, the site does not appear to represent a
potential impact to ground water quality at the subject site.
Site No. 4. Chevron Station//90489. 1255 Hacienda Avenue
The site is the location of a former Chevron station located approximately 0.21 mile east /
northeast of the subject site. In 1984, monitoring wells were installed on-site. One 10,000-
gallon gasoline tank, one 5,000-gallon gasoline tank, and one 550-gallon waste oil tank were
removed from the site on April 17, 1989. TPHg was not detected in closure soil samples
collected from beneath the gasoline tanks, but 10 ppm total oil and grease was detected in the
soil beneath the waste oil tank.
K985-G
n-14-~4 Page 1 of 2
Ground water flow at the site is reported to flow to the southwest toward the subject site,
however, other sites in the vicinity report ground water flow to the north, northeast, and
northwest. In addition, surface waters in the area flow into San Francisco Bay to the north,
and Smith Creek, adjacent to the site, flows to the north as well. It is our opinion that one
of the monitoring wells at the site may have been improperly surveyed, producing a ground
water elevation measurement much lower than the actual elevation.
A letter requesting closure of the site was submitted to the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) on July 30, 1990. The SCVWD requested that another monitoring well be
installed, and that more information be provided before authorizing case closure. An update
was provided on May 24, 1994, and closure is again pending as of June 14, 1994. The site
does not appear to represent a potential impact to ground water quality at the subject site.
Site No. 5, Judas Property, 1213 Smith Avenue
The site was formerly owned by Bruno Brartyzel and located at 880 San Tomas Aquino
Road, an address which no longer exists. The site was previously a gas station located
approximately 0.43 mile northeast of the subject site. In February 1985, five tanks were
removed: one 10,000-gallon, two 4,000-gallon, and one 6,000-gallon fuel tanks; and one
waste oil tank. Closure samples taken from beneath the former USTs detected TPHg at
concentrations ranging from 11 tO 7,500 ppm. In January 1992, soil samples were collected
from below the previous excavation, and were found to contain up to 66 ppm TPHg and up
to 899 ppb benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX).
Ground water has been identified as flowing north, northeast, and northwest at the subject
site, and occurs at a depth of 15 to 16.5 feet below ground surface. As of July 1994, six
ground water monitoring wells had been installed at the site. Water samples collected from
one well contained up to 14 ppm TPHg, and 22 ppb BTEX. It is suspected that site
contamination is being contributed to by a plume of contamination originating from a site to
the south. A letter from the SCVWD dated October 15, 1994 proposes installation of
another down-gradient well to determine the extent of ground water contamination at the site.
Because the site is down-gradient from the subject site, we believe that the site does not
represent a potential impact to ground water quality at the subject site.
K985-O repotns\27971
n-14-~ Page 2 of 2
LEVEL I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1650 SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
FOR
O'CONNOR HOSPITAL
Environmenta~Engineering Consultants
November 7, 1991
Job No. 3750100
O'Connor Hospital
2105 Forest Avenue
San Jose, CA 95120
ATTN:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Maryanne Hayes
LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1650 South Winchester Boulevard
Campbell, California
Dear Ms. Hayes:
Pursuant to your authorization, E2C, Inc. has completed a Level I Environmental
Site Assessment of the building and property located at 1650 South Winchester
Boulevard, Campbell, California, as outlined in our proposal dated October 21,
1991. Based on our inspection and review of past and present site information,
we conclude that as of the preparation of this report, there is no evidence to
indicate that environmental contamination exists on the property as a result of past
or present on-site or off-site activities. Results of our investigation, conclusions
and recommendations are outlined on page 15.
Should you have any questions or require supplemental information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Claudia C. Hirotsu
Environmental Research Specialist
- '- 1- '~
Kendall W. Price, CEG/REA
President
12c-~] Erc~ssm~n Avenue, Suite c~]l] · Sunngv-~le. E~lif~rni~ ~4DB~ · [40~] 747-1414 · FAX [4019] 745-108.g
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................. 2
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...................... 3
SITE CONDITIONS ................................... 4
4,1 Geologic Setting ................................ 4
4.2 Hydrologic Setting .............................. 4
4.3 Meteorologic Study .............................. 5
FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................ 6
5.1 Site Inspection ................................. 6
5.2 Off-Site Reconnaissance .......................... 7
DOCUMENT RESEARCH ............................... 8
6.1 Site History ................................... 8
6.2 Historical Aerial Photographs ....................... 9
6.3 Agency Listed Sites of Environmental Concern .......... 1 1
ASBESTOS ....................................... 14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 15
LIMITATIONS ..................................... 16
REFERENCES ..................................... 1 7
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
TABLE I
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
SITE LOCATION MAP
SITE PLAN
TOXIC/FUEL CASES LOCATION MAP
LIST OF CONTAMINATED SITES WITHIN A 1-MILE RADIUS
OF 1650 SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD, CAMPBELL,
CALIFORNIA
CURRENT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
E2C, INC. PROPOSAL DATED OCTOBER 21, 1991
1.0 INTRODUCTION
E2C, Inc. has completed a Level I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of
the buildings and property located at 1650 South Winchester Boulevard in
the city of Campbell, California. The intent of this report is to present the
results of our environmental assessment performed on and around the
subject site, addressing both real and potential environmental impairments
or risks of impairments that may present financial or legal liabilities to our
client or its agents.
2.0
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Job No. 3 750100
Page 2
In order to address concerns with respect to real and potential
environmental impairments on the subject site and the surrounding area,
E2C, Inc. performed the following tasks as part of our Level I ESA:
Reconnaissance of the property and surrounding area to
determine current property use, general housekeeping and
types of neighboring businesses.
Review of aerial photographs of the site and site vicinity to
determine land use within the past 40 years.
Location and identification of all electrical transformers and
hazardous material storage facilities.
Review of city, county, state, and federal documents with
respect to known contaminated sites that are under
investigation or at various stages of remediation, and
evaluation of their potential adverse impact to the subject site.
Preparation of this formal report presenting the results of our
site assessment. Appropriate conclusions and
recommendations are included, based on the results of our
study.
3.0
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Job No. 3750100
Page 3
The 3.28 acre site located at 1650 South Winchester Boulevard in the city
of Campbell, California (see Figure 1) is relatively flat, roughly square-
shaped and at approximately 185 feet above sea level. According to the
United States Geological Survey Topographic Map of the San Jose West
Quadrangle, the site is located in the northwest corner of subdivision M,
Section 26, Township 7 south, Range 1 west, approximately 1 mile
northwest of Los Gatos Creek. The property is bound on the west by South
Winchester Boulevard and on the north by East Hamilton Avenue. To the
east are two adjoining properties and Esther Avenue. On the south are also
two adjoining properties. The property site is currently zoned for planned
development.
The subject site includes a single-story, wood-frame building, a single-story
residential home, a large undeveloped lot, paved parking areas and
landscaping (see Figure 2). The property is owned by O'Connor Hospital,
which uses the main building as a storage facility for large equipment from
their medical facilities. According to Mr. Fred Robles, an O'Connor
engineer, the home is presently occupied by an O'Connor employee. A
portion of the undeveloped area is seasonally leased and is at present
fenced-off, with a trailer and a portable sanitary facility on the lot.
4.0
SITE CONDITIONS
Job No. 3750100
Page 4
4.1 Geologic Setting
The site is located at northern end of the Santa Clara Valley, a northwest-
southeast trending structural basin that is bound on the southwest by the
San Andreas fault zone and the Santa Cruz Coastal Mountains and on the
northeast by the Calaveras and Hayward faults and the Diablo Range. The
area has experienced complex tectonic evolution as the ancestral California
margin underwent transition from a convergent to a transform plate margin
(Atwater, 1970). During the subsidence of the basin the area was filled in
by alluvial material.
The area of the property is underlain by thick alluvial deposits of Holocene
Age (less than 10,000 years old) which, in turn, is underlain by bedrock of
a Mesozoic Franciscan (65 to 225 million years old) formation. The
surficial, alluvial deposits, formed from standing floodwaters, are generally
a brown or pale brown neutral clay loam categorized as Yolo clay loam of
1 to 3 percent slope (USDA SCS, 1958). This type of soil has a moderate
permeability with a high water holding capacity suitable for a wide range of
tree fruits and truck crops. The soils are seasonably saturated (Helley et.
al., 1979 and Helley et. al., 1989).
4.2 Hydrologic Setting
Groundwater in the vicinity of the site can be broadly grouped into a lower
and upper zone. The lower zone usually occurs at depths greater than 150
feet and constitutes the principal pumping zone (Iwamura, 1980).
Groundwater in the upper, perched zone occurs at depths less than 100 feet
and is considered unsuitable for production well purposes due to the
Job No. 3750100
Page 5
generally Iow yielding capabilities and/or impairment by natural water quality
problems such as salinity.
The first shallow perched groundwater in the area of the site is expected to
occur at a depth of approximately 70 feet below the ground surface, and to
flow in a northern direction.
4.3 Meteorologic Study
The site is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is considered
a "Mediterranean" type climate; warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters
are typical for this area. Prior to the present on-going 4-year drought, the
area's mean annual precipitation in the form of rainfall was historically
approximately 16 inches (Rantz, 1971 ). The prevailing wind at the site, and
in the bay area in general, is from the northwest. At this time, climate
effects on the site show no evidence for environmental concern.
5.0
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Job No. 3750 I00
Page 6
5.1 Site Inspection
A survey of the building and property at 1 650 South Winchester Boulevard,
accompanied by Mr. Fred Robles, was conducted by E2C, Inc. on November
4, 1991. During this site inspection, present conditions of the property
were visually evaluated. Our survey was primarily concerned with evidence
of inappropriate storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials, corroded
or stained surfaces, unseasonably dead vegetation or other suspicious
conditions. Photographs of the property are provided in Appendix A with
the locations and directions from which they were taken indicated in Figure
2.
At the time of inspection, the northwest corner of the property was fenced
off in preparation for use by Mr. Donald Beeson, who leases that portion of
the property on a short-term seasonal basis (Photograph #3). Also, a
Salvation Army donation drop-off point was situated in the western parking
lot at the main entrance of the building (Photograph #2). The residence was
not inspected.
Overall, the property and buildings appeared to be in fair condition, although
general housekeeping was poor. The majority of the main building was
occupied by miscellaneous equipment rather haphazardly stored
(Photographs #10 & #11). There were signs of stains in the ceilings of
some of the rooms (Photographs #8 & #9), but floor and ceiling tiles
appeared in good condition with no significant cracks or staining. The water
heater and two water boilers located on the north side of the building were
in good condition (Photograph #12). However, stains and residue on the
floor in the rooms along that side of the building indicate potential water
Job No. 3 750100
Page 7
leakage. Of significance was the discovery of an older, defunct electrical
transformer, probably containing polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCB's), stored
in that area, along with oxygen and nitrous oxide gas cylinders. Should the
casing of the transformer be broken, a leak of the carcinogen could occur.
5.2 Off-Site Reconnaissance
E2C, Inc. performed a reconnaissance of the area surrounding the subject
site in order to address the potential for environmental impairment from sur-
rounding site usage. The area is zoned for commercial and residential
development. Bordering the property on the northeast side (cross gradient)
are a commercial business, Esther Avenue and a single-family residence. On
the south side (upgradient) are an open lot and another residence. The
northwest and north side (cross and down gradient) are bordered by South
Winchester Boulevard and East Hamilton Avenue, respectively. Businesses
across these roads include a church, an apartment structure and a bank
across South Winchester Boulevard, a retail store and some small
commercial businesses across East Hamilton Avenue. These businesses and
residences have no reported incidences of toxic chemical or fuel leaks.
6.0
DOCUMENT RESEARCH
Job No. 3750100
Page 8
In order to determine potential sources of contamination originating from on-
or off-site sources, a review of relevant available information was performed
using records of past tenant usage, historical aerial photographs and
published agency documents.
6.1 Site History
According to Campbell City Building Department files, Santa Clara County
documents and information from the City of Campbell Historical Museum,
the subject site was part of a 120 acre parcel owned by Mr. Peter G. Keith
and most probably used for orchards in 1890. This large parcel was later
subdivided into ten-acre lots which were subsequently sectioned into
residential lots in the 1940's. The original structure of the main building
was constructed in the early 50's with some indeterminate remodeling done
in 1956. The building, listed at 440 North Winchester Boulevard at that
time, was completed in 1957. The undeveloped portion along East
Hamilton Avenue was owned at one time by the City of Campbell, which
acquired the lot piecemeal from private individuals starting in 1956 through
the early 70's. As early as April of 1962, the site was listed as the
Campbell Community Hospital, a 48-bed hospital which opened under Dr.
Robert Wade in 1963. In 1964, 912 square feet were apparently remodeled
to a hospital and in 1968, alterations were made for office space. In 1972,
Campbell Community Hospital had 4 single-family, I two-family and 4
accessory buildings, encompassing nine separate addresses, demolished
along the East Hamilton Avenue side of the property. O'Connor Hospital
purchased the site from Campbell Community Hospital in September of
1978 and had 2 additional single-family residences demolished along the
South Winchester Boulevard side of the property. O'Connor Hospital used
Job No. 3 750100
Page 9
the facility as a pain center in 1979, then opened an alcohol and drug
rehabilitation center as well as a women's health center at the site in 1981.
According to Mr. Robles, the facility closed approximately 4 years ago, in
1987.
None of the previous uses of the property indicate the presence of an
underground storage tank.
6.2 Historical Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs were reviewed by E2C personnel to evaluate
past land uses of the subject site and surrounding area (see Appendix B).
1954
In the February 25, 1954, photograph, the property is composed of several
residential lots and associated structures. The intersection of East Hamilton
Avenue and South Winchester Boulevard, which was known as the Los
Gatos-Santa Clara Road, are clearly visible. The residential lots along Esther
Avenue are also obvious in the photograph. The area is primarily devoted
to orchards and residential housing. Los Gatos Creek and the Southern
Pacific Railroad traverse the picture diagonally to the east of the site.
1963
The high elevation July 22, 1963, photograph shows continued residential
development in the area. Although several residences remain along the
northern and western borders of the property, the main building is already
in existence as is the church across South Winchester Boulevard. West
Hamilton Avenue has now been established as has Highway 17 near Los
Gatos Creek.
Job No. 3750100
Page 10
1971
By August 11, 1971, the home at the corner of East Hamilton and South
Winchester Boulevard has been demolished. Only a handful of houses
remain on the property. The area continues to see increased residential and
now light industrial development as fewer and fewer orchards are
noticeable.
1976
In the October 4, 1976, photograph, the open lot on the northern side of
the property stands bare as all the residences along this side of the property
have been removed. The apartment building lot across South Winchester
Boulevard is still empty, although now appears graded and paved. The
orchards have almost entirely disappeared in this photograph.
1980
The July 23, 1980, photograph shows the property much as it is today.
The main building is clearly discernible and only trees occupy the northern
portion of the property. The apartment building has by now been completed
as has the commercial building at the intersection of East Hamilton Avenue
and Esther Avenue. San Tomas Expressway parallels South Winchester
Boulevard to the west.
1988
In the June 28, 1988, photograph the site looks much the same. The
northern portion is undeveloped, while the main building, parking areas, and
residential home remain apparently unchanged. The properties surrounding
.the subject site are all developed.
None of the photographs indicate the presence of above ground storage
tanks on the property.
6.3
Agency Listed Sites of Environmental Concern
Job No. 3750 I00
Page 11
Cases of toxic chemical and fuel contamination, as published in the
following documents, were reviewed to determine if there have been any
investigations of contaminated sites of proximity to potentially impact the
subject site. It should be noted that the Santa Clara County Health
Department does not oversee environmental issues related to fuel cases or
toxic chemicals. This operation is under the direction of the local Fire
Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) or the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Federal Agencies:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS); Listing: Site/Event Listing; September
1991.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)-National Priority List (NPL); September
1991.
State
Agencies:
State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and
Gas; Regional Wildcat Maps; September 23, 1989.
State of California, Department of Health Services, Abandoned Site
Program Information System (ASPIS); June 1991.
State of California, Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking
Water, Small Water System AB 1803 Final Status Report, 1990.
State of California, Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances
Control Division; Expenditure Plan for the Hazardous Substances
Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 (BEP), Revision No. 4; January 1989.
Job No. 3750100
Page 12
State of California, Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances
Control Division; Expenditure Plan for the Hazardous Substances
Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 (BEP), Revised 1989, Updated 1990.
State of California, Governor's Office, Office of Planning and
Research, Office of Permit Assistance; Hazardous Waste and
Substances Sites-List (CORTESE List); November 1990.
State of California, Integrated Waste Management Board; Solid Waste
Information System List (SWIS); April 1990.
State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board - San
Francisco Bay Region (2), Fuel Leak List, September 12, 1991.
State of California, Regional Water Quality
Francisco Bay Region (2), South Bay Site
Quarterly Reports, Apr-Jun 1991.
Control Board - San
Management System
State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board San
Francisco Bay Region, Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA), Summary of
Known Sites; November 1989.
State of California, State Water Resources Control Board; Report on
Releases of Hazardous Substances from Underground Tanks; January
1991.
State of California, State Water Resources Control Board; Well
Investigation Program (WIP), Volatile Organic Chemicals in Public
Water Supply Wells - San Francisco Bay Region; November 28, 1990.
State
Agencies:
Campbell City Fire Department
Santa Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara County Private
Well Sampling Program, Final Report, January 1986.
Santa Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara County Private
Well Sampling Program, Final Report, September 1988.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Fuel Leak Site Activity Report,
Second Quarter, June 26, 1991.
Job No. 3 750 I00
Page 13
Within these publications, a total of 23 cases occur within a 1-mile radius
of the property site. Information regarding these cases is provided in Table
1, with the approximate locations of the corresponding sites indicated by
number on Figure 3. Note that number 11 has been deleted from Table 1.
According to our review of City of Campbell Fire Department records, none
of the listed incidences of fuel or toxic chemical contamination are of
proximity or upgradient position to significantly impact the property site.
7.0
ASBESTOS
Job No. 3750100
Page 14
The presence of asbestos in many common building materials, such as floor
and ceiling tiles, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) insulation
was not uncommon prior to 1979. By 1979, the U.S. EPA and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission had banned the manufacture of most
asbestos containing materials (ACM's). Although there is no current ban on
the use of these materials, their use in the 1980's and 90's is generally
considered to be of Iow probability.
Since the building was constructed in the 1950's, the presence of ACM's
in the building appears questionable. Available records of the remodeling,
additions and alterations performed did not indicate whether or not ACM's
were used or if asbestos sampling was conducted on previous construction.
Therefore, due to the age of the building, it is probable that ACM's are
present in the building, however, only laboratory analysis can provide
definitive documentation.
8.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Job No. 3750100
Page 15
Based on our site survey and review of historical aerial photographs, we
have observed no evidence to suggest that environmental contamination
currently exists on the property due to past or present site use. However,
a defunct transformer on the north side of the building poses a risk of
contamination and should be properly tested for the presence of PCB's by
a contractor licensed by the State of California to perform such an analysis.
Off-site, the potential for environmental risk is negligible because the
businesses immediately up- and cross gradient of the subject site have no
listed incidences of fuel leaks or other chemical contamination of soil or
groundwater. Those cases within a 1-mile radius of the property identified
as sources of groundwater contamination are of sufficient distance, cross
or down gradient position, or of such a nature (i.e., localized contamination)
as to pose little threat to the subject property. Thus, at the present time,
it is not likely that the site has been impacted by the surrounding business
activities. To evaluate the potential for future regional activities impacting
the subject site, E2C, Inc. recommends that agency files be periodically
reviewed to evaluate new groundwater data.
Also, should renovation or demolition of the building be planned, the
presence of asbestos containing materials should be identified and
addressed by a licensed abatement contractor.
9.0
LIMITATIONS
Job No. 3750100
Page 16
The conclusions of this report are based solely on the scope of services
outlined and the sources of information referenced in this report. No soil,
groundwater or asbestos sampling was performed during this investigation.
Any additional information that becomes available concerning this report
should be submitted to E2C, Inc. so that our conclusions may be reviewed
and modified, if necessary. This report was prepared for the sole use of
O'Connor Hospital and its agents.
10.0
REFERENCES
Job No. 3 750100
Page 17
Atwater, T. 1970. Implications of Plate Tectonics for Cenozoic Tectonic
Evolution of Western North America. Geologic Society of America
Bulletin 1981, p.3513-3535
Helley, E.J. and Lajoie, K.R. 1979. Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco
Bay Region, California, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 943.
Helley, E.J. and Wesling, J.R. 1989. Quaternary Geologic Map of the
Milpitas Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California,
Open-File Report 89-671.
Iwamura, Thomas I. 1980. Saltwater Intrusion Investigation, Santa Clara
Valley Water District, San Jose, California.
Rantz, S.E. 1971. Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth-
Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region,
California.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1958.
Soil Survey, Santa clara Area, Series 1941, No. 17.
United States Geologic Survey, 1961. 7.5 Minute Series, Milpitas
Quadrangle, California Topographic Map, Photorevised 1980.
APPENDIX C
E=C, INC. PROPOSAL DATED OCTOBER 21, 1991
October 21, 1991
Proposal No. EIP336
O'Connor Hospital
2105 Forest Avenue
San Jose, CA 95120
A,'I'TN:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Maryanne Hayes
PROPOSAL - LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1650 North Winchester Boulevard
San Jose, California
Dear Ms. Hayes:
E2C, Inc. is presenting, herein, our proposal to perform a Level I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) at the above captioned site. The purpose of this ESA is to
determine the potential for contamination to have been created by past or present site
activities, as well as the potential for contamination having been created by
surrounding business activities and adversely impacting the subject site. This Level
I ESA does not include physical sampling or analysis of soil, groundwater, or building
materials. It is our understanding that the vacant building on the site is scheduled to
be demolished.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed scope of services will enable us to complete a Level I ESA. The
following outlines the services we will perform to complete this ESA, which will
comply with Union Bank's guidelines.
Review aerial photos of the property to determine what activities have occurred
at the site within the past 30 to 40 years.
Inspect the property to determine the type of business activities that are
currently ongoing and evaluate past business activities at the site.
12L=g Erassl-n~n Avenue, Suite ago * Sunngv~le. C~lifa~nia g4~8~ · [408] 747-1414 ° FAX [,:1~] 745-108g
Proposal No. E 1P336
Page 2
Review city, county, state, and federal documents with respect to known
contaminated sites that are under investigation or at various stages of
remediation, and determine their potential adverse impact on the subject site.
Discuss with you [he need for soil, groundwater, or building material (asbestos)
sampling, should our initial inspection and document review indicate as such.
Prepare a formal report that presents the results of our studies and includes our
conclusions and recommendations. This report will be completed within
approximately 3 weeks of the date of authorization.
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Our services will be performed on a lump sum basis. A designated project manager
will monitor the progress of the job expenditures and time schedule.
Our fee to perform a non-sampling Level I Environmental Site Assessment will not
exceed $3,100.00.
Shcu!d you have-any questions or require s._.pple..m,zntal informati.o.n., please feel free
to call us.
Sincerely,
Ken C
President
Proposal No. E 1P356
Page 3
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
at
1650 North Winchester Boulevard
San Jose, California
For
O'Connor Hospital ~\ ~
I, the undersigned, agree to the terms and conditions as presente his proposal.
I understand that Fifty Percent of the Estimated Project Cost ($1,550.00) is to be
remitted, along with this signed Authorization, and that the balance of the Project
Costs will be paid upon receipt of invoicing.
Dated
~Clie~t/Representative
Traffic Progression Assessment
in Traffic Impact Studies
BY JOHN Z. LUH AND WILLIAM G. LOTHIAN
Traffic impact studies have been
widely used to identify and manage
urban traffic growth. Many state and lo-
cal government agencies rely on the in-
formation contained in traffic impact
studies when considering a proposed de-
velopment and when determining the ex-
tent of roadway improvements necessary
to mitigate any negative traffic impact
generated by the development.
Most traffic impact studies use the
concept and methodology presented in
the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM)~ to determine the degree of de-
terioration on the surrounding roadway
system, in terms of level of service
(LOS). For signalized intersections, the
HCM methodology determines LOS
based on average vehicular delay. For ur-
ban and suburban signalized arterials.
the HCM methodology uses the average
travel speed to determine the LOS for
the arterial through traffic. The average
travel speed is computed from the run-
ning time between two signals, plus the
approach delay at the downstream inter-
section. The approach delay is computed
from the average vehicular delay using
the methodology for signalized intersec-
tions. The average vehicular delay at sig-
nalized intersections is therefore a key
element in determining the roadway
LOS.
When several traffic signals in close
proximity are coordinated, vehicular de-
lay and LOS will be significantly affected
by the quality of traffic progression.
When traffic progression is favorable to
the subiect ~raffic flow (i.e., most vehi-
cles arrive in the green time), delay will
be considerably less than that for ran-
dom arrivals (i.e., vehicles arrive equally
in both the red and green times). Con-
versely, when traffic progression is un-
favorable, (i.e., most vehicles arrive in
the red time), delay can be considerably
higher than that for random arrivals.
The influence of traffic progression on
delay can be identified by simultaneously
considering the signal control at the two
adjacent intersections and the traffic
flows from the upstream intersection to
the downstream one. The HCM, how-
ever, treats traffic progression in a dif-
ferent manner because the HCM meth-
odology is unable to simultaneously
analyze two intersections. The HCM
uses a progression adjustment factor
(PF) to account for the influence of traf-
fic progression. Delay for each move-
ment is originally computed without
considering progression. A final pro-
gression adjustment is then performed
by multiplying the delay value and the
PF value. The progression adjustment
can increase the delay by up to 85 per-
cent for the worst progression and de-
crease the delay by up to 60 percent for
the most favorable progression.
The values of PF provided in the
HCM are primarily based on arrival
types. Vehicle arrivals at a signalized in-
tersection are classified into five types.
Types I and 2 represent the worst con-
ditions, when most vehicles arrive during
the red interval. Conversely, types 4 and
5 represent the most favorable condi-
tions, when most vehicles arrive during
the green interval. Type 3 represents the
random arrival condition, when vehicles
arrive uniformly during both the red and
green intervals.
Based on the definition of arrival type
in the HCM, arrival type is difficult to
assess subjectively. To cope with this dif-
ficulty, the HCM Suggests the use of pla-
toon ratio to quantify the arrival type. A
relationship between arrival type and
platoon ratio is provided in Table 9-2 of
the HCM. The platoon ratio is defined
in the HCM as
Where
Rv = Platoon ratiO,
PVG = Percentage of ali vehicles in
the movement arriving during
the green phase,
PTG = Percentage of the cycle that is
green for the movement
[(length of green phase/cycle
length) × 100].
The HCM states that PVG must be ob-
served in the field, while PTG is com-
puted from the signal timing. Since most
traffic impact studies deal with future
traffic and roadway conditions, field ob-
servation to assess PVG is not necessar-
ily applicable. Arrival types, therefore,
cannot be determined in most traffic im-
pact studies. Many traffic impact studies
use either arrival type 3 to assume no
traffic progression influence or arrival
type 4 or 5 to assume favorable progres-
sion influence.
The use of arrival type 3 to assume
ITE JOURNAL · MAY 199t · 17
random arrivals is generally not appro-
priate when signals are in close proxim-
ity. In this case, arriving vehicles at the
downstream intersections are very likely
to be organized into platoons of vehicles
by the upstream signal. Similarly, the
use of arrival type 4 or 5 to assume fa-
vorable progression influence may be op-
timistic because traffic progression at
some locations may trove a negative im-
pact on traffic flows.
A method to assess arrival types with-
out field observation is presented in this
article. The technique utilizes flow pro-
file plots in conjunction with the HCM
methodology to generate arrival types.
An example using TRANSYT-7F to
produce flow profile plots is shown to
illustrate the application of this method?
Assessment of Arrival Type
The assessment of arrival type requires
the computation of both PVG and PTG,
as defined in Equation 1. PTG can be
determined easily by dividing the length
of green phase by the cycle length. The
determination of PVG, however, in-
volves the number of vehicles arriving in
the green time and the total number of
vehicles arriving in a cycle. Unfortu-
nately, this information is not available
using the HCM methodology; it can,
however, be derived from flow profile
plots. Flow profile plots can be produced
by TRANSYT-7E
The assessment of arrival types
through flow profiles was first used by
Courage et al. to compare the PF values
in the HCM with those generated by
TRANSYT-7E3 In that study, a com-
puter program was developed to obtain
the flow profile data directly from the
graphic data file produced by TRAN-
SYT-7E The study did not, however,
document the program calculations. The
direct retrieval of flow profile data from
a graphic data file would require knowl-
edge of the data file structure and the
ability to develop a computer program.
Flow profile plots graphically illustrate
the profile of the arrival and departure
rates during the signal cycle at a partic-
ular stopline. A typical flow profile plot
produced from TRANSYT-7F is shown
in Figure 1. The horizontal axis repre-
sents time in the cycle. A cycle is con-
verted into 60 units (referred to as steps
in TRANSYT-7F), regardless of how
long the cycle is. The red phase is indi-
18 · ITE JOURNAL · MAY 1991
TRANSYT-7F:
RIVER DRIVE
CYCLE: 90 SECONDS, 60 STEPS
LINK 401 MAX FLOW 2650 VEH/H
Vehicles per hour
3000+
2250+
:
1500+
750+
:II
PLT. INDEX .43
SS
SSS
S SSS S
SS SSS SS
SSSSSS SS
SSSSSSS SS
SSSSSSSS SS
SSSSSSSS SS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS II
SSSSSSSSSSS IIIII
SSSSSSSSSSSS IIIIII
SOOSSSSSSSSS OIII IIIIIIII
IOOOSSSSSSSSS OOOOOIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII
IIIOOOOSSSSSSSS OOOOOOOIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIOOOOOSSSSSSS OOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
:IIIIIII IIIIOOOOOOOSSSSS OO00000OOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiii
:IIIIIIIIIIIIIO0000000000000000000000IiiiiiIIiiIiiiiiIiiiiiii
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Time in steps
Figure 1. A typical flow profile plot generated by TRANSYT.7F.
cated by stars and the green phase by
blanks. The vertical scale is flow rate in
vehicles per hour. Three symbols are
used in the flow profile plots to represent
vehicle arrival and departure: 'T' rep-
resents the arriving vehicles in the red
time, "0" represents the arriving vehi-
cles in the green time, and "S" repre-
sents the departure of vehicles that ac-
cumulated during the red time. Because
only vehicle arrivals are involved in de-
termining PVG, only I and O are rele-
vant.
The area under a flow profile curve
represents the amount of traffic arriving
at (or departing from) the intersection
during a specific time period. The area
of Os, or the total number of Os, rep-
resents the amount of traffic arriving in
the green time of a cycle. Similarly, the
area of Is, or the total number of Is,
represents the amount of traffic arriving
in the red time of the cycle. The ratio of
these two total numbers equals PVG.
PVG -- [(The Total Number of Os)/
(The Total Number of Os
and Is)] × 100
In the example flow profile plot shown in
Figure I, PVG = 76/(76 + 169), or 31
percent. In this figure, there are 37 stars
and 23 blanks in the horizontal axis. This
indicates that the red phase is 37 units
long and the green phase is 23 units long.
Thus, PTG = 23/60, or 38 percent. By
Equation 1, Rp = PVG/PTG = 31%/
38% = 0.82. Finally, according to the
HCM's Table 9-2, the arrival type is 2.
Arrival type 2 means an unfavorable
platoon condition. As described in the
HCM, arrival type 2 indicates either a
dense platoon arrives during the middle
of the red phase or a dispersed platoon
arrives throughout the red phase. The
description of arrival type 2 is consistent
with the flow profile shown in Figure 1.
As can be seen in the figure, three dis-
persed platoons are observed arriving
throughout the cycle.
The proposed method requires count-
ing the symbols representing the vehicle
arrivals in the flow profile plots produced
from TRANSYT-7E which is time con-
suming. Modification of the TRANSYT-
7F program to print out these counts
would be desirable.
An Example
This.method for determining arrival
types under traffic progression influence
was used in a recent traffic impact study
performed for the proposed develop-
ment of a 268-room, all-suite hotel in the
Riverfront Center to be located west of
River Drive in tElmwood Park, Bergen
County, New Jersey. In ,the adjacent
area, two office buildings are to be con-
structed on the east side of River Drive.
Another hotel and one office building
are also proposed on the west side of
River Drive.
River Drive has two traffic signals in
the vicinity of the site. In order to ac-
commodate the additional develop-
ments, substantial roadway improve-
ments are proposed within a half-mile
segment of River Drive, including road-
way widening and the addition of two
traffic signals. The total traffic volumes
from these developments, plus the back-
ground growth of the existing traffic vol-
umes, were used to evaluate the LOS for
the proposed roadway improvements on
River Drive in the build-out year 1992
and 10 years after that date.
The LOS analyses for the four signal-
ized intersections along River Drive
were conducted individually, using the
Federal Highway Administration's
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) pro-
gram. The analyses first assumed no
traffic progression influence by using ar-
rival type 3 for all the movements. The
results for the morning peak-hour traffic
conditions for the year 2002 are shown
in Figure 2.
Because the four traffic signals are in
close proximity, they should be coordi-
nated to move traffic efficiently. The
LOS obtained previously from the ran-
dom-flow assumption will not reflect the
actual traffic conditions because of the
close proximity of the adjacent signals.
In order to assess the actual traffic con-
ditions, the method identified herein was
used to obtain arrival types assuming
that the four signals are under coordi-
nated control.
In signal coordination control, three
major factors must be determined: the
phasing sequence, the timing, and the
offset at each intersection. The phasing
sequence determines the vehicular
movements allowed in each phase. The
timing determines the amount of time
devoted to each phase. The offset deter-
mines the time from a system reference
D-~ D
D
Figure 2. Level-of-service comparison of uncoordinated and coordinated intersec-
tions during the morning peak period in the year 2002. (NoTEs: When there is a
change in LOS as a result of signal coordination, the new LOS is indicated in
parentheses. Figure depicts the proposed roadway configuration at the time the
analysis was performed; a minor change in roadway configuration was later imposed.)
point to the beginning point of the cycle
at each signal. The offsets establish the
relationship of the beginning points of
the cycles among all the signals, while
the phasing sequence and the timing deal
with the individual signal.
Among the three factors, the phasing
sequence and the timing at each individ-
ITE JOURNAL · MAY 1991 · t9
IMPACY
your traffic
count
program
... with today's
most advanced
recorder...
Microcounts II
· Record speed data
with 1 sec. and 1
mph precision.
· Eliminate RADAR
spot speed studies.
· Speed analysis
enables efficient
police schedulin}].
· Classify vehicles in
13 FHWA types.
· Integrate in signal
controller cabinets
without modifying.
· One-switch field
setup; no keyboard
entry.
· Upload and analyze
data in the field
using a laptop PC.
· Reports are presen-
tation quality.
· Import data to
spreadsheet.
· Free utilities.
MicroCounts II
3 MODES: · Count
· Classification · Speed
Data
Acquisition, Inc.
1701 Broadway #156
Vancouver, WA 98663
TEL: 206-687-7246
FAX: 206-695-7765
20 · ITE JOURNAL · MAY 1991
Table 1. Arrival Types for Morning Peak-Hour Traffic in the Year 2002
Intersection
Arrival Type
Southbound
Northbound
Market Street 3 5
1-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp I 4
Slater Drive 3 4
Birchwood Drive 4 3
Table 2. Level of Service and Delay Comparison--Uncoordinated vs. Coordinated
Morning Peak Hours in 2002
Approach LOS (Delay in Vehicles per Second)
Southbound Northbound
Uncoordinated Coordinated Uncoordinated Coordinated
Market Street E (49.7) E (49.7) E (48.3] D (31.4)
1-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp D [33.8] E [47.3] B [t2.6} B (11.0]
Slater Drive C [2t.8] C [2t.8} D [34.2] D (3t.3]
Birchwood Drive C [21.9] C [20.1] C [20.1] C [20.t]
ual signal have already been determined
in previous LOS analyses. The only fac-
tor missing for the determination of traf-
fic progression is offset, which can be
determined by using TRANSYT-7E
The proposed intersection configura-
tion, the combined traffic volumes, and
the phasing sequence and timing used in
the previous LOS analyses assuming ar-
rival type 3 were entered into TRAN-
SYT-7F, and an offset optimization run
was requested. The purpose of the op-
timization run is to pursue the minimum
network delay and stops by arranging the
beginning of the cycles without changing
phasing sequence and timing. The offset
optimization run generally does not op-
timize traffic progression, but traffic
progression can be "favored" in the off-
set optimization run by the appropriate
use of link weighting factors.
The computations described in the
previous section were then performed to
obtain the arrival types from flow profile
plots for both the northbound and south-
bound movements at each intersection.
The arrival types for the morning peak-
hour traffic conditions are shown in Ta-
ble 1.
Several observations stand out clearly
in Table 1. First, the movement entering
the subject arterial section (i.e., the
southbound movement at Market Street
and the northbound movement at Birch-
wood Drive) remains at arrival type 3.
This is because TRANSYT-7F assumes
uniform arrivals for the entry movement.
Other movements, which are actually
under the influence of traffic progres-
sion, are called internal movements.
Among the six internal movements, only
one remains arrival type 3. This indi-
cates that the previous LOS D analysis
assuming arrival type 3 for all move-
ments is not appropriate.
Among the six internal movements,
three are arrival type 4, one is arrival
type 5, one is arrival type 3, and one is
arrival type 1. This indicates that signal
coordination will improve the opera-
tional performance of most of the arte-
rial movements. The one arrival type 1,
however, demonstrates that signal coor-
dination may have a negative impact at
some locations. Simply assuming favor-
able progression impact for all move-
ments, as is done in many traffic impact
studies, is too optimistic.
These arrival types were then entered
into the HCS program to reevaluate the
LOS for each intersection. The results
are compared in Table 2 and Figure 2
with those obtained from the previous
analyses assuming arrival type 3.
The comparison shows that the LOS
for the southbound left-turn movement
at Birchwood Drive and the northbound
through movement at the 1-80 eastbound
off-ramp will be improved from LOS B
to LOS A because of the arrival type 4
of these two movements. The LOS for
the northbound movement at Market
Street will be improved from LOS E to
LOS D because of the arrival type 5.
The LOS for the southbound movement
at the 1-80 eastbound off-ramp will
worsen from LOS D to LOS E because
of the arrival type 1. Because LOS E for
arterial traffic is unacceptable, addi-
tional roadway improvements at this in-
tersection are needed tc~ increase south-
bound capacity. This problem of a poor
LOS resulting from signal coordination
would not have been identified if the sec-
ond capacity analysis using the arrival
types obtained from the proposed
method had not been performed.
Note that the LOS for the northbound
movement at Slater Drive does not
change, even though it has an arrival
type 4. This is because each LOS refers
to a range of delay values. When the de-
lay value does not change from one
range to another after the progression
adjustment, the LOS remains the same.
Also note that all the Cross-street move-
ments remain the same LOS because
they are not under the influence of ar-
terial traffic progression.
The signal coordination in this exam-
ple is based on the phasing sequence and
timing originally developed for each in-
dividual signal, without considering in-
terconnection among adjacent signals.
Better arterial progression could be an-
ticipated through simultaneously rear-
ranging the phasing sequences and tim-
ing splits of the four signals to achieve a
wider bandwidth. Additional signal de-
sign programs, such as SOAP and PAS-
SER II. are generally involved in the
phasing and timing redesign process.
Because the purpose of this example is
to demonstrate the application of the
proposed method, the comprehensive
redesign process is not included.
Conclusions
The current HCM methodology for eval-
uating the LOS for a series of traffic sig-
nals in close proximity requires field ob-
servation to assess the influence of traffic
progression. This methodology is thus
not applicable to most traffic impact
studies, which consider future roadway
and traffic conditions. Many traffic im-
pact studies therefore either assume no
traffic progression influence or arbitrar-
ily assume favorable progression influ-
ence.
This article presents a method to as-
sess the traffic progression influence
without field observation. Flow profile
plots are used to compute the data nec-
essary to apply the HCM methodology.
References
1. Transportation Research Board. Highway
Capacity Manual. Transportation Re-
search Board Special Report 209. Wash-
ington, D.C.: TRB, 1985.
2. Federal Highway Administration. TRAN-
SYT-7F Release 6 User's Manual. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, 1988.
3. Courage. Kenneth G.. Charles E. Wal-
lace. and Rafig AIqasem. "Modeling the
Effect of Traffic Signal Progression on De-
lay." Presented at the 67th annual meeting
of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 1988. I
~ 1 John Z. Luh is a
traffic engineer
with Langan En-
gineering Associ-
ates in New Jersey.
, He received his
doctoral degree in
traffic and transportation engineering
from the University of Florida. Luh
worked for the Taiwan Highway Bureau
and the McTrans Center at the University
of Florida before joining Langan Engi-
neering. He is a registered professional
engineer and an Associate Member of
ITE.
William G. Loth-
ian is a principal in
the firm of Langan
Engineering Asso-
ciates in Elmwood
Park, New Jersey,
where he heads the
traffic and transportation department.
Lothian is a graduate of Newark College
of Engineering and received his master's
degree in traffic and transportation from
New Jersey Institute of Technology. He is
a registered professional engineer in three
states and is a Member of ITE.
TRIP GENERATION
b~ mlCROTRI:IrI~TM
5TH EDITION SOFTWARE
Trip Generation by Microtrans,
Version 3 lets you do your job better. It's
easy, fast and accurate.
Version 3 is unique. It is the only software
that uses the data base from ITE's Fifth
Edition Trip Generation Report. It calcu-
lates traffic generated by 125 land uses or
building types based on 3,000 individual
studies.
Version 3 gives you flexibility. You can
use it for single or mixed-use de-
velopments. And, you can add trip adjust-
ment factors for each type of trip.
Version 3 gives you options. You can
select:
· ITE rates
· ITE regression equations
· Your own rates
Version 3 is easy to learn and use. The
user's guide gives you step-by-step
instructions. User support is available. It is
menu-operated.
Version 3 owners are eligible for
upgrades. When new ITE editions are
issued, you may order Iow cost upgrades.
To Order
Please send me Version 3.
Please send me a brochure.
Agency/
Company
Street
City State_ Zip ____
Telephone (__)
Send: $400.00 USA & Canada
$415.00 Overseas
$40.00 Upgrades
To: Microtrans Corporation
P.O. Box 636
Portland, OR 97207
Phone: (503) 2454181
Fax: (503) 245-6829
ITE JOURNAL · MAY 1991 · 21
9-20 ua~ STa££~S
TABLE 9-13. PROGRESmON ADJUSTMF.~rr FActor, PF
TYPE OF LANE GROUP VIC ARRIVAL TYPEa
SIGNAL TYPF~ RATIO, X
1 2 3 4 5
Pretimed TH, RT < 0.6 1.85 1.35 1.00 0.72 0.53
0.8 1.50 1.22 1.00 0.82 0.67
1.0 1.40 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.82
Actuated TH, RT < 0.6 1.54 1.08 0.85 0.62 0.40
0.8 1.25 0.98 0.85 0.71 0.50
i .0 I. 16 0.94 0.85 0.78 0.61
Semiactuated , 'Main St. < 0.6 1.85 1.35 1.00 0.72 0.42
TH, RT~ 0.8 1.50 1.22 1.00 0.82 0.53
1.0 1.40 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.65
Semiactuated Side St. < 0.6 1.48 1.18 1.00 0.86 0.70
TH, RT~ 0.8 1.20 1.07 1.00 0.98 0.89
1.0 1.12 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
All LT~ all 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
b Semiactuated signals are typically timed to give ail extra green time to the main street. This effect should be taken into account in the allocation
of green times.
c This category refers to exclusive LT lane groups with protected phasing only. When LT's are included in a lane group encompassing an entire
approach, use factor for the overall lane group type. Where heavy LT's are intentionally coordln~r~l, apply factors for the appropriate through
movement.
lane group. It is also desirable to aggregate these values to
provide average delay for an intersection approach and for the
intersection as a whole. In general, this is done by computing
weighted averages, where the lane group delays are weighted
by the adjusted flows in the lane groups.
Thus, the delay for an approach is computed as:
where:
dA = delay for approach .4, in sec/veh;
d, = delay for lane group i (on approach A), in sec/veh;
and
v, = adjusted flow for lane group t; in vph.
Approach delays can then be further averaged to provide the
average delay for the intersection:
where:
average delay per vehicle for the intersection, in sec/
veh; and
adjusted flow for approach A, in vph.
5. Level of service determination--Intersection level of serviee
is directly related to the average stopped delay per vehicle. Once
delays have been estimated for each lane group and aggregated
for each approach and the intersection as a whole, Table 9-1 is
consulted, and the appropriate levels of service are determined.
Interpretation of Results
The results of an operational analysis will yield two key results
which must be considered:
I. The v/c ratios for each lane group and for the intersection
as a whole.
2. Average stopped-time delays for each lane group and ap-
proach, and for the intersection as a whole, and the levels of
service which correspond.
Any v/c ratio greater than 1.00 is an indication of actual or
potential breakdowns, and is a condition requiring amelioration.
Where the critical v/c ratio is less than 1.00, but some lane
groups have v/c ratios greater than 1.00, the green lime is
generally not appropriately apportioned, and a retiming using
the existing phasing should be attempted. Appendix II may be
consulted for suggestions in this regard.
Where the critical v/c ratio is greater than 1.00, this is an
indication that the overall signal and geometric design have
inadequate capacity for the ex/sting or projected flows. Im-
provements that might be considered include:
1. Basic changes in intersection geometry (number and use
of lanes).
2. Lengthening the signal cycle.
3. Changing the signal phase plan.
Appendixes I and II may be consulted for suggestions with
regard to these items. Existing stat~ and local policies or stand-
ards should also be consulted in the development of potential
improvements.
It should also be noted that v/c ratios near 1.00 represent
situations with little available capacity to absorb dcm-nd in-
creases. Particularly where projected volumes are being used,
normal inaccuracies in such projections can cause an intersection
projected to operate near capacity to oversaturate.
Attachment #5
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FILE NO:
S 92-02
APPLICANT:
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Ltd. Partnership
LOCATION:
10-70 East Hamilton Ave. & 1620-90 S. Winchester Blvd.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The project site includes approximately 3.73 acres of land. The
applicant is requesting Site and Architectural Approval for a
27,900 square foot retail and 20,000 square foot medical office
complex.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following explanations are in response to the California Environmental Quality
Act Checklist. Each explanation is keyed to the number of the item it pertains to on
the checklist.
me
Plant Life
A change in the diversity of species and number of plant spedes is proposed.
Approximately 21 existing trees are planned to be removed from the project
site. According to the Landscape Plan, approximately 115 new trees will be
planted on the project site. While the type of trees proposed do not presently
occur on the site, they are not new to the area and they do comply with the
City's Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (WELS). The landscaping plan
also includes a variety of shrubs and groundcover.
Mitigation
Submit tree report from Barrie M. Coate addressing the preservation of
the existing tree(s) and the condition of those trees planned to be
removed.
o
Prepare and submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
Environmental Impacts
Campbell-Gateway Square
March 25, 1992
Pa~;e 2
Submit final Landscape Plan indicating the type, number, and size of
plant material, and irrigation system to be submitted for approval of
the Planning Director prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
e
e
Noise
The existing noise level may increase on the project site due to an increase in
automobile traffic and parking, trash pick-up, and loading dock activity.
During construction som_e disturbances to people in the vicinity of the site
may also occur. Implementation of the mitigation measures below should
minimize any increase noise impacts.
Mitigation
Construct a six foot high masonry sound wall along the property lines
that are adjacent to residential properties.
Provide a 10-15 foot landscape buffer along the masonry wall adjacent
to residential properties.
o
Restrict trash pick-up service to after 7 a.m., Monday thru Saturday, as
per letter from Green Valley Disposal, dated March 20, 1992.
4. Limit construction activities tO between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Liltht and Glare
Potential increase in light and glare may occur from parking lot and security
lighting, and vehicle lights. To minimize the lighting spillover to the
residential areas adjacent to the project site the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented.
Mitigation
Submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan will be evaluated to ensure
there is no spillover of lighting into the residential areas.
Restrict vehicular traffic at the driveway on Esther Street to entrance
only (no exit). This will minimize the effects of vehicle headlights on
the adjacent residential neighbors.
CODES
Case Tvoe
G
S
U
Groundwater has been affected
Only soil has been affected
Unknown
~;1;atus
3A
3B --
5C =
5R =
9 =
No action taken by responsible party after initial report of leak
Preliminary site assessment workplan submitted
Preliminary site assessment underway
Pollution characterization
Remediation plan developed
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary
Remedial Action
ED =
ET =
NA =
NT =
UK --
Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading or land farming)
NO Action Required - incident is minor, requiring no remedial action
No Action Taken - no indication that action was taken
Unknown - action not known, or unknown if action taken
The Lead Agency shall ensure that traffic from a project will not impact any CMP
System facility currently operating below the CMP standard (unless the facility
has an approved Deficiency Plan, in which case the Lead Agency must ensure
that the project is consistent with the Deficiency Plan(s)).
Eo
The Lead Agency may require that additional facilities be analyzed in the
transportation impact analysis study.
2.7 - Study Scenarios
Transportation impacts shall be evaluated for at least the following scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions;
2. Existing + Approved Projects;
Existing + Approved Projects + Project; and
4.~ + Projects + Expected Growth + Project.
Existing
Approved
Annual monitoring data collected by the CMA may not be sufficient to meet the
requirements for the existing conditions and existing plus approved projects
transportation analyses.
The transportation analyses shall include all funded transportation facility
improvements expected to be completed within one year of project completion.
The fourth scenario, which includes expected growth, shall consist of an analysis
of growth expected until the project is available for final occupancy. Expected
growth can be estimated using a yearly percentage increase in traffic. The CMA
will provide guidelines in estimating the yearly growth factor based on traffic data
from its annual monitoring program and an estimate of vacancy rates in the
project area.
9 August 2, 1991
- Exhibit C -
Attachment #7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSNIENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST TO BE USED BY THE CITY OF CAIVll~BEL[. IN I~AKING IINITIAL STUDY
BA~
NAME OF PROPONENT:
ADDRESS OF PROPONENT:
Campbell-Gateway Square
I960 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
2/14/92
City of Campbell
Campbell-Gateway
TELEPHONE: ( 408 ) 246-3691
DATE OF CHECKLIST SUBMITTED:
AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST:
NAME OF PROPOSAL (IF APPLICABLE):
Square
!1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'T~
(EXPL~ATIONS OF' ALL. ~/~S AND MAYB~ ANSWERS ARE RE:GIUIRED ON ATTACHED SHEET)
YES 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.~ff the 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?
1 of 6 pages
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 orflow 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?
MAYBE:
2 of 6 pages
YE:$ MA~ NO
5. 'ANIMAL LIFE. Will th~ proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversit~ of species, or numbers
of an~ species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of an~'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.
11.
12.
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:
a. Increase in the rate of use of an~ natural
resource~~
b. Substantial depletion of an~ 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?
3 of 6 pages
YE:$ MAYe£ ~0
13o .
14.
TRANSPORTATION~CIRCULaTION.~ Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, 'or_
demand for newparking?
Substantial impact upon existing transportation
s~stems?
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?
'PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in anw 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:
16.
ao
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need
for new s~stems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications s~stems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
o []
[] [] ~
[] [] ~
[] [] ~
[] 0
[] []
[]
[] []
[] [] o
[] [] ~
[] [] ~
4 of 6 pages
NO
17. 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?
18.
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?
19.
RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. 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 con~,mnity, 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~roject 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?
5 of 6 pages
III.
D ! SG'U$$10N OF'
See attached Discussion of Envi~'onmental Effects.
IV. DE'TEi:Wd I I~iAT ! t~l
AIrTER REVIEWING THE ENVIRONIEENTAL. INI~ORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLI CANT t AND AFTER COMPLETING TE ~NVI RONMENTAI. CHECKLI ST USE
BY THE CITY OF. CAJRPBEI. L. 'IN MAKING AN ~NVIRONME~ITAI- ASSESSME~IT
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be preparsd.
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.
DATE
6 of 6 pages
CItY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRO}~ENTAL INFORMATION FORM - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Date Filed: 12/17/91
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
Campbell-Gateway Square, A California Ltd. Partnership
Address of project: SE Corner - Hamilton Ave. & Winchester Blvd.
Assessor's Block and tot Number
Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted
concerning this project: Brad W. Krouskup: (408)246-3691
c/o Toeniskoetter & Breeding Inc., Development
1960 The Alameda, San 3ose, CA 95126
Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which
this form pertains:
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: General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Architectural Approval
6. Existing zoning district: PUblic Facilities
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
Medical Office Building (20,000 sq. ft.) and commercial/retail (28,000 sq.ft.)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
8. Site size.
162,479 sq. ft. (3.73 acres + )
9. Square footage. 48,000 sq. ft.
10. Number of floors of construction. Medical Office Building - 2 Floors
Commercial/Retail- 1 Floor
11. Amount of off-street parking provided.
220 - 240 Parking Stalls
12. Attach plans. (See attached preliminary site plan)
13. Proposed s.cheduling.
14. Associated projects.
Project Scheduled to begin 6/1/92
Project completion scheduled for 3/30/93
None
15. Anticipated incremental
To be proposed:
Total to be proposed:
Existing:
Total Incremental:
development.
20,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Building
28,000 sq. ft. Commercial/Retail
48,000 sq. ft.
(19,000)sq. ft. Medical Clinic/Hospital
( 3,000)sq. ft. Residential
26,000 sq. ft.
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 neighborhood, city
or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and
loadinE 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~a,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.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
X
X
X
X
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
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 vibration .
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 (see below)
33. Describe the proJec~'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 ab. ili~~nd that the
facts, statements, and information presente~a_re /,Sue and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.{/ / ~ /~///(~/w~~//
December 17, 1991 ~j.~/~.~/9 _/~
bate -'--f --- '"- --~xEna=~re' Brad W. ~
33.
For Campbeil-Gate~ay Square,
A California Limited Partnership
The project site as it currently exists is discussed in detail in the attached
Environmental Site Assessment dated November 7, 1991, performed by E2C, Inc.
(Environmental/Engineering Consultants). The site is flat and soil stability
appears to be adequate for conventional construction (refer to pages 4 and 5,
Section 4.0 of report). There is no significant plant or animal life present
on the site and no historical or cultural significance (refer to pages 8-10,
section 6.0). There are two existing structures on the site which are described
on page 3, section 3.0 of the attached report.
34.
The project site is located at a major intersection with surrounding properties
used primarily by commercial buildings. Commercial office buildings are located
immediately to the south and east of the site. Residential properties are located
to the southeast of the project site along Esther Street. Land use and building
scale varies from high rise residential and mid rise commercial to single story
residential.
3 of 3 pages
The approved but not yet constructed developments include the 900 E. Hamilton project plus two
projects in San Jose. The Campisi/Creekside connection will be completed in conjunction with the
900 E. Hamilton project. It will divert traffic from the eastbound right-turn movement and north-
bound left-turn movement. It is estimated that these movements will be reduced by approximately
30 percent due to diversion to the connection. Traffic volumes for Phase 1 background conditions
are shown on Figure 5. The results of the level of service calculations are presented in Table 4.
TABL£ 4
PHASE 1 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Scenario
~ Midday Evenine
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
(Secs.) (sees.)
Background Conditions 13.4 B
Project Conditions 13.8 B
29.6 D 47.7 E
34.8 D 49.3 E
Under background conditions, the intersection is projected to operate at the same levels as under
existing conditions. The delay is projected to increase only in the PM peak hour; traffic diverted to
the Campisi/Creekside connection will offset added traffic during the AM and midday periods.
Traffic added by the proposed McDonald's restaurant is not projected to change the levels of
service at this intersection. The City of Campbell defines a significant impact as the addition of
greater than 2.0 seconds to an intersection oPerating at Level of Service E. The intersection is
operating at Level of Service E during the PM peak hour. Traffic from the restaurant is projected
to add only 1.6 seconds. Therefore, the restaurant is projected to cause an insignificant impact to
the intersection.
DRIVEWAY OPERATIONS
The two driveways on Bascom Avenue are proposed to be consolidated after construction of the
McDonald's restaurant. The projected volumes at the driveways are shown on Figure 6. The
operations of the two resulting driveways were evaluated with a method used to evaluate unsignai-
ized intersections. Specifically, the right-turn movements out of the driveways were evaluated.
The right-turn movement out of the driveway on Bascom Avenue is projected to operate at Level
of Service B during the AM peak hour, midday peak hour, and PM peak hour. The right-turn
movement out of the driveway on Hamilton Avenue is projected to operate at Level of Service A
during the AM peak hour and during the midday peak hour. It projected to operate at Level of
Service C during the PM peak hour. These are acceptable operating levels.
-10-