464 W. Campbell Ave. (PD87-15)
I
i
I
CITY OF I CAMPBELL - COUNCIL REPORT
- -!
i
I
Meeting Date: I August 1, 1989
I
@)-
i
Category: I DEFERRED I'ID1S
InItiating Dept:. City Clerk
Item # 11.
Title:
Appeal of Planning Camú.ssion decision - request for
reinstatement of a previously approved Planned Developnent
Pennit allowing construction of 42 apartment units in a PD
Zoning District - 464 W. Campbell Ave. - M. Fitzpatrick - R
89-0l/pD 87-15 (Cont'd. 7/18/89)
DISCUSSION :
Consideratiom of this appeal was continued for two weeks at the request of
the At;:pellant, Mary Beth Fitzpatrick, 63 Dot Avenue.
,
,
Approved by Department Head
Approved by City Manager
~~
I I ~ ~
- vi--
....
. ~I ~ 17j 1981
~ . ~ Rj¡;'C.e;/~j,:,Ð
77) 0-<1"'" ~ ~.I JUL l.~ 1989
cL/U ~ Ad r;'" 04~ ~, ~ I fø i!JJ C, '?K'S OFFICE
~ ~~ ~ ~ (¿~ r .L ßud
~~. Jl4-~;Æ~.~~d4
.wJ.L. tv~.L J:¡; ~ ~ ~ 4ff'L~ ~ <c~ ~~ .
7lk¡ ka-<r h<>-' o-.du-<.--1 h-d1-L<Þ( Þ /IOu'j Þ dw-fj", ~ ~.tk.y
Xii /lR~;t.L. d ..L<~«¿A k,-<'. w,J-~.Ü.;J. ~<-L ~
~ cL.lA.--(Y ~.h, ~.. hd úk.d-TV-L<',(.o.r Þ-J "~"Ivt
:J- ~ ~-L ~. p~-<-. cL tLj..d ~ {)J: ~()
a¡j'-' 5 P. /íJ. en .§,<~f ~t c1 h,., F~~.
I '.
)j ""F' ~1 'J ,ct h < <.¿ -.J.. e .A.LLU .t { ú. R '1 j'1.Et' é L K U""-W '}Let"", --{ .
.t. r,.-(L.,. "'{ ú.r>t h~k'Õ i',"u""~d. -Ie ¥P-'aL--ð hI-hoc
t" A£-OtJ. Cu>u-.. ,{~ð.f., h-z (!~l e{i'-ck') 1t~~ .M<-->
~""'- u-~ k r~ ¡£ ~ ú!c t'~) J~ ItJ, ~i.. k~
X duJ-J ftLc,<- fJ-1 I1UA;-NÆ{ d . Jiv.Jt :t4.c~ f-r t4~
)~~ .
,JM,:w-e ~ J ,
Lm 4"rJ ~ ~JuLIz I &~ h.d:
~ i1l~k4.~/
(03 D&Z ~ I
~~ ~4 t¡.~oo~
Meeting Dat : July 18, 1989
Category: APPEALS
InItiating Dept Planning Department
ft)
CAMPBELL - COUNCIL REPORT
Item # 16.
Tltle: Appeal of Planning Conunission decision - request for
reinstatement of previously approved Planned Development Permit
allowing construction of 42 apartment units in a PD Zoning
District - 464 W. Campbell Ave. - M. Fitzpatrick - R 89-01/PD
87-15.
APPEAL
i
I
Attached is a!letter, dated June 22, 1989, which appeals the decision
Planning Comm~ssion to reinstate the Planned Development Permit for a
apartment project on a 2.1 acre parcel at the southeast Corner of Dot
Campbell Ave. .
of the
42 unit
Ave. and
BACKGROUND
.í
On March 8, 19$8, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a 42 unit
.. apartment proj~ct on the site (see attached staff report and minutes dated
3/8/88). On Ap~il 5, 1988, the City Council approved the project with an
expiration date of May 19, 1989 (see attached minutes, PD ord. # 1690 and
conditions of ~pproval). Phase one provided for 36 units to commence
construction by May 19, 1989; and, phase two encompassed the remaining units to
begin by May 19, 1991.
On June 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved reinstatement of the Planned
Development Permit and a revised Development Schedule for the project (vote of
4-2-0, Commissioners Dickson and Walker voting no).
The Planning Co~ission approved a revised development schedule to complete the
project in one phase to begin by Hay 30, 1990 and be completed by December 31,
1990.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
The site is zoned Planned Development and General Planned for residential 14-20
dwelling units per gross acre.
There have been no changes in the General Plan or the zoning on this site since
this project was previously approved.
MAJOR ISSUES
Appellant
Notice was not given to the neighborhood
Density is inappropriate for the neighborhood
R 89-01/PD 87-15
464 E. Campbell Ave.
-2-
July 18, 1989
City Council Meeting
Staff
-----Section 21.08.140 of the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission
to approve reinstatements of Planned Developments
Notice is not required by the ordinance
In reviewing reinstatements the Planning Commission should determine
if new information warrants reassessment of the application in terms
of its design, density, environmental impacts, or appropriate
conditions.
PlanninR Commission
The Planning Commission concluded that no new information was
presented to question the original approval. Accordingly, the
Commission did not feel a rehearing of the application was necessary
and approved the reinstatement.
~ Two Commissioners opposed the reinstatement due to the project
density.
-(
Attachments
1. Letter of appeal.
2. Planning Commission minutes - 6/13/89.
3. City Council minutes - 4/5/88.
4. Planning Commission minutes and staff
5. Adopted Ordimance 1690, conditions of
6. Vicinity map.
. 7. Reduced site plan and elevation
Approved by the Planning Director:
Approved by the City Manager:
* * *
3/8/88
~
f:r89-01
c,
'ì
CITY OF CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Honorable Mayor Watson and
Members of the City Council
Steve Piaseck~~
Planning Dire~
Date:
July 17. 1989
From:
Subject: R 89-01/PD 87-15 - 464 W. Campbell Ave. -
42-unit Apartment Project - Reinstatement of PD Permit
----------------------------------------------------------
The following summarizes information related to the above-referenced project:
1.
Density of SurroundinR Developments: Attached is a map illustrating the
development intensities surrounding the 2.1 net acre project site.
, ',----
The following table outlines the General Plan land use designation and the
existing development surrounding the property:
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
~
DIRECT::(ON
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN
North (across
Campbell Avenue)
Residential
6<
Residential. 6 dwelling
units per gross acre.
East/Southeast
Residential
6-13
Residential 12 dwelling
units per gross acre.
South
Residential 14 - 20
Residential 14 - 16
dwelling units per gross
acre. One vacant parcel.
West
Residential 14 - 20
Residential 15 - 20
dwelling units per gross
acre.
Southwest
Public/Semi Public
Private School
The subject propeJ"ty is located at the southeast comer of Campbell Avenue and
Dot Avenue. The site consists of 3 parcels. two of which front on Dot Avenue
and the third fronts on Campbell Avenue. At the time the Planned Development
permit was approved in 1988. the easterly most parcel (1 + acres)
~
".
'ì
City Council Memo
RE: R 89-01
- 2 -
July 17, 1989
was changed from Residential (6 - 13 dwelling units per gross acre) to
Residential (14 - 20 dwelling units per gross acre). All three of the parcels
had been previously zoned Planned Development
2.
Reinstatement Procedure:
A. Expiration of Pro;ect Approval for Planned Development Permits:
Planned Development permit expiration is based upon a development schedule
approved at the time of the project approval.
The development schedule for the 42 unit apartment project specified the
development would begin construction within one year of its effective date
(by May 19, 1989).
B. Extensions or Reinstatement:
Extensions or reinstatements of the development schedule may be approved
by the Planning Commission upon receipt of a written request which
includes a new development schedule.
C. Criteria for Reinstatement:
The Planned Development Ordinance does not provide specific criteria which
the Commission must follow in reviewing reinstatement requests. However,
the City Attorney advises that denial of a reinstatement or the addition
of new Condli tions of Approval should be based on specific findings that
conditions have changed relative to the project. If new conditions do not
exist then the Commission should assume the original findings leading to
the approval or conditional approval are still valid.
3.
Traffic Stu~y:
The traffic study was prepared in January of 1988 in conjunction with the
development request. The Public Works Director has prepared the attached
memo outlining their review of the study and the issue of impacts on
nearby inte~sections and traffic signals.
4.
ParkinR Raqos:
The parking ordinance provides that one-bedroom apartment units must
provide 1.5 spaces per unit of which one space must be covered. Two or
more bedroom apartment units must provide two spaces per unit. In all
cases, guest spaces are required at a ratio of one space for every five
units. The following calculations summarize the parking required for the
subject development:
6 One-bedroom units X
36 Two-bedroom units X
Guest spaces (42 + 5)
Total
1.5 - 9
2 - 72
~
~ spaces required
93 spaces provided
3 space surplus
Attachments
1. Memo from Do~ Wimberly regarding traffic
2. Original Tra~fic Report
3. Hap illustrating surrounding land uses
4. Aerial Hap
STP/ks F:r89-01
issues
')
\
CITY OF CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Steve Piasecki
Planning Direct~r
,
Don Yimberly
Public Yorks Df ctor
Date:
July 17, 1989
Subject:
42-unit Apartment projet; Dot Avenue at Campbell Avenue (Dubcich)
----------------------------------------------------------
The following comments
Ashworth's inquiry.
are
provided
in
response
to
Councilmember
SUMMARY
Our review of the application for reinstatement was accomplished within
the legal framework wherein we are limited to the question whether any
factors have changed sufficiently to warrant amending the conditions of
approval adopted April 19, 1988. Since the traffic report is recent
(January 1988) and remains valid, we found no basis for recommending new
or amended condli tions .
DISCUSSION
1.
proiect Tr~ffic Analysis
The traffic report for the project prepared by Pang and Associates in
January 1988 was and remains a credible analysis. It reviews existing
traffic conditions, traffic generation expected from the project, the
distribution of that traffic to different intersections, and the relative
impact of the project's traffic on the existing intersections.
Project impacts were found to exist but were relatively
Impacted intersections were no worse than level of service "C".
small.
2.
proiect ConPitions
Public Yorks Department conditioning of the original application was
based on the current Council policy and the project's impacts as described
in the projecit traffic report. City policy and practice to that date was
to require pro~ect mitigations where project impacts were significant (for
example. greater. than l' increase in traffic) and the impacted roadway
was already o~ would be congested (operating at level of service D" or
worse).
Neither condition existed in the case of this project and the affected
intersections. . Therefore. no traffic mitigations were required.
")
\
Page 2
Memo to Steve Piasecki
7/17/89
A different method for determining project conditions was discussed at and
subsequent to the April 1988 hearing on the project. This alternate
approach would involve identifying all project impacts, no matter their
size or the existing traffic conditions and potential benefit to the
project from any identified infrastructure improvements within that
project's sphere of influence. Such a procedure is consistent with recent
legislation and case law. However, until such a method is endorsed by the
City Council, staff is reluctant to use it.
3. Infrastruct~re needs in the area. Council has previously identified
infrastructure needs in this area including:
A.
A traffic signal at Rincon and Winchester;
B.
A traffic signal at Milton and Campbell;
C.
Lack of parking at Morgan Park; and
D.
Recreational facilities in undersupply or overuse at
John D. Morgan Park and Campbell Community Center.
4.
Funding for Infrastructure
During the April 1988 hearing for this project, a brief discussion was
held on the relationship of new development to existing, particularly
over-used, infrastructure. The relationship between impacts, benefits
received (in fiscal terms) and the fair share for existing and new
development is not clear. Currently. the City does assess new residential
development ani in-lieu park fee (Quimby Act) of $2717 per household and an
in-lieu storm ¡drain fee of $2060 an acre. The City also assesses a
construction tax of $.50 per square foot. The adequacy of these fees
compared to the need is under study. Also to be reviewed this year is the
question of i~pacts on/and benefits from streets and traffic control
facilities as well as other City services such as Police and Fire
services.
DCW/lkh
LKHO059
. .
. ,
. . . . .,. . .'0 . ,
.. .. .. ".. ".
. . .. I!C. ;
! ¡ ~ ; ..IÞ.::: s- :~ ~.. t. .
I iF . '
..,
2=: .' -,. i ~
... - _.
.. . š:i. . 11:..1 .
I - . . i . ~
.. . . .. a 'j'l .~,. . i I . II ;
.. . 8 U U I .... ~
. . " , i U~' ii I P II IIi I II ì
!. at at II : II . ,'II J, 1,1 I ,Ii'h
; I j 'IIII'II"'! I, 'i_iI i 1,Ifili .
.. ' '.' I
,::.:Z,~,.,,:,_. '
.
-
.;
.
~~ ')
..
, .. ~E I !
""""-'-," ':.',
I -...,. :: ' ¡:
" '! I,". ~~
I . ..
.. ..
.., ... - -, '....
",Þ.. 'I.' I::
')
I
. .:'
.
..
-
, I
; ..
:*,,~ I
c
~
c
"
~
U
III
..,
0
a:
a. .: .: .; .. .: .. .: ..'.. ! . =.. '- .
.
, ---,--- -"----_00. .,. '-.--.-.-'
., .
-
..
:)
Z
III
>
C
..I
..I
III
8111
..
S
I C
,0
.: I
.
, ..
..
i I
.. . I
~ C i
0 ~
~ :
~
III
.,
C
%
a.
I
.z
C
-' .
a. ::t
.
... .
z þ
III C
S ...
.. ...
0 .
..I :
III 2
> C
III u
Q .
.. .
~ .
- ..
. .
YÇEm):
.
"' . »Ü'nŒNrs
C . COHDOlaJlIIIHS
l' - fDWHBOUSES .~
D . IDfzrs PEl CõRDSS
o\CU ~
. ¡j
1
~
'
.
",
~
ø
§
~ ""(
'
.
. .
-.-
.
)
.
C'.AMPs£U,;. -
.
~
~
-
CBUlæ
PIOPurr
~
.
'..
:: . .
At:
. .
..
. . ß :u.
"r.
~o .-
... .
-.!:oR'NCON --
~-w.
I .00
I
I
1
)-
.'
'-AYf:
""0'
...
. "'.
.'
~
42A
15.8 U
.o>aoPOSEDl
'.
.
..
-
aT
11.g u
I
,
"
22 T
11.4 U
I.r.
..-
.
""
~
",',,;~,',\,,"¡","'¡,;t"A;",'5",""';" ", :,' ,
..}¥;-:~;;":;-$,';'~"'_,--"'," , - " .
' ~
81
..J
0
0
X
(.)
CI)
(J')
q:'
~
0
I-
0
CI:
<
0..
--ìll ~II
p RS~ ~ : C T liP';' ~ r"'" ,
;¡;
'-- -~.
-
RESIDENTIAL
.,)
~ . 1 ~J~
II~L
L
1
I ~ y "I'A%-
. S'~GLA"'L: '8 .. ,- .
~ :::::::::::::::::::: .......
CAMPBELL
AVE.
................-
-~~\
.III! \8 ~\
~ I- .. \
l~\j\tj\f\\t\~\\~j\f\\\,n. II k, L - -
11m
...
SINGLE FA
VICINITY MAP
.....":':':
.$~
1
~
-' FEB 2 ~ íS:::~
CITY OF" CAMPa
PLANNING D£PARTMI
Z
...J
z
>-
...J
...J
W
;r:
W
...J
...J
ill"
- {
.
~3 D~ ~.
~..J CA1 9!5Q?!
~/~ 2..Z) 199'j
~ ~~~~
~"t1:~ ".~ ~
-ro~~;k..
~.-~Lf) U1 C¡Soor
AJ.4.......- ~.f.'
Ii a:.; <- i::. I ". e; to:)
JUN 2 :. 1989
CIn .CLERK'S OffICE
L)é;~.~
'---'"
.
~ a.-. c.rF-ð, ~ ~(f ~ ~ A ~'4t;..b... ~
~þ .tf2~~~
-..¡ (, ..¡ ~ ~ a...... ~ ~
~~~~~
(
~ 1<J e/ <1 / ~ / 3) Ie¡ Ç: c¡ .
~~~~~~.,
. .
"J /Uc.L ~ ......:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~.þ-~ ~Í--
of-~~ ~ .,w ~ ~/
d Þ ~ ~ r-7- ~Pt4'~ 4~.
¿ "- "- ,.,......,.. /l.ú< 1.....1: .....: .ðf¡¿ ~ eu- aA.U .
. ~~P:- ~~~-:'--¡~
Ú<24~ ~~ . ~ 7 M4- ~ ~ ~
p;~~ ~~ ~~W<-
J IvA- ~ ~-I-o ß.L ~ .<l< ~ ~ A7úL
. ..
~ "ð' ~ wR. ~ If. ~'" a... ~ ~ ~ .
. '2.)~-~,.~.I~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~4~- ~ ~ ~44.~~ .
(
.d.Þ""';'" ,....-t; '1 f? f1 <t. a./ .......: ~ 4 . ~~ of ..dL
~ <>-6 ~ ('-12) h1.- 2. ~ oj
~.Jfr:L~~~A
ß-<-~~~~~~j
~)a-L~~~~
~~1~~.~k~
~~~~~d-~~~.
.. .
~~~~~ß.£~
~.~~~~a~~.
. . ..
d-~ r~ ~~~ O-.€f-
~~~~~hk ~
~.,J;:; ~ ~2 ~~~
~¿?~~~~~.
.
~ r ~ U11M-~ Þ. ~ /-.
~I
~~
~~~
rh::AF F~ :I c;
A I'-.JA L. .....,- E:. 1 :!::::;
R 1:::_1":- CJ J-{'.
r)UBC':; I C-;J"'"
AF-AF<-rt"'IEt.....-~ E::'>
Dot AVE'nLlt'
C1 t Y 01 Ci.uiipbeJ 1
r
JarILlë\t-y ~ 19EìB
By
PANG ~ ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
P.O. BOX 4255
MOUNTAIN VIEW~ CA. 94040
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SITE CONDITIONS
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Trip Generation and Distribution
B. Level of Service
C. Circulation, Access and Volumes
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
V. CONCLUSIONS
r-
APPENDIX
Site Plan
Level of Service Description
Level of Service Calculations
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE 1
VICINITY MAP
PLATE 2
PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
TABLE II
SUMMARY
LEVEL OF SERVICE
')
PAGE
1
1
3 ."
3
3
8
9
10
PAGE
2
5
PAGE
4
7
')
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
A developer proposes to build an apartment complex
on the southeasterly corner of Campbell Avenue and
Dot Avenue. The site plan by Integrated Design
Group is contained in the Appendix.
The objective is to analyze the existing
traffic conditions, provide an estimate
generation, assign and distribute the
critical intersections, and suggest
mitigation measures.
and future
of traffic
trips to
possible
II. SITE CONDITIONS
r
The site has one home which will be retained in
phase one and removed during the phase two
construction. The site is bounded on the north by
Campbell Avenue, a four lane arterial street, on
the east by multi-family residential units, on the
south by single family residential units, and on
the west by Dot Avenue, .~ two lane collector street
(Plate 1).
-1-
)
Æ"'A'I"?/¿ TaN
AYE¡1/L/é
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~,
~
~
~
'3
~
~.
~t.)
"" Y E.
AYé.
BVOO
~
~ ~.
AYE.
. .
NO JrA(£
f . &.- ?::¡ T E:.
~J reI to", I T' Y
MAr-:.
¡ATES
~
IL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
PO IQ ( "11 MOUNT.... VlIW. CA 1.040 "'11 "','°10
)
")
III. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Trip Generation and Distribution
The City of Campbell utilizes the CalTrans trip
generation rates. For this project,
approximately 6 trips per apartment unit per
day, a 10% peak hour factor, and a directional
split of 65:35 (IN:OUT) are utilized. These
rates are considered conservative since the
average CalTrans trip generation rate is 5.7.
Assuming the more conservative condition,
approximately 252 trips per day and 25 peak hour
trips with 16 inbound and 9 outbound are
anticipated during the PM peak hour (Table I).
The trip distribution is based on the existing
traffic volumes, the project's proximity to the
existing street system and is shown on Plate 2:
r-
1. 50% West
a) 40% to and from San Tomas Expressway
b) 10% to and from Campbell Avenue
2. 50% East
a) 30% to and from Winchester Boulevard
b) 10% to and from Campbell Avenue
c) 10% to and from Rincon Avenue
B. Level Of Service
Two intersections in the vicinity of the project
site were selected by the City of Campbell for
level of service analyses. The intersections
were evaluated for the PM peak hour for several
conditions:
(1) Existing¡
(2) Existing + This project.
-3-
')
\)
TABLE I
TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
UNIT
TRIP
RATE
DAILY PEAK PM PEAK HOUR
TRIPS HOUR TRIPS
FACTOR ----------------
(%) IN OUT
Apartments
42
6
252
10
16 9
(65%) (35%)
25
r
PAN<t &. A ssoc~
~D '.."'"0'1'."0" too.'J.'.~"
)
H..4/'?/L TON
AYEIVOE
/-4
~
~
~
~
¡xúV
\ ,?-; --1 IV ~
~
~
~
~
~.
~")
AYE.
AYé.
AY~
I~ j
t\.J
r
BVO.t/
¡ ~
NO KAte
f. ':: ~~:; T F
'::."
¡ATES
¡;"-"r';. !F:"E:.:.:.r':":'~:: f-.aCtt..ff=-ì::
'. .:: 1-' ~:::~ -T" f::'; :I B I... f -. - :.1 C-' , ..J
'CfVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
PO 101 .11. MOUN'A... VlIW, CA.t040 .t'II"'.1NO
)
")
The "Existing" counts were obtained by Pang &
Associates in late January 1988. The volume to
capacity ratios (V/C) and level of service
(LOS) (1) were calculated with the City of San
Jose Method (2) for the two intersections and
are summarized on Table II.
The calculations for the "Existing + This
Project" condition were based on .the
distribution of 25 peak hour trips. The
Winchester Boulevard I Campbell Avenue
intersection currently operates with a "C" - LOS
and will remain at that level for the "Existing
+ This Project" condition. Similarly, the
Winchester Boulevard I Rincon Avenue (3)
intersection is at a "B" - LOS currently and
will remain at that level for the "Existing +
This Project" condition. The increase in
critical volumes are 0.05% and 0.06% for the
Winchester Boulevard / Campbell Avenue and
Winchester Boulevard / Rincon Avenue
intersections respectively.
r
Therefore, it may be concluded that this
project's traffic impacts are insignificant
since the critical intersections operate at a
"D" or better LOS during the PM peak hour.
(1) The level of service description is contained in
the Appendix
(2) Per City of Campbell
(3) Assuming a traffic signal in place to perform
the level of service calculation.
-6-
')
')
TABLE II
SUMMARY
LEVEL OF SERVICE
PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING +
INTERSECTION EXISTING THIS PROJECT
LOS LOS
V/C V/C
1. Winchester/ C C
Campbell Ave. 0.735 0.736
2. Winchester/ B B
Rincon 0.659 0.659
(1 )
INCREASE
(% )
0.05
r
0.06
V/C = Volume to Capacity ratio
LOS = Level of Service
(1) "PERCENT INCREASE" refers to the increase in critical
volumes with the approval of this project.
PANCi & A ssoc~
Co'" ."0 '."'$.0"""°" co..$_. ""'$
~
:-
C. Circulation, Access and Volumes
The project will have access from Dot Avenue.
The circulation and access plan as shown on the
site plan (see Appendix) appears adequate.
Right and left turns in and out are permitted on
Dot Avenue.
The potential increases in PM peak hourly
volumes on adjacent streets are as follows:
STREET PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Campbell Avenue 22
Dot Avenue 25
Rincon Avenue 3
Winchester Boulevard 11
San Tomas Expressway 10
r
-8-
)
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are proposed since the two
critical intersections currently operate at a "D"
or better level of service.
r
. .
-9-
) ,
v. CONCLUSIONS
The peak
evaluated.
from this
generation,
intersection
period traffic impacts have been
Several conclusions may be extracted
report. They are related to trip
circulation and access, and
levels of service.
1. This project is expected to generate about
252 trips per day or 25 peak hour trips.
Approximately 16 (65%) of the vehicles will be
inbound and 9 (35%) outbound during a PM peak
hour.
2. Levels of service at the two critical
intersections of Winchester Boulevard
Campbell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard
Rincon Avenue will be at "e" and
respectively for the PM peak hour.
/
/
"B"
r
3. There is an estimated 3 peak hour trips
which would utilize Rincon Avenue. This
equates to about one trip in every twenty
minutes.
Thus, this project's traffic impacts are considered
insignificant.
-10~
r
(~:~
I-"
ø=::.
E:.
I"';
1)
ì
J..
)1:.
...- ..:=-.= 9J¡
---
-- ..... cw.,,~
WM)~. ~
'lAY .LOG , lAY ~ 10 .L8YJIUnOI
~ .
.
<
SJJaJI.L1IYcIY BOIOSna
J
- -.-... --...-...-.--.. --...-.--------- ----.--- ---.----...----- ----
r
i.
..
:)
Z
III
>
-... C
"""',
-'
-'
III
.
..
~
C
'0
'Ii
~I
~
J
tl, I' I ;
III
!:¡
'I
I
¡ .
~ ,:1
t :;~ III --
~ ,,:r ,I - _-:.
f -1.1- ,- - .
I!t "-
11,11111111
¡If I I .11
II
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
------"---------------------------lr
,
'.. - I,;
I ,
I 'I'
I I
I I
" III
I, II)
:1 ~
"I ..
II
II ~
I: c
I . -'.
. I"' ~ :
.. S Z þ
'I ' III C
: -J:I ~
illd¡
II ..In ~
I 11 ¡ :
e¡
ol. C
III Ij
Z :
0
I
-- .:~= 9tL
---
tØIOIIII -- ~.1IOaU8
WM>.rIW;J' ~
~Y !OG , lAY ~ 110 ø~
S.ut:DI.:£1IYdY HomllDa
-....-.. --..-..-.--- ....-.--------- ----.--- ...--.-----..---------
I
I
, ,
<
~
c
Q
~
U
1&1
.,
0
II:
IlL.
~~I~ ~ ~I~ ~~ ~. .
... . .1.. Þ.e.
.. I.... ':. ..
/11"1' I¡I."- """"."'1
- .""""" .....
~ """--I-,:i¡à 'i
'.. I ..
. - ,
: ---::~:' ','.:
,! ~II'_~~ :en '--_I,
.. - .., -... .... -
, '" . I . . . . a. ,". - . " ." j 11:.a:
i . . I '11 .-:._. 'I II
.. _,-!!, I!! 8 .. I I ,"¡
Ii II II I. .
i I I i 11'111 I !¡t ! ~ Ii: I II
.. ,." . "15, l ill! IIIIIB~
¡Ii! ! 1111:'1 ! 5¡ II_I! I . I II ell
..
-
~
oi
.:.. .. .; .. .. .:
.
,;
i.: "- ::.:: '.'-- .
---- ----..-----... .
'- .--.-.---
r
r
I
!
¡
III
:;)
Z
1&1
>
-16 C
...-.
-'
-'
III
.
&.
2
I C
0
f')
.
c
.
:
, ~
I
"I .
<l. C
0 ~
. ~
~
III
II)
C
Z
&.
t
.z
C
-' .
IlL. ;)
a
~ .
Z .
1&1 c
2 ~
&. ~
0 :
-' ~
III a
> c
III U
Q .
III .
Þ. .
- II
. .
I
¡
.
. ------
~
Volume/Capacity
---------------
Ratio
-----
A
<.60
B
0.60 ~ 0.69
C
0.70 S. 0.79
D
0.80 ~ 0.89
E
0.90 < 1.00
F
> 1. 00
-
-)
ì
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
Service Level Description
-------------------------
A condition of free flow, with low volumes and
high speeds. Traffic density is low, with speeds
controlled by driver desire, speed limits, and
physical road conditions.
A condition of
beginning to
conditions.
freedom to
operation.
stable flow, with operating speeds
be restricted somewhat by traffic
Drivers still have reasonable
select their speed and lane of
A condition of stable flow, but speed and.
maneuverability are more adversely affected by
higher traffic volumes. Most drivers are
restricted in their freedom to select their own
speed, change lanes, or pass.
Conditions approach unstable flow, with tolerable
operating speeds being maintained though
considerably affected by changes in operating
conditions. Fluctuation in volume and temporary
restrictions may cause substantial drops in
operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to
maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low,
but conditions can be tolerated for short periods
of time.
Represents operation at operating speeds lower
than in Level D, with volumes at or near the
capacity of the highway.
Represents forced flow operations at low speeds,
where volumes are below capacity. Speeds are
reduced substantially and stoppage may occur for
short or long periods of time because of the
downstream congestion.
PANÇ- &. A ssoc~
~ ,....,."",...00. ,oo.~
)
I.wJI I h.li c.: I-i E :f-3 .. r E~ F~:
r
. .
Et L- '-" L1o ~,
')
,."
c; ~.:.\ f"" F.:. l::::~ E~ L- L-
(..) ",,'" L "
-)
Ll::i/U.- Of S~R\;li:l:: HN,'~,¡ V;::;l~..
11J..:.~):~'Iil-': : E Ì', J S r 1 r-JC"
,f'! I 1 Un: II! j '~C HESI Eh t. LAi'lf'Ht_L L
r~
LEG LP,NE PATTERN LANE courrr s
L F,;
U:ì'i S R CJ LEFl THRU RIGHT
t~ :::02010 29£1 763 181
E 2020l0 325 552 151
5 102010 12£1 1':;6 321
w 102010 125 798 72
f'tJ, HUuh~:
l:uUiJT VA IE:
AN¡'H. IJf.il E :
1 t_.:~.O--l 7>,
l-:¿U-i::if-1
] --L~'-88
b¡~,:Ü(,j ì H FAL I Uf;' ~~ : ()
t'Ll-\tJ f.'J':LH:
1'1f.IF f.'AGi:_:
HNAL. 1 NIT. :
bLF
SIGNAL lyPE: FULLY AcrUA1ED
LEu
13F:EEN
'tEL +REj)
.J-H
r-
6:':;
9. ~j
t_... .-,1
6~,'1
9. ::¡
CYCLE LENc,nH ==
] ¿19
LOSI '11 !"/E =
.128
LEG
:It LANES
GRIT. MOVE
L R
L. 5 T S R 0
:':~OOI)OO
L (> I) Ü Ü Ü
00:;:'000
I) (I 2 0 (> 0
N 2
E ,-,
.:.,
S ¿-
,oJ ::~
1 (ITA!.. ~:i 8
-.-...,.--.., ,. --------i.
+--- ,--_.. "..-
l1J
I:-
----..'--..-'------.,...
+..--,....---,....-
s
+-_._---t--,-,_....._-+-_...,---+------+....,---_...._-, - ._-,------,.¡., --"-.,,
_.. -- . -
+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-- --~
.- .,
L.
.__.._,.. --- ..
.. - ...d_.... -..
y
------ ----- ----- -~-_..
--"- -.._--
R
------ ----- -----
INBOUND
1242
1028
1185
995
OUTBOUN.lJ
1012
141i
116~)
861
t-il..lVl:V n,: J "';::..
Co I, .. ; U
t! U U
<. ) U C'
U I) iJ
C. VOL. T. CAP. G/G ADJ. / FIn....!. L. Ct"if-' .
LANE b/L
298 1015 0.099 (I. üt'.J9 o. 151::1 ",j /6
-:r,""'" 31..1 1 ~i !.I. lOB (I. 059 o. 1 ó~. ~'\J"
--'.....J
7":$6 3560 O.2oj (I. uti;" o. :.:'66 ';":¡
798 3t;611 0.224 u. '.1:';9 C). Ltf:', 1 (llfi
Lf - O. 128
~lti7 0.766 ..:::'7 ,~'. -I
1 ..., (i. 766 = 0...::.,,:;4 I t:' " U.'_.',.:.' ,
ViC = IU1~l CRIT. VOL./TOTAL CRIT. CAP. =
. 73~)
La:-. Vt:.L. OJ
bt:.t-.,. \'1 L~L '"" L
)
'ì
L:t,! lC!t,J: L'.JJNCHESit:¡:, ~': C":itlF'f.:<ELL
LL'..JLL DF- SE.F:'..!lU: ~~I'"¡:-1LrSl;~.
I it. :-'~;.-1':.!:_: +F'hU.Jl.L I
f.'t.f1t. Hull!.::
16:.0--1 /' ::::.(i
L:t)UNl lJ~1I E: :
1-:¿U--8f3
At,¡AL . Dfl IE:
1-2=,-Btt
bl--:LII,oJ I H FALl m,: ';'. : U
f-'LAN Ahl::Ji:
r1A¡';" FAGE:
AWiL. Hur.:
GLP
SIGNALIYPE: FULLY AC1UAfED
¡,J
---.-.--.----+
+.-- ---"--"--""'-'-
L'J
t.
--..---.--...--+
+-...---.-..-.... - .-..
:;:¡
LEG
YEL +F:E.D
+-----+--_._-+-----+~----.----+--_. -~---_..~---- ~
GFiEEN
.tJ ':::
6~:,
'~;' . ~~;
E-t..J
L;
+-----~-----~-----+_.._--~ --- -+--
- '. - ,
6~'
9.5
'I-'" ..., _. .-....,
CYCLE LENGTH ::::
"
,
,... -.-.."....-. -.-...-,....-.
-.-. ,.. _.
149
-.--.-...-.. ......_---- -.........- -...---.-.... -_..--_...... --'..-
LOSl
lIME ;:;.
. 1 ~:B
r::
------ ----- -- -.. ----
LEG LAI'JE F-'ATIERN LANE COllin s
L F\
LSTSF:;:O LEFl 'IHkU F;:l ßH"
N 202010 298 76:3 186
E 202010 325 c'¡;::',," 151
;';¡..J '-)
S 102010 128 736 321
~ 102010 128 79';' 72
LEG # LANES GRIT. MOVE
L R
L S ,. S R 0
N 2 ,.. (I (I (I (I (I
..,;,
E :2 2 0 (I (I 0 Ü
S 2 0 (I '. 0 (I (I
..::.
tN . 'j (I (I 2 Ü (I 0
L
'fiLS 8
C. VOL.
291:1
":"r-.c.:
_\,,-~I
'736
799
2158
INBOUND
1247
102<;'
OUTBCJUIJU
1 (i 1 ~:i
{iUnE.~.I 11':~:: r':j
0 () ~:'
I) 1 ()
141é!
1160
u
(!
118~5
999
(¡
0
l
867
.,
T. CAP.
G/C
AD.) . /
UiNE
ADa.
biG
c . U~P .
3015 (I. 09C;'
3015 O.lÜb
3560 0.20:'-
3560 (I. ::::::4
LT == 0.1213
(I."ì6b
ü. (I~:,9
(1.059
O. 1 ~A:;
Ü.jö/
"'1.,.6
~.,O,¡
(I.0~9
(¡. u59
O.¿6Ò
'7"~ ;
1 1.)1)-;'
(J. 21::ß
,..:'C,'..i¡
1 - iJ. I oÒ ::::: u. :':'~VI i H ;:: (.j. ('...".;'
'.;/L: = lü'JAL CHIT. VOL./l()lj~L CRII'. CA~'. --
.7,:;.6
LE'.)EL uf bt:h'\.'II.Æ ::: l;
\
I
",oJ 1 U.,~ C:: .-1 E:" :!:::~I E I:;.::
r-
1:::1: L- ~.....þ L~ -
)
/'
J-";: j '-..1 C:;- L.J' tJ
. .
{-:'I "....i' li:..- -
LEI.'U-- Ui
)
SL F:\.I} CE f'lt--IHL ,,1 ,
Ulh ~"-'I'J: :'JJtJ,-!IE~::;Ii:.J ~--- HINCfl,'~
f ¡L_.~:'hC,[: [-~: I ~Jf 1 ¡'k.
~'EI4f- HUUF,::
U:.IIJI'.J! DA IE:
AN~1L . NiT E:
163',)-1 i:!J)
1 "-21-88
1-2::;-88
GROWTH FACTOR % : 0
PLAN AF,:E{-):
1'1,':¡F-' P~~GE:
At,JAL. I NIT. :
GLP
SIGNAL TYPE: FULLY ACTUATED
LEe.
GHEEN
r- '-5
6::,
E-\!J
, ,'"
,¿,~
CYCLE LENGTH ==
LOST TIME ::
YEL+PED
10
L;
..J
10:';
. 14::::,
------'--'--'-'-oi-
¡"J
--- --..__..-- --"---oi-
1\1
Ei
.t-----------..--- --
t-
+-.--. ------ _..----
+-----+---.---+----- -+....-.-".-----~... .---. -+-.--..--.--- - -'-----"---'1
+---....-- --.-+ .n-.._--.-+..-----.. --.--t .--.... .------ -.- --,,-_. -"-+-.-.-----,,.,,-+ ---- -. -.
G
--_.,,-.._-..-,,-- ---'--"'--"" ,,--
y
. - .". ..-""_..
F:
------ ----- -"--"
--- "'- .-- --". --" . -...-
---"'-.-.-.-- "d_'_"_'--"- --.n_'--,,- --,,'--"'---'" ...-.m.""""
LEG LPINE F'f.HTERN LAI'JE COUN'f 5
L R
LSTSRO LEFT THHlI F, I GHT
N 101100 ~,;.9 98:::' 51
E 000002 41 4 51
S 10ll00 c:: I::. 1286 89
;:J..J
W 00000:2 19 3 59
LEG
# LANES
N 1
E 1
S '-'"
,¿,
W 1
11"";1_5 c:
..f
CRIT. MOVE
L R
L S T 5 R 0
10 0 (I (I (>
(I Ü Ü I) I) :2
(I (I 1 1 (I 0
(>0(10(1 :;:'
INBOUND
10T3
96
1430
81
c. VOL. 1'. CAP. G/C
39 lb7~j (I. 02:;
96 1679 O. O~. 7
1 ::;:.7 5 :J~'.-.45 0.388
81 1679 0.048
1..1 == O. 14:::;
1 ::iQ 1 t).b59
OU1BUUNv
1:3~ib
1 :::;.1
1 OK:;
11 (I
AD~f . /
LANE
0.068
0.060
0.136
O.ÜbE-i.
-- -" -"--1-
-. - .-...
f::l.1ÜED i F: H'b
(I 0 ()
( - þ !) ( \
(I (> Ü
(I I.. \ (I
ADJ.
Hie
L. CAr'.
1).091
(I. 12~j
o~~;:¿.~
1 ~.-I:':::
'21 i)
1 L:~ Ii::!
] q~
O. 11 to
~:"4 -; ~:
1 - (I. 6~j9 :: o. :,.L 1 .I ~, ::: U. (\~ b
\'.lC = 'lO' ~H.- CFdT. VUL./TOH\L CHIT. LAP. =
. 6~:.9
LEVEL u~ SERVIC~ = ~
)
-j
LE\'LI- CII. SFh\! 1(:1:: Hh (:,L YL;],:-
J'i;;::~¡~)HCÆ : +f-~:UcJE,-l
._-I~_Hï lLJ:'J: VJ:[ JLHE~: Il:.f-: ~-. h:lhlLCltJ
r ~
LEb LANE PA-j TERN LANE COUNTS
L R
LSTSRO LEFT lHh:U RIGHi
N 101 100 39 98:~~ ~H
E 000002 41 4 51
S 10] 100 c--, 1286 89
~I
W 000002 19 3 60
t'l:-Jit HDUh::
1 b::.O-l 7::::.0
COUNt DAlE:
1-21-8E!
ArUiL. DA.r E:
l'-;25-m~
GROWTH FACTOR % : (I
¡"'Lt-it-.J Am::;.;:
Mf-if-' PObE:
ANt-H. . IN] T . :
bLF'
SIGNAL TY~E: FULLY ACTUATED
LEn
Gf,:EEN
'r'EL+¡:,ED
. N-.S
r
b~_~
lU
t.--W
2~)
:5
CYCLE LENlHH =
10=',
LOST TIME:
. ] 4:::'~
LEG
# LANES
CHIT. MOVE
L R
L S T S R 0
10 (I (> (I 0
0 () (I 0 (I 2
(I (I 1 1 (I (I
(I (I 0 Ü (I 2
hi 1
E 1
5 2
c.'J 1
ìï/TfiLb &;;.
.J
----..----------+
+------- -n___-
l>J
------.------+
--I--H---._--'---" .-
~:;
+-----+-----+-----+-----+--~--+-----+-----~-----+
-i------- - +-.--- ---+-...---.----t ---..--.----!--. -.--....-. ..-+ -....-..- ...+ - ----- .. ..f _n
l3
--__-'-.H" ...-.---..-- ---.....-..
- -..-...-.....
y
-----~ ----- ----..
-. ._.H.. .-
H.- _....- -- ...-.-- HH
F:
-------- H______.." -.--_H__-_- _"HH__."'_- ..- .-- -_.-. ---
I NI3(JUt-JD
1073
96
DU-] :UOl.Jt.JD
l:.::ib
1 :::;.1
l(JBLl
112
f-iDDLU I I:,: 1 I 'tJ
(; i. ) (I
0 ~ ) u
:: ,- H \ \.. )
(I 0 1
1432
82
G. VOL. T. CAP. GIG ADJ. I I-iDd. C. CAI-.'.
LAI-.JE G/C
39 1675 (I. (>2::::. 0.060 0.09j ) :':,:'::'
96 1679 0.057 0.068 o. 1 :';;:::'; :¡:I !)
1375 3545 0.388 (I. 136 (I. 5~,:if ] tP of::
82 1679 0.049 0.068 o. 117 1.l~J
L1 = O. 143
1592 0.660 ",'..1 I ê:o
1 - O.66U ::: ().H;4u / :¡ :;;: ').\..',:,:-!
v/C = l-OlAL GRIT. VOL./TOTAL CRIT. CAP. =
.6t.9
LfV~L o~ 8~R\lL~ ~ ~
'" .
i ~ '.'
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1989
I
, .. /J / ' ,
I .
CONSENT CALENDAR
R 89-01 (PD 87-15)
Dubcich, R.
Request for reinstatement of previously approved
Planned Development Permit allowing construction
of a 42 unit apartment on property known as 464
W. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/
Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of June 13, 1989, noting
is recommending approval based on the finding that there have been no zoning
changes in the area. He noted that the reinstatement includes the revised
Development Schedule amending the date for beginning construction to May 3D,
and that the project completion date be amended to December 31, 1990.
Staff
1990,
Mr. Stafford responded to Commissioner Perrine's query regarding the redlining and
Chairperson Olszweski's query regarding the possible requirement of the Public
Works Department relative to the provision of a traffic signal. He stated that the
redlining was included in the previous approval and that there have been no
comments from the Public Works Department requesting that a traffic signal be part
of the approval process.
(
Mary Beth Fitzpatrick, 63 Dot Avenue, opposed the reinstatement. noting lack of
on-street parking, no provision for a traffic signal, and project density as
concerns. Further. Ms. Fitzpatrick expressed her concern regarding lack of
notification relative to this project being placed on the agenda.
Discussion ensued between Commissioners Dickson. Kasolas and the Staff regarding
the public notice concern.
City Attorney Seligmann informed the Commission that public notice is not required
upon first request for reinstatement. either by due process or by State and City
ordinances.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
June 13. 1989
Commissioner Christ reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee
supports the reinstatement; however, should this item come back at a future
date requesting'reinstatement it should be considered as a new application.
M/S:
Perrine. Christ -
That the Planning Commission approve the request
of Mr. R. Dubcich. accept the revised Development
Schedule. and reinstate the Planned Development
Permit allowing construction of 42 apartment"units
on property known as 464 W. Campbell Avenue. in a
PD (Planned Development/Medium-Density
Residential) ZOning District, including the
finding that there have been no changes in the
General Plan or Zoning on the above-referenced
property.
Discussion on Motion
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1989
PAGE 2 - R 89-01 (PD 87-15)
Commissioner Kasolas supported the request based on City policy to reinstate
when no changes to the General Plan or Zoning designations are indicated, and
when City standards indicate that the Planning Commission has authority to
grant a reinstatement for a period of one year.
Commissioners Walker and Dickson indicated opposition based upon the density of
the project.
Vote on Motion
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Kasloas, Perrine, Christ, Olszewski
Dickson, Walker
None
Chairman Olszewski informed Ms. Fitzpatrick of the appeal procedure.
-;~ * ~.~
(
PUBLIC HEAAI~S AND
Im'RooæTIOO OF aIDItWQ:S
Public Hearing -
Introó.Jction of Ordinances
- 464 W. Campbell Ave.
Ordinance 1689 -
approving a General Plan
Arrenàœnt
Ordinance 1690 -
approving Planned
Deve l~nt
1f
CITY mUNCIL HINtJrES OF
APRIL 5, 1988
Planning Director I<ee - Staff Slmnary Report
dated 4/5/88, re: General Plan Arœnånent.
Mayor Podgorsek - expressed concern
relati ve to the increase in density that
would result fran this General Plan
arœnånent.
'!he Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Mike Rockhold, Architect, Integrated Design
GrQ,Jp, spoke in f aver of the proposed
General Plan change.
MIS: Doetsch,IWatson - to close the public
hearing. lwbtion adopted unanim:>usly.
MIS: Doetsch,IWatson - to approve the General -
Plan arrenåœnt fran Low-Medium Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential.
foDtion adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES : Counci lnerbers : Ashworth, Kotowski,
Doetsch, Watson
OOES: Counci1members: Podgorsek
ABSEm' : None
The City Clerk read the Ordinance title.
HIS: Watson/t)oetsch - to waive further
reading. lwbtion adopted unaninously.
Planning Director I(ee - reviewed the
application for Planned Develcpnent Permit.
He explained that if the City Council wishes
to allow the single-family haœ to remain in
Phase I of the construction, it is
r'eCQlllcnded that the developer be required
to enter into an agreellent to assure that
cau;t.ruction on Phase II is begW1 wi thin
three years of City Council approval.
CouncilnerÐer Ashworth - expressed ccncern
relative to parking at John fbrgan Park, and
also, the problem with access œto C8!pbell
Avenue iran Dot Avenue.
~ Mayor declared the public hearing open
for discussion fran the audience.
-3-
(
Recess - 8:55 p.m. -
Counc i 1 Reconvene - 9: 10
p.m.
CITY OOUNCIL ~n*ITES OF
APRIL 5, 1988
Mr. Rcx:khold - stated that the developer has
,«>rked closely with the Planning staff in
addressing the issues of traffic
circulation, architectural design,
landscaping, density, and setback
requirerœnts, and has exceeded milÚ.rTUT\
standards in all of these areas. Mr .
Rcx:khold further stated that the developer
is willing to pay his share toward traffic
mitigation efforts.
MIS: Watson/Doetsch - to close the public
hearing. t-btion adopted unanim:Jusly.
MIS: Doetsch,l\'latson - to accept the Negative
Declaration for this project. t-btion
adopted by the fOllowing roll call vote:
AYES: Counci1nerbers: Ashworth, Kotowski,
Doetsch, Watson
OOES: Councilmerrèers: Podgorsek
ABSEt1I': Counci1nerbers: None
CouncilJœrrber Ash'«>rth - stated he would
support adding a condi tion to the PD
approval that the developer pay a fair share
of traffic mitigation costs, based on a
traffic analysis by the Public WOrks
Departlœnt.
MIS: Doetsch,IWatson - to take first reading
of the ordinance approving this project,
subject to the requirement that the
developer post bonds and enter into an
aqreerrent to assure project phasing is
ccrtpleted. t-btion adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilnetœrs: Xotowski, Doetsch,
Watson
RES: Counci1merrbers: Ashworth, Podgorsek
ABSEm' : Counc i 1merrbers : None
'!be City Clerk read the Ordinance title.
MIS: Doetsch,IWatson - to Wâi ve further
reading. M:>tion adopted unarU.nnls 1 Y .
'!be Mayor announced a fifteen1llinute recess
at 8:55 p.m. '!be Council leCOnvened at 9:10
p.m.
-4-
PLANNING COMMISS~~~ MINUTES
MARCH 8, 1988
PD 87-15
Lippert S.
Continued public hearing to consider the
application of Mr. Stephen Lippert for a
Planned Development Permit. plans.
elevations. and development schedule to
allow the construction of ~2 apartment
units on property known as ~36 to ~6~ ~.
Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned
Development) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report, noting that Staff is
recommending aprpoval of this project.
Commissioner Kasolas expressed a concern with the phasing proposal which
would leave the single family house until Phase II.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending
approval of the project. with the added condition that Phase II be
completed within three years.
r
Discussion ensued regarding the plans, pertaining to red-lining;
relocation of trash enclosures; pavement treatment for driveway areas;
introduction of a stucco wall at one location; provision of 3 additional
parking spaces until Phase II is constructed; and the location of the
luest spaces being provided on the site, but outside the security gate.
Commissioner Kasolas asked what consideration was liven to problems that
milht be created for the residents of Phase ~ during construction of Phase
II; and, expressed a concern about the lot area in Phase II being 7,000
sq.ft., yet being developed with 6 units.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearinK and invited anyone to speak on
this item.
Hr. Hike Rockhold, Integrated Desiln Group, explained the desiln theory of
the project at 1enlth, notinl that the desiln provides for a very
attractive streetscape from Campbell Ave. a. well as security for the
residents. Hr. RoFkhold stated that the traffic report provided indicated
no impact created from this project.
Commissioner ¡asolas was of the opinion that the time period that the
traffic study (January 1988) was inappropriate for ass.ssment of the area
traffic because of the lack of use at the nearby park. Additionally,
traffic on Sunday from the churches in the area must be considered.
Hr. Rockhold continued that the study va. done. during peak traffic hours.
1.larding the phasing proposal, Hr. Rockhold noted that the applicant's
mother resides in the sinlle family home and it is the family's desire to
allow her to remain there as long as possible. Construction of Phase II
will be done durinl the day vhen most of the residents in Phase I are at
work, therefore, the Impact should be 8inimal.
Commissioner Iaso1as alain expressed his concern vith the phasinl of the
project, noting that in the past this type of situation has created
problems. He asked vhat assurances vould be liven that the project would
be completed in three years, noting that he vas prepared to support the
project but not the phasina.
City Attorney Seligmann noted that the possibility of the project not
being completed presented a difficult situation. in that it would be
difficult to invalidate the buildings in Phase I.
Commissioner Olszewski asked about the possiblity of a performance bond,
Mr. Rockhold recommended that the project be approved with an added
condition of a performance bond. or that the phasing issue be abolished.
Commissioner Walker stated his concern with on-street parking. and asked
Mr. Rockhold if any consideration had been given to providing additional
parking.
Mr. Rockhold responded that every parking space possible has been squeezed
onto the site. Any further spaces would result in loss of landscaping.
MIs:
Walker. Stanton -
MIs:
Kasolas. Olszewski -
('
\
Discussion
That the public hearing on PD 87-15 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
That the total project would be
beneficial to our community with the
main access to Dot Ave. and the total
project complements our consideration in
recommending approval. The Planning
Commission further recommends that the
project be completed in total; however.
if the Council finds that phasing is
necessary, due to the applicant's
personal considerations. that Phase II
be completed with no more than 3 years
from approval of the project and that
the City protect itself by requiring the
developer to post the necessary bonds or
do the necessary acts in order to assure
that the project is completed.
The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council accept
the Negative Declaration which has been
prepared for this project; and. that the
Planninl Commi.sion adopt Resolution No.
2518. includinl ~indinls and conditions
indicated in the Staff Report of March
8, 1988. and redlining of presented
plan. recommending that the City Council
approve PD.87-15.
Commi..ioner Walker a.ked for the number of accidents alonl Campbell Ave.
between San Tomas Expre..way and Winch..ter Blvd. and if there were any
children involved in tho.e accidents. Co8mi..ioner'a Walker's particular
concern was in relation to children croaainl the street in this area on
the way to school. He aulle.ted a blinkina liaht and pedestrian crossing
in the area.
Engineering Manager Helms responded that the accident rate in this
location is less than anticipated; the figures involving children are not
readily available; and, discussions with school administrators have
indicated that there is not a crossing problem in this area.
Additionally, the City usually discourages uncontrolled crossings.
Commissioner Walker asked if any thought had been given to preventing left
turns from Dot onto Campbell Ave.
Hr. Helms noted that the traffic volumes in the area are insufficient to
warrant this type of action at this time.
Chairman Christ stated that he could not support the project as phased;
however, he could support the project if it were not phased.
Vote on motion
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Kasolas. Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski.
Walker, Christ
None
Dickson.
AYES:
Commissioners:
* * *
('
\
/
8
8
ORDINANCE NO. 1690
BEING AN ORDINANCE 01 THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A PLANNED
DEVELOPliENT PERMIT, PLANS, ELEVATIONS.
DEVELOPJiENT SCHEDULE. AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
42 APARIMENT UNITS ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS
46' W. CAMPBELL AVE. IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPKENT/
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
(APPLICATION OF HR. STEPHEN LIPPERT. PD 87-1S ).
The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE: That the Zoning Hap of the City of Campbell is hereby
changed and amended on property known as 46' W. Campbell Ave. by ådopting
the attached Exhibit A entitled Plans and Elevations; Exhibit B entitled
Development Schedule; Exhibit C entitled Hap of Said Property; and Exhibit
D entitled Conditions of Approval, as per the application of Hr. Stephen
Lippert for plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the
construction of 42 apartment units in a Planned Development Zoning
Di.tric~. Copies of said Exhibita are on file in the Planning Department.
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following
its passage and adoption and ahall be published once within IS days upon
passage and adoption in the San Jose Hercury News, a newspaper of ¡eneral
circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
(
\
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of Apri 1
following roll call yote:
. 19 88. by the
AYES:
Council.embers:
kotowski. Watson. Doetsch
Ashworth. Podgorsek
NOES:
ABSENT :
Council.embers :
Councilmember8: None
AttEST:
TN! '0"[001"1 INSTIMoIrNT 18 A WIbr
AND COJlJlEr.:T COPY OF THI ORIGINAL,
ON "LE IN THIS O""CE.
ATTfST: IA"".", CLI4SIn', CITY OI.INC.
CITY CAW8ELL, CALIPOfINIA.
¡
8Y
ItA,.
--
-
_. -- -
- .
- - - _.
-(
J
.
. EXHIBIT B
Ð!VELOP!iENT SCHEDULE: PD 87 -1 S
APPLICANT: LIPPERT. S.
SITE ADDRESS: 464 W. CAHPBE.LL AVE.
P.C. HTG.: 3-8-88
1.
Phase I construction to begin within one year of City Council
Approval.
2.
3.
Phase II construction to begin with 3 year. of City Council approval.
Construction to be completed within one year of commencerment.
--
L! III l
, ,
11 ;~- I
¡
: .
~, I
, !
~.:' n,l -1 - '1i I
::- 0 6 'Ii i- '}-
-.1 -- - l' ~ t:: - 1- j -, . ~
.1 J:-J ~ .. ~ J : t-ll-::: ~. -~ .
'~. '.. 'hI' ~ 1!!' 1---, - ~'. ~-- ,....- ,411- -
r .....,. .. , , ';- t-~ I-I-,l I
-:- ..;.- , ,,' r- ~ . ";- i-- I
U(O' I:,U ~ =:i-',- ~ 8- - r:- ~-:- t;= u
g~ ". J ... . û -, ¡ ":"-"'" ':--.t:- ~~"
- u... -¡---- ,- ~- " - . ~ 'I-- þ-"
' ~ I~I '1/ 4~ ~ 8.L rL ~~ J I.!., ,'iT '-- ~t::.:=-..-z.
., I "~I' :¡r ..... '.J ~~" _.
1 J I ~ ., ',ill t::: I! : ; I.:.; i ! -- i--J ~ '1-:..
11 J I I 8 , 'I't';rr ,'.. . F ~1 Ill-£.. ~ ,
U If I " T 1 r- : ~
I..J.J ., I . 8 -
it::; 1J;::I[ L I , '.' 8 Hi .. 'ó ; - -~' .
. - t::t: "-LLJ I , , I ll!" . D :"~íT
..... r- LI fl "" ,..... - to?
~..~ J II r .., ~ :::::':':'.:' \~I r- 1 " . . . .
; -I~~-" , '~'I .f{f3I/>;::!"-!~: :- ~ _U--. ~~""Edê:: !; r':~
. 2 ~ I ò . ~... 1--01 1-- ~- ,... 1 , ,
' ..... IE ~ ~I ~I n l L' ' ~
./ ~ . . . .J "L h. ~. . ':... - -- - ~.
'. '1.... - '-----,---. .: ~.. ~ ~~'1: -lliJ~ r-rn it: ,
- It-I.~, H.. .'_1'
I
.
t
.
.
-- ,';"", ""','.
-.
IXRIBIT C - PUBLIC HEAlING BEFORE PLANNING
COKMISSION ON 3-8-88. us. 2518 RECOMMENDING
APPl0VAL or PLANNED DEVELOPKENT PERMIT - 42
APAitKENT UNITS - LIPPERT. S. - 464 W. CAMPBELL
AVE. - (VOTE: 6-0-1).
[>lr-;~~ ~-
S :- =
(.
(
I .
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
APPLICANT: LIPPERT. S.
SITE ADDRESS: 464 W. CAMPBELL AVE.
P.C. HTG.: 3-8-88
.
EXHIBIT D
The applicant is hereby notified. as part of this application. that. he/she
is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the
Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of 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.
1.
Revised site plan indicating revised carports. introduction of
pavement treatment. relocation of trash enclosures to be submitted to
the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural
Review Committee prior to application for a building permit.
2.
Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red
on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
3.
Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material. and
location of irrigation system to 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.
'encing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be
submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to
issuance of a building permit.
4.
s. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount
of $10.000 to insure landscaping. fencing. and striping of parking
areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file
written agreement to complete landscapina. fencina. and stripina of
parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning
Department prior to application for a buildina permit.
°6. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department. prior to
installation of PC&! utility (transformer) boxe.. indicatina the
location of the boxes and screenina (if boxes are above around) for
approval of the Planning Director.
Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvement. are
installed.
7.
8.
All parkins and driveway area. to be developed in compliance with
Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Hunicipal Code. All parkina space. to
be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper auard..
Underaround utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150
of the Campbell Hunicipal Code.
9.
10. Plan. submitted to the Buildinl Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underlround
utilities includinl vater, .ewer. .l~ctric. telephone and television
cables. etc.
(
\..
/
.
8
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
PAGE 2
11. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the
Siln Ordinance for all silns. No sign to be installed until
application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building
Departments (Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
12. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any
contract for the collection and disposal of refuse. garbage. wet
Barbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell
shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement
applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to
all commercial, business. industrial. manufacturing, and construction
establishments.
13. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity 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 Brade level and have a level area
adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers.
14. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City
requirements for the handicapped.
15. 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.
16. 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. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414. 1979
Ed. Uniform Fire Code.
BUILDING DEPARTHENT
17. letaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of 15 inches
if constructed of wood.
18. One ground level unit required to ..et handicap construction
requirements. all other around level units shall comply with
adaptability regulations for handicap units Title 242-105(b) 9. Fire
retardant roofs are required where roof area exceeds 3,000 of
projected area 3202(b) UBC.
~ - -
.
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
PAGE 3
FIRE DEPARTKENT
19. Access driveways shall be maintained to 20 foot wide minimum and have
a vertical clearance of 13' y". V.F.C. 10.207.
20. Roadways must maintain 20 foot width unless they terminate in an
approved turnaround area, V.F.C. 10,207.
21. Electric gates shall be provided with C.F.O. approved knox box overide
system.
22. Buildings to be of 1 hour fire resistant construction unless sprinkler
protected.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
23 Pay storm drain area fee.
24 File.a Parcel Hap to combine the three lots.
25 Obtain an excavation permit, post surety and pay fees to install a
handicap ramp in the sidewalk at the corner, replace the street lights
with City standard, relocate the driveways, repair sidewalks as .
necessary and any other work in the public right-of-way.
(
.,
26. Construct bus duck-out on Campbell Ave. frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider the
requirement of a performance bond, or other appropriate protection, to
insure that the project is completely built out within three years
because of the proposed phasing.
~,'I\:,>,..":",,
1 :hj .,~ : I,': -
,~ " '. I .
.
..
f
0
Ct
<
Q.
~ L
l
~- rrr ~r -::-
CITY OF" CAMPL
PLANNIN¡¡ C¡;P..~H'
.
Z
-J
=~!SI~::'i~IMILY ~i'A.
z
>-
-J
-J
W
~ Ij]y .."'~'/~.'W"!.'~
W .,!,'..,'.,.',",.!,',,",'.,',.', '."'!.....'.'!
-J . '-- ,', ',' ,-- ,
-J
.
W
>
c:(
>-
C
~ [
:I:
CAMPBELL AVE.
..' \ --ìD~C
ti;!i!.;!;;¡I.:!~.::.¡;¡.'l ~ \\ p RS~ ~ : C T li;f;' ! ii
8I1lR "', ~ .~[[
. ?;Hffif:f:¡¡~ ~ \~ - - - - - 1111111 : [f.
~ . - JI¡¡~~~~¡.~.iì¡~¡¡'iii'l
SINGLE FA IL RESIDENTIAL
VICINITY MAP
. - f
.
.
-
.:
8
':':1': .: .:/.: .:, t '~ ..
... .... rc.
- !5 ! . ¡ I J = '....:; I
,-..- -J " ,::Ii, - ¡'. ......:_",,-
'.8 ' " !
. '. i,E ~~ '. ::. .' -I i ~
, !..' . ~~ . ..:.. -,
~%.'I: i2 ""
J - ,".':: i '11:.1 -~
'I ", 1'~'f1iJ II i
!-" i i: I I!
. I.I " i II! , III'J~~
! 3e 1.1 J I I "e I
"
i.: .. '., d.:i. "..-'- .
I
. .:
.
.
..
I
t
I
:, ,~ I
c
~
c
0
~
u
'"
...
0
Ct
A.
i . ,
. ... !~ . u
i , , f ¡ ",;I,i,
.. .." . I ~
¡Ii 1111'1:'11
. . . . . . .
.. . . 8 . ..
. '
..
I
--- --..--..-----.. ., '-..-.-.-
-
. -
""1.
....,,1.
I
..
~
Z
1&1
>
C
.I
.I
1&1
.
IL.
:=E
c
I 0
.:
.
, ..
..
I
.. ..
(. C
0 -
. :
~
'"
e
c
z
IL.
I
,Z
C
-' ..
IL. :Þ
.
~ ..
z Þ
811 c
:=E ..
IL. ..
0 ..
-' :
811 a
> c
811 u
Q .
.. .
~ .
- "
. .
~
'" .
,P.~OJEÇ~['PATA .
1.
2.
, ,
HET SITE AREA,
, '
, !
" ';2.'11 ,ACRE ( ,,~, 982 &.1'.)
ZONI5GJ
.. ,
, .' ",' f.I? ,
'. ,0
3.
USE:
',. . ;'
, RD'l' AL AP AR 'l'KBN '1' S
411
, ,
mE OF ~C~uP~C! I '
".0
, ,
'1'YPE 01' CONS'l'RUC'l'I051
, "
, :,:' R-1
, ,
-- , 5 ~
.. ..', """"" 0,
'6.
. , : , ,
, ,
WMBER OF STORIESI'
, .
V-5
2'
. 7. , mIl-1BER OF UU~1S ,,' '
, ,
4~
36 (PHASE I) ,-
6 (PHASE II)
, ,
TWO BEDROOM QHITS
ONE BEDROOM UHITS
8.
SIZE OP UN~TS
, ' ",
,.TWO ,EDROOM QNI'1'S , 926'S.P. k' 36 - 33,336 S.F.
,. ,ONE ,BEPRooH UNITS 672 S.F" x 6,r 4,S3~ S.F.
' , . : ----------~
" ~~O ~l'AL' ,
~,¡Þ i~'" , ,
~~' 9., SIZE OF.~ÇCESSOaY BUILDINGS,
.' ,'C", , "j"
, MANAGER' S OPBI,(:E "" ':;: , ° 96' $. F.
" CwB HOUSE (LAUNDRY/" ',<.-,,"., .', ~'" ..' ,,",', ; ',:
' , " ,'l'OI~ / POOt. ECD IPMEN~), >.:}~~~,'. . . ,~,~;;£:'~,~
"'" . ' '.', ,',", ,"":"'~:"'~:'-;"',':'~"::'1: ,~~f.E~~~~f~.!'~::'~~~-i-';"~-~
' ~AL ',' ~, '352 (;.1'.
,,', "
(
"37!,3~~ 'S.f. ,
'I "
::~. ':::~U:::=: :::"':i:::~;"", ...'
, , . , : ' SQ. PT.
~tJ(p : BuiLDING COVERAGE:, " : ,,~
~IftJC)'. ,~~~:.mco:~;.y .;,i.:~:,~;:,.
12. AVERAGE OPO ,SPACI PEa 'tnnT. ',' " "
: ' , ' ',", ": ':.., "t.' " : ',' , '
13. ' ,PAJÚ(IH~ ' " ,I,.
, " i, '" ':' ,
37,72S'S.F.
, 1, '
, "
; PERCEN'rAGE
',~
, : .46.4'.
,: ':i", a4,;s,'
, ",
":',' 243 S.'.
'f, : .'
, .. ..
,.
"'1'OTAL P MU<:DJG JtBQ~ IRBÐ
'lœAL PARJ<IBG PROVIDED '
81'~ '
BAWICAP ' ,. '. ,
. , ,COMPACT i~, .
" . " '"
. '. ,
: ",.-"
" 83' ; , i!,
, 55 (DCLUDBS .2 CARPORTS)
.' 3' ,
,~~.. 3S, i¡3';:'Î f "
, ~ J
1
I conc. roof tile
,mission terra
1- arum. window I
/
,-
"=-'-'~
I
[IJ
r-rl
Ð Ð
rT;
r=
I "
,
[I]
,
..-1
m
~
-"- ,.
..
grass bl
-- - ceramic tire trir
REAR
ELr:V A TION
view from street & poor area
-
----- --_..
.---- ._--- ---
--
---- -
-
¡r-. c-
=r
deck below
roof tile- monray # 203
n terra cotta trashed
vindow frame (white color~
cap flashing"\
-\ - wood trems at deck
-
---'
----- -
---
~r
,co
t'
(
..
---.
glass block - - -
tile trim\.Qreen color)
'- exterior plaster (off white)
.... exterior plaster(Ught tan)
FRONT
ELEV A TION
view from entry side
-
telow
---......
MEMORANDUM
@
CITY OF CAMPBELL
To:
Steve Piasecki
Planning Direc\tor \
Don Wimberly ~J I~
Public Works D~r
Date:
July 17, 1989
From:
Subject' '
. 42-unit Apartment Projet; Dot Avenue at Campbell Avenue (Dubcich)
----------------------------------------------------------
The following comments
Ashworth's inquiry.
are
provided
in
response
to
Counci1member
SUMMARY
Our review of the application for reinstatement was accomplished within
the legal framework wherein we are limited to the question whether any
factors have changed sufficiently to warrant amending the conditions of
approval adopted April 19, 1988. Since the traffic report is recent
(January 1988) and remains valid, we found no basis for recommending new
or amended conditions.
DISCUSSION
1.
Project Traffic Analysis
The traffic report for the project prepared by Pang and Associates in
January 1988 was and remains a credible analysis. It reviews existing
traffic conditions, traffic generation expected from the project, the
distribution of that traffic to different intersections, and the relative
impact of the project's traffic on the existing intersections.
Project impacts were found to exist but were relatively
Impacted intersections were no worse than level of service "C".
small.
2.
Project Conditions
Public Works Department conditioning of the original application was
based on the current Council policy and the project's impacts as described
in the project traffic report. City policy and practice to that date was
to require project mitigations where project impacts were significant (for-
example, greater than 1% increase in traffic).'and the impacted roadway
was already or' would be congested (operating at level of service DOt or
worse) .
Neither condition existed in the case of this project and the affected
intersections. Therefore, no traffic mitigations were required.
Page 2
Memo to Steve Piasecki
7/17/89
A different method for determining project conditions w~s discussed at and
subsequent to the April 1988 hearing on the project. This alternate
approach would involve identifying all project impacts, no matter their
size or the existing traffic conditions and potential benefit to the
project from any identified infrastructure improvements within that
project's sphere of influence. Such a procedure is consistent with recent
legislation and case law. However, until such a method is endorsed by the
City Council, staff is reluctant to use it.
3. Infrastructure needs in the area. Council has previously identified
infrastructure needs in this area including:
A. A traffic signal at Rincon and Winchester;
B. A traffic signal at Milton and Campbell;
C. Lack of parking at Morgan Park; and
D.
Recreational facilities in undersupply or overuse at
. John D. Morgan Park and Campbell Community Center.
4.
Funding for Infrastructure
During the April 1988 hearing for this.project, a brief discussion was
held on the relationship of new development to existing, particularly
over-used, infrastructure. The relationship between impacts, benefits
received (in fiscal terms) and the fair share for existing and new
development is not clear. Currently, the City does assess new residential
development an in-lieu park fee (Quimby Act) of $2717 per household and an
in-lieu storm drain fee of $2060 an acre. The City also assesses a
construction tax of $.50 per square foot. The adequacy of these fees
compared to the need is under study. Also to be reviewed this year is the
question of impacts on/and benefits from streets and traffic control
facilities as well as other City services such as Police and Fire
services.
DCW/lkh
LKHO059
(/
---¡- <¡
"
\ 30
\
ui
~
\
\
@
(
"
\
TRACT N~7518
ur rieL
ur
l.UUN I Y
A~~t~~uw
- SAN1A
GLA~A
w.
z
~ . >-
-lW Ouj
W>. @ a:>.
~ C:( 24 <t c:(
W :J:
::11 ---1--.
.---<>--- CAMPBELL-'
@
...
'"
..
:;:
3.00 AG.
'~8.53
1.41 AG.
@
f-
a
o:¡
~
;'15---'
COUNTY .
CALIFORNIA
z .
~~ f23\
<t<t V
-L--
!.I!!!..
400
.fl
3D
~
:;;
"'.
@
~ 0:
.. 26:!
'~8 ~3
m
70
m
ROS 310./586
@
~ 23 ~
62
m
@)
I 305 II p 30£ I
I
: -AVE.--~'t+-
0
5r6 51* '" "-
So : SS.87 2'1.~9 'I
I 25
1
~ /0. /I ~I 12 1!: LJ
- - I-.. >.
, I" <t
. 2' I 22 I 23
- _..120-
15587
, !
. I
L
24
," = 100'
§
2~
~
--------
: 26
!.§
-- -- ----
27
!§
"
~.:: I -----
- - .10
"2 Iq,
I<)
"-
, :ðl, I ~
..,
<1)
CS
:::I~ I Q:;
I
@
11'
!§
.
0
~
~
/9 00" I; I
- ~"
ISO ' ;
¡
20. ~I~ I
z
12207 0
I-.
2/ ..,:..J
:::-2 .. ~~
::; , <ri
22 :i ~.I
25 '
94.97 !
'" 't
AVE.-'!-..~
~
..
I!~-. ;.i~~.':'.~.:.~1';&"}?~.Sl;f..~.~.,.."".
o'- T>tt' ~ -JO ~ '.:c
. ':?~ ;¡II'~~ ~~~~ ~
ORDINANCE NO. 1690
//
\ 1",,6 .
/J
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. PLANS. ELEVATIONS.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE. AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
42 APARTMENT UNITS ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS
464 W. CAMPBELL AVE. IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
(APPLICATION OF MR. STEPHEN LIPPERT. PD 87-15 ).
The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE: That the Zoning Map of the City of Campbell is hereby
changed and amended on property known as 464 W. Campbell Ave. by adopting
the attached Exhibit A entitled Plans and Elevations; Exhibit B entitled
Development Schedule; Exhibit C entitled Map of Said Property; and Exhibit
D entitled Conditions of Approval. as per the application of Mr. Stephen
Lippert for plans. elevations. and development schedule to allow the
construction of 42 apartment units in a Planned Development Zoning
District. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department.
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following
its passage and adoption and shall be published once within 15 days upon
passage and adoption in the San Jose Mercury News. a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Campbell. County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following roll call vote:
19th day of April
. 19 88. by the
AYES: Councilmembers: Kotowski, Watson, Doetsch
NOES: Councilmembers: Þshworth, Podgorsek
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
, J~U~
h~ 7't:~
William R. podgorse~ Mayor --
THE FORr"GOJNG INSTRUMENT IS A 'm:JE
AND CORRECT COpy OF THE ORIGINAL
ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE.
r~
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: PD 87-15
APPLICANT: LIPPERT, S.
SITE ADDRESS: 464 W. CAMPBELL AVE.
P.C. MTG.: 3-8-88
1.
Phase I construction to begin within one year of City Council
Approval.
2.
Phase II construction to begin with 3 years of City Council approval.
3.
Construction to be completed within one year of commencerment.
..
"
"
. .
...
u ;~,-
~,
I. ' .
No'-
1
t
¡
.
. ,
i
-
.0 I
EXHIBIT C - PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON 3-8-88. RES. 2518 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - 42
APARTMENT UNITS - LIPPERT, S. - 464 W. CAMPBELL
AVE. - (VOTE: 6-0-1).
^IO~I
r- l:'-- L
,_.
~/~1lrn;¡;f\~ ~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
APPLICANT: LIPPERT, S.
SITE ADDRESS: 464 W. CAMPBELL AVE.
P.C. MTG.: 3-8-88
EXHIBIT D
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she
is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the
Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of 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.
1.
Revised site plan indicating revised carports, introduction of
pavement treatment, relocation of trash enclosures to be submitted to
the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural
Review Committee prior to application for a building permit.
2.
Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red
on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
3.
Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of irrigation system to 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.
4.
Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be
submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to
issuance of a building permit.
5.
Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount
of $10,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking
areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file
written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of
parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning
Department prior to application for a building permit.
. 6.
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.
7.
Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
8.
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.
9.
Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150
of the Campbell Municipal Code.
10. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television
cables, etc.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
PAGE 2
11. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the
Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until
application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building
Departments (Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
12. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any
contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet
garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell
shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement
applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to
all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction
establishments.
13. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity 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.
14. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City
requirements for the handicapped.
15. 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.
16. 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. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979
Ed. Uniform Fire Code.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
17. Retaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of 15 inches
if constructed of wood.
18. One ground level unit required to meet handicap construction
requirements, all other ground level units shall comply with
adaptability regulations for handicap units Title 242-l05(b) 9, Fire
retardant roofs are required where roof area exceeds 3,000 of
projected area 3202(b) UBC.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PD 87-15
PAGE 3
FIRE DEPARTMENT
19. Access driveways shall be maintained to 20 foot wide minimum and have
a vertical clearance of 13' y". U.F.C. 10.207.
20. Roadways must maintain 20 foot width unless they terminate in an
approved turnaround area. U.F.C. 10.207.
21. Electric gates shall be provided with C.F.O. approved knox box overide
system.
22. Buildings to be of 1 hour fire resistant construction unless sprinkler
protected.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
23
Pay storm drain area fee.
24
File a Parcel Map to combine the three lots.
25
Obtain an excavation permit. post surety and pay fees to install a
handicap ramp in the sidewalk at the corner. replace the street lights
with City standard. relocate the driveways. repair sidewalks as
necessary and any other work in the public right-of-way.
26
Construct bus duck-out on Campbell Ave. frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider the
requirement of a performance bond. or other appropriate protection. to
insure that the project is completely built out within three years
because of the proposed phasing.