Loading...
PC Res 3088RESOLUTION NO. 3088 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CERTIFCATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR-1996) AND MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 McGLINCEY LANE. RESOLVED, by the City of Campbell Planning Commission that: WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, in June 1992, the City Council certified an environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination retail center on the Property; and WHEREAS, in April 1994, the Campbell Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, WTA Development has proposed development on the Property of an approximately 330,000 square foot research and development and light industrial business park with related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, there are no subsequent changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the SEIR; and WHEREAS, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and WHEREAS, no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SEIR was certified as complete; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that a supplement or subsequent EIR or addendum to the SEIR is not necessary because only minor additions or changes have occurred that do not require subsequent review consistent with Sections 15162, 15163 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, because the Project contains land uses that vary from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the City has caused preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "1996 SEIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR builds upon and incorporates analysis from the 1992 EIR that was certified by the City Council and that remains valid, while providing new analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a result of the change in land use proposed for the Project; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR has been expressly prepared to serve as the CEQA document for City Council consideration of the Planning Approvals; and WHEREAS, the City Council serves as the "lead agency" and the Agency serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, through this resolution, the Planning Commission desire to comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR in connection with their consideration of the Planning Approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find and certify that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project; and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1996 SEIR prior to acting on the Project and the discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. The Planning Commission hereby identifies the significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and make the findings set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings and determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified 1996 SEIR and other information available to the Planning Commission, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 (a) of the California Public Resources Code. 5. As detailed in Exhibit A, approval and implementation of the Project may have a significant unavoidable environmental impact related to exceeding carbon monoxide standards at two intersections and, as a result the City Council may approve the Planning Approvals only if, in connection with such approvals, the City Council make a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(b) of CEQA, which is set forth as Exhibit B, hereto and recommended herewith. 6. Based on the information set forth in Section V.B of Exhibit A, the Planning Commission finds pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(c) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that therefore no fee is required in connection with the filing of a Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR. 7. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to file the appropriate Notices of Determination and Notices of Fee Exemption in connection with the 1996 SEIR and the Planning Approvals (if approved). APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Passed and adopted this 30th day of April, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gibbons, Jones, Keams, Lindstrom, Meyer- Kennedy COMMISSIONERS: Alne, Lowe COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 4 Susan Keams, Chairperson EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Description. The project (the "Project") under consideration by the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the City Council of the City of Campbell (the "City Council") is an approximately 325,000 square foot research and development/light industrial park on the 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the City of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Project square footage will be divided among several buildings, which may range in size from approximately 40,000 square feet to approximately 100,000 square feet. The buildings may be one or two stories in height, and likely will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with wood and/or stucco cladding. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the 1996 SEIR (defined below). Development of the Project will require removal of the deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and possible importation of engineered fill. Off-site improvements will include extension of water and storm drainage facilities to the Property, traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, and access street improvements. B. Background; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 14 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property) submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91-04) to the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail center on the Property. At the same time, the City and Agency initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area, within which the Property is located, to the Project Area. The PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area expansion were evaluated together under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 EIR"). The 1992 EIR consists of a Draft EIR dated September 1991 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992 Draft EIR"), a Final EIR dated March 1992 (containing responses to comments received on the Draft EIR) (the "1992 Final EIR"), and Exhibit A to the 1992 Resolution (described below) (containing certain text additions to the foregoing documents). The 1992 EIR evaluated the then-proposed destination retail development of the Property at a project level of detail and evaluated the other projects proposed to be undertaken in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area at a program level of detail. The 1992 EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency in a concurrent resolution on June 2, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, respectively) (the "1992 Resolution"). Findings were contained in the 1992 Resolution in accordance with CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts pertaining to regional air quality. The destination retail project for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR was not developed. The Agency purchased the Property in April 1994. Shortly thereafter, the Agency began a process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. In June 1994, a series of public meetings were held to receive early input into the decision making process. From those meetings a variety of ideas for the Property were obtained, including light industrial, commercial recreation, non-profit recreation, and other uses. These potential uses were then evaluated by an economic consulting firm, Economics Research Associates, to determine the £mancial feasibility of these uses. In August 1995, the Agency distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) package to developers, corporations, or other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The Agency received eight proposals from developers. After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the selected developer, WTA Development of Palo Alto. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 with WTA Development on the proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a "DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997. C. The 1996 SEIR. The Project as proposed by WTA Development and contemplated in the DDA differs in land use from the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis contained in the 1992 EIR remains valid for the currently-proposed Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts. Under these circumstances, the Agency and the City have determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") is required, in accordance with Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines (defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992 EIR and address the different environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Project from the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR is also consistent with the requirements of the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project proposal for the Property is presented for Agency and City Council consideration. The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The 1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR") and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 1996 (the "Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996 SEIR), as more fully described below. The 1996 SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et se_c._q., with particular reference to Section 15163), and the City's and Agency's Local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines authorize preparation of a supplement to an EIR when certain conditions are present, and when limited additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. A supplement to an EIR must be given the same kind of notice and review as is given to an initial EIR. To that end, the Agency issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft 1996 SEIR to the State Clearinghouse and others on August 7, 1996. The required 30-day notice period for the NOP ended on September 6, 1996. In addition, the Agency/City conducted a public scoping meeting for the Project on July 24, 1996. The Draft 1996 SEIR was circulated from October 2 to November 16, 1996 to various Federal, State, and local agencies for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to members of the general public. A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in attendance at the workshop. The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft 1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996 public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of responding to the comments received. The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference) came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and City Council heard oral testimony and received written communications. D. Use of 1996 SEIR; Imposition of Mitigation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The first set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City Council (with specified findings under the Community Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Agency will sell the Property to WTA 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -2- Campbell Technology Park LLC (the "Developer"), a corporate affiliate of WTA Development, and under which the Developer will develop the Project on the Property. A primary condition to the sale of the Property is that the Developer must first obtain a set of planning approvals from the City (the "Planning Approvals"). Approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at the duly noticed January 7, 1997 joint public hearing described above. The Planning Approvals constitute a second set of local discretionary approvals necessary to development of the Project. The Planning Approvals may include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Zoning Ordinance amendment, approval of a planned development permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, architectural design and site layout approval, and a determination that disposition of the Property under the DDA is consistent with General Plan (as amended). The Planning Approvals will be considered for approval or denial by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission (except for the General Plan consistency finding, which may be made directly by the Planning Commission). It is anticipated that the Planning Approvals will be processed for fmal consideration in the first half of 1997. Approval of the DDA alone will not result in disposition of the Property to the Developer or development of the Project, and does not affect the City Council's discretion in granting or denying the Planning Approvals. As noted above, granting of the Planning Approvals is an absolute condition to disposition of the Property and development of the Project under the DDA. However, since approval of the DDA is the first step in a sequence of local discretionary approvals that could foreseeably result in disposition of the Property and development of the Project, the Agency and the City have determined, consistent with sound CEQA principles, to prepare, consider and certify the 1996 SEIR (with the accompanying findings set forth in this Exhibit A) at the earliest feasible time--that is, in connection with consideration of approval of the DDA. The 1996 SEIR is then expected to serve as the CEQA document for consideration of the Planning Approvals for the Project. Because the Agency will consider the first local discretionary approval (approval of the DDA), the Agency has served as the "lead agency" under CEQA for the 1996 SEIR. Because the City Council will consider subsequent local discretionary approvals (the Planning Approvals), the City Council has served as a "responsible agency" under CEQA for the 1996 SEIR. In Section IV of this Exhibit A, the Agency and the City Council adopt specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. If the Agency and City Council approve the DDA in their policy discretion and if the City Council and Planning Commission approve the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation measures related to specific projects. If the DDA and/or Planning Approvals are not approved, so that the Project cannot be implemented without reprocessing and further public action, the mitigation measures set forth in this Exhibit A would, of course, become moot. Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the Agency's, the City Council's (or the Planning Commission's) discretion, as applicable, in approving the DDA, in granting or denying the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. II. THE RECORD The record (the "Record") of the Agency and the City Council relating to the Project and its potential environmental effects includes: A. The 1996 SEIR, consisting of the Draft 1996 SEIR and the Final 1996 SEIR; B.Thc 1992 EIR, consisting of the 1992 Draft EIR, the 1992 Final EIR and Exhibit A of the 1992 Resolution; C. The 1992 Resolution; D. The DDA; 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 -3- The summary of the DDA prepared by Agency staff in December 1996 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433 (the "Section 33433 Summary"). F.Detailed Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In Site Alternatives, prepared for the Agency by Economic Research Associates, dated February, 1995 (the "ERA Alternatives Study"); G.Staff memoranda to the Agency Board dated February 20, 1996 and April 16, 1996 discussing land use alternatives and developer selection for the Property (the "Staff Reports on Alternatives"). H.The staff report accompanying this Resolution, the 1996 SEIR and the DDA dated January 7, 1997 (the "DDA Staff Report"); The Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"); The 1992 Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, and supplements thereto (the "Report to Council"); The City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency AB 1290 Implementation Plan and AB 315 Affordable Housing Production Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area, adopted by the Agency on November 15, 1994 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490 (the "Implementation Plan"). Documentary and oral evidence received by the Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public hearings and meetings on the Project and the 1996 SEIR; Matters of common knowledge to the Agency and the City Council which they have considered, such as the City of Campbell General Plan (the "General Plan"), and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the City. III. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency and the City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency, as lead agency, and the City Council, as a responsible agency, consider the Record and make certain £mdings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) identifies potentially significant impacts on the environment which are likely to result from development of the Project. Based on the following findings as to each such impact, the Agency and the City Council conclude that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all potentially significant environmental impacts identified by the 1996 SEIR, except for the local air quality impact identified in Section IV.C.2 and in Section VI below. Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A. The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR prepared for the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above; (2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; and (4) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, Section V of this Exhibit A adopts mitigation measures for certain other environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but determined not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, and the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR), describe these impacts in detail. The Agency and City Council certify that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Agency and City Council prior to acting on the 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -4- discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so certifying, the Agency and the City Council recognize that there may be "differences" among and between the information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Record. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A and the resolution adopting this Exhibit A), the Agency and the City Council adopt the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR as set forth in these findings, and determine that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the determinations reached by the Agency and the City Council in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the Record described above. IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Section IV analyzes and makes required findings regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project as identified in the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain relevant to the currently contemplated Project on the Property. The following analysis and findings are based on substantial evidence in the Record. For each identified potentially significant environmental impact, this Section IV: (1) summarizes the impact, (2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, (3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measure(s) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and (4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed monitoring programs are detailed in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A. The identified impacts are considered by major impact category, generally in the order set forth in the 1996 SEIR. A. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION/PARKING 1. Traffic Impact at Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane Intersection. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Operating at a level of service ("LOS") E under the background traffic conditions, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection would operate at a projected LOS F under the Project condition, constituting a significant impact under the traffic impact criteria de£med in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Under the existing roadway conditions and with the projected Project condition traffic, it is anticipated that the eastbound movements of this intersection would experience excessive delay. The signal warrants analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR also indicates the need for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) A traffic signal will be installed at this intersection following Project completion. (2) McGlincey Lane to Union Avenue. An exclusive eastbound left-mm lane will be provided from (3) (on the south side of McGlincey Lane). Section IV.A.4 below.) Three parking spaces will be removed at the east leg of the intersection (This mitigation measure will, in mm, cause a parking impact described in c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A. 1 (Union/McGlincey Intersection) in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. With the 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -5- implementation of the traffic signal and eastbound mm lane measures, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better under Project conditions, thus resulting in an acceptable service level under the traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and City of San Jose. 2. Traffic Impact at Camden/Union Intersection. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Operating at LOS E (or LOS F based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology) under the background and Project conditions, this intersection would experience a 1.35 percent increase in critical movement volumes. As indicated in Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the City of San Jose def'mes a project as having a significant impact if the addition of the Project traffic increases the critical movement volumes by more than one percent at an intersection operating at LOS E or F under the background condition. b. Mitigation Measures. The northbound approach (on Union Avenue) will be restriped to provide an exclusive right-mm lane. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A. 1 (Camden/Union Intersection) in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection. Level of service and traffic operations at the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection can be improved by re-striping the northbound approach of the intersection and adding a new exclusive right-mm lane. Addition of the northbound right-mm lane will result in improvement of LOS F to LOS E at this intersection, based on the City of San Jose level of service methodology, resulting in less than 1 percent increase in critical movement volumes. This result is within the acceptable service level range under the traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and the City of San Jose. 3. Traffic Impact at McGlincey Lane/Curmer Avenue Intersection. a. Potentially Significant Impact. The results of signal warrant analysis indicate that signal warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume Warrant, is met at the McGlincey Lane/Curmer Avenue intersection. (Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR also indicated the need for improvement of this intersection.) b. Mitigation Measures. Instead of a traffic signal, traffic operations will be improved through a reconfiguration of the intersection, generally as described in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, to accommodate through traffic from Curmer Avenue eastbound to McGlincey Lane northbound. Details of the intersection reconfiguration design are still being developed. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.3 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the f'mding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project and surrounding uses on the McGlincey Lane/Curmer Avenue intersection. The proposed intersection reconfiguration will effectively redirect traffic in a manner that will substantially lessen the identified traffic impact at this intersection. 4. Parking Impact. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -6- a. Potentially Significant Impact. The mitigation measure described in Section IV.A. 1.b.(3) above will result in the removal of three parking spaces near the intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane. b. Mitigation Measure. The City will provide at least three replacement parking spaces on McGlincey Lane by removing existing unwarranted parking restrictions and red curbs in the area. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant parking impact of the Project. Provision of replacement parking on a 1:1 or better basis in the same vicinity as the lost spaces will retain the same level of off-site parking as existed prior to reconfiguration of the McGlincey Lane/Union Avenue intersection. B. NOISE 1. Construction Noise Impact. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require some grading, limited excavation, and the use of other equipment typically necessary during construction of commercial and industrial projects. Typical construction noise levels are shown in Figure 3-13 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. These are maximum noise levels generated by each individual piece of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels at the mobile home park would be highest when construction takes place near the mobile home park adjoining the Property to the east. Noise levels would be reduced when construction takes place further away from this Property boundary. Average noise levels (Leq) during busy construction periods typically range from 75-85 decibels ("dBA") at a distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. Average noise levels would, therefore, be audible above ambient noise levels, and above a 60 dBA threshold typically used to assess speech and activity interference. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) Noise generating construction activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. (2) All internal combustion engine-driven equipment will be maintained in a good working condition, and fitted with mufflers which are also in good condition. (3) Noise sources, such as air compressors and concrete pumpers, will be located as far as possible from the nearest residences. (4) The Developer and/or the City will designate a "disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise (e.g., starting too early, poor mufflers, etc.). This person will have the authority to take the necessary actions to gain conformance with these conditions. The telephone number and name of this person will be conspicuously posted at the construction site to provide communication among the neighbors, the Developer, and the City. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the £mding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of construction noise described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining lO3OQ6.P5O 12/3 0/9 6 -7- equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generating equipment away from residences, and designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction noise from a project such as the Project below the acceptable thresholds identified in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. 2. Impact of Noise Generated by Project. a. Potentially Significant Impact. The Paseo de Palomas mobile home park adjoins the Property to the northeast. The proposed site plan for the Project includes a 50-foot landscaped buffer along the northeastern Property boundary. The Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in noise at the mobile home park. It is, however, possible that mechanical equipment on Project buildings could generate noise exceeding existing ambient levels and appropriate property line limits. b. Mitigation Measures. (1) The noise standards in Table 3-12 of the Draft 1996 SEIR will be applied as performance standards for the proposed Project which may affect noise sensitive land uses. Exceptions to the standards shall be limited to the following: (A) In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in the category expressed in Table 3-12, the applicable standard will be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. (B) Each of the noise level standards specified in Table 3-12 will be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. (2) Consistent with City policy, a solid masonry sound wall will be required at the common boundary of the Property and adjacent residential use. c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.B. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessens the potentially significant impact of noise generated by the Project described above. Adherence to the performance standards set forth in Table 3-12 of the Draft SEIR (which standards have been developed through extensive scientific research for application in situations like the Project) will reduce noise from mechanical equipment in the Project to acceptable levels on surrounding uses, as defined in Section 3.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Likewise, the City has found from past experience that masonry soundwalls significantly mitigate noise impacts of office/commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. C. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction Impacts. a. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project would create additional sources of dust from clearing, grading, and other construction-related activities. (This potential impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR). 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -8- b. Mitigation. (1) Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities for the Project will be suspended during high wind periods when dust is readily visible in the air. (2) Equipment and manpower for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be provided at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, will be utilized. (3) the wind will be watered or covered. Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by (4) Construction areas and adjacent streets will be swept of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. hour while on site. (5) The speed of all construction vehicles will be limited to 15 miles per c. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.A. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. d. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Air Quality subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact on air quality resulting from Project construction described above. The use of watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust emissions by approximately 50 percent. The combined effect of the above mitigation measures, including the use of a dust suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent, which would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Impact Following Construction. a. Potentially Significant Impact. When compared to the background conditions, traffic generated by the Project would create slight differences in carbon monoxide ("CO") concentrations. The Project would result in increases in CO concentrations at two intersections (Union/Campbell and Camden/Curmer), no change at two intersections (Bascom/Camden and Bascom/Curtner), and a decrease at one intersection (Bascom/Union). The decrease in concentration is likely a result of changes in signal timing to accommodate the changes in traffic levels. At most, the Project would increase 1-hour CO levels by 0.4 parts per million ("ppm") and 8-hour CO levels by 0.3 ppm relative to background conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") has issued guidelines for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 1995). For carbon monoxide concentrations from motor vehicles, a project would have a significant impact if it causes a new exceedance of a CO standard or makes worse an existing exceedance. As a result, the increase in concentrations at the Camden/Curmer and Union/Campbell intersections would represent a significant air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-hour CO exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. Air quality impacts at the other intersections would be less than significant. b. Mitigation Measure. The most commonly applied mitigation measures for automobile-generating pollutants (and the only possible ones identified by the experienced preparer of the 1996 SEIR and by the Agency and City Council) are Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems Management programs (collectively, a "TDM/TSM Program"). For reasons set forth in the findings below, a TDM/TSM Program is not adopted as a mitigation measure for the Project impacts on CO concentrations at two specified intersections following construction. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.3 of the 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -9- Draft 1996 SEIR and for the reasons summarized below, the findings are made that the identified air quality impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level even with the implementation of a TDM/TSM Program, and that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program mitigation measure identified in the 1996 SEIR. An aggressive TDM program has the potential to marginally reduce daily trips by about 10 to 25 percent, and air quality impacts associated with automobile usage would be reduced proportionally. However, a 10 to 25 percent reduction in the daily trips associated with the Project would not bring the local air quality impacts at the two identified intersections to below a level of significance. Significant unmitigatable air quality impacts would continue to occur at the intersections identified above even if a TDM/TSM Program were adopted. Some reasons for the limited effectiveness of a TDM/TSM Program are as follows. Although promising in concept, reducing peak hour traffic through trip demand management has not proved to be an effective tool in changing trip behavior by employees, except for very large employers whose employees for the most part work on fixed schedules. For carpooling to be effective, there must be a large enough employee base so that a significant number of persons interested in carpooling and with similar origins and work times can be matched. For the transit mode, there must be a high level of transit on streets that are within 1/4 mile of the work site. And in both cases, there must be time and/or cost incentives, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and preferential parking. Unfortunately, many of these factors are beyond the control of an individual developer. It can not influence residential location, the level of transit service, or the extent to which HOV lanes have been added to freeways and expressways. Unfortunately, neither the proposed Project nor its size or usage fit well the conditions that are prime candidates for successful TDM/TSM programs. Forcing the Developer to have such a program would not be cost- effective and likely would not increase the number of non-single occupancy vehicle trips beyond what would occur through informal participation. The distance of the Property from transit routes, free on-site parking, and the absence of HOV lanes on Highway 17 eliminate the most promising incentives that could be used in a TDM/TSM Program. Finally, the nature and size of the proposed Project is not one that is likely to have a large enough beneficial effect to justify a TDM/TSM Program. While the benefits of the TDM/TSM Program would not significantly reduce the identified air quality impact, the cost of imposing a TDM/TSM Program could be sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the Project. The Project, at full buildout, will contain about 325,000 square feet of building space and employ an estimated 750 employees. A program of this size is not large enough to create a critical mass and economies of scale that would support the cost of a TDM/TSM Program. Such costs include information dissemination, ridership coordination, administration, monitoring, and enforcement. These costs are relatively fixed, regardless of project size. Since the Property is being sold for its full fair market value as documented in the Section 33433 Summary, there is by definition no excess Developer profit to pay such cost directly or through reduced rents that might enable end users to pay such costs. As documented in the Section 33433 Summary, it is not feasible to spread these costs to the end users of the Project because the proportional burden of the relatively fixed cost on each end user of such a small project would make the Project a noncompetitive location for the typical end user of this type of business park in the Silicon Valley. The Agency and City Council are not aware of successful business park developments in the Silicon Valley of similar scope to the proposed Project in which a TDM/TSM Program has been imposed, and no such program has been imposed on other developments in Campbell for similar reasons. Further, because of the Property's relatively isolated location, a TDM/TSM Program would be difficult to coordinate with existing public transit routes and facilities. Because of the likely multiple ownership of parcels in the Property upon buildout of the Project and the multiplicity of separately owned businesses in the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area, it would be administratively and legally impractical, if not impossible, to coordinate a large enough mass of geographically related employment generators in the vicinity of the Project to economically support a TDM/TSM Program. In summary, the relatively fixed costs of a TDM/TSM Program are too high to be borne by the Developer or end users without rendering the Project non-competitive and impractical. The benefits of such a TDM/TSM Program would be marginal and would not reduce the significant air quality impact described above to a non- significant level. For these reasons, economic and other considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program identified in 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -10- the 1996 SEIR. It should be noted that, for similar reasons, the experienced EIR consultant did no.~t recommend adoption of the identified mitigation measure. D. WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 1. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the fire flow requirement for development of the Property with the proposed Project would be 3,500 gallons per minute ("gpm"). According to a study performed by the San Jose Water Company, the existing water supply system serving the Property is not adequate to provide the required fire flow. the Water Company has identified the improvements required to provide the needed fire flow to the Property. These improvements would be both within and outside the McGlincey Lane area, and would generally consist of new water pipes, new hydrants, meters, and ancillary items. The impacts associated with installation of water system improvements would primarily be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. a. In consultation with the Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the Developer and/or City will install the necessary water supply improvements to provide adequate fire flows to the Property. b. Construction activities related to installation of the proposed water supply improvements will be coordinated with the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce construction-related impacts. c. Specifically, the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B. 1 and C. 1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section IV.D by this reference. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.D. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the £mding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-related impacts of installing water supply improvements described above. Coordinating with the relevant regulatory agencies, limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generated equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specific responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. E. STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Specific storm drain improvements for the proposed Project will likely consist of a new storm drain on the Property itself, catch basins, and possibly some off-site improvements (as further detailed in Exhibit G of the DDA). If off-site improvements are required, the impacts associated with those improvements would primarily be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic diversion. 2. Mitigation Measures. The above-identified construction-related impacts will be mitigated through compliance with the City's ordinances and regulations relating to infrastructure construction in City rights-of-way. In addition, the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B. 1 and IV.C. 1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this Section IV.E by this reference. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.E. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -3.1- Based upon the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.2, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and Section 4 (Drainage/Flooding) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-related impacts of installing storm drainage improvements described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-generating equipment away from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities, and implementing specified dust suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potentially Significant Impact. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to, from and on the Property as a result of the Project may result in spills, leaks, or accidents involving these materials. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation Measure. The Santa Clara County Central Fire District will continue to implement and enforce the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.B. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measure. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Section 4 (Hazardous Materials subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR and Sections 1.2.2 and 3.5.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (regarding transfer of responsibility for administration of the Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance from the City's Fire Department to the Santa Clara County Central Fire District), the findings are made that: a. the above mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Central Fire District and not the Agency or the City; and b. the District has adopted and is implementing such mitigation measure. The Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance embody regulations to control hazardous materials that have been developed through extensive scientific analysis and practical experience to deal with the precise type of potential impact outlined above. These ordinances are imposed by the Santa Clara County Central Fire District, with support from the City's Public Works Environment Program staff, on a uniform basis as the best available means to mitigate the identified impact. G. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project that involve the removal of surface paving materials could potentially unearth subsurface, buried cultural remains. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation. If cultural remains are encountered during construction activities, work will be stopped, an archaeological monitor called in, and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and implemented. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.C. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Cultural Resources subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -12- substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact on cultural resources associated with Project construction. Use of a qualified archeological monitor to design specific mitigation measures, and subsequent implementation of any such measures, is the most efficient, flexible means to respond to any currently unidentified cultural remains that may be unearthed through Project construction. H. GEOLOGY 1. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project will be subject to groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region. (This potentially significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in Section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.) 2. Mitigation. Development activities associated with the Project will be required to comply with all applicable zoning and building code regulations relative to seismic construction standards, and with the Seismic Element policies in the General Plan. In particular, Seismic Element Policy g4 requires that project- specific, detailed geotechnical studies will be performed to determine site-specific hazards and mitigations. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category II.D. 1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above described mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Section 4 (Geology subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant environmental impact related to earthquake hazards to the Project. The City's regulations and procedures for design and construction of buildings to deal with earthquake hazards are based on extensive scientific and engineering analysis as well as substantial regulatory experience, and are imposed on a uniform basis by the City as the best available means to ensure seismic safety for building projects. V. OTHER NON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS While not required by CEQA, the 1996 SEIR (incorporating relevant provisions of the 1992 EIR) also evaluated certain non-significant environmental impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation measures to further reduce those impacts. Those non-significant impacts and the further mitigation measures are set forth in this Section V. A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN McGLINCEY LANE INDUSTRIAL AREA 1. Potential Non-Significant Impact. As documented in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, Project-generated traffic will have a less than significant effect on overall traffic circulation within the McGlincey Lane light industrial area. This non-significant traffic impact is in addition to the potentially significant traffic impacts analyzed in Section IV.A above. 2. Mitigation Measures. To properly serve Project-generated traffic and to provide maximum operating efficiency, the following site access guidelines and mitigation measures will be implemented: a. Install a STOP and a NO RIGHT TURN sign on the east leg and a YIELD sign and NO LEFT TURN sign on the north leg of the CuImer Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. Remove the existing STOP signs located on the north and west legs of the intersection following completion of the proposed intersection modification. b. Access to the Property should be from McGlincey Lane via the existing easement located just west of Westchester Drive. The proposed access easement should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, providing two traffic lanes including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The access roadway should be designed for track operations and no parking should be permitted on this facility. The north leg of the intersection of this access drive with McGlincey Lane should be STOP sign controlled, and provide two lanes at the north leg of the intersection including left-turn and right-mm lanes. c. Secondary access to the Property should be provided, which may be via Cristich 1030Q6.PSO 12/30/96 -13 - Lane or other feasible secondary access acceptable to the City and the Central Fire District. If Cristich Lane becomes the secondary access, it should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards, and should be designed to meet minimum standards for track traffic. d. If Cristich Lane is to provide access to the site, on-street parallel parking on both sides of Cristich Lane should be provided. e. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the Project's parking needs based on City requirements. f. Restripe the north leg and the southbound left turn lane of the Camden/Curtner intersection to provide additional capacity to accommodate a total of five left-turning vehicles. g. All City traffic engineering and design standards should be met. 3. Monitoring Program. The monitoring program identified under Category I.A.4 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated as the monitoring program for the above identified mitigation measures. 4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the above mitigation measures are a cost effective means to further reduce the already non-significant impacts of Project-generated traffic within the McGlincey Lane industrial area. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Non-Significant Impact. As documented in the 1992 Draft EIR (see for instance, p. 4-109), there are no natural biological communities in the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area portion of the Project Area, including the Property. Further, there are no ordinance-size trees on the Property or associated with the anticipated off-site improvements for the Project. However, in accordance with mitigation measure #34 set forth in the 1992 EIR (and adopted in the 1992 Resolution), the mitigation measure described below will be implemented to mitigate any remaining non-significant impact related to water efficient landscaping for the Project. 2. Mitigation Measures. Landscaping plans for the Project will comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape (WEL) standards and will follow the California Native Plant Society's general revegitation principles, as follows: a. Trees, shrubs, and other herbaceous plants should be used which are naturalized to the general McGlincey Expansion Area. b. If non-indigenous native species are desired for the purpose of form, floral characteristics, or function (ground covers, etc.), species selected should be those which are unlikely to hybridize with local flora, in order to preserve the integrity of the gene pool of the local native species. c. Use of exotic plants should be avoided. 3. Monitoring Program. The Planning Department will impose the above mitigation measures through review of landscaping plans as part of, and through conditions of approval to, the Planning Approvals for the Project. The Public Works Department will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures in the field. The mitigation measures will be implemented at the time of the Planning Approvals and as construction occurs. 4. Finding. Based upon the information and analyses in Section 4 (Biological Resources) of the 1992 Draft EIR and a recent field investigation regarding potential ordinance-size trees: a. The finding is made that the Project will not have a significant effect on biological resources. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are nonetheless adopted to further mitigate any non-significant impact related to water efficient landscaping for the Project. I030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -14- b. The finding is further made pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(e) that, considering the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that, therefore, no fee is required in connection with the filing of Notice of Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR or the discretionary approvals for the Project. In compliance with 14 California Code of Regulation Section 753.5, the following additional information is provided: (1) The name and address of the Project proponents are: City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 and Campbell Technology Park LLC 900 Welch Road, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304 (2) The Project is the development of a high-end business park as fully described in Section I.A of this Exhibit A. (3) The 1992 EIR (see citation above) addresses the issue of environmental impact of the Project on vegetation and wildlife, and concludes that approval and implementation of the Project on the Property will have no significant effect on vegetation or wildlife. (4) When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Agency or the City Council that the proposed adoption and implementation of the Project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. (5) The Agency and the City Council have, on the basis of substantial evidence, consisting of the above recited information, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(d). VI. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR as incorporated therein by reference) and Section IV of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse impact of approval and implementation of the Project is identified: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curmer and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the Agency and the City Council fred that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR that might reduce the level of significance of this impacts, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in Section IV.C.2.d above) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section VII below). Therefore, in order to approve the DDA and the Planning Approvals, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the Agency's (or City Council's, as applicable) statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -15- A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Introduction. This Section VII.A provides an introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has been performed by the Agency and City Council, in consultation with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community, over the past several years. Section VII.B below evaluates four specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and other community objectives. The information and analysis in this Section VII is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR), the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known to the Agency and City Council through their deliberations on alternative uses for the Property. 2. Overview of Process Since 1992 EIR. The 1992 EIR evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project Alternative and several alternative land uses on the Property. After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for the Property. A variety of land use concepts for the Property were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives (1996). The purpose of the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's public input process was to help determine a land development strategy that balanced environmental considerations, Campbell's financial and non-financial objectives for the Property, and the ability to improve the McGlincey Lane area's infrastructure. Through a series of meetings and evaluations, four land use alternatives for the site were developed, taking into account and building upon the evaluation of land use alternatives set forth in the 1992 EIR. The predominant land uses in the four alternatives were: commercial recreation, industrial, residential, and public park. Because there was an interest in relocating the City's corporation yard to the Property, each alternative then had two sub-alternatives or variations, one with and one without the corporation yard. The land sale or land lease revenue potential of each alternative was analyzed, in addition to overall municipal cost and revenue implications. The cost analysis included roadway improvements, utilities upgrading, park development, park maintenance, and other General Fund service costs. The Agency's evaluation on how to proceed with the use of the Property also considered the compatibility of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, other environmental issues as outlined in the 1992 EIR, the desires of the community, and potentially creative proposals which developers would be able to bring into the process. After the ERA Alternatives Study was received and reviewed by the Agency Board, the Agency decided to issue an RFP to developers, corporations, and other parties that might be interested in purchasing and developing all or a portion of the Property. The RFP did not restrict the proposals to a certain land use or development type; rather, it identified the range of four land uses that had been evaluated in the ERA Alternatives Study and encouraged submittals for creative projects that could meet the City's and Agency's financial and non-£mancial objectives. The Agency received eight proposals from developers, four for commercial recreation, three for research and development/light industrial, and one for a private school. Upon extensive evaluation and public discussion, the Agency Board chose to negotiate with WTA Development for the sale of the Property and development of the Project because the Project appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts. 3. Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. In determining what land use alternatives were viable for the Property, several objectives were considered including the following (the "Redevelopment and Planning Objectives"): a. Land Use Compatibility. The Agency evaluated what kind of land use would be compatible where the surrounding land use consisted of primarily industrial uses bordered by a freeway. This setting makes a residential reuse of the Property very problematic. Additionally, residents of the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park immediately adjacent to the Property are particularly concerned with a recreational use that might include sports activities, such as a golf driving range or sports fields where noise would be a concern. Development of a research and development/light industrial business park on the Property is generally viewed as the 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -16- most compatible land use. b. Redevelopment Goals and Objectives. The Redevelopment Plan identifies several goals for the McGlincey Lane area, including improvement of Cristich Lane to a public street, extending storm drain to address existing point and non-point source water pollution concerns, improving water supply to provide adequate fire flow and to address inadequate fire suppression conditions in the area, and to facilitate the development of the Property which has been a blight in the area for 14 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property and the development of the site itself could help £mance many of these improvements. Without such net sale proceeds, Agency tax increment revenue from the area is not likely to be sufficient to fund new redevelopment activities in the forseeable future. c. Financial Feasibility. The City loaned the Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the City, net any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the commercial recreation projects proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under this standard, while the proposed research and development Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to find storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. d. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of onsite improvements and required offsite improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. Additionally, the site is challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and developing open space. For example, the Property is not within walking distance to a significant number of Campbell neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to Campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for public open space and park land. Given the costs for development, a 23-acre park does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center. In addition, local youth sports groups such as the Campbell Little League, Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and other public agencies either did not express support or were not financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for development of the site. These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992 Report to City Council, the Agency's Implementation Plan and other evidence in the Record, and provide a basis for evaluating the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City goals for redevelopment of the Property. 4. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as altematives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized (with appropriate updates) in Section VII.B below. Specifically, Section VII.B. 1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section VII.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency over the past two and a half years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a public park use. The only use of the Property that has received serious consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR, is the commercial recreation use. Section VII.B.3 below provides a summary of the environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use, based on the new discussion of that alternative contained in the 1996 SEIR. The 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR did not analyze any alternative location for the Project. Recent court cases suggest that CEQA may, where appropriate, require an analysis of alternative locations for a project, as well as alternative projects on the same site. CEQA requires that the alternatives be capable of obtaining the basic objectives of the proposed project (Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines). 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -17- For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible altemative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that could accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several times greater than the land cost of the Property, making development of the Project at another location in the general vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project on the Property. Finally, moving the Project to an alternative location, if one could feasibly be found, would deprive the Agency of its best opportunity to remove blight on the Property while generating disposition proceeds to address other redevelopment needs in the McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area. Consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the 1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference). The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives are addressed in Section VII.A above. The likely environmental impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives. Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment Planning Objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the alternatives are summarized below and are supported by substantial evidence in the Record. 1. The No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative means that the Property would remain vacant (unless the Agency permitted reuse for one of the other alternatives analyzed separately below). Potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials, seismic safety, and cultural resources would generally not occur under the No Project Alternative since such impacts are generally associated with the development process. The vacant site would be less aesthetically appealing to some observers then a well designed Project. On balance, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest adverse environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and the 1996 SEIR. However, without development the Agency would not be able to generate net disposition proceeds from the sale of the Property to a Developer. As a result, the Agency would not have sale proceeds to repay the City loan or accelerate the redevelopment program for the McGlincey Lane area through improvements to Cristich Lane and other needed infrastructure improvements. In turn, the Agency would have to rely on limited tax increment revenues for these activities which would probably retard the redevelopment effort in the McGlincey Lane area for a decade or more. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan. For these reasons, the No Project Alterative fundamentally fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals of the Agency and the City. On this basis, the finding is made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected even though it might prove to be an environmentally superior alternative. 2. Alternative Land Uses on Property Evaluated in 1992 EIR (as Updated in 1996). Several lO3OQ6.PSO 12/30/96 -18- alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives -- residential and public park -- are relevant to the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR. a. Residential. Although the traffic generation rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project, residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a residential development on the site would be difficult, given its access through and proximity to the McGlincey industrial area. In summary, a residential use of the Property might be marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise impacts than the Project. Overall, it is difficult to judge if the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand, the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential alternative is hereby rejected. b. Public Park. During the public scoping meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents suggested the City consider a park/open space use for the Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more limited environmental effects related to air quality, construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. From this perspective, a public park use would be the environmentally superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at parks. As noted in Section VII.A.3 above, the Property is challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public park use alternative would cause severe negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VII.A.3. Park development would require $5-7 million of City funds and annual maintenance costs would further impact the General Fund, possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects, including implementation of the Campbell Community Center Master Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas of the City. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area or to repay the City loan. In summary, while a public park use of the Property would prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the public park alternative for the Property, and the public park alternative is hereby rejected. 3. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion of the City corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf course, go-kart track, batting cages, bumper rides, kiddie rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. A commercial recreation alternative would generate approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would likely be distributed more evenly throughout a 24- hour period than the AM/PM peak distribution associated with the proposed Project. A substantial number of trips would be generated in the late afternoon and evening, when children are not in school. This alternative would also 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -19- generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-karts, bumper cars, and kiddie rides, could generate substantial noise levels which may impact the Paseo de Palomas mobile home park. Other variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the Project. A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park (see Section VII.A.3 above). Further, it is estimated that no net sale proceeds would remain available to the Agency to jump-start other redevelopment activities in the McGlincey Lane area (as opposed to estimated net proceeds from the Project sufficient to fund storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements for the McGlincey Lane area and to yield over $2 million for other redevelopment activities). Indeed, a commercial recreation reuse might not generate sufficient sale or lease proceeds even to repay the Agency's loan to the City. One variant of the commercial recreation alternative considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor and outdooor sports activities on a lease or membership basis. An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a regional rather and local resource, and neither Santa Clara County nor other public agencies were willing to step forward at that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept was not considered further by the Agency. For these reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected. C. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the Project, the Agency and the City Council find that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -20- EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPROVALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A. Purpose. This Exhibit B sets forth the Statement of Overriding Considerations the City Council (The "City Council") of the City of Campbell (the "City") in support of the approval by the City Council, of a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment and Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (the "Planning Approvals") for development of approximately 330,000 square foot high-end research and development/business park and associated on-and-off-site improvements (the "Project") by WTA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the "Developer") pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") previously approved by the City Council and Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"). This Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in compliance with the California Environmental Act ("CEQA", Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., with particular reference to Sections 15092 and 15093). B. The Project. The DDA provides for the sale by the Agency to the Developer, upon specified terms and conditions, of the approximately 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In Site (the "Property") located in McGlincey Lane industrial area portion of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area. The sale is conditioned upon procurement by the Developer of the Planning Approvals. The DDA further provides for the Developer to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with any Planning Approvals that may be obtained and with the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Property has been vacant for the past 14 years despite several private sector efforts to cause its redevelopment. It is the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in the Project Area. The Agency purchased the Property in 1994 so that it could control the Property's timely redevelopment in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Such timely redevelopment is viewed by the Agency as the lynch- pin to overall redevelopment of the McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, and is a critical element of the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan (defined below). C. The CEQA Process. The Agency and the City have caused preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report (SCH# 96072018) (the "1996 SEIR") pursuant to CEQA to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and the DDA. The 1996 SEIR builds upon a 1992 environmental impact report (SCH# 91053015) (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated, among other matters, a prior proposed development of the Property. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 2 By concurrent resolution of January 7, 1997 (the "1996 SEIR Resolution"), the Agency and the City Council certified the 1996 SEIR and made findings regarding the impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR Resolution identified one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the Project as follows: The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour and 8- hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse under Project conditions. Accordingly, the City Council is adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. THE RECORD The record (the "Record") of the City Council relating to the Project and this Statement of Overriding Considerations includes: A. The 1996 SEIR; B. The 1992 EIR; C. Concurrent City Council and Agency Resolution Nos. 8322 and 1992-19, dated June 2, 1992, regarding the 1992 EIR; D. The DDA; E. The 1996 SEIR Resolution; F. The summary of the DDA prepared by Agency staff in December 1996 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433 (the "Section 33433 Summary"). G. Detailed Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In Site Alternatives, prepared for the Agency by Economic Research Associates, dated February, 1995 (the "ERA Alternatives Study"); H. Staff memoranda to the Agency Board dated February 20, 1996, and April 16, 1996, discussing land use alternatives and developer selection for the Property (the "Staff Reports on Alternatives"). I. The staff report accompanying this Resolution, the 1996 SEIR and the DDA dated January 7, 1997 (the "DDA Staff Report"); J. The Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (The "Redevelopment Plan"); K. The March 1992 Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, and supplements thereto including the Report on Existing Conditions (the "Report to Council"); Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 3 L. The City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency AB 1290 Implementation Plan and AB 315 Affordable Housing Production Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area, adopted by the Agency on November 15, 1994, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490 (the "Implementation Plan"). M. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public heatings and meetings on the Project, the 1996 SEIR and the Planning Approvals; N. The staff report on the Planning Approvals and the accompanying resolutions, findings, conditions and related documents; and O. Matters of common knowledge to the Agency and the City Council which they have considered, such as the City of Campbell General Plan (the "General Plan"), and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the City. III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council has fully considered the discussion and analysis in the Record regarding the environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects of the Project. The City Council finds that the approval of the DDA and the implementation of the project subject to the granting of the discretionary Planning Approvals will provide significant economic, social and other benefits of the Project which override and outweigh the unavoidable significant air quality impact identified in the 1996 SEIR Resolution. The City Council further finds that the alternatives to the Project identified in the 1992 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1996 SEIR Resolution are infeasible for the reasons stated therein and because such alternatives would limit the economic, social and other benefits that will be provided by the Project. Following are the specific Project benefits upon which these findings and statement of overriding considerations are based: A. Elimination of Blight on the Property. The City Council finds that implementation pursuant to the granting of discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight on the Property, thereby accomplishing a central purpose and achieving a primary benefit of the Redevelopment Plan. The Property is the largest unutilized parcel in the Project Area and, consequently, constitutes one of its most blighted properties. The Property has remained unused for 14 years despite several private sector redevelopment efforts. As summarized in the 1992 Report to Council: Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 4 "Although a number of properties suffer from adverse conditions cited above, the site of the former Winchester Drive-In Theater provides the single most significant example of economic dislocation, deterioration, and disuse within the Expansion Area. This 24-acre site has abandoned, partially demolished buildings; broken projection screens; and hazardous wastes. The property also lacks satisfactory access to public streets. Repeated efforts to develop the site have failed due, in part, to the extraordinary costs associated with removing hazardous wastes and improving accessibility. Private redevelopment of this site, without public assistance in the form of redevelopment, will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve." (1992 Report to Council, pages 111-5 and 111-6.) The Agency and City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan in 1992 in substantial part to include the Drive-In site and the remainder of the McGlincey Lane industrial area in the Project Area, so that redevelopment resources could be focused on revitalizing the Property. A basic objective of the Redevelopment Plan states that: "The Agency will facilitate economic revitalization in the McGlincey Lane area by: . . . providing assistance to a developer or developers, as necessary, in developing the former Winchester Drive-In site in a manner consistent with the General Plan..." (Redevelopment Plan, page 9). Likewise, the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan describes the benefit of redeveloping the Property as follows: "The Winchester Drive-In Site has sat vacant for over 10 years. It is difficult to develop because of the poor access to the site, substandard infrastructure to serve it and the surrounding area, and the general poor condition of the surrounding area. Its development will eliminate a large, underutilized piece of property and should prompt improvement of surrounding properties." (Implementation Plan, page 27.) To accomplish redevelopment of the Property, the Agency gained site control in 1994, arranged for the necessary hazardous materials remediation, and through the DDA will pay for storm drain improvements that will facilitate revitalization of the Property and the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area. Further, the Agency's intention to upgrade Cristich Lane has helped to create the development environment in which the Developer is prepared to purchase the Property for $8 million and to build the Project. The Project itself will be one of the highest quality industrial parks in the City and region, and will eliminate the major blighting influence described above. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 5 B. Elimination of Blight in Remaining Project Area. The City Council finds that implementation of the Project subject to the granting of the discretionary Planning Approvals will eliminate blight in the adjacent McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, thereby achieving related purposes and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan. As noted in the Implementation Plan, the McGlincey Lane area: "... was brought into the redevelopment project area in 1992 in order to address a host of adverse conditions in the area including dilapidated buildings, substandard infrastructure, and a number of factors inhibiting proper land utilization and development." (Implementation Plan, page 27; see also 1992 Report to Council, Section III and accompanying Report on Existing Conditions.) Several of the redevelopment objectives and programs set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan relate to revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area through Agency provision of necessary street and public improvements and other assistance to property owners (see Redevelopment Plan, Part IV.B and Implementation Plan, pages 27-28). Development of the project pursuant to the granting of the necessary Planning Approvals will provide an essential catalyst to elimination of blight and revitalization of the McGlincey Lane area in five direct ways. First, the Project will constitute a "flagship" development for the area, making clear the area's locational potential for quality industrial uses. Second, the new businesses and employees in the Project will be a source of customers for other businesses in the McGlincey Lane area and the larger Campbell community. Third, through the DDA and the recent sale of two small parcels acquired by the Agency in conjunction with the Property, the Agency will generate approximately $3.8 million dollars of net sale proceeds (after taking into account acquisition cots, carrying costs, and costs of storm drain infrastructure to be paid by the Agency through the DDA). The net sale proceeds will provide the Agency with a vital source of immediate cash that can be reinvested in the McGlincey Lane area and overall Project Area to alleviate the infrastructure and other blighting conditions that have impaired revitalization. Such reinvestment may include funds for upgrading Cristich Lane and providing business location and expansion assistance, in addition to the Agency storm drain improvements that will be funded directly through the DDA (see Staff Reports on Alternatives; the DDA Staff Report; and the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A, Section VII.A.3). Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations (Winchester Drive-In Site) Page 6 Fourth, by putting the Property back on the tax rolls and causing development of approximately 330,000 square feet of quality industrial facilities, the Project will annually generate approximately $50,000 of tax increment revenue for affordable housing programs and $30,000 of tax increment revenue for other activities that will further the Agency's redevelopment program for the Project Area (see January 7, 1997, Staff Report for DDA). Finally, through the DDA and Planning Approvals, the Developer will be required to provide a range of additional intersection and utility improvements that will benefit the entire McGlincey Lane Industrial Area. (see Exhibit F of the DDA and the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval for the Planned Development Permit). C. Economic Revitalization of the Project Area. The Agency and the City Council find that approval of the Planning Approvals and implementation of the Project will significantly strengthen the economic base of the Project Area, offer employment opportunities to qualified local residents, generate additional spending power within Campbell to the benefit of existing and new Campbell businesses, and contribute to the appropriate balance between jobs and housing in Campbell. At buildout, the Project is expected to generate 750 new full-time employees at one or more new businesses. The jobs and businesses are expected to be at the high-end of industrial uses, thereby producing high incomes for employees and enhancing the reputation of Campbell as a place to do business. These benefits will help to fulfill economic revitalization objectives of the Redevelopment Plan (see Section IV.B.4 of the Redevelopment Plan) and the Agency's Implementation Plan, which states: "Attracting and retaining key businesses is important to the success of the redevelopment project area, as well as to the City as a whole. In order to redevelop properties and eliminate blighting conditions, the area must have a strong and successful business presence in order to attract new development." (Implementation Plan, page 28.)