Loading...
PC Res 3128RESOLUTION NO. 3128 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR- 1996) AND ADDENDUM MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND RECOMMENDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AND 571 MCGLINCE¥ LANE: 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 former Winchester Drive-In site (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, in April 1994 the Agency acquired the Property and thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development (the "Developer") was selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (the "DDA") for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer 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 "Original Project"); and WHEREAS, because the Original Project contained land uses that vary from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the City 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 Original Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Original Project on April 22, April 30, May 13, and May 27, 1997 recommending to the City Council certification of the 1996 SEIR and recommending findings for a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 1997 at a public heating of the City Council to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, and after receiving public testimony the City Council requested Planning Commission Re,olution No. 3128 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 2 that the Developer present a redesign of the Original Project to allow incorporation of a four acre public open space on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a revised application proposing a 280,000 square foot research and development business park on 19.58 acres with the Agency retaining four acres for public open space (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared an Addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes proposed between the Project and the Original Project and the Planning Commission finds that the Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to address the changes between the Project and the Original Project in that the project: 1) will not result in substantial changes which will require major revisions of the 1992 EIR or 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of the previously identified significant effects; 2) has no substantial changes proposed under the Project which will require major revisions of the previous 1996 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3) will not have any new significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR and significant effects previously examined will be generally less, but in no case more severe than shown in the 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that the one significant effect previously examined (Air Quality) will actually be less severe under the Project due to less traffic generation but still remains a significant impact under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum have been prepared to serve as the CEQA document for Planning Commission and City Council in consideration of the Planning Approvals for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency serves as the "lead agency" and the City serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum; and WHEREAS, through this resolution, the Planning Commission desires to comply with the State CEQA, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR and Addendum in connection with their consideration of the Planning Approvals. RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the above recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find and certify that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines; that in light of the 1992 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and Addendum adequately addresses the environmental Planning Commission R~oolution No. 3128 535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane Page 3 issues of the Project; and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum, in light of the 1992 EIR, prior to acting on the Project and the discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR and Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby identifies the significant effects, recommends making a statement of overriding considerations, recommends the mitigation measures, recommends the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and makes 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 previously certified 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR, the Addendum 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 CEQA. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gibbons, Keams, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy COMMISSIONERS: Jones COMMISSIONERS: Lindstrom COMMISSIONERS: None APPROVED: ATTES r..,- Stev~"~Piasecki,"~cretary 'S~san A. Keams, Chair j:Seir96 1030Q6.PS0 12/30/96 EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATION 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 AND ADDENDUM PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Description. On January 7, 1997 the City Council/Agency certified the SEIR and authorized execution of the Original DDA. The original proposal examined by the 1996 SEIR consisted of a 330,000 square foot research and development/light industrial business park on 23.58 acres (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission requested WTA Campbell Technology Park (the "Developer") to present redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre park or open space. The revised project (the "Project") under consideration by the City Council is the proposed sale and land use change of 19.58 acres from "Commercial" to "Industrial" for the development of an approximately 280,000 square foot research and development business park, and the proposed land use designation change of four acres from "Commercial" to "Public/Semi-Public" for use as public open space on the 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 Revised Project building square footage will consist of three, two story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, and a 40,000 square foot single story building. The proposed site plan of the Project is contained in the Addendum to the 1996 SEIR. As a result in the change in project description, the Agency and the Developer have agreed to a First Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") for the purpose of reducing the size of the Property to be acquired from 23.58 acres to 19.58 acres (the "Site") to accommodate a four acre public open space, to provide a more detailed description of the improvements to be developed on the Site, to make related adjustments to the purchase price, and to address specific circumstances that have changed since execution of the Original DDA; As was the case under the Original Project, 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 utilities to the Property, 1030Q6.P50 1~30~6 traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, access street improvements and the extension of storm drain facilities across the Property. Background; The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant for the past 15 years, and has been under various ownerships. In 1984, Caz Development was approved to construct a 420,000 square foot light industrial project. However the project was never built. 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 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 financial 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. -2- After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the Developer. In December 1996, Agency staff concluded negotiations with Developer 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. The 1996 SEIR and Addendum. The Original Project as proposed by the Developer differed 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 remained valid for the Original Project and remains valid for the 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 City Council determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") was 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 potential environmental impacts that may result from the change in the nature of the Original Project compared to the project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to prepare the 1996 SEIR was 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 was presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The 1997 Addendum to the 1996 SEIR was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. The changes do not lead to new, more severe potential environmental effects in that there is a reduction of 50,000 square feet in industrial building area being replaced with a four acre public open space area. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information made available relevant to the Project which lead to new, more severe environmental effects. No new, different or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified which are applicable to the Project. 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. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -3- 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 The 1996 SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., 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 CNOP") 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 as a 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. The City Council and Agency acting jointly certified the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate. The 1997 Addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to address the changes from the Original Project to the Project together with any relevant changes in circumstances, new information or -4- potential new mitigation measures. While CEQA does not require a public review period for an Addendum, public notice of its availability for public review was provided beginning October 17, 1997, ten days before the Planning Commission public hearing to consider the Project, and 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing to consider the Project. Use of 1996 SEIR and Addendum; Imposition of Mitigation Measures. Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required before the Project may be developed. The Planning Approvals constitute the first set of local discretionary approvals necessary to develop the Project. The Planning Approvals include a proposed General Plan amendment, a Planned Development Permit, approval of a vesting tentative map, and Site and Architectural approval. The Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 28, 1997 and recommended certification of the 1996 SEIR and the Addendum as adequate and complete in serving as the CEQA document for the Project and recommended to the City Council making the statement of overriding considerations. The second 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 the Developer. A primary condition to the sale of the property is that the Developer must first obtain the Planning Approvals. Both the Planning Approvals and approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at duly noticed public hearings on November 18, 1997. In Section IV of Exhibit A of Concurrent Resolution 1997-1 and 9181, the City Council and Agency adopted specified mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts of the Original Project that still apply to the Project. Those mitigation measures are reaffirmed by this resolution and incorporated herein. No new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified by the Addendum or the Commission. In particular, no new or newly feasible mitigation measures have been identified with respect to carbon monoxide emissions, the one unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact of the project. If the City Council approves 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. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -5- Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is attached will affect the City Council's discretion, as applicable, in taking action on the Planning Approvals, or in imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation measures adopted below. II. OVERALL FINDINGS Before the Agency aM City Council may act upon the discretionary approvals described in Section I.D above, CEQA mandates that the Agency and City Council consider the record and make certain timings required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081(a) and Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which incorporates the 1992 EIR) and as amended by the 1997 Addendum, 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 1996 SEIR concludes that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen all identified potentially significant environmental impacts except for the local air quality impact identified in Section III. and in Section IV 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 Exhibits A and B -include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR including the 1997 Addendum 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; (4) making a statement of overriding considerations for the one unavoidable, unmitigated impact and (5) 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 IV of Exhibit A to the Concurrent Resolution of the City Council and the Agency, Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 respectively 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, the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR) and the 1997 Addendum, describe these impacts in detail. The City Council and Agency certify that the 1996 SEIR with the 1997 Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the Planning Commission prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the Project. In so certifying, the City Council and Agency recognizes that there may be "differences" among and between the information and -6- 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the record related to the City Council and Agency actions. Therefore, by these findings (including Exhibit A of Resolutions Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 by reference), the City Council and Agency acknowledge and certify the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR, the 1997 Addendum, as set forth in these findings, and determines that these findings shall control and that the 1996 SEIR shall be deemed to be adequate subject to the determinations reached by the City Council and Agency in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the record. III. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT On January 7, 1997 the City Council and Agency adopted Resolution Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 (the "Prior Findings") certifying the 1996 SEIR as complete and adequate for the Original Project under the Original DDA. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council and Agency in adopting the Prior Findings made the appropriate findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts related to the Original 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 Original Project and the Project. The City Council and Agency reaffirms the analysis and findings made based on substantial evidence in the record including the 1992 EIR, 1996 SEIR and the Addendum because the Addendum identifies no new or more potentially significant environmental impacts, and no additional available mitigation measures, the Prior Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program are hereby incorporated by reference. For each identified potentially significant impact, the Prior Findings: 1) summarizes the impact, 2) describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the impact, 3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted mitigation measures in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and 4) makes one of the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council and Agency recognizes that in certain respects the Project contemplated under the DDA may have impacts less than those of the Original Project contemplated under the Original DDA as described in the Prior Findings. In particular, the Project will contain only 280,000 square feet of building space, not 330,000 square feet as noted in Section C.2.d of the Prior Findings. The Project will increase critical movement traffic volumes at the Camden/Union intersection less than the 1.35 percent as noted in Section A.2.a of the Prior Findings. Nonetheless, despite any reduction in impacts, the Commission recommends implementation of all mitigation measures described in the Prior Findings, and therefore reaffirms the Prior Findings on these -7- 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 IV. Ve 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 points as well. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR), with the Addendum and Section III 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/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 &hour carbon monoxide exceedance would become worse under Project conditions. As to this significant environmental impact, the City Council and Agency finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the 1996 SEIR and Addendum that might reduce the level of significance of this impact, and specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only possible mitigation measure (as detailed in the Prior Findings) or the project alternatives (as detailed in Section V ). Therefore, in order to approve the Planning Approvals and the DDA as applicable, the approval resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council's and/or the Agency's statement of overriding considerations (contained in Exhibit B) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and Section 15093 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Introduction. This Section V 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. This section 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 is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR, Section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996 SEIR)including the 1997 Addendum, the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and other information known through deliberations and discussions on alternative uses for the Property. 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 -8- 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 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- financial 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 the Developer for the sale of the Property and -9- 1030Q6.P5O 12/30/96 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. 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 Compatibili _ty. 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 most compatible land use. The site reserved for a public park or open space in the Project as more recently modified is at the far side of the Property from the mobile home park and will minimize any effect on the mobile homes. 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 15 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 finance 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 Feasibili _ty. 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 of any Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of the Property. Based on the -10- 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 d) 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 fund certain public improvements including storm drain and a four acre public open space area of benefit to the McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2 million after costs and expenses. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the entire Property as a public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million depending upon the extent of on-site improvements and required off-site improvements needed to develop adequate access and infrastructure to the Property. The focus of the Open Space Element of the General Plan is on creating more neighborhood parks; and in particular, the east side of Campbell is deficient of neighborhood park space. However, the Property 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 as defined by the Open Space Element.. Given the costs for development, a park occupying most of the 23.58-acre Property does not appear to be financially feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational facility at the Community Center and John D. Morgan Park, a 25 acre public park. 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. In the Commission's April and May 1997 consideration of the Original Project, substantial community interest was expressed in setting aside some portion of the Property for public park or open space use. Based on the community interest, the Commission has determined to recommend a four-acre public open space. The response by the Commission to recommend a public open space component is at least partially to address the need of a four to six 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 acre "neighborhood" size park while preserving the development of the balance of the site for an economically viable commercial project that addresses the Agency's redevelopment goals and objectives in the area. 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, hearings and comment on the Original Project, 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. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992 EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized in Section V.B below. Specifically, SectionV.B. 1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Section V.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 three years, as outlined above: a residential use, and a large public park use. The only uses of the Property that have 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 are the commercial recreation use and a small public park or open space in conjunction with light industrial development, which has now become part of the project itself. Section V.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). For the following reasons, it has been concluded that there is no feasible alternative location for the Project. The Property is the only relatively large, currently undeveloped site in the City of Campbell or immediate environs that -12- 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/or 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. 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. Bo 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 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 SectionV.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 or 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. 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 -13 - 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 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. 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 Alternative 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. Alternative Land Uses on Property Evaluated in 1992 EIR (as Updated in 1996). Several alternative land uses for the Property were considered in the 1992 EIR. Two of the alternatives -- residential and larger 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 Lane 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. b) 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. Large 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 as the main 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. lO3OQ6.P5O 12/3o/96 From this perspective, a large 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 V.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 for the entire 23.58 acre site could cause negative financial impacts to the City and Agency as described in Section VI.A.3. Park development could require $5-7 million of City funds and approximately $350,000 in annual maintenance costs could 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. -15- o In April and May 1997, the Planing Commission considered the Original Project and after recommending certification of the 1996 SEIR, recommended to the City Council that the project be redesigned to allow for incorporation of a four acre public open space amenity on the Site. On June 17, 1997, the City Council in considering the Original Project and in response to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project, to permit consideration of a four acre public open space area. The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation, acknowledged that while it was not desirable to develop the entire Site as public open space, the Open Space Element of the General Plan identifies a need for "neighborhood" size parks or opens space sites ( 4 to 6 acres in size), particularly in the Union Avenue area (including the McGlincey Lane area). And while it is acknowledged that this area may not conform to all Open Space criteria, this condition does not create a potential adverse environmental impact. In fact, it may provide environmental benefit. For these reasons, the Commission has recommended that a four -acre park or open space be included in the Project as revised. This acreage can be set aside without an unacceptable significant effect on the economics of developing the Property and furthering the redevelopment goals in the area. In summary, while a public park use over the entire Site 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 feasible the partial use of the Site for public open space use and infeasible the entire use of the Site for public park and the use of the entire Site for a public park alternative is hereby rejected. 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-cart track, batting cages, bumper rides, children rides, and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be outdoors. 1030Q6.P50 12/30/96 -16- I030Q6.PSO 12/3o/96 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 generate higher noise levels than the proposed Project, because the majority of activities would take place outdoors. Several activities, such as go-carts, bumper cars, and children 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 VA.3 above). 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 outdoor 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 than local resource, and no 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. 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. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES After consideration of a reasonable range of identified alternatives to the -17- 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 -18- I. City of Campbell Redevelopment Agenc Winchester Drive-In Site Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Ml~ation Monltmin~ Pi'osram for Supplemental Envinmmen~l Impact Repart ~nd 1992 EIR The foliowin~ table has been developed in accordance with section 15163 of the California EnVironmental Quality A~t (CEQA) Guidelines, and confirm the ndtiptton measm'es necessity to develop the proposed research and development/light industrial business park. This table includes a list of mitig-ations and the reference t~ tl~ al:~proprla~e F. nvirmunental Impact Report ~te~ory, the impact, the tindn~ of the mittgatior~ the City of Campbell deplrtment responsible for the implementation of the ndti~ation, the jhte the mitigation is monitored and/or completed, and the initials of the individual that was responsible for monitoring and/or ensuring completion of the appropriate mitl~ation. Project construction will be plused .and the timing of mitigation implementation will be determined durlr~ the project reivew and public review process and as ~ in the project conditions of approval. IMPACr IMI'A~- SHR TRAFFIC Additional traffic at the intersections of Union Avenue/M~¥ Lane L,d C. Irrden/Union Avenues. MITIGATION- SEIR Uni~c~lin~.y Inaction The applicant sl~ll in~ll s traffic signal at this intersection, includl~ ~n exclusive left-turn lane fi, om Union Avame to McGlincey · Applicant shall remow three parklng sp~ces at the east les Cmnden/Union lnt~section · The applicant shall restripe the nonh~und approach on Union Av~u~ to ~ ~n ~..lusive fight-turn i~ne. TIMING onowtns completion o~ DI~ARTMn%TF Public Works Works/ ~1~ Wod~s/ DATE/ intersection. the traffic circulation pattern in the McG'lincey tl~ Curtner Avneue/ completion of ~ from Cumm~ Avenue · The applicant shall instaJl IFollowtng the e_-_.~ leg ~d a ~ sl~n and 'NO LEFI' TURN" slb, n on the north ILS of the Cuz'tner Avenue/~ L~e tnte~ectio~ Remove west le~s of the lntersec~io~ Provide access to the site the existtn~ no:ess euem~t vest of Westchest~ Drive according to city standards for city stmetso District ,P l:Vovtde on street pirnllel co~n c~ oecupaneyof the first ~c~ Works Public Works Public Works Public Wodm I. z~o~e on,ire ~,,r~ tn I~e~ I~'hnn~/ I I ~or~e w~t~ d~, l en~~. / I Bund~ I 2 NOISE may exceed ambient noise levels. Applicani shall restripe the northbo..u~.: approach o~ the intersectioU ~ ~dd a new exclusive right-t~n Applicant shall pay · l:~'oportioml traffic iml~Ct at the Camden/Curtner Applicant shall c°mply with all ~ty o~ ~npbell design standaFds. Applicant/pro{eot. shall comply with all noise per~onmnce mndards u described in .~tton $~ ~he Suplemengal Applicant/project shall comply with all noise described in Section $.23 of the Suplement~! prolect bulldout and om~:~. a:nnpletion of final oampar~. ~Uowtng ~npletion of final Followtns mmpletion of the project and final Pubic Works Public Works Public Wor~ Pu~Uc W~rks/ Cax~n monoxide (CO) concentrations at Camden/Cuflner & Unton/C~npbell level o~ sisnLflcanee available to the project that w~! reduce this ~ below level ot ~ t~esho~. A ~ o! mst b~ 4~dol~d for ~b impact. WATER $UPFLY supply improvements may ru~flt in con.qtm~on- related noise, dust and traffic diversion. Construction activities shall be coordimted with the appropriate Jurisdiction, r'-mpbel] ~nd/or hn lose, to reduce consiruction relaMd impacts. Public Works/ RDA 4 e 1. create addition~ othre cordtmction related ~cttvitles, ~-~ZA.RDOUS M.A~ The use, stora~,e, &nd transport of hazardous materials in the lXOjeCt area may result in splls, leaks, or accidents involvin~ these materials. construction activity. The project site is subject to 8;round shJdr~ in the event of a major e~ in the San Francisco hy Xe~fom ~onstmction a~ivittes. tenants shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance m~d Toxic Gas Ordinance. · If cultural reama~ M'e encount~ duri~ construction, &Il development activity shall cease tmmedlttel),. A certified &rcheolo~lst shall be contacted ~ be present at all ,u~.~en~ excavation. Appwprlate mlti~ttions shall be developed & · The project develo~ shn implement all applictble Geotr. hnf~ studies and oelsmlc mfet~. At the time o~ the project ex~v~tion and l~uildins./ ,~blic Works kntral Fire District/Public Works Environmental Bundle/ Public Works/ RDA DRAINAGE / Inst~l~tion o~ storm drainage f&cfltties The developer shall comply with ~11 ~pplic~ble initiation of r~oL~e, dust m~d traffic control 6 EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPROVALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Puroose. This Exhibit B sets forth the Statement of Overriding Considerations the Planning Commission makes to the City Council (The "City Council") of the City of Campbell (the "City") in compliance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 Co) of Public Resources Code in recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit, Oeneral Plan Amendment and Vested Tentative Subdivision Map (the "Planning Approvals") for development of a 280,000 ~quare foot high-end research and development/business park and associated on-and-off-site improvements (the "Project") by W'rA Campbell Technology Park, LLC (the "Developer") and the designation of a four (4) acre remainder parcel for public open space. B. The Project. The Developer proposed to develop 23.58 acres of the former Winchester Drive-In theater site (the "Site") for a 330,000 square foot research and development business park (the "Original Project"). On June 17, 1997 the City Council, in considering the Planning Approvals, and acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requested that the Developer submit a redesign of the Original Project to accommodate a four acre parcel for public open space. The Developer submitted a redesign of the Original Project which proposes developing a 280,000 ~quare foot research and development business park and the Agency retaining four acres designated for public open space (the "Project"). The Site is located in the McOlincey Lane industrial area of the Central Campbell Redevelopment Project Area. The Project will include three, two-story buildings ranging in size from 60,000 to 100,000 square feet and one 40,000 square foot single story building, associated parking, landscaping and off- site improvements on 19.58 acres, and a designated four acre public open space parcel. The Site has been vacant for the past 15 years despite ~everal 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 Site in 1994 so that it could control the Site's timely redevelopment in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Such timely redevelopment is viewed by the Agency as the linch-pin to overall redevelopment of the McOlincey Lane portion of the Project Area, and is a critical element of the Agency's five-year Implementation Plan (defined below). Exhibit B - Statement of Ov, ~ling Consider~ions (Winches~r Drive-in Sit, Page 2 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. 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. An Addendum was prepared to address the changes between the Original Project and the Project. The primary changes are a reduction in building area by 50,000 square feet and the designation of four acres for use as public open space. While the Project impacts are less significant than the Original Project due to less traffic impacts, there still exists an unavoidable potentially significant environmental impact on Air Quality. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is recommending this Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission has fully considered the discussion and analysis in the Record regarding the environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the approval and the implementation of the Project 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 Planning Commission further finds that the alternatives to the Project identified in the 1992 EI1L and the 1996 SEIR Resolution are infeasible for the r~aons slated therein and because such alternatives would limit the economic, ~cial md other benefits that will. be provided by the Project. Following are the specific Project benefits upon which these findings and s~tement of overriding considerations are based: A. Elimination of Blivht on the Property. The Planning Commission find~ 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 City's Redevelopment Plan for that area. Exhibit B - Statement of Ovet..,ing Considerations (Winchester Drive-la Site) Page 3 The Property is the largest underutilized parcel in the Project Area and, consequently. constitutes one of its most blighted properties, The Property has remained unused for 15 years despite several private sector redevelopment efforts. As summarized in the 1992 Report to Council: "Although a number of properties suffer fxom 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; nnd 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 1II-5 and 1II-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 Mc(31incey 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 remediafion, and through the DDA will pay for storm drain improvements and park improvements that will facilitate revitalization of the Property and the surrounding McOlincey Lane industrial area. which the Developer is prepared to purchase and develop. 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-ln Site) Page 4 B. ]~limination Qf Blight in Remaining project Area. The Planning Commission finds that implementation of the Project subject to the granting of the discretionm'y 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 in/msmiciwe, and a number of factors inhibiting pwper 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 Plannir~g 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 McOlincey Lane area and the larger Campbell community. Third, through the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) the Agency will generate approximately $2.2 million dollars of net sale proceeds (after taking into account acquisition costs, carrying costs, and costs of storm drain infrastructure and a public park/open space to be paid by the Agency). The net sale proceeds will provide the Agency with a vital source of immediate cash that can be reinvested in the Project Area to further other redevelopment and community goals and objectives. Fourth, by putting the Property back on the tax rolls and causing development of approximately 280,000 square feet of quality research and development 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 Finally, through the DDA and Planning Approvals, the Developer will be required to provide a range of additional intersection and utih'ty impwvements that will benefit the Exhibit B - Statement of Ovemdin~ Considerations (Winchester Drive-la Site) entire McGlincey Lane Industrial Area. (see the 1996 SEIR Resolution, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval for the Planned Development Permit). C. Economic Revitalization of the Pr0|ect ~,~*. The Planning Commission 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 600 new full-time employees at one or more new businesses. The jobs and businesses are expected to be at the high-end of research and development 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.)