CC Resolution 9306
RESOLUTION NO.
9306
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SEIR-1996) AND AN ADDENDUM MAKING
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND MAKING 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 MCGLINCEY LANE:
WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more fully set forth in the attached
Exhibits A & B, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized
terms used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibits A & B; 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 WT A
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 hearing of the City Council to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation, and after receiving public testimony the City Council requested
City Council Resolution No. 9306
535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane
Page 2
that the Developer present a redesign of the Original Project to accommodate 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 Proj ect; 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 City Council 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 City Council finds that the above recitals and the information contained in
Exhibits A & B are accurate.
FURTHER RESOLVED 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 issues of the Project; and that the Planning
Commission and the City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the
City Council Resolution No. 9306
535 Westchester/571 McGlincey Lane
Page 3
1996 SEIR and Addendum, in light of the 1992 ErR, prior to acting on the Project and the
discretionary approvals necessary for the development of the Project.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds and determines that the 1996 SEIR
and Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the City Council.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby identifies the significant
effects, makes a statement of overriding considerations, requires the mitigation measures, adopts
the monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation measures, and makes the findings
set forth in detail in the attached Exhibits A & B. The statements, findings, and determinations
set forth in Exhibits A & B are based on the previously certified 1992 EIR and 1996 SEIR, the
Addendum and other information available to the City Council, and are made in compliance with
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(a) ofCEQA.
Passed and adopted this 18th day of November
, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Watson, Furtado, Conant
Dougherty, Dean
None
None
APPROVE~!f).&J
Barbara D. Conant, Mayor
ATTEST:
'j-
/~
U~V- // . ~
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
j :Seir96
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
I. 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 WT A 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,
-1-
1030Q6.PSO
12130/96
traffic mitigation improvements to affected intersections in the area, access street
improvements and the extension of storm drain facilities across the Property.
B. 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 Gg., "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-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
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. drainagelflooding.
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.
-3-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
The 1996 SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), 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
("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 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.
D. 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 fIrst set of approvals consists of approval by the Agency,
and consent by the City Council (with specifIed fmdings 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. Approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration at a duly
noticed joint public hearing on November 18, 1997. The Planning Approvals
constitute the second 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.
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.
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
-5-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
below.
II. OVERALL FINDINGS
Before the Agency and 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 fmdings 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 fmdings 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 fmdings 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
opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the record related to the
City Council and Agency actions. Therefore, by these fmdings (including Exhibit A of
Resolutions Nos. 9181 and 1997-1 by reference), the City Council and Agency
-6-
1030Q6.PSO
J 2130/96
acknowledge and certify the clarifications and/or modifications of the 1996 SEIR, the
1997 Addendum, as set forth in these fmdings, 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 fmdings, 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 fmdings
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 fmdings 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 fmdings 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
points as well.
IV. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
-7-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including the 1992 EIR), with the
Addendum and Section ill 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 l-hour and 8-hour
carbon monoxide exceedance would become worse under Project conditions.
As to this significant environmental impact, the City Council and Agency fmds 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, the approval
resolution or other official approval action must contain the City Council'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.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. 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.
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
-8-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
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-fmancial 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 fmancial and non-
fmancialobjectives.
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
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.
-9-
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
3. Redevelopment and Planning Obiectives. 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 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 Obiectives. 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 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 Propt;rty 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
commercial recreation projec~ proposed, none were determined to be
fmancially 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
-10-
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.
d) 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 defmed 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 fmancially feasible
for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre recreational
facility at the Community Center and 10hn 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 fmancially 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
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.
-11-
J030Q6.PS0
121301'96
1030Q6.P50
12130/96
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.
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 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.l 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 ISI26(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
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
-12-
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 ISI2S(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 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.
1. The No Proiect 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
-13-
J030Q6.PSO
12130/96
I030Q6.PSO
12130/96
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 rmding 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 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.
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
-14-
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), 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.
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.
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
-15-
1030Q6.PSO
12130196
1030Q6.PSO
12130/96
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 A venue 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.
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-cart track, batting
cages, bumper rides, children 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
-16-
1030Q6.PSO
12130/96
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 impacL, 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 V A.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 fmancing 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 fmding 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 fmd 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
-17-
1030Q6.PSO
12130196
identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible.
-18-