CC Resolution 9181
+r ,.
CITY OF CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. 1997-1
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
RESOLUTION NO. 9181
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT TO REDEVELOP
THE FORMER WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN SITE
RESOLVED, by the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council (the "City Council") of the City
of campbell (the "city"), that:
WHEREAS, the following recitals summarize information more
fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated
in this Resolution by this reference. Various capitalized terms
used in this Resolution are more fully defined in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Agency is responsible for redevelopment of the
Central Campbell Project Area (the "Project Area") pursuant to
the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment
Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"), as amended; and
WHEREAS, the 23.5 acre former Winchester Drive-In site (the
"Property") constitutes one of the most underutilized and
blighted properties in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, in June 1992 the City Council certified an
environmental impact report (the "1992 EIR") that evaluated the
environmental impacts of development of a proposed destination
retail center on the Property; and
WHEREAS, in April 1994 the Agency acquired the Property and
thereafter conducted land use and economic feasibility studies
and a developer selection process, from which WTA Development was
selected to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a
"DDA") for development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, WTA Development has proposed development on the
Property of an approximately 325,000 square foot high-end
research and development and light industrial business park with
related on-site and off-site improvements (the "Project"); and
103OQ7.PSO
12/30/96
-1-
A- ~
WHEREAS, Agency staff has negotiated a DDA whereby the
Agency would sell the Property to a corporate affiliate of WTA
Development (the "Developer") and the Developer would develop the
Project on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the DDA conditions the sale of the Property and the
development of the Project on the prior procurement by the
Developer from the city of all necessary land use entitlements
and approvals (the "Planning Approvals"); and
WHEREAS, because the Project contains land uses that vary
from the land uses evaluated in the 1992 EIR, the Agency and the
city have 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 remains valid, while providing new
analysis of environmental impacts that will be different as a
result of the change in land use proposed for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the 1996 SEIR has been expressly prepared to serve
as the CEQA document for Agency and city Council consideration of
the DDA and the Planning Approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Agency serves as the "lead agency" and the City
council serves as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in the
preparation and certification of the 1996 SEIR; and
WHEREAS, through this concurrent resolution, the Agency and
the city council desire to comply with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the Local CEQA Implementing Guidelines in the
consideration, certification, and use of the 1996 SEIR in
connection with their consideration of the DDA and the Planning
Approvals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Agency and the City council find that the above
recitals and the information contained in Exhibit A are accurate.
2. The Agency and the City council hereby find and certify
that the 1996 SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,
the State CEQA Guidelines and the Local CEQA Implementing
Guidelines; that the 1996 SEIR adequately addresses the
environmental issues of the Project; and that the Agency and the
city council have reviewed and considered the information
contained in the 1996 SEIR prior to acting on the Project and the
l03OQ7.PSO
12./30/96
-2-
.. .~
discretionary approvals necessary to the disposition of the
Property and the development of the Project.
3. The Agency and the city council hereby find and
determine that the 1996 SEIR reflects the independent judgment of
the Agency and the city Council.
4. The Agency and the City Council hereby identify the
significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the
monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation
measures, and make the findings set forth in detail in the
attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings and determinations
set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified 1996 SEIR
and other information available to the Agency and the City
council, and are made in compliance with Section 15091 of the
State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(a) of CEQA.
5. As detailed in Exhibit A, approval and implementation
of the Project may have a significant unavoidable environmental
impact related to exceedance of carbon monoxide standards at two
intersections and, as a result, the Agency and the City council,
as applicable, may approve the DDA and the Planning Approvals
only if, in connection with such approvals, the Agency and the
city Council, as applicable, make a statement of overriding
considerations in accordance with Sections 15092 and 15093 of the
State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081(b) of CEQA.
6. Based on the information set forth in Section V.B of
Exhibit A, the Agency and the City Council find pursuant to 14
California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(c) that, considering
the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project
involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that therefore no
fee is required in connection with the filing of a Notice of
Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR, the DDA (if
approved), or the Planning Approvals (if approved).
7. The City Manager and the Redevelopment Manager are
authorized and directed to file the appropriate Notices of
Determination and Notices of Fee Exemption in connection with the
1996 SEIR, the DDA (if approved), and the Planning Approvals (if
approved) .
8. This Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its
adoption.
l03OQ7.PSO
12.130/96 - 3 -
~ ,
APPROVAL OF AGENCY:
Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 1997 by the
following vote:
AYES:
AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: Watson, Furtado, Conant
NOES:
AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean
ABSENT:
AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
~&~
BARBARA CONANT, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST: / \
/J ~
~~
An ybee, Agency Secretary
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL:
Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 1997 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Watson, Furtado, Conant
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Dean
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
'---4~12 ~
BARBARA CONANT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
//~~."
/ / ~
(~. ~
Anne Bybee, city lerk
l03OQ7.PSO
12./30/96
-4-
~ ~
EXHIBIT A
ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTION OF
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM,
AND FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINCHESTER
DRIVE-IN SITE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. proiect Description. The project (the "Project") under
consideration by the city of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council of the city of Campbell (the "City
council") is an approximately 325,000 square foot research and
development/light industrial park on the 23.5 acre former
Winchester Drive-In site (the "Property") within the Central
Campbell Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in the
city of Campbell, California (the "City"). The Project square
footage will be divided among several buildings, which may range
in size from approximately 40,000 square feet to approximately
100,000 square feet. The buildings may be one or two stories in
height, and likely will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with
wood and/br stucco cladding. The proposed site plan of the
Project is contained in the 1996 SEIR (defined below) .
Development of the Project will require removal of the
deteriorated asphalt paving currently on the Property, and site
preparation activities such as minor excavation, grading, and
possible importation of engineered fill. Off-site improvements
will include extension of water and storm drainage facilities to
the property, traffic mitigation improvements to affected
intersections in the area, and access street improvements.
B. Backqround: The 1992 EIR. The Property has been vacant
for the past 14 years, and has been under various ownerships. In
1991, Western Federal Savings (then the owner of the Property)
submitted a Planned Development permit application (PD91-04) to
the City to construct a 245,000 square foot destination retail
center on the Property. At the same time, the City and Agency
initiated an amendment to the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan
to allow for the addition of the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area,
within which the Property is located, to the project Area. The
PD permit application for the Property and the redevelopment area
expansion were evaluated together under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
l03OQ6.PSO
lZl30/96
-1-
r. ,I!
sea., "CEQA") in an EIR during 1991-92 (SCH#91053013) (the "1992
EIR").
The 1992 ErR consists of a Draft ErR 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.
After evaluation of the proposals, the Agency entered into
an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the selected
developer, WTA Development of Palo Alto. In December 1996,
Agency staff concluded negotiations with WTA Development on the
proposed terms of a disposition and development agreement (a
"DDA") which was presented for consideration by the Agency and
City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 1997.
C. The 1996 SEIR. The Project as proposed by WTA
Development and contemplated in the DDA differs in land use from
the destination retail project that was proposed and evaluated in
the 1992 EIR in terms of impacts related to
traffic/circulation/parking, noise, air quality following
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-2-
.. )'
buildout, land use, water supply, storm drainage, aesthetics, and
alternatives. However, much of the information and analysis
contained in the 1992 EIR remains valid for the currently-
proposed Project, particularly with regard to impacts involving
air quality during construction, hazardous materials, cultural
resources, geology, drainage/flooding, biological resources,
cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts.
Under these circumstances, the Agency and the City have
determined that a Supplemental EIR (the "1996 SEIR") is required,
in accordance with section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines
(defined below), to build upon the relevant aspects of the 1992
EIR and address the different environmental impacts that may
result from the change in the nature of the Project from the
project that was evaluated in the 1992 EIR. The determination to
prepare the 1996 SEIR is also consistent with the requirements of
the 1992 Resolution calling for performance of further
appropriate environmental analysis when a specific project
proposal for the Property is presented for Agency and City
Council consideration.
The 1996 SEIR incorporates by reference the 1992 EIR. The
1996 SEIR consists of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report dated October 1996 (SCH#96082018) (the "Draft 1996 SEIR")
and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated
December 1996 (the "Final 1996 SEIR") (containing responses to
comments on, and making certain revisions to, the Draft 1996
SEIR), as more fully described below.
The 1996 SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et
sea., 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 Nap 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
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-3-
r; I'
for their review and comment. The Draft 1996 SEIR was also
provided to the Campbell Library, and was made available to
members of the general public.
A public meeting on the Draft 1996 SEIR was held on
October 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Campbell City Hall Council
Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public were in
attendance at the workshop.
The Final 1996 SEIR was made available to the public and
distributed to the public agencies that commented on the Draft
1996 SEIR on December 18, 1996. The Final 1996 SEIR contains
responses to 12 letters received during the Draft 1996 SEIR
comment period and to comments made at the October 29, 1996
public workshop on the Draft 1996 SEIR. The Final 1996 SEIR also
contains text revisions to the Draft 1996 SEIR made a result of
responding to the comments received.
The 1996 SEIR (with the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference)
came before the Agency and the City Council on January 7, 1997 at
a duly noticed joint public hearing, at which time the Agency and
City Council heard oral testimony and received written
communications.
D. Use of 1996 SEIR; Imposition of Mitiqation Measures.
Two primary sets of local discretionary approvals are required
before the Project may be developed. The first set of approvals
consists of approval by the Agency, and consent by the City
Council (with specified findings under the Community
Redevelopment Law), of the DDA. The DDA sets forth the terms and
conditions under which the Agency will sell the Property to WTA
Campbell Technology Park LLC (the "Developer"), a corporate
affiliate of WTA Development, and under which the Developer will
develop the Project on the Property. A primary condition to the
sale of the Property is that the Developer must first obtain a
set of planning approvals from the City (the "Planning
Approvals"). Approval of the DDA is scheduled for consideration
at the duly noticed January 7, 1997 joint public hearing
described above.
The Planning Approvals constitute a second set of local
discretionary approvals necessary to development of the Project.
The Planning Approvals may include a proposed General Plan
amendment, a Zoning Ordinance amendment, approval of a planned
development permit, approval of a vesting tentative map,
architectural design and site layout approval, and a
determination that disposition of the Property under the DDA is
consistent with General Plan (as amended). The Planning
Approvals will be considered for approval or denial by the City
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-4-
" f'
council upon recommendation of the Planning commission (except
for the General Plan consistency finding, which may be made
directly by the Planning commission). It is anticipated that the
Planning Approvals will be processed for final consideration in
the first half of 1997.
Approval of the DDA alone will not result in disposition of
the Property to the Developer or development of the Project, and
does not affect the city council's discretion in granting or
denying the Planning Approvals. As noted above, granting of the
Planning Approvals is an absolute condition to disposition of the
Property and development of the Project under the DDA.
However, since approval of the DDA is the first step in a
sequence of local discretionary approvals that could foreseeably
result in disposition of the Property and development of the
Project, the Agency and the City have determined, consistent with
sound CEQA principles, to prepare, consider and certify the 1996
SEIR (with the accompanying findings set forth in this Exhibit A)
at the earliest feasible time--that is, in connection with
consideration of approval of the DDA. The 1996 SEIR is then
expected to serve as the CEQA document for consideration of the
Planning Approvals for the Project. Because the Agency will
consider the first local discretionary approval (approval of the
DDA), the Agency has served as the "lead agency" under CEQA for
the 1996 SEIR. Because the city Council will consider subsequent
local discretionary approvals (the Planning Approvals), the City
Council has served as a "responsible agency" under CEQA for the
1996 SEIR.
In section IV of this Exhibit A, the Agency and the City
council adopt specified mitigation measures to address
potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. If
the Agency and city Council approve the DDA in their policy
discretion and if the City council and Planning Commission
approve the Planning Approvals in their policy discretion, these
adopted mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions of
the Planning Approvals. Imposition of EIR mitigation measures
through conditions of land use approval is the standard procedure
in Campbell, and most localities, for imposing mitigation
measures related to specific projects. If the DDA and/or
Planning Approvals are not approved, so that the Project cannot
be implemented without reprocessing and further public action,
the mitigation measures set forth in this Exhibit A would, of
course, become moot.
Nothing in this Exhibit A or the Resolution to which it is
attached will affect the Agency's, the City council's (or the
Planning Commission's) discretion, as applicable, in approving
l03OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-5-
,. J'
the DDA, in granting or denying the Planning Approvals, or in
imposing conditions of approval in addition to the mitigation
measures adopted below.
II. THE RECORD
The record (the "Record") of the Agency and the City Council
relating to the Project and its potential environmental effects
includes:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
l03OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
The 1996 SEIR, consisting of the Draft 1996 SEIR and
the Final 1996 SEIR;
The 1992 EIR, consisting of the 1992 Draft EIR, the
1992 Final EIR and Exhibit A of the 1992 Resolution;
The 1992 Resolution;
The DDA;
The summary of the DDA prepared by Agency staff in
December 1996 pursuant to Health and Safety Code
section 33433 (the "section 33433 Summary").
Detailed Evaluation of Winchester Drive-In site
Alternatives, prepared for the Agency by Economic
Research Associates, dated February, 1995 (the "ERA
Alternatives Study");
staff memoranda to the Agency Board dated February 20,
1996 and April 16, 1996 discussing land use
alternatives and developer selection for the Property
(the "Staff Reports on Alternatives").
H.
The staff report accompanying this Resolution, the 1996
SEIR and the DDA dated January 7, 1997 (the "DDA Staff
Report");
I.
The Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan");
J.
The 1992 Report to city council on the Redevelopment
Plan, and supplements thereto (the "Report to
Council");
K.
The City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency AB 1290
Implementation Plan and AB 315 Affordable Housing
Production Plan for the Central Campbell Redevelopment
-6-
,~ J I
Project Area, adopted by the Agency on November 15,
1994 pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33490
(the "Implementation Plan") .
L. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Planning
commission, the Agency and the City council during
public hearings and meetings on the Project and the
1996 SEIR;
M. Matters of common knowledge to the Agency and the City
council which they have considered, such as the City of
Campbell General Plan (the "General Plan"), and prior
resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the city.
III. OVERALL FINDINGS
Before the Agency and the City council may act upon the
discretionary approvals described in section 1.0 above, CEQA
mandates that the Agency, as lead agency, and the city Council,
as a responsible agency, consider the Record and make certain
findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) 'and
section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The 1996 SEIR (which
incorporates the 1992 EIR) identifies potentially significant
impacts on the environment which are likely to result from
development of the Project. Based on the following findings as
to each such impact, the Agency and the City Council conclude
that changes or alterations have been adopted and will be
incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
all potentially significant environmental impacts identified by
the 1996 SEIR, except for the local air quality impact identified
in section IV.C.2 and in section VI below.
Further, as required by Public Resources Code section
21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for the mitigation
measures stated in and required by this Exhibit A.
The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A
include: (1) certifying the 1996 SEIR prepared for the
discretionary approvals described in section 1.0 above;
(2) briefly describing and summarizing the potentially signifi-
cant environmental impacts of the Project; (3) describing mitiga-
tion measures for, and alternatives to, the Project; and
(4) presenting the Agency's and the City's findings as to the
impacts of the Project after adoption or rejection of the
mitigation measures and alternatives. In addition, section V of
this Exhibit A adopts mitigation measures for certain other
environmental impacts that were addressed in the 1996 SEIR
(including the 1992 EIR incorporated by reference), but
l03OQ6.PSO
12,/30/96
-7-
.1 J I
determined not to be potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts. The description of impacts contained in
this Exhibit A is intended as a summary only. The 1996 SEIR, and
the documents which it incorporates (including the 1992 EIR) ,
describe these impacts in detail.
The Agency and City Council certify that the 1996 SEIR has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented
to, and reviewed and considered by, the Agency and City council
prior to acting on the discretionary approvals related to the
Project. In so certifying, the Agency and the city Council
recognize that there may be "differences" among and between the
information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony
that make up the Record. Therefore, by these findings (including
Exhibit A and the resolution adopting this Exhibit A), the Agency
and the City council adopt the clarifications and/or modifica-
tions of the 1996 SEIR as set forth in these findings, and
determine that these findings shall control and that the 1996
SEIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the
determinations reached by the Agency and the City council in
these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in
the Record described above.
IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
In compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081(a)
and section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Section IV
analyzes and makes required findings regarding the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the Project as identified in
the 1996 SEIR, including the potentially significant impacts
identified in the 1992 EIR that have been found to remain
relevant to the currently contemplated Project on the Property.
The following analysis and findings are based on substantial
evidence in the Record.
For each identified potentially significant environmental
impact, this section IV: (1) summarizes the impact, (2)
describes and adopts applicable mitigation measures for the
impact, (3) adopts a monitoring program for the adopted
mitigation measure(s) in accordance with Public Resources Code
section 21081.6, and (4) makes one of the findings required by
Public Resources Code section 21081(a) section 15091 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. The proposed monitoring programs are detailed
in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A.
The identified impacts are considered by major impact
category, generally in the order set forth in the 1996 SEIR.
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-8-
.' ~ I
A. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION/PARKING
1. Traffic Impact at Union Avenue/McGlincev Lane
Intersection.
a. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. Operating at
a level of service ("LOS") E under the background traffic
conditions, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection would
operate at a projected LOS F under the Project condition,
constituting a significant impact under the traffic impact
criteria defined in section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Under
the existing roadway conditions and with the projected Project
condition traffic, it is anticipated that the eastbound movements
of this intersection would experience excessive delay. The
signal warrants analysis contained in section 3.1 of the Draft
1996 SEIR also indicates the need for installation of a traffic
signal at this intersection.
b. Mitiqation Measures.
(1) A traffic signal will be installed at
this intersection following Project completion.
(2) An exclusive eastbound left-turn lane
will be provided from MCGlincey Lane to Union Avenue.
(3) Three parking spaces will be removed at
the east leg of the intersection (on the south side of McGlincey
Lane). (This mitigation measure will, in turn, cause a parking
impact described in section IV.A.4 below.)
c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.A.1 (Union/McGlincey Intersection) in
Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by
reference as the monitoring program for the above described
mitigation measures.
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
and analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR,
the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the potentially significant traffic impact of the Project
on the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. with the
implementation of the traffic signal and eastbound turn lane
measures, the Union Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection is
projected to operate at LOS D or better under Project conditions,
thus resulting in an acceptable service level under the traffic
1030Q6.PSO
12.130/96
-9-
.' J,'
impact criteria employed by the city of Campbell and city of San
Jose.
2. Traffic Impact at Camden/Union Intersection.
a. PotentiallY Significant Impact. Operating at
LOS E (or LOS F based on the City of San Jose level of service
methodology) under the background and Project conditions, this
intersection would experience a 1.35 percent increase in critical
movement volumes. As indicated in section 3.1 of the Draft 1996
SEIR, the city of San Jose defines a project as having a
significant impact if the addition of the Project traffic
increases the critical movement volumes by more than one percent
at an intersection operating at LOS E or F under the background
condition.
b. Mitiqation Measures. The northbound approach
(on Union Avenue) will be restriped to provide an exclusive
right-turn lane.
c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.A.1 (Camden/Union Intersection) in
Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by
reference as the monitoring program for the above described
mitigation measure.
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
and analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR,
the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant traffic impact of the Project on the
Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection. Level of service and
traffic operations at the Camden Avenue/Union Avenue intersection
can be improved by re-striping the northbound approach of the
intersection and adding a new exclusive right-turn lane.
Addition of the northbound right-turn lane will result in
improvement of LOS F to LOS E at this intersection, based on the
City of San Jose level of service methodology, resulting in less
than 1 percent increase in critical movement volumes. This
result is within the acceptable service level range under the
traffic impact criteria employed by the City of Campbell and the
City of San Jose.
3. Traffic Impact at McGlincev Lane/Curtner Avenue
Intersection.
a. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. The results
of signal warrant analysis indicate that signal warrant 11, Peak
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-10-
II'
Hour Volume Warrant, is met at the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue
intersection. (Section 4 (Traffic/circulation subsection) of the
1992 Draft EIR also indicated the need for improvement of this
intersection.)
b. Mitiqation Measures. Instead of a traffic
signal, traffic operations will be improved through a
reconfiguration of the intersection, generally as described in
section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR
and section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, to accommodate through
traffic from Curtner Avenue eastbound to McGlincey Lane
northbound. Details of the intersection reconfiguration design
are still being developed.
c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.A.3 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above described mitigation measure.
d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
and analysis in section 4 (Traffic/Circulation subsection) of the
1992 Draft EIR and section 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the
finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant traffic impact of the Project and
surrounding uses on the McGlincey Lane/Curtner Avenue
intersection. The proposed intersection reconfiguration will
effectively redirect traffic in a manner that will substantially
lessen the identified traffic impact at this intersection.
4. parkinq Impact.
a. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. The
mitigation measure described in section IV.A.1.b.(3) above will
result in the removal of three parking spaces near the
intersection of Union Avenue and McGlincey Lane.
b. Mitiqation Measure. The City will provide at
least three replacement parking spaces on McGlincey Lane by
removing existing unwarranted parking restrictions and red curbs
in the area.
c. Monitorinq Program. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.A.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above described mitigation measure.
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-11-
. '",
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is
made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring
program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant parking impact of the Project. provision of
replacement parking on a 1:1 or better basis in the same vicinity
as the lost spaces will retain the same level of off-site parking
as existed prior to reconfiguration of the MCGlincey Lane/Union
Avenue intersection.
B. NOISE
1. Construction Noise Impact.
a. Potential Iv Siqnificant Impact. Construction
of the Project would require some grading, limited excavation,
and the use of other equipment typically necessary during
construction of commercial and industrial projects. Typical
construction noise levels are shown in Figure 3-13 of the Draft
1996 SEIR. These are maximum noise levels generated by each
individual piece of construction equipment at a distance of 50
feet. Noise levels at the mobile home park would be highest when
construction takes place near the mobile home park adjoining the
Property to the east. Noise levels would be reduced when
construction takes place further away from this Property
boundary. Average noise levels (Le ) during busy construction
periods typically range from 75-85 ~ecibels ("dBA") at a distance
of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. Average
noise levels would, therefore, be audible above ambient noise
levels, and above a 60 dBA threshold typically used to assess
speech and activity interference.
b. Mitiqation Measures.
(1) Noise generating construction activities
will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director.
(2) All internal combustion engine-driven
equipment will be maintained in a good working condition, and
fitted with mufflers which are also in good condition.
(3) Noise sources, such as air compressors
and concrete pumpers, will be located as far as possible from the
nearest residences.
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-12-
..\
(4) The Developer and/or the City will
designate a "disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for
responding to complaints about noise (e.g., starting too early,
poor mufflers, etc.). This person will have the authority to
take the necessary actions to gain conformance with these
conditions. The telephone number and name of this person will be
conspicuously posted at the construction site to provide
communication among the neighbors, the Developer, and the city.
c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.B.2 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above described mitigation measures.
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft
1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above
mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of
construction noise described above. Limiting construction hours,
maintaining equipment in good condition, locating significant
noise-generating equipment away from residences, and designating
a disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities are
established methods used in Campbell and other localities to
reduce construction noise from a project such as the Project
below the acceptable thresholds identified in section 3.2 of the
Draft 1996 SEIR.
2. Impact of Noise Generated bv Proiect.
a. Potentially Siqnificant Impact. The Paseo de
Palomas mobile home park adjoins the Property to the northeast.
The proposed site plan for the Project includes a 50-foot
landscaped buffer along the northeastern Property boundary. The
Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in
noise at the mobile home park. It is, however, possible that
mechanical equipment on Project buildings could generate noise
exceeding existing ambient levels and appropriate property line
limits.
b. Mitiqation Measures.
(1) The noise standards in Table 3-12 of the
Draft 1996 SEIR will be applied as performance standards for the
proposed Project which may affect noise sensitive land uses.
Exceptions to the standards shall be limited to the following:
l030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-13-
"
(A) In the event the measured ambient
noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in the
category expressed in Table 3-12, the applicable standard will be
adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.
(B) Each of the noise level standards
specified in Table 3-12 will be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone
noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for
recurring impulsive noises.
(2) Consistent with City policy, a solid
masonry sound wall will be required at the common boundary of the
Property and adjacent residential use.
c. Monitoring Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.B.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above described mitigation measures.
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.2 of the Draft
1996 SEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above
mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessens the potentially significant impact of noise
generated by the Project described above. Adherence to the
performance standards set forth in Table 3-12 of the Draft SEIR
(which standards have been developed through extensive scientific
research for application in situations like the Project) will
reduce noise from mechanical equipment in the Project to
acceptable levels on surrounding uses, as defined in section 3.2
of the Draft 1996 SEIR. Likewise, the City has found from past
experience that masonry soundwalls significantly mitigate noise
impacts of office/commercial uses on adjacent residential uses.
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Construction Impacts.
a. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. Construction
activities associated with the Project would create additional
sources of dust from clearing, grading, and other construction-
related activities. (This potential impact was identified in the
1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the Project, as noted in
section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR).
l03OQ6.PSO
12130/96
-14-
.
r
b. Mitiqation.
(1) Earthmoving or other dust-producing
activities for the Project will be suspended during high wind
periods when dust is readily visible in the air.
(2) Equipment and manpower for watering of
all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be provided at least
twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate
dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before
application, will be utilized.
(3) stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or
other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or
covered.
(4) Construction areas and adjacent streets
will be swept of all mud and debris, since this material can be
pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic.
(5) The speed of all construction vehicles
will be limited to 15 miles per hour while on site.
c. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under category II.A.l in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit
A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above described mitigation measures.
d. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in section 4 (Air Quality subsection) of
the 1992 Draft EIR and section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or sUbstantially
lessen the potentially significant impact on air quality
resulting from Project construction described above. The use of
watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust
emissions by approximately 50 percent. The combined effect of
the above mitigation measures, including the use of a dust
suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent,
which would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a
less than significant level.
2. Impact Following Construction.
a. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. When compared
to the background conditions, traffic generated by the Project
would create slight differences in carbon monoxide ("CO")
concentrations. The Project would result in increases in co
103OQ6~SO
12/30/96
-15-
concentrations at two intersections (Union/Campbell and
Camden/Curtner), no change at two intersections (Bascom/Camden
and Bascom/Curtner), and a decrease at one intersection
(Bascom/Union). The decrease in concentration is likely a result
of changes in signal timing to accommodate the changes in traffic
levels. At most, the Project would increase 1-hour CO levels by
0.4 parts per million ("ppm") and 8-hour CO levels by 0.3 ppm
relative to background conditions.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") has
issued guidelines for evaluating the significance of air quality
impacts (BAAQMD, 1995). For carbon monoxide concentrations from
motor vehicles, a project would have a significant impact if it
causes a new exceedance of a CO standard or makes worse an
existing exceedance. As a result, the increase in concentrations
at the Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections would
represent a significant air quality impact because 1-hour and 8-
hour CO exceedances would become worse under Project conditions.
Air quality impacts at the other intersections would be less than
significant.
b. Mitigation Measure. The most commonly
applied mitigation measures for automobile-generating pollutants
(and the only possible ones identified by the experienced
preparer of the 1996 SEIR and by the Agency and City Council) are
Transportation Demand Management or Transportation Systems
Management programs (collectively, a "TDM/TSM Program"). For
reasons set forth in the findings below, a TDM/TSM Program is not
adopted as a mitigation measure for the Project impacts on CO
concentrations at two specified intersections following
construction.
c. Monitorinq Proqram. Not applicable.
d. Findinq. Based on the information and
analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.3 of the Draft 1996 SEIR and for
the reasons summarized below, the findings are made that the
identified air quality impact could not be reduced to a less than
significant level even with the implementation of a TDM/TSM
Program, and that specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the TDM/TSM Program mitigation
measure identified in the 1996 SEIR.
An aggressive TDM program has the potential to marginally
reduce daily trips by about 10 to 25 percent, and air quality
impacts associated with automobile usage would be reduced
proportionally. However, a 10 to 25 percent reduction in the
daily trips associated with the Project would not bring the local
air quality impacts at the two identified intersections to below
l030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-16-
a level of significance. Significant unmitigatable air quality
impacts would continue to occur at the intersections identified
above even if a TDM/TSM Program were adopted.
Some reasons for the limited effectiveness of a TDM/TSM
Program are as follows. Although promising in concept, reducing
peak hour traffic through trip demand management has not proved
to be an effective tool in changing trip behavior by employees,
except for very large employers whose employees for the most part
work on fixed schedules. For carpooling to be effective, there
must be a large enough employee base so that a significant number
of persons interested in carpooling and with similar origins and
work times can be matched. For the transit mode, there must be a
high level of transit on streets that are within 1/4 mile of the
work site. And in both cases, there must be time and/or cost
incentives, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and
preferential parking. Unfortunately, many of these factors are
beyond the control of an individual developer. It can not
influence residential location, the level of transit service, or
the extent to which HOV lanes have been added to freeways and
expressways. Unfortunately, neither the proposed Project nor its
size or usage fit well the conditions that are prime candidates
for successful TDM/TSM programs. Forcing the Developer to have
such a program would not be cost-effective and likely would not
increase the number of non-single occupancy vehicle trips beyond
what would occur through informal participation. The distance of
the Property from transit routes, free on-site parking, and the
absence of HOV lanes on Highway 17 eliminate the most promising
incentives that could be used in a TDM/TSM Program. Finally, the
nature and size of the proposed Project is not one that is likely
to have a large enough beneficial effect to justify a TDM/TSM
Program.
While the benefits of the TDM/TSM Program would not
significantly reduce the identified air quality impact, the cost
of imposing a TDM/TSM Program could be sufficiently severe as to
render it impractical to proceed with the Project. The Project,
at full buildout, will contain about 325,000 square feet of
building space and employ an estimated 750 employees. A program
of this size is not large enough to create a critical mass and
economies of scale that would support the cost of a TDM/TSM
Program. Such costs include information dissemination, ridership
coordination, administration, monitoring, and enforcement. These
costs are relatively fixed, regardless of project size.
Since the Property is being sold for its full fair market
value as documented in the section 33433 Summary, there is by
definition no excess Developer profit to pay such cost directly
or through reduced rents that might enable end users to pay such
l030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-17-
costs. As documented in the section 33433 Summary, it is not
feasible to spread these costs to the end users of the Project
because the proportional burden of the relatively fixed cost on
each end user of such a small project would make the Project a
noncompetitive location for the typical end user of this type of
business park in the silicon Valley. The Agency and city Council
are not aware of successful business park developments in the
silicon Valley of similar scope to the proposed Project in which
a TDM/TSM Program has been imposed, and no such program has been
imposed on other developments in Campbell for similar reasons.
Further, because of the Property's relatively isolated
location, a TDM/TSM Program would be difficult to coordinate with
existing public transit routes and facilities. Because of the
likely multiple ownership of parcels in the Property upon
buildout of the Project and the multiplicity of separately owned
businesses in the surrounding McGlincey Lane industrial area, it
would be administratively and legally impractical, if not
impossible, to coordinate a large enough mass of geographically
related employment generators in the vicinity of the Project to
economically support a TDM/TSM Program.
In summary, the relatively fixed costs of a TDM/TSM Program
are too high to be borne by the Developer or end users without
rendering the Project non-competitive and impractical. The
benefits of such a TDM/TSM Program would be marginal and would
not reduce the significant air quality impact described above to
a non-significant level.
For these reasons, economic and other considerations make
infeasible the TDM/TSM Program identified in the 1996 SEIR. It
should be noted that, for similar reasons, the experienced EIR
consultant did not recommend adoption of the identified
mitigation measure.
D. WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
1. Potentiallv Siqnificant Impact. According to the
Central Fire District and San Jose Water Company, the fire flow
requirement for development of the Property with the proposed
Project would be 3,500 gallons per minute (ltgpm"). According to
a study performed by the San Jose Water Company, the existing
water supply system serving the Property is not adequate to
provide the required fire flow. the Water Company has identified
the improvements required to provide the needed fire flow to the
Property. These improvements would be both within and outside
the McGlincey Lane area, and would generally consist of new water
pipes, new hydrants, meters, and ancillary items. The impacts
associated with installation of water system improvements would
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-18-
primarily be construction-related impacts such as noise, dust,
and traffic diversion.
2. Mitiqation Measures.
a. In consultation with the Central Fire
District and San Jose Water Company, the Developer and/or city
will install the necessary water supply improvements to provide
adequate fire flows to the Property.
b. Construction activities related to
installation of the proposed water supply improvements will be
coordinated with the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce
construction-related impacts.
c. specifically, the construction mitigation
measures described in section IV.B.1 and C.1 above will be
implemented and are incorporated in this section IV.D by this
reference.
3. Monitoring Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category 1.0.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above described mitigation measures.
4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the .
information and analysis in Sections 1.2.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 of
the Draft 1996 SEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the
above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-
related impacts of installing water supply improvements described
above. Coordinating with the relevant regulatory agencies,
limiting construction hours, maintaining equipment in good
condition, locating significant noise-generated equipment away
from residences, designating a disturbance coordinator with
specific responsibilities, and implementing specified dust
suppression measures are established methods used in Campbell and
other localities to reduce construction-related impacts from
public utility improvement projects, such as noise, dust and
traffic diversion, to an acceptable, non-significant level.
E. STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
1. potentiallY Siqnificant Impact. Specific storm
drain improvements for the proposed project will likely consist
of a new storm drain on the Property itself, catch basins, and
possibly some off-site improvements (as further detailed in
Exhibit G of the OOA). If off-site improvements are required,
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-19-
the impacts associated with those improvements would primarily be
construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic
diversion.
2. Mitiqation Measures. The above-identified
construction-related impacts will be mitigated through compliance
with the city's ordinances and regulations relating to
infrastructure construction in city rights-of-way. In addition,
the construction mitigation measures described in Section IV.B.1
and IV.C.1 above will be implemented and are incorporated in this
section IV.E by this reference.
3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category II.E.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit
A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above described mitigation measures.
4. Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in sections 1.2.2, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 of
the Draft 1996 SEIR and Section 4 (Drainage/Flooding) of the 1992
Draft EIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above
mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant construction-
related impacts of installing storm drainage improvements
described above. Limiting construction hours, maintaining
equipment in good condition, locating significant noise-
generating equipment away from residences, designating a
disturbance coordinator with specified responsibilities, and
implementing specified dust suppression measures are established
methods used in campbell and other localities to reduce
construction-related impacts from public utility improvement
projects, such as noise, dust and traffic diversion, to an
acceptable, non-significant level.
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. The use, storage,
and transport of hazardous materials to, from and on the Property
as a result of the Project may result in spills, leaks, or
accidents involving these materials. (This potentially
significant impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to
be relevant to the Project, as noted in section 1.2.2 of the
Draft 1996 SEIR.)
2. Mitiqation Measure. The Santa Clara County
Central Fire District will continue to implement and enforce the
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance.
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-20-
3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category II.B.l in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit
A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above described mitigation measure.
4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
and analysis in section 4 (Hazardous Materials subsection) of the
1992 Draft EIR and sections 1.2.2 and 3.5.1 of the Draft 1996
SEIR (regarding transfer of responsibility for administration of
the Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas Ordinance
from the city's Fire Department to the Santa Clara county Central
Fire District), the findings are made that:
a. the above mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Central
Fire District and not the Agency or the City; and
b. the District has adopted and is implementing
such mitigation measure.
The Hazardous Materials Ordinance and the Toxic Gas
Ordinance embody regulations to control hazardous materials that
have been developed through extensive scientific analysis and
practical experience to deal with the precise type of potential
impact outlined above. These ordinances are imposed by the Santa
Clara County Central Fire District, with support from the City's
Public Works Environment Program staff, on a uniform basis as the
best available means to mitigate the identified impact.
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. PotentiallY Siqnificant Impact. Construction
activities associated with the Project that involve the removal
of surface paving materials could potentially unearth subsurface,
buried cultural remains. (This potentially significant impact
was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant to the
Project, as noted in section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996 SEIR.)
2. Mitiqation. If cultural remains are encountered
during construction activities, work will be stopped, an
archaeological monitor called in, and appropriate mitigation
measures will be developed and implemented.
3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category II.C.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit
A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above described mitigation measures.
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-21-
4. Findinq. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in section 4 (Cultural Resources
subsection) of the 1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the
adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program
will avoid or substantially lessen the above-described
potentially significant environmental impact on cultural
resources associated with Project construction. Use of a
qualified archeological monitor to design specific mitigation
measures, and subsequent implementation of any such measures, is
the most efficient, flexible means to respond to any currently
unidentified cultural remains that may be unearthed through
Project construction.
H. GEOLOGY
1. Potentiallv Siqnificant Impact. The Project will
be subject to groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in
the San Francisco Bay region. (This potentially significant
impact was identified in the 1992 EIR and is found to be relevant
to the project, as noted in section 1.2.2 of the Draft 1996
SEIR. )
2. Mitiqation. Development activities associated
with the Project will be required to comply with all applicable
zoning and building code regulations relative to seismic
construction standards, and with the Seismic Element policies in
the General Plan. In particular, Seismic Element Policy #4
requires that project-specific, detailed geotechnical studies
will be performed to determine site-specific hazards and
mitigations.
3. Monitorinq Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category II.D.1 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit
A is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above described mitigation measures.
4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in section 4 (Geology subsection) of the
1992 Draft EIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the above-described potentially significant
environmental impact related to earthquake hazards to the
Project. The City's regulations and procedures for design and
construction of buildings to deal with earthquake hazards are
based on extensive scientific and engineering analysis as well as
substantial regulatory experience, and are imposed on a uniform
l030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-22-
basis by the city as the best available means to ensure seismic
safety for building projects.
v. OTHER NON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
While not required by CEQA, the 1996 SEIR (incorporating
relevant provisions of the 1992 EIR) also evaluated certain non-
significant environmental impacts of the Project and proposed
mitigation measures to further reduce those impacts. Those non-
significant impacts and the further mitigation measures are set
forth in this section V.
A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN McGLINCEY LANE INDUSTRIAL
AREA
1. Potential Non-Siqnificant Impact. As documented
in Sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR, project-
generated traffic will have a less than significant effect on
overall traffic circulation within the McGlincey Lane light
industrial area. This non-significant traffic impact is in
addition' to the potentially significant traffic impacts analyzed
in section IV.A above.
2. Mitiqation Measures. To properly serve Project-
generated traffic and to provide maximum operating efficiency,
the following site access guidelines and mitigation measures will
be implemented:
a. Install a STOP and a NO RIGHT TURN sign on
the east leg and a YIELD sign and NO LEFT TURN sign on the north
leg of the Curtner Avenue/McGlincey Lane intersection. Remove
the existing STOP signs located on the north and west legs of the
intersection following completion of the proposed intersection
modification.
b. Access to the Property should be from
McGlincey Lane via the existing easement located just west of
Westchester Drive. The proposed access easement should be
upgraded and improved to public city street standards, providing
two traffic lanes including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The
access roadway should be designed for truck operations and no
parking should be permitted on this facility. The north leg of
the intersection of this access drive with McGlincey Lane should
be STOP sign controlled, and provide two lanes at the north leg
of the intersection including left-turn and right-turn lanes.
c. Secondary access to the Property should be
provided, which may be via Cristich Lane or other feasible
secondary access acceptable to the City and the Central Fire
I030Q6.PSO
12.130/96
-23- .
District. If cristich Lane becomes the secondary access, it
should be upgraded and improved to public city street standards,
and should be designed to meet minimum standards for truck
traffic.
d. If Cristich Lane is to provide access to the
site, on-street parallel parking on both sides of cristich Lane
should be provided.
e. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate
the project's parking needs based on City requirements.
f. Restripe the north leg and the southbound
left turn lane of the Camden/Curtner intersection to provide
additional capacity to accommodate a total of five left-turning
vehicles.
g. All city traffic engineering and design
standards should be met.
3. Monitoring Proqram. The monitoring program
identified under Category I.A.4 in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit A
is hereby incorporated as the monitoring program for the above
identified mitigation measures.
4. Findinq. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based on the information
and analysis in sections 1.2.1 and 3.1 of the Draft 1996 SEIR,
the finding is made that the above mitigation measures are a cost
effective means to further reduce the already non-significant
impacts of Project-generated traffic within the McGlincey Lane
industrial area.
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Potential Non-Siqnificant Impact. As documented
in the 1992 Draft EIR (see for instance, p. 4-109), there are no
natural biological communities in the McGlincey Lane Expansion
Area portion of the Project Area, including the Property.
Further, there are no ordinance-size trees on the Property or
associated with the anticipated off-site improvements for the
Project. However, in accordance with mitigation measure #34 set
forth in the 1992 EIR (and adopted in the 1992 Resolution), the
mitigation measure described below will be implemented to
mitigate any remaining non-significant impact related.to water
efficient landscaping for the Project.
2. Mitiqation Measures. Landscaping plans for the
Project will comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape
l03OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-24-
(WEL) standards and will follow the California Native Plant
society's general revegitation principles, as follows:
a. Trees, shrubs, and other herbaceous plants
should be used which are naturalized to the general McGlincey
Expansion Area.
b. If non-indigenous native species are desired
for the purpose of form, floral characteristics, or function
(ground covers, etc.), species selected should be those which are
unlikely to hybridize with local flora, in order to preserve the
integrity of the gene pool of the local native species.
c. Use of exotic plants should be avoided.
3. Monitorinq Proqram. The Planning Department will
impose the above mitigation measures through review of
landscaping plans as part of, and through conditions of approval
to, the Planning Approvals for the Project. The Public Works
Department will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures in
the field. The mitigation measures will be implemented at the
time of the Planning Approvals and as construction occurs.
4.
in section 4
recent field
trees:
Findinq. Based upon the information and analyses
(Biological Resources) of the 1992 Draft EIR and a
investigation regarding potential ordinance-size
a. The finding is made that the Project will not
have a significant effect on biological resources. The above
mitigation measures and monitoring program are nonetheless
adopted to further mitigate any non-significant impact related to
water efficient landscaping for the Project.
b. The finding is further made pursuant to 14
California Code of Regulations section 753.5(e) that, considering
the record as a whole, approval and implementation of the Project
involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on vegetation or wildlife, and that, therefore, no
fee is required in connection with the filing of Notice of
Determination with respect to the 1996 SEIR or the discretionary
approvals for the Project. In compliance with 14 California Code
of Regulation section 753.5, the following additional information
is provided:
l030Q6.PSO
12./30/96
-25-
(1) The name and address of the Project
proponents are:
City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency
70 North First street
Campbell, CA 95008
and
Campbell Technology Park LLC
900 Welch Road, suite 10
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(2) The Project is the development of a
high-end business park as fully described in section I.A of this
Exhibit A.
(3) The 1992 EIR (see citation above)
addresses the issue of environmental impact of the Project on
vegetation and wildlife, and concludes that approval and
implementation of the Project on the Property will have no
significant effect on vegetation or wildlife.
(4) When considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence before the Agency or the city council that
the proposed adoption and implementation of the Project will have
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
(5) The Agency and the city Council have., on
the basis of substantial evidence, consisting of the above
recited information, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect
contained in 14 California Code of Regulations, section 753.5(d).
VI. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on the analysis contained in the 1996 SEIR (including
the 1992 EIR as incorporated therein by reference) and section IV
of this Exhibit A, the following unavoidable significant adverse
impact of approval and implementation of the project is
identified:
The increase in concentrations of carbon monoxide at the
Camden/Curtner and Union/Campbell intersections as a result
of anticipated Project-related traffic would represent a
significant unmitigated air quality impact because 1-hour
l030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-26-
and 8-hour carbon monoxide exceedances would become worse
under Project conditions.
As to this significant environmental impact, the Agency and
the City Council find that there are no feasible mitigation
measures identified in the 1996 SEIR that might reduce the level
of significance of this impacts, and specific economic, social,
or other considerations make infeasible the adoption of the only
possible mitigation measure (as detailed in Section IV.C.2.d
above) or the project alternatives (as detailed in section VII
below). Therefore, in order to approve the DDA and the Planning
Approvals, the approval resolution or other official approval
action must contain the Agency's (or city council's, as
applicable) statement of overriding considerations in accordance
with Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and section 15093(b)
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Introduction. This section VII.A provides an
introduction to and overview of the extensive evaluation of
alternatives to the Project and reuse of the Property that has
been performed by the Agency and city Council, in consultation
with nearby property owners and the general Campbell community,
over the past several years. section VII.B below evaluates four
specific alternative uses for the Property in terms of
environmental effects and ability to achieve redevelopment and
other community objectives. The information and analysis in this
section VII is drawn from Section 5 of the 1992 Draft EIR,
section 4 of the Draft 1996 SEIR (as modified in the Final 1996
SEIR), the ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on
Alternatives, and other information known to the Agency and city
council through their deliberations on alternative uses for the
Property.
2. Overview of Process Since 1992 EIR. The 1992 EIR
evaluated several alternatives for the Property in accordance
with the State CEQA Guidelines, including the No Project
Alternative and several alternative land uses on the Property.
After the Agency purchased the Property in 1994, it conducted an
extensive public process to determine the optimum land use for
the Property. A variety of land use .concepts for the Property
were developed, and were formally evaluated in the ERA
Alternatives Study (1995) and the Staff Reports on Alternatives
(1996) .
103OQ6.PSO
12./30/96
-27-
,.
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 WTA Development for the sale of the
Property and development of the Project because the Project
appears to best meet the goals and objectives established for the
Property, taking into account relevant environmental impacts.
103OQ6.PSO
12,130/96
-28-
3. Redevelopment and Planninq 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.
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 14 years. Existing redevelopment funds and anticipated tax
increment revenues are not adequate to finance these capital
projects. The net proceeds generated by the sale of the Property
and the development of the site itself could help 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 Feasibilitv. The City loaned the
Agency $3.34 million to acquire the Property on a short term
basis to help facilitate its development. The Agency determined
that, at a minimum, the sale of the Property should generate
enough revenue to retire the Agency's debt to the city, net any
Agency costs and obligations associated with the development of
the Property. Based on the commercial recreation projects
proposed, none were determined to be financially feasible under
this standard, while the proposed research and development
Project is estimated to provide a net return sufficient to find
storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements of benefit to the
McGlincey Lane area and yield additional funds in excess of $2
million after costs and expenses.
d. Public Open Spaces. In addition to the
acquisition costs, developing and maintaining the Property as a
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-29-
public park would require an additional $5 to $7 million
depending upon the extent of onsite improvements and required
offsite improvements needed to develop adequate access and
infrastructure to the Property. Additionally, the site is
challenged in meeting many of the criteria established on page 8
of the Open Space Element of the General Plan for acquiring and
developing open space. For example, the Property is not within
walking distance to a significant number of Campbell
neighborhoods, it is not particularly visible or accessible to
campbell residents due to lack of convenient pedestrian and
vehicular access, and the frequency of commercial trucks and
vehicles in the area does not provide a desirable condition for
public open space and park land. Given the costs for
development, a 23-acre park does not appear to be financially
feasible for a City which already supports a City-wide 30-acre
recreational facility at the community Center. In addition,
local youth sports groups such as the campbell Little League,
Bobby Sox, and Soccer Leagues have not expressed support, and
other public agencies either did not express support or were not
financially able to consider a partnership with Campbell for
development of the site.
These Redevelopment and Planning Objectives have been
distilled from the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the 1992
Report to city council, the Agency's Implementation Plan and
other evidence in the Record, and provide a basis for evaluating
the ability of various alternatives to satisfy the Agency/City
goals for redevelopment of the Property.
4. The 1996 SEIR Alternatives Analysis. Several of
the land use alternatives for the Property evaluated in the 1992
EIR remain relevant and valid as alternatives to the Project for
CEQA purposes. The analysis of these alternatives is
incorporated by reference in the 1996 SEIR and is summarized
(with appropriate updates) in section VII.B below. Specifically,
section VII.B.1 evaluates the No Project Alternative, as required
by CEQA. section VII.B.2 evaluates two land use alternatives for
the Property that were initially considered in the 1992 EIR and
that have been a focus of continuing consideration by the Agency
over the past two and a half years, as outlined above: a
residential use, and a public park use.
The only use of the Property that has received serious
consideration in the ERA Alternatives Study and subsequent Agency
deliberations, but that was not evaluated from an environmental
alternatives perspective in the 1992 EIR, is the commercial
recreation use. section VII.B.3 below provides a summary of the
environmental and other impacts of a commercial recreation use,
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-30-
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 could
accommodate a high-end research and development park of the size
and scope contemplated for the Project. Assembling a
sufficiently large site to accommodate the Project at another
location in Campbell or its environs would result in business and
residential relocation, demolition, public infrastructure
improvements, and conflicting land use in built-up neighborhoods
that would cause more disruption and adverse environmental impact
than would development of the Project on the vacant, relatively
isolated Property. The costs of land assembly would be several
times greater than the land cost of the Property, making
development of the Project at another location in the general
vicinity of the Property economically impractical for the Agency
and any private developer. In short, an alternative location for
the Project would be prohibitively costly to assemble and would
cause more severe environmental impacts than locating the Project
on the Property.
Finally, moving the Project to an alternative location, if
one could feasibly be found, would deprive the Agency of its best
opportunity to remove blight on the Property while generating
disposition proceeds to address other redevelopment needs in the
McGlincey Lane portion of the Project Area.
consequently, consistent with Section 15125(d) (3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, an alternative location for the Project is
found to be infeasible and has not been evaluated further in the
1996 SEIR or this Exhibit A.
B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION
Following is a summary of the proposed land use alternatives
for the Property evaluated in the 1996 SEIR (including relevant
alternatives from the 1992 EIR as incorporated by reference).
The reasons for their selection as the most viable alternatives
1030Q6.PSO
12.130/96
-31-
are addressed in section VII.A above. The likely environmental
impacts of each alternative and each alternative's ability to
meet the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives are briefly
summarized and are compared to the environmental impacts and
potential of the Project to meet the Redevelopment and Planning
Objectives.
Each alternative is rejected as being infeasible because it
fails to meet one or more of the Redevelopment Planning
objectives in a timely manner and/or would cause various adverse
environmental or fiscal impacts that can be avoided through
implementation of the Project. The reasons for rejection of the
alternatives are summarized below and are supported by
substantial evidence in the Record.
1. The No 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 the fewest adverse
environmental effects and would be considered the environmentally
superior alternative among those evaluated in the 1992 EIR and
the 1996 SEIR.
However, without development the Agency would not be able to
generate net disposition proceeds from the sale of the Property
to a Developer. As a result, the Agency would not have sale
proceeds to repay the city loan or accelerate the redevelopment
program for the McGlincey Lane area through improvements to
Cristich Lane and other needed infrastructure improvements. In
turn, the Agency would have to rely on limited tax increment
revenues for these activities which would probably retard the
redevelopment effort in the McGlincey Lane area for a decade or
more. Most important, the No Project Alternative would prevent
the reuse of the largest and one of the most blighted parcels in
the Project Area, thereby frustrating an essential purpose of the
Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's Implementation Plan.
For these reasons, the No Project Alterative fundamentally
fails to achieve the underlying Redevelopment and Planning Goals
of the Agency and the city. On this basis, the finding is made
that specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the No Project Alternative, and the No project
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-32-
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 public park -- are relevant to
the current consideration of alternatives to the Project because
they reflect two of the four basic alternatives considered in the
ERA Alternatives Study, the Staff Reports on Alternatives, and
the Agency's recent deliberations on appropriate uses for the
Property. Following is a brief summary of those two alternatives
that builds upon the material in the 1992 EIR.
a. Residential. Although the traffic generation
rates are lower for residential uses on the Property than for
commercial, office or industrial uses like the proposed Project,
residential uses generate traffic in both the morning and evening
peak periods. Residential uses also place a higher demand on
City services and generate limited City revenues. A residential
use in the Property would not be compatible with the elevated
noise levels generated from SR-17 traffic, and marketing a
residential development on the site would be difficult, given its
access through and proximity to the McGlincey industrial area.
In summary, a residential use of the Property might be
marginally superior to the Project from a traffic and air quality
perspective, but would cause greater land use conflict and noise
impacts than the Project. Overall, it is difficult to judge if
the residential alternative would be superior or inferior to the
Project from an environmental perspective. On the other hand,
the residential alternative would clearly fail to meet
Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land use
compatibility. For these reasons, the finding is made that
specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible
the residential alternative for the Property, and the residential
alternative is hereby rejected.
b. Public Park. During the public scoping
meetings for the 1992 EIR, several comments from nearby residents
suggested the city consider a park/open space use for the
Property. In June 1990, the Cambrian Community Council also
recommended that a park be considered for the Property as part of
a mixed use project. A public park use would generate less
traffic than the Project, and generally would produce more
limited environmental effects related to air quality,
construction impacts, hazardous materials impacts, cultural
resource impacts, and seismic safety impacts. From this
perspective, a public park use would be the environmentally
103OQ6.PSO
12/30/96
-33-
superior alternative for the Property (other than the No Project
Alternative). However, a public park use would be susceptible to
the same negative land use compatibility effects as a residential
use at the Property, i.e., traffic noise and air quality impacts
from proximity to SR-17. In addition, the Property would have no
direct access to a public street and is not centrally located to
the remainder of the Union Avenue neighborhood. Drive-by
surveillance of the site would be difficult. Lack of public
visibility is often a factor leading to security and vandalism at
parks.
As noted in section VII.A.3 above, the Property is
challenged in meeting many of the General Plan Open Space Element
criteria for suitable public park locations. Finally, a public
park use alternative would cause severe negative financial
impacts to the city and Agency as described in section VII.A.3.
Park development would require $5-7 million of city funds and
annual maintenance costs would further impact the General Fund,
possibly precluding funding other competing capital projects,
including implementation of the Campbell community Center Master
Plan and future park acquisition and development in other areas
of the city. The Agency would lose the ability to generate net
sale proceeds to fund other activities in the McGlincey Lane area
or to repay the city loan.
In summary, while a public park use of the Property would
prove environmentally superior to the Project, that alternative
would fail to satisfy nearly all of the community's Redevelopment
and Planning Objectives in the McGlincey Lane area. For these
reasons, the finding is made that specific economic, social or
other considerations make infeasible the public park alternative
for the Property, and the public park alternative is hereby
rejected.
3. The Commercial Recreation Alternative. A
commercial recreation land use on the Property might consist of a
golf practice range, a family recreation complex, a buffer area
between the site and the mobile home park, and possible inclusion
of the city corporation yard. The golf practice range is assumed
to have 50 stations on two levels, and a club house/pro shop of
about 2,000 square feet. The family recreation complex may
include uses such as an arcade, restaurant, miniature golf
course, go-kart track, batting cages, bumper rides, kiddie rides,
and "soft play" area. Most of these activities would be
outdoors.
A commercial recreation alternative would generate
approximately 5,800 vehicle trips daily (as opposed to an
estimated 2,538 daily trips for the Project), but the trips would
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-34-
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-karts, bumper
cars, and kiddie rides, could generate substantial noise levels
which may impact the Paseo de Palomas mobile home park. other
variants of a commercial recreation alternative might have fewer
high-noise impacts, but any commercial recreation variant
involving outdoor activities is likely to have noise impacts that
exceed those anticipated for the Project. Environmental effects
of a commercial recreation alternative related to construction
impact, hazardous materials, and cultural resource disturbance
are likely to be similar to the anticipated impacts of the
Project.
A commercial recreation alternative would fail to meet
fundamental Redevelopment and Planning Objectives related to land
use compatibility problems with the adjacent mobile home park
(see section VII.A.3 above). Further, it is estimated that no
net sale proceeds would remain available to the Agency to jump-
start other redevelopment activities in the McGlincey Lane area
(as opposed to estimated net proceeds from the Project sufficient
to fund storm drain and Cristich Lane improvements for the
McGlincey Lane area and to yield over $2 million for other
redevelopment activities). Indeed, a commercial recreation reuse
might not generate sufficient sale or lease proceeds even to
repay the Agency's loan to the city.
One variant of the commercial recreation alternative
considered by the Agency was the proposal in response to the
development RFP submitted by a non-profit recreational entity
called "Sports Mall". When other development proposals were
rejected by the Agency Board, the "Sports Mall Task Force" was
provided an opportunity to demonstrate the financial viability of
their project. The Sports Mall proposal includes various indoor
and outdooor sports activities on a lease or membership basis.
An independent economic report commissioned by the Task Force
indicated that financing for such a project was tenuous. It was
determined that this kind of facility would likely serve as a
regional rather and local resource, and neither Santa Clara
County nor other public agencies were willing to step forward at
that time to participate in financing such a project. The Task
Force was not able to adequately demonstrate the financial
viability of their project, and the proposed sports mall concept
was not considered further by the Agency.
1030Q6.PSO
12/30/96
-35-
For these reasons, the finding is made that specific
economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
commercial recreation alternative for the Property, and the
commercial recreation alternative is hereby rejected.
c. OVERALL FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
After consideration of a reasonable range of identified
alternatives to the Project, the Agency and the City Council find
that none is as beneficial to the community as the proposed
Project in terms of achieving the Redevelopment and Planning
Objectives, and that because of each alternative's inability to
achieve one or more of the Redevelopment and Planning Objectives,
each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible.
103OQ6~50
12/30/96
-36-
Attachment 4#1
City of Campbell
Redevelopment Agency
Winchester Drive-In Site Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 1992 EIR
The following table has been developed in accordance with section 15163 of the California
EnVironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and contains the mitigation measures necessary
to develop the proposed research and development/light industrial business park. This table
includes a list of mitigations and the reference to the appropriate Environmental Impact Report
category, the impact, the timing of the mitigatio~ the City of Campbell department
responsible for the implementation of the mitigation, the ~te 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 mitigation. Project construction will be phased
.and the timing of mitigation implementation will be determined during the project reivew and
public review process and as prescribed in the project conditions of approval
IMPAcr MITIGATION TIMING DEPARTMENT DATFJ
INITIAL
.Lo IMPAcr. SEIR MITIGATION. SEm
~ TRAFFIC UnionlMcGlincey Inte1'section
1. Additional traffic at the . The applicant shaII install a Following Public Works
intersections of Union traffic signal at this completion of
Avenue/ McGlincey Lane intersection, including an the project and
and Camden/Union exclusive left-turn lane from prior to final
Avenues. Union Avenue to McGlincey oa:upancy.
Lane.
. Applicant shall remove three Following Public Works/
parking spaces at the east leg completion of Planning
of the intersection. the project and
prior to final
occupancy.
CamdenlUnion Intersection
. The applicant shall restripe Following Public Works/
the northbound approach on completion of Planning
Union Avenue to provide an the project and
exclusive right-turn lane. prior to final
occupancy.
1
l' ..
2. Removal of three . The City will provide Following Public Works
parking spaces on additional Parking on completion of
McG1incey Lane. McGlincey Lane by the project and
removing the existing prior to final
unwarranted parking oo:upancy.
restrictions and re4 curbs in
the area.
~. The project will impact . The applicant shall modify Following Public Works
the Curtner Avenue/ the Curtner A vneue/ completion of
Mc.<;lincey Lane McGlincey Lane intersection the project and
intersection. to accomodate through prior to final
traffic from Curtner Avenue occupancy.
eastbound to McGlincey
Lane northbound.
~. The project will impact . The applicant shall install Following the Public Works
the traffic circulation a ~P" sign and a "NO completion of
pattern in the McG1incey RIGHT TURN" sign on the required
Lane area. east leg and a -vIELD" sign intersection
and -NO LEFl' 'IURN" sign modifications.
on the north leg of the
Curtner Avenue/ McGlincey
Lane intersection. Remove
the existing "STOP" signs
located on the north and
west legs of the intersection.
. Provide access to the site Prior to Public Works
from McG1incey Lane from occupancy of
the existing access easement the first
west 01 Westchester Drive buildings.
according to city standards
for city streets.
. Secondary access shall be Following Public Works
provided to the site via completion of
Cristich Lane or other the project.
access acceptable to the
City and the Central Fire
District (CFD).
,.
, Provide on street parallel Following Public Works
parking on both side of completion of
Cristich Lane if it is the project.
improved to public street
standards.
. Provide on site parking in Project Planning/
accordance with city entitlements / Building
parking standards. construction.
2
l ' ( ..
. Applicant shall restripe Following full Public Works
the northbound approach of project
the intersection and add a buUdoutand
new exclusive right-turn final
lane. occupancy.
. Applicant shall pay a Following Public Works
proportional traffic impact completion of
fee towards improvements the project and
at the Camden/Curtner final
intersection to be occupancy.
implemented by the City.
. Applicant shall comply Following Public Works
with all Oty of Campbell completion of
traffic engineering and the project and
design standards. final
ocrupancy.
B. NOISE
1. Mechanical Equipment . Applicant/project. shall Following Planning/
on the project buildings comply with all noise completion of Building
may exceed ambient performance standards as the project and
noise levels. described in Section 3.23 of final
the Suplemental occupancy.
Environmental Impact
Report.
2. Short term temporary . Applicant/project shall During project Public Works/
noise impacts may occur comply with all noise construction. Planning
during construction. performance standards as Monitoring
described in Section 3.23 of will be on-
the Suplemental going. .
Environmental Impact
Report.
.-
3
.
. '
. ...
,... AIR QUAU'IY
\"..
Carbon monoxide (CO) . Existing conditions exceed N/A N/A
concentrations at level of significance
Camden/Curtner &: thresholds and there are no
Union/Campbell mitigation measures
intersections will be available to the project that
increased with this will reduce this impact below
project. level of significance
thresholds. A statement of
OT1erriding considerations
must be adopted for this
impact.
D. WATER SUPPLY
. Construction of water . Construction activities shall Prior to and Public Works/
supply improvements may be coordinated with the during project RDA
result in construction- appropriate jurisdiction, oonstruction
related noise, dust and Campbell and/or San Jose, to
traffic diversion. reduce construction related
impacts.
4
,,'I .., ....
~ IMPACT .1992 ElK MITIGATION -1992 EIR
lA- AIR QUALITY
~. Construction activities . Dust control measures shall be During project Building ./
will create additional implemented during mnstruction Public Works
sources of dust from construction activities.
clearing, grading, and
othre construction related
activities.
rB. HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
~. The use, storage, and . The project developer and all At the time of Central Fire
transport of hazardous tenants shall comply with occupancy of District/ Public
materials in the project the Hazardous Materials the project Works
area may result in spils, Storage Ordinance and Toxic Environmental
leaks, or accidents Gas Ordinance. Program
involving these materials.
c. CULTURAL
RESOURCES
. Cultural resources may be . If cultural reamains are During project Building/
discovered during eI\muntered during excavation and Public Works/
construction activity. construction, all development grading RDA
activity shall cease
immediately. A certified
archeologist shall be
contacted and be present at all
subsequent excavation.
Appropriate mitigations
shall be developed &r
imposed.
D. GEOLOGY
. The project site is subject to . The project developer shall BuUding Building
ground shaking in the implement all applicable Pennit plan
event of a major regulations relevant to submittal in
earthquake in the San geotechnical studies and compliance
Francisco Bay Region. seismic safety. with the UBC
5
. (, " ...
E. DRAINAGE I
FLOODlNG
. Installation of stonn . The developer shall comply During project Building/
drainage facilities with all applicable construction Planning
regulations related to
mitigation of noise, dust and
traffic control measures.
6