CC Resolution 8321
RESOLUTION NO. 837.1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO
WRITTEN COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION
WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
CENTRAL CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363
WHEREAS, the City of campbell Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared and submitted to the City Council of the
City of Campbell (the "City Council"), for the City Council's
consideration, the Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell
Redevelopment Plan (the "Amended Plan"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with consideration of the Amended
Plan, the City Council and the Agency conducted and completed a
duly noticed public hearing on May 5, 1992 pursuant to the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33355; and
WHEREAS, at or prior to the joint public hearing, the City
Council and the Agency received certain written comments or
objections to the Amended Plan, which written comments or
objections are set forth in Part II of that certain document
entitled "Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell
Redevelopment Plan: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33363", which document is attached
to this Resolution as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this
reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Findings"; and
WHEREAS, Part III of the Findings contains the City
council's and Agency's written findings and responses to the
above described written comments or objections, which written
findings and responses have been prepared and considered by the
City Council and the Agency in connection with consideration of
adoption of the Amended Plan, all in accordance with the
provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
finds and certifies that the Findings have been prepared in
compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section
33363; that the Findings adequately address the written comments
or objections received by the City Council and the Agency in
connection with the Amended Plan; and that the City Council has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings
prior to approving the Amended Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Findings set forth in the
attached Exhibit A are hereby approved and adopted as, and shall
constitute, the written findings and responses of the City
103OCR.PSO
-1-
council with respect to the Amended Plan required by Health and
Safety Code section 33363.
Passed and adopted this 2nd day of June, 1992 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Kotowski, Conant, Ashworth, Watson, Burr
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
~~~
ALD R. BURR, MAYOR
l03OCR.PSO
-2-
EXHIBIT A
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
CENTRAL CAMPBELL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT
TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363
City Council of the City of Campbell
June 2, 1992
I. PURPOSE
The city of Campbell Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has
prepared, and the City Council of the City of Campbell (the "City
Council") is considering for adoption, the Second Amended and
Restated Central campbell Redevelopment Plan (the "Amended
Plan"). On May 5, 1992, the Agency and the City Council
conducted and completed a duly noticed joint public hearing on
the Amended Plan in accordance with the requirements of Health
and Safety Code Sections 33355 and 33361. At or prior to the
joint public hearing, the Agency and the City Council received
certain written comments or objections to the Amended Plan.
Those written comments or objections are set forth in Part II of
this document.
Health and Safety Code section 33363 states:
At the hour set in the notice required by Section 33361
for hearing objections, the legislative body shall
proceed to hear all written and oral objections.
Before adopting the Amended Plan, the legislative body
shall evaluate the report of the Agency, the report and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all
evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of
the Amended Plan and shall make written findings in
response to each written objection of an affected
property owner or taxing entity. The legislative body
shall respond in writing to the written objections
received before or at the noticed hearing, including
any extensions thereof, and may additionally respond to
written objections that are received after the hearing.
The written responses shall describe the disposition of
the issues raised. The legislative body shall address
the written objections in detail, giving reasons for
not accepting specified objections and suggestions.
The legislative body shall include a good-faith,
reasoned analysis in its response and, for this
purpose, conclusionary statements unsupported by
factual information shall not suffice.
This document constitutes the written findings and responses
of the City Council, as the legislative body of the City of
Campbell, prepared and adopted in accordance with the
requirements of Health and Safety Code section 33363.
Specifically, Part III below contains the City Council's written
findings and responses to the various written comments or
objections set forth in Part II.
Each substantive comment or objection in Part II has been
assigned a reference identification number in the margin next to
l03OCM.PSO
-1-
the comment or objection. The City Council's written findings
and responses to each substantive comment or objection are set
forth and organized in Part III according to those reference
identification numbers.
These findings incorporate other documents which are part of
the record of adoption of the Amended Plan. These documents are
listed below and are incorporated within these findings as
supporting evidence by this and subsequent references:
A.
F.
I03OCM.PSO
The Amended Plan;
B.
The Preliminary Report on the Amended Plan dated
October, 1991;
C.
The Report to the City Council of the City of Campbell
on the Amended Plan for the proposed Second Amended and
Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan, dated
March, 1992; the Supplement to the Report to the City
Council of the City of Campbell for the Second Amended
and Restated Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan, dated
April, 1992; the Report on Remaining Adverse Conditions
- Central Campbell Redevelopment Project, dated March
1992; and the Report on Existing Conditions - McGlincey
Lane Expansion Area, dated March 1992 (collectively,
the "Report on the Amended Plan");
The resolution adopted June 2, 1992 (including attached
Exhibits) entitled: "A Concurrent Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Campbell and the City of
Campbell Redevelopment Agency Certifying Review and
Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report,
Making Findings Required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, and Stating Overriding
Considerations in the Approval and Adoption of the
Second Amended and Restated Central Campbell
Redevelopment Plan" (the "Concurrent CEQA Resolution");
D.
E.
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared
for the Amended Plan, consisting of: (1) the Draft EIR
("DEIR"), and (2) the Responses to Comments on the DEIR
("Responses to Comments"), and (3) the additional
mitigations and analysis set forth in Exhibit A of the
Concurrent CEQA Resolution;
The original Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan and
the First Amended and Restated Central Campbell
Redevelopment Plan;
-2-
G. Documentary and oral evidence received by the City of
Campbell Planning Commission, the Agency and the City
Council during public hearings and meetings on the
Amended Plan and the FEIR including, without
limitation, staff reports submitted to the City Council
and Agency at the May 5, 1992 joint public hearing on
the Amended Plan;
H. Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and the
Agency which they have considered, such as the City of
Campbell General Plan, and prior resolutions and
ordinances of the Agency and the City.
II. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
Written comments or objections to the Amended Plan were
received directly by the City or Agency from the following
person:
Steve U1ett, Chair of the Cambrian Community Council, April
10, 1992
The letter containing Mr. U1ett's written comments is set
forth in its entirety as Appendix 1 to this Exhibit A.
In addition, several letters of comment were received by the
City and the Agency regarding the DEIR during the comment period
on the DEIR. These comments have been responded to and disposed
of in the Responses to Comments. Those responses are hereby
adopted by the City Council; constitute the City Council's
responses to the DEIR comment letters; and are incorporated by
reference in these findings.
certain communications were received from various taxing
agencies as part of the fiscal review process for the Amended
Plan conducted pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33353
et~. Those communications were contained in the fiscal review
committee report of January 23, 1992, and were responded to in
writing by the Agency by response letter of February 21, 1992, as
required by Health and Safety Code Section 33353.7. The fiscal
review committee report (contained in section XIII of the Report
on the Amended Plan), and the Agency's response (contained in
section XV of the Report on the Amended Plan) are hereby adopted
by and constitute the City Council's response to those taxing
agency communications for purposes of Health and Safety Code
section 33363, and are incorporated by reference in these
findings.
Finally, representatives of certain taxing agencies
submitted an additional communication in draft form. The draft
I03OCM.PSO
-3-
communication was subsequently withdrawn in writing by those
affected taxing agencies with the agreement that such
communication did not constitute a communication requiring a
written response pursuant to Health and Safety Code section
33363.
III. WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSE OF CITY COUNCIL
A. Letter from steve Ulett, Chair of the Cambrian community
Council, dated April 10, 1992.
COMMENT A-l
Comment: The commenter supports insertion of a mitigation
measure regarding the winchester Drive-In site into the FEIR and
the certifying resolution.
ReSDonse: The City Council concurs with the proposed
mitigation measure and has incorporated the mitigation measure
into both the Concurrent CEQA Resolution and into the FEIR
(pursuant to Exhibit A of the Concurrent CEQA Resolution).
Finding. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and
determines that it has implemented the recommendation of the
commenter.
COMMENT A-2
Comment: The commenter states that the Level of Service
(LOS) at the San Tomas off-ramp from southbound Highway 17 should
be shown in the FEIR as LOS F (not C), and states the belief that
such LOS F cannot be mitigated without major reconstruction of
the relevant Highway 17 overpass.
Res~onse: The program used to calculate LOS in the DEIR was
the program required by the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency (the "CMA") called CAPPSI. This program has
several built-in assumptions that cause it to miscalculate
existing conditions, but it was used because it is required in
all CMA traffic studies. The City concurs that LOS is "F" using
actual observations.
The City has development improvement plans that show how the
entire interchange can be modified to provide LOS D to E
operation, and the City and Santa Clara County are currently
designing these improvements. Based on the improvement plans and
design work, it is apparent that reconstruction of the overpass
is not required to achieve greatly improved levels of service.
l03OCM.PSO
-4-
Findina: Based on the foregoing, the city Council finds
using the CAPPSI program as required by the CMA, LOS is "c" as
stated in the DEIR. However, based on actual observations the
actual LOS is "F". This analysis has been added to the FEIR
pursuant to Exhibit A of the Concurrent CEQA Resolution.
Furthermore, based on the foregoing, the City Council finds
that LOS "F" can be mitigated without major reconstruction of the
overpass. On this basis, the objection regarding reconstruction
of the overpass set forth in A-2 is respectfully overruled.
COMMENT A-3
Comment: The commenter recommends that the FEIR include a
brief description of the program requirements developed by the
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency.
ReSDonse: The CMA does have a land use monitoring program.
This program is essentially a reporting process by all member
jurisdictions. The FEIR will be reported to CMA within 30 days
of its being certified. In addition, adjacent jurisdictions are
also notified by the City of Campbell for any developments
reported in this manner. Therefore, Campbell may be required to
notify San Jose and Los Gatos in many situations, and in special
instances, Campbell may also notify cupertino, Saratoga and Santa
Clara. Beyond this, notification of land use changes county-
wide is performed annually to CMA.
Each year CMA compiles all land use actions reported to it
and disseminates this information back to all member
jurisdictions on an annual basis. In addition, CMA also uses
this annually updated information to revise and update its
transportation model. The updated model is then run to determine
whether the past year's development actions have resulted in
unacceptable levels of service.
All development proposals which will result in at least 100
new trips in the peak hour (a.m. or p.m.) must be reported to CMA
within 30 days. At the end of the year all approved development
must be reported to CMA regardless of the number of new trips.
Each city, the county, and Caltrans must also, each year, recount
all CMA system intersections and recalculate levels of service
and report this to CMA. CMA then prepares an annual report
showing the cumulative effects of the aggregate of all land use
decisions over the past year and will also update its files on
the performance of the highway system.
The capacity calculation methodology, including CAPPSI, are
currently under review by CMA and its member jurisdictions to
improve their accuracy.
l03OCM.PSO
-5-
Finding: Based on the commenter's recommendation, the
foregoing response and analysis has been incorporated in the FEIR
pursuant to Exhibit A of the Concurrent CEQA Resolution.
103~.PSO
-6-