CC Resolution 12565 RESOLUTION NO. 12565
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (PLN2018-148) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (PLN2017-381), TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 161 ,870-SQUARE-FOOT, FOUR-
STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 146,478-SQUARE-FOOT. FIVE-
STORY PARKING GARAGE (WITH ONE LEVEL OF
UNDERGROUND PARKING), ADDITIONAL SURFACE PARKING,
AND ON-SITE OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700
DELL AVENUE.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Clerk is the custodian of the documents or other materials constituting the
record of the agency's proceedings, which can be obtained through the City Clerk's
Office, located in Campbell City Hall at 70 N. First Street. Campbell, California 95008.
The City Council of the City of Campbell DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
The City Council did determine that the certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report ("FEIR," or "Final EIR") provides full and adequate environmental review for
approval of a Planned Development Permit, Zoning Map Amendment, and Tree
Removal Permit (PLN2017-381), to allow the development of a 161 ,870-square-foot,
four-story office building, a 146,478-square-foot, five-story parking garage (with one
level of underground parking), additional surface parking, and on-site open space on
property located at 1700 Dell Avenue (the "Proposed Project."
The City Council finds as follows with regard to the certification of the FEIR (PLN2018-
148):
Environmental Findings
1. The City Council of the City of Campbell, as lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Act § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000-15387) (collectively. "CEQA"), has
completed the Final EIR for the Proposed Project.
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 2 of 17
2. The Proposed Project involves the development of a development of a 161 ,870-
square-foot, four-story office building, a 146,478-square-foot, five-story parking
garage (with one level of underground parking), additional surface parking, and
on-site open space on property located at 1700 Dell Avenue (Assessor's Parcel
Number 424-33-094), as described in more detail in the Final FIR, which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. The findings set forth in Ordinances 2262 and 2263, and Resolution 12566,
approving the Planned Development Permit, Zoning Map Amendment, and Tree
Removal Permit are incorporated herein by this reference.
4. The Final EIR comprises a project-level analysis and is identified by State
Clearinghouse No. 2018072001 .
5. The City circulated the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR for the project to
the Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") State Clearinghouse and interested
agencies and persons on July 2, 2018 for a 30-day review period.
6. A City Planning Commission hearing was held on July 10, 2018 to obtain
comments from the public and the City's Planning Commission regarding
potential environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project.
7. A Draft Environmental Report ("Draft EIR") was released for public and agency
review on April 25, 2019 and circulated for a 47-day period ending on June 12,
2019.
8. The Draft EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of
the Proposed Project, identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential adverse
impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives. The Draft EIR
consists of Appendices referred to in the report's primary text. The Final EIR is
comprised of the Draft EIR together with an additional volume that includes the
comments on the Draft EIR submitted by interested public agencies,
organizations, and members of the public; written responses to the
environmental issues raised in those comments; and revisions to the text of the
Draft EIR reflecting changes made in response to comments and other
information. The Final EIR is hereby incorporated in this document by reference.
9. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR
for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the
EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 3 of 17
certification of the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not "significant"
unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project
proponent declines to implement. The City Council finds that that information
added in the Final EIR does not constitute significant new information requiring
recirculation, but rather that the additional information clarifies or amplifies an
adequate EIR.
10. After circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant requested a refinement to the
Proposed Project's design in order to enhance the functionality and aesthetics of
the Project site, which included the relocation of two outdoor surface parking
spaces in the southeast corner of the property to the parking garage's
subterranean level. As detailed in the applicant's letter to the City dated
September 12, 2019, which is incorporated herein by this reference, this
movement of two parking spaces and their replacement with landscaping were
de minimis refinements and did not trigger any circumstances requiring
recirculation of the Draft EIR.
11. The City Council finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a
judgment within the discretion of the City Council; the significance thresholds
used in the Final EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including the expert opinion of the Final EIR preparers and City consultants and
staff; and the significance thresholds used in the Final EIR provide reasonable
and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse
environmental effects of the Project.
12. The Final EIR was published in December 2019. The Final EIR was posted on
the City's website and available in hard copy in the City's offices.
13. The City Council hereby certifies as follows:
a. That it has been presented with the Final EIR and that it has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the
following certifications and the findings below;
b. That, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 (Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section 15090), the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with the CEQA; and
c. That the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 4 of 17
14. The City Council adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the
Project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MMRP") contained in the Final EIR, included in the
administrative record of proceedings, to reduce or avoid the potentially significant
impacts of the Proposed Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts.
15. In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of
the mitigation measures identified by the Final EIR and applicable to the Project,
except as modified in this Resolution. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation
measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the
MMRP, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the
findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a
mitigation measure set forth in MMRP fails to accurately reflect the mitigation
measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation
measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the
mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by this
Resolution.
16. In comments on the Draft EIR, various measures were suggested by
commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or modifications to the
mitigation measures identified by the EIR. Some of the EIR's mitigation
measures were modified in response to such comments, as set forth in detail in
Chapter 3 of the Final EIR. Other comments requested minor modifications in
mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, requested mitigation measures
for impacts that were less than significant, requested mitigation measures that
did not prove feasible, requested mitigations that would not substantially reduce
the effects of project impacts, or requested additional mitigation measures for
impacts as to which the Draft EIR identified mitigation measures that would
reduce the identified impact to a less-than-significant level; these requests are
declined as unnecessary, as explained in responses to comments prepared in
conjunction with the Final EIR, and as also was reflected in responses to
comments prepared by the applicant.
17. The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed
below, the following impacts associated with the project are potentially
significant, but can be reduced to a level of less-than-significance through the
implementation of certain feasible mitigation measures:
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 5 of 17
a. Impact AQ-2: Uncontrolled fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) could expose
the areas that are downwind of construction sites to air pollution from
construction activities without the implementation of the Air District's best
management practices. The City finds that compliance with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's best management practices for reducing
construction emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (coarse inhalable
particulate matter [PM10] and fine inhalable particulate matter [PM2.5])
will suffice to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, where those
measures are set forth in great detail in Mitigation Measure AQ-2. These
are standard measures adopted by the regional air district and have been
shown through experience to reduce fugitive dust levels to acceptable
levels.
b. Impact AQ-4: Construction activities of the project potentially could expose
nearby residential receptors to a cancer risk that would exceed the Air
District's significance thresholds, potentially resulting in a cancer risk of
12.3 per million compared to a risk threshold of 10 per million. The City
finds that requiring the Proposed Project's contractor(s) to use
construction equipment with fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters
(DPF) or higher emissions standards for all equipment of 50 horsepower
or more will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, as Level 2 DPFs
are capable of reducing 50 percent of diesel exhaust and particulate
emissions from off-road equipment. In addition, the following measures
shall ensure impact levels are less-than-significant, including: (1) Prior to
construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all
construction plans submitted to the City of Campbell Building Division, or
its designee, clearly show the requirement for Level 2 DPF or higher
emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower; (2)
during construction, the construction contractor(s) shall maintain a list of
all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the
City of Campbell Building Division or its designee, where the construction
equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction
equipment on-site; (3) equipment shall be properly serviced and
maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations; and (4)
the construction contractor shall ensure that all non-essential idling of
construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less, in compliance
with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article
4.8, Chapter 9. These measures are included and described in Mitigation
Measure AQ-4, and the City Council finds they would reduce risks to
below the air district's cancer threshold of 10 in a million.
c. Impact AQ-3: Construction of the proposed project would cumulatively
contribute to the non-attainment designations of the San Francisco Bay
Area
d. Air Basin ("SFBAAB") and health risk in the Bay Area. The City finds the
impact is reflective of those impacts described under Impact AQ-2 and
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 6 of 17
Impact AQ-3, and that implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and
AQ-4 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level for the
reasons described in the foregoing paragraphs.
e. Impact BIO-4a: Tree removal and demolition activities during site
clearance potentially could destroy active nests, and/or otherwise interfere
with nesting of birds protected under State law. The City finds there are
currently no such nests in the vicinity of the project site, and that there is a
remote possibility new nests could be established, as determined on page
5-9 of the Final EIR, but that any potential impacts to nests would be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of
certain bird surveys and where, if nests were to be identified, various
protocols would be implemented, as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-
4a. Specifically, prior to site clearance, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys as
follows. If tree removal would occur during the nesting season (February 1
to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than
14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction. Preconstruction
surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been
initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of
active nests containing viable eggs or young birds of protected bird
species shall be documented and protective measures implemented under
the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain
eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable
fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each
nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the
species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of
300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active
nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm
nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the
qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the
qualified biologist only in consultation with CDFW. The protection
measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. No surveys are
required before vegetation disturbance between September 1 and January
31, that is, outside of the nesting season. The City finds these mitigation
measures are based on scientific data concerning the nesting habits of
protected species, and are sufficiently detailed and enforceable to
adequately protect any bird nests as identified above. The City also finds
that the City's biological consultant, Mr. James Martin, Principal of
Environmental Collective, has 35 years experience in his field of study and
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 7 of 17
has consulted on the development of hundreds of projects, and his review
and approval of this biological impact and others constitutes, separately
and independently, substantial evidence of the efficacy of the Final EIR's
conclusions and mitigations. The City finds too that Mr. Martin's
conclusions generally are consistent with conclusions made by the
applicant's biological consulting firm, Mosaic Associates, which also has
significant experience identifying impacts and mitigations for development
projects in California.
f. Impact BIO-4b: A substantial proportion of the exterior walls of the
proposed office building would be constructed with clear glass, which
could create a hazard for flying birds. The City finds that the risk of avian
injury and mortality is much less than commenters have suggested, who
used unsupported methodologies and based conclusions on studies that
had little relevance to the circumstances under the Proposed Project and
contained significant exaggerations, as set forth in detail on pages 5-3 to
5-5 of the Final EIR, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and
as set forth in responses to public comment submitted by Mosaic
Associates on or about September 25, 2019, which are also incorporated
herein by this reference. As discussed on page 5-9 of the Final EIR, the
possibility of a significant impact associated with bird strikes is remote,
and indeed Mosaic Associates presents substantial evidence in its
September 25, 2019 letter that, with mitigation, the Proposed Project could
in fact result in less bird strikes than the existing office building, which has
substantial transparent glass on its facade. As a conservative measure to
ensure that impacts to avian species are reduced to a level of
insignificance, the City finds that the proposed building design shall be
modified as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-4b. Specifically, prior to
building construction, the project applicant shall submit a Bird Collision
Reduction Plan ("Plan") for City review and approval. The Plan shall be
peer reviewed by an independent consulting biologist, selected by the City
given its technical nature. The Plan shall be written to minimize the
potential risk of bird strikes with the new building on the site, and shall
incorporate appropriate bird-safe design guidelines) and include specific
Best Management Practice strategies to reduce bird strikes. The use of
highly reflective glass as an exterior treatment, which appears to
reproduce natural habitat and can be attractive to some birds, shall be
avoided. To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting
birds, the project shall preferably utilize low-reflectivity glass (7 percent
reflectivity, 0 percent ultra-violet transmittance) and provide other
nonattractive surface treatments as outlined below. Low-reflectivity glass
or other glazing treatments shall be used for the entirety of the building's
glass surface, not just the lower levels, to minimize the risk of bird strikes.
Interior light "pollution" shall be reduced during evening hours through the
use of a lighting control system, and exterior lighting shall be directed
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 8 of 17
downward and screened to minimize light spillage from the building and
the Los Gatos Creek corridor. To further clarify, the following design
elements and controls shall be incorporated into the proposed project to
reduce the risk of bird strikes: (1) No more than ten percent of facade
surface area shall have nonbird-safe glazing. Bird-safe glazing includes
opaque glass, covering of clear glass surface with patterns, paned glass
with fenestration patterns, and external screens over non-reflective glass;
(2) occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on
non-emergency lights and shall be programmed to shut off during nonwork
hours and between 10 pm and sunrise or, alternatively, nonemergency
interior and exterior lighting shall be shielded to minimize light from
buildings that are visible to birds; (3) glass skyways or walkways,
freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners shall not be
allowed; (4) transparent glass shall not be allowed at the rooflines of
buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs; and (5) all roof
mechanical equipment shall be covered by low-profile angled roofing so
that obstacles to bird flight are minimized. A draft of the Plan and
modifications to the building design incorporating bird-safe design shall be
completed and submitted as part of the Site and Architectural Review
Committee and Planning Commission's review process to allow for further
comment and input. The City finds that these measures, based on
substantial evidence in the administrative record of proceedings, including
without limitation the incorporated materials identified above, incorporate
sufficient performance standards and would adequately reduce all risks of
bird-strike to a less-than-significance level, and have been shown to be
effective in other jurisdictions cited in the Final EIR.
g. Impact BIO-5 The proposed project's planting plan is not in conformance
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District's ("SCVWD's") guidance for
compliance with the SCVWD's Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams. As set forth in the Master Responses to Comment and
Errata in the Final EIR, adequate mitigation for the foregoing impact
requires that the site, parking, circulation, and landscape planting plans in
the September 9, 2019 plan submittal for the proposed project be revised
and redesigned to provide a continuous buffer along the eastern edge of
the site to protect the streamside habitat along Los Gatos Creek and
provide greater conformance with the Guidelines and Standards for Land
Use Near Streams of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection
Collaborative, as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-5. As set forth in this
mitigation measure, these refinements shall include the following: (1) The
design and selection of plant species used in this buffer area along the
eastern edge of the site shall be selected in consultation with staff from
SCVWD to ensure compatibility with Guidelines and Standards for Land
Use Near Streams; (2) effective screening of nighttime lighting, including
headlights from vehicles moving through the proposed parking lot, shall be
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 9 of 17
provided as part of redesign and landscaping and plantings installed in the
proposed planting strip along the eastern edge of the site shall be chosen
based on their ability to complement and screen the adjacent riparian
habitat along the creek corridor by using plantings of tree, shrub and
groundcover species; (3) the proposed planting strip along the eastern
edge of the site shall be expanded where feasible from the current
planting area shown in the revised Landscape Plan (dated August 27,
2019) to remove an additional parking stall (shown in Figure 5-3 of the
Final EIR) in the southeastern corner of the site and expand the proposed
tree and shrub plantings in the area to provide effective landscape
screening at this critical location where the property line comes closest to
the top of bank to Los Gatos Creek; (4) any native species used in
plantings on the site shall be of local genetic stock to prevent possible
hybridization with native indigenous species growing along the adjacent
Los Gatos Creek and, at minimum, the planting area along the eastern
edge of the site shall include scattered plantings of locally sources native
coast live oak, which would eventually serve to expand the tree canopy at
the interface with the creek corridor as the trees mature; and (5) the few
existing trees along the eastern edge of the site shall be retained along
this planting area given their importance for existing screening of the creek
corridor and, in consultation with SCVWD, consideration should be given
to replacing the existing non-native shrubs along the eastern fence line
with native species if locally sourced plantings are available. The City
finds that these are robust mitigations that will reduce any potential
impacts to a less-than-significant level, and that the reduction of one
single parking space is a de minimis refinement of the Proposed Project's
design in that the Proposed Project's parking inventory is still sufficient
under City standards and does not cause any new significant impacts, a
substantial increase the severity of an impact, or otherwise constitute new
significant information.
h. Impact CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed project would have the
potential to cause a substantial change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If
archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or
construction, construction personnel shall be instructed to immediately
suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resources
and the City and a license archeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the
situation. These and other measures set forth in Mitigation Measure
CULT-2 are standard measures and experience has shown them to be
effective in numerous other development projects and, accordingly, they
will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
i. Impact CULT 3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would have the
potential to directly or indirectly affect a unique paleontological resource or
site, or a unique geological feature. The City finds that the implementation
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 10 of 17
of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Under this measure, in the event that fossils or fossil-
bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50
feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall
notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The
paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance
with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the
significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies
to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is
allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent
determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare
an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the
qualities that make the resource important. The project plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. The
City finds these measures ensure construction of the Proposed Project will
occur in a careful and responsible manner, and avoid any significant
impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources.
j. Impact CULT-4: Implementation of the proposed project would have the
potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries. The City finds that implementation of Mitigation
Measure CULT-4, which includes carefully drawn protection measures,
would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Under this measure,
in the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during
excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately
until the find can be properly treated. The City and the Santa Clara
County Coroner's office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the
Coroner's office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission
who would identify a Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"). The archeological
consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall
formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include,
but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left
in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave
goods are to be treated in the same manner. This protocol is standard
and will ensure development of the project site will occur in a careful and
responsible manner, and that any impacts to undiscovered human
remains will be less than significant.
k. Impact CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed project would have the
potential to disturb tribal cultural resources. The City finds that implement
of Mitigation Measures CULT-2 and CULT-4, as described above, would
ensure a meticulous protocol is followed in development of the site, and
provide for adequate protection of undiscovered tribal cultural resources.
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 11 of 17
I. Impact HAZ-1 : Demolition of the existing office building on the project site
may create a significant hazard by exposing construction workers to
asbestos containing materials and/or lead-based paints. The City finds
that adherence to state and federal laws and the implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant
level. Specifically, prior to the disturbance of any suspect asbestos-
containing materials and/or lead-based paint, a certified consultant shall
conduct a comprehensive survey to determine if the suspect materials are
present. If such materials are identified, a licensed abatement contractor
shall be consulted and demolition activities shall be conducted in
compliance with abatement recommendations. The City finds that this
analysis is conservative, and notes that CEQA case law has determined
impacts to construction workers are regulated under state law, but are not
cognizable impacts under CEQA.
m. Impact NOISE-1 : The project would not cause exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of
Campbell's and Town of Los Gatos' General Plan or Municipal Code, or
applicable standards of other agencies, as set forth on pages 4.10-8 and
4.10-9 of the Draft EIR. However, Mitigation Measure NO-1 is
recommended to ensure that feasible measures, such as those included in
the Municipal Code, are instated to minimize construction noise impacts.
These measures are set forth in detail in Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 ,
and would ensure noise-related impacts are reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
n. Impact NOISE-4: The project would cause a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, which
would result in a significant impact. The City finds that the robust and
detail practices imposed under Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level, and that experience with other
construction projects in the City has shown these measures to be
effective.
18. The City finds that Impact TRANS-1 b is not significant as initially suggested in
the Draft EIR. Use of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's ("VTA's")
2017 Annual Monitoring and Conformance Report is most appropriate, as
opposed to 2016 data, and use of this more recent data demonstrates that,
during the PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions, the addition of
project-generated traffic would not cause the freeway segment of southbound SR
85 from Saratoga Avenue to Winchester Boulevard to deteriorate to an
unacceptable level, as detailed in the Final EIR and the December 10, 2019
Planning Commission Staff Report. As such. the City finds that impacts to this
freeway segment are less than significant.
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 12 of 17
19. The proposed project would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to a
single intersection, San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps
(Intersection #6). A number of mitigation measures are presented, but none
would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Specifically:
a. Impact TRANS-la: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project,
Background plus Project, and Cumulative plus Project conditions, the
intersection of San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps
(Intersection #6) would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F with
or without the addition of project generated vehicle trips. However, the
addition of project generated trips would increase the volume-to-capacity
ratios by more than 0.01 and increase the average control delay for critical
movements by more than four seconds. During the PM peak hour under
Cumulative plus Project conditions, this intersection would worsen from
LOS E to LOS F with the addition of project-generated vehicle trips.
During the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative plus Project
conditions, the queue on the SR 17 southbound off-ramp right-turn lane
would extend to 26 vehicles, which is two vehicles more than the
estimated storage capacity.
b. TRANS-2: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project and
Background plus Project conditions, the intersection of San Tomas
Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps (Intersection #6) would operate at
an unacceptable LOS F with or without the addition of project-generated
vehicle trips. The addition of project-generated trips would increase the
volume-to-capacity ratios by more than 0.01 and increase the average
control delay for critical movements by more than four seconds.
c. Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a:
i. Mitigation Measure TRANS-la: The recommended mitigation
measure would be to widen the westbound (off-ramp) approach at
the intersection of the San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 southbound
ramps (Intersection #6) to include a second right turn lane, resulting
in two left-turn lanes, one through shared left-turn lane, and two
right-turn lanes (with the right-turn-on-red (RTOR) movement
prohibited). Also, the right-turn lane should be extended by 50
linear feet (plus a 120-foot transition taper) for the off-ramp to
accommodate the anticipated vehicle queuing. Extension of the
existing right-turn lane would include modification of the roadway
pavement, pavement striping, metal beam guardrails and roadside
embankment to accommodate the added length.
ii. TRANS-2: The recommended mitigation measure would be to
widen the westbound (off-ramp) approach at the intersection of the
San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 southbound ramps (Intersection #6)
to include a second right turn lane.
d. The City finds that these mitigations measures are infeasible. Any
improvements to this intersection would best be considered, adopted, and
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 13 of 17
implemented as part of regional transportation planning efforts, not as part
of an individual project or plan. Separately and independently: (1) the SR
17 off-ramp is a Caltrans facility and any improvements to the off-ramp
would be within the Caltrans right-of-way; and (2) as San Tomas
Expressway is a County-operated route and part of the CMP network, any
modifications to the intersection would require coordination and approval
from Caltrans, the County of Santa Clara, and the VTA, and this mitigation
measure is not part of VTA's current VTA Measure B regional
improvements list. As such, given these limits on feasibility, including
physical constraints, the need for inter-jurisdictional approval, and the
inability to guarantee that the necessary improvements would be made in
a timely fashion, the project's impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable.
20. With respect to the additional measures suggested by commenters that were not
added to the Final EIR, the Council adopts and incorporates by reference the
reasons set forth in the responses to comments contained in the Final EIR and
other portions of the administrative record of proceedings as its grounds for
rejecting adoption of these mitigation measures.
21. The Final EIR evaluates a range of potential alternatives to the originally
Proposed Project, specifically a/an: (1) No Project Alternative, (2) Existing Zoning
Alternative, and (3) Reduced Intensity Alternative. (See Chapter 6 of the Draft
EIR.) The EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in
comparison with the originally Proposed Project and the relative ability of each
alternative to satisfy the Project Objectives.
22. The Final EIR also summarizes the criteria used to identify a reasonable range of
alternatives for review in the EIR and describes proposals that did not merit
additional, more-detailed review either because they do not present viable
alternatives to the Proposed Project or they are variations on the alternatives that
are evaluated in detail.
23. The feasibility of any project alternative depends on its ability to satisfy a project's
fundamental project objectives, and two fundamental project objectives are to (1)
create a high-quality, regionally significant office development/technology
campus that can compete with other cities and counties in Silicon Valley to
attract high tech, med tech/modern medical, or other innovative businesses; and
(2) enhance the project site with quality work spaces, adequate parking, and
outdoor space that can function as a modern technology campus that supports a
company headquarters or significant satellite campus.
24. The Draft EIR presents two alternatives, the Existing Zoning Alternative and
Reduced Intensity Alternative, that would include 65,000- to 78,000-square-foot
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 14 of 17
office buildings; the City Council finds these alternatives, as well as the No
Project Alternative, would fail to satisfy the fundamental project objectives, and
the following facts support this determination:
a. A 72,000-square-foot office building exists on the property and has not
managed to attract a regionally significant hi tech. med tech/modern
medical, or other innovative business regionally competitive tenant.
b. The City has independently reviewed a memorandum prepared by BAE
Urban Economics, incorporated herein by reference, which discusses the
market for local office space, and agrees with this experts conclusions that
the critical mass of office space necessary to (1) create a regionally
competitive campus and (2) attract a high-tech or other innovative
business, is approximately 150.000 square feet.
c. Per BAE Urban Economics' report, competitive office campus projects
range from 140,000 feet to 320,000 square feet (BAE Report. App. A), and
"marquee" tech and other businesses have sought office space well in
excess of 70,000 square feet, with the average office demand of about
265,000 square feet (BAE Report, Table 1).
d. Accordingly, an office building of less than 150,000 square feet would fail
to meet the applicant's key project objectives, and that the Proposed
Project would satisfy the project's fundamental objectives.
25. While the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be environmentally superior in the
technical sense that contribution to the aforementioned impacts would not occur.
the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also fail to achieve all of the project's
objectives.
26. Based on all information in the administrative record of proceedings, the Existing
Zoning Alternative, which contemplates 77,648 square feet of development, and
the Reduced Intensity Alternative, which contemplates 64,748 square feet of
development, are deemed infeasible. (See Draft EIR, Section 6.6.2 [Existing
Zoning Alternative]; Section 6.6.3 [Reduced Intensity Alternative]; and Section
6.7 [Environmentally Superior Alternative], all at pp. 6-27, 6-28; see Pub. Res.
Code, § 21081(a)(3); 14 Cal. Code Regs, § 15091 .)
27. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
a. The City Council has found the following impacts would remain significant
following adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures
described in the Final EIR: As set forth in the discussions of Impact
TRANS-la and TRANS-2, the addition of project-generated trips at San
Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps (Intersection #6) would
increase the volume-to-capacity ratios by more than 0.01 and increase the
average control delay for critical movements by more than four seconds,
and that, specifically, the added delay is 5.3 seconds under existing
conditions, 5.4 seconds in the short-term future. and 5.6 seconds under
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 15 of 17
the long-term future conditions. This exceedance, at most, is a 1.6-
second delay at a single turning lane at a single intersection, and
potentially could result in a traffic queue length that exceeds storage
capacity by two vehicles.
b. Overriding Considerations Justifying Project Approval. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has, in determining
whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social,
technological, and other project benefits against its unavoidable
environmental risks, and finds that each of the benefits of the Project set
forth below outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are
not mitigated to less-than-significant levels. This statement of overriding
considerations is based on the City Council's review of the Final EIR and
other information in the administrative record. Each of the benefits
identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding
the significant environmental effects of the Project. The benefits of the
Project are set forth in the administrative record of proceedings, including
without limitation a November 2019 report submitted by the Concord
Group entitled Fiscal and Economic Benefit Analysis for the Development
of an Office Building in Campbell, California (incorporated herein by this
reference), and include the following:
i. The Proposed Project would create, directly and indirectly, as many
as 3,000 jobs in the City of Campbell (about 700 jobs at the project
site and 2,300 indirect jobs);
ii. The Proposed Project would place these jobs in closer proximity to
Campbell residents, decreasing their commute time and reducing
traffic-related emissions (currently 6.3 percent of residents work in
the City, and 41.6 percent of residents travel more than 10 miles for
work);
iii. The Propose Project would generate millions of dollars in revenue
to City businesses as the Proposed Project's high-wage employees
spend locally, where it is estimate that 70 percent of the Proposed
Project's employees will make more than $100,000 per year, and
where such revenues include $1.8 million spend in local retail
shows and $112,000 spent at local hotels when clients and others
with interests in the Proposed Project's tenant visit from out of
town; and
iv. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate $100,000 per year
in tax revenue, in perpetuity.
28. Record of Proceedings. Various documents and other materials constitute the
record upon which the City Council bases these findings and approvals
contained herein. The location and custodian of these documents and materials
is 70 N 1st St, Campbell, CA 95008. The administrative record or proceedings
includes, without limitation, the Final EIR and each of its technical appendices;
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 16 of 17
the applicant's correspondence of June 11, 2019, September 12, 2019, October
22, 2019, and February 3, 2020; reports by Mosaic Associates dated September
25, 2019 and November 4, 2019; a report by Ramboll air quality specialists dated
September 17, 2019; an AWR soil report dated September 10, 2019; a report by
Sapere Environmental dated September 20, 2019; letters from Abrams
Associates dated November 26, 2019 and December 10, 2019; a letter by Daniel
Schoenicke of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture dated August 9, 2019; a
report by BAE Urban Economics dated June 10, 2019; a report by The Concord
Group dated November 2019; all Site and Architectural Review Committee,
Planning Commission, and City Council staff reports, attachments thereto, and
correspondence associated therewith; and all oral testimony presented before
each of the foregoing legislative bodies.
29. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the
administrative record of proceedings, the City Council has made one or more of
the following findings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects
of the Project identified in the Final EIR:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects on the environment.
b. Specific economic, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified
significant environmental effects of the Project.
c. Based on the foregoing findings and information contained in the record, it
is hereby determined that:
i. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the
Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where
feasible.
ii. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council hereby takes the following actions and makes the following approvals:
A. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR.
B. The City Council hereby adopts as conditions of approval all
mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City Council that are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
C. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Project as set forth in Exhibit
A of this Resolution.
PLN2018-148 — FEIR and MMRP
Page 17 of 17
D. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing findings in their
entirety as its findings for these actions and approvals.
E. The City Council hereby adopts that State of Overriding Concerns
as attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. and as set forth in the
foregoing findings.
F. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and
analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated mitigation measures, and
adopted findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the
City Council hereby approves the Proposed Project.
G. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager or his designee to
file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Waterman, Resnikoff. Gibbons
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bybee, Landry
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
Susan M. Land- , Mayor
ATTEST: ji,66/).6c1
Wendd, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A: FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council
hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from
adoption and implementation of the proposed 1700 Dell Avenue Office Development Project("proposed
project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term
"Environmental Impact Report" (EIR) refers to the Draft EIR and Final EIR documents collectively, unless
otherwise specified.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the
EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the
significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of
these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate
by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR that support the EIR's determinations regarding
significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts.The facts
supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the project.
In making these findings,the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations and
conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent
that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2: Uncontrolled fugitive dust(PMi)and PM2.5)could expose the areas that are downwind of
construction sites to air pollution from construction activities without the implementation of the Air
District's best management practices.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2:The project contractor shall comply with the following the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's best management practices for reducing construction emissions of uncontrolled
fugitive dust (coarse inhalable particulate matter [PMlc] and fine inhalable particulate matter [PM2.s]):
m Water all active construction areas at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
Watering shall be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water shall
be used whenever possible.
• Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply(non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
■ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least
2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the
trailer).
• Sweep daily(with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved
access roads, parking areas,and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
■ Sweep public streets daily(with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of
the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
■ Hydro-seed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
• Enclose,cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (e.g., dirt, sand).
• Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
■ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
The City of Campbell Building Division official or his/her designee shall verify compliance that these
measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections.
Finding:Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would ensure compliance with the best management
practices (BMPs) of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.These BMPs reduce the release of
uncontrolled fugitive dust to the best of the ability of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
are considered an industry-wide standard in the Bay Area.The adoption of these practices into the EIR
ensures that implementation of the proposed project would avoid any significant release of uncontrolled
fugitive dust.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact AQ-3: Construction of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment
designations of the SFBAAB and health risk in the Bay Area.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding:Through Mitigation Measure AQ-2,the project would comply with the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District's BMPs to reduce the release of uncontrolled fugitive dust. Compliance with
Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that project construction equipment would include Level 2 Diesel
Particulate Filters or higher emission standards. The adoption of these practices into the EIR ensures that
implementation of the proposed project would avoid any significant contribution to the non-attainment
designation of SFBAAB and health risk in the Bay Area.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact AQ-4:Construction activities of the project could expose nearby residential receptors to cancer
risk that would exceed the Air District's significance thresholds.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4:The project applicant shall specify in the construction bid that the construction
contractor(s) shall use construction equipment with fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or
higher emissions standards for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more. Level 2 DPFs are capable of
reducing 50 percent of diesel exhaust and particulate emissions from off-road equipment.
• Prior to construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all construction plans submitted
to the City of Campbell Building Division, or its designee, clearly show the requirement for Level 2 DPF
or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower.
• During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in
use on the project site for verification by the City of Campbell Building Division or its designee. The
construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment
on-site.
• Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all non-essential idling of construction equipment is
restricted to five minutes or less, in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of
Regulations,Title 13,Article 4.8, Chapter 9.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would reduce the project's localized construction
emissions. The mitigated health risk values were calculated, and results indicate that, with mitigation,
health risks would be less than the Air District's significance thresholds for residential receptors, as shown
in Table 4.2-10 of the Draft EIR. Therefore,the project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BI0-4a:Tree removal and demolition activities during site clearance could destroy active nests,
and/or otherwise interfere with nesting of birds protected under State law.
Mitigation Measure BI0-4a: Prior to site clearance, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys as follows. If tree removal would occur during the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior
to the start of tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals
until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active
nests containing viable eggs or young birds of protected bird species shall be documented and protective
measures implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain
eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones
(i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each
nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their
tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an
exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status.The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones
may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with CDFW.The protection measures shall
remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer
active.
No surveys are required before vegetation disturbance between September 1 and January 31, that is,
outside of the nesting season.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: If tree removal or construction would occur during the nesting season, Mitigation
Measure BIO-4a requires a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird survey.The nesting bird survey, as
well as any subsequent protective measures, would ensure that project implementation would avoid any
significant impact on potential nesting birds that may be on the project site at the time of tree removal or
construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact BIO-4b:A substantial proportion of the exterior walls of the proposed office building would be
constructed with clear glass, which could create a hazard for flying birds.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Prior to building construction,the project applicant shall submit a Bird
Collision Reduction Plan (Plan)for City review and approval,following a peer review by an independent
consulting biologist, selected by the City given its technical nature.The Plan shall be written to minimize
the potential risk of bird strikes with the new building on the site and shall incorporate appropriate bird-
safe design guidelines' and include specific Best Management Practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.
The use of highly reflective glass as an exterior treatment, which appears to reproduce natural habitat
and can be attractive to some birds,shall be avoided.To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from
attracting birds,the project shall preferably utilize low-reflectivity glass(7 percent reflectivity, 0 percent
ultra-violet transmittance) and provide other non-attractive surface treatments as outlined below. Low-
reflectivity glass or other glazing treatments shall be used for the entirety of the building's glass surface,
not just the lower levels,to minimize the risk of bird strikes. Interior light "pollution" shall be reduced
during evening hours through the use of a lighting control system, and exterior lighting shall be directed
downward and screened to minimize light spillage on the building and the Los Gatos Creek corridor. To
'San Francisco Planning Department,2011,Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings,San Francisco,California.Adopted July 14.
American Bird Conservancy,Bird-Friendly Building Design,https://abcbirds.org/blog/truth-about-birds-and-glass-
collisions/,accessed August 12,2019.
City of Toronto,2007,Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines.Green Development Standard,City Planning,Toronto,Ontario,
Canada.
New York City Audubon Society,2007,Bird Safe Building Guidelines,New York,NY,http://www.nycaudubon.org/pdf/
BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines.pdf,accessed August 12,2019.
further clarify,the following design elements and controls shall be incorporated into the proposed project
to reduce the risk of bird strikes:
a No more than ten (10) percent of facade surface area shall have non-bird-safe glazing. Bird-safe
glazing includes opaque glass, covering of clear glass surface with patterns, paned glass with
fenestration patterns, and external screens over non-reflective glass.
• Occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights and
shall be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10 pm and sunrise.
Alternatively, non-emergency lighting shall be shielded to minimize light from buildings that are visible
to birds.
■ Glass skyways or walkways,freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners shall not be
allowed.
• Transparent glass shall not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with
green roofs.
■ All roof mechanical equipment shall be covered by low-profile angled roofing so that obstacles to bird
flight are minimized.
• In addition to the above design modifications, other options to consider for glazing treatment under
the required Plan shall include the following:
■ Uniformly cover the interior or exterior of clear glass surface with patterns(e.g., dots, stripes,
decals, images, abstract patterns). Patterns can be etched,fritted, or on films and shall have a
density of no more than 2 inches horizontally, 4 inches vertically, or both (the "two-by-four" rule
for coverage).
■ Install paned glass with fenestration patterns with vertical and horizontal mullions following the
"two-by-four" rule for coverage.
■ Install external screens over non-reflective glass(as close to the glass as possible)for birds to
perceive windows as solid objects.
■ Install UV-pattern reflective glass(visible to birds), laminated glass with a patterned UV-reflective
coating, or UV-absorbing and UV-reflecting film on the glass.
■ Install decorative grilles, screens, netting, or louvers, with openings following the "two-by-four"
rule for coverage.
a Install awnings, overhangs,sunshades, or light shelves directly adjacent to clear glass that is
recessed on all sides.
Prior to the issuance of any permits on the project,the project applicant shall work with the City to
demonstrate compliance with these measures. A draft of the Plan and modifications to the building
design incorporating bird-safe design shall be completed and submitted as part of the Site and
Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission's review process to allow for further comment
and input.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure BIO-4b requires the project applicant to submit a Bird Collision
Reduction Plan (Plan),that the City will review and approve, as well as ensure that architectural plans
conform to BMPs to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes.These measures would ensure that project
implementation would avoid any significant impact to hazards for flying birds.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact BIO-5:The proposed project's planting plan is not in conformance with the SCVWD's guidance for
compliance with the SCVWD's Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5:The parking, circulation, and landscape plans for the proposed project shall be
revised and redesigned to provide a continuous buffer along the eastern edge of the site to protect the
streamside habitat along Los Gatos Creek and provide greater conformance with the Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative.
These shall include the following changes to the proposed project plans.
• Effective screening of nighttime lighting, including headlights from vehicles moving through the
proposed parking lot, shall be provided as part of redesign and landscaping. Plantings installed in the
proposed planting strip along the eastern edge of the site shall be chosen based on their ability to
complement and screen the adjacent riparian habitat along the creek corridor by using plantings of
tree, shrub and groundcover species.
■ The proposed planting strip along the eastern edge of the site shall be expanded where feasible from
the current planting area shown in the revised Landscape Plan (dated August 27, 2019) to remove an
additional parking stall in the southeastern corner of the site and expand the proposed tree and shrub
plantings in the area to provide effective landscape screening at this critical location where the
property line comes closest to the top of bank to Los Gatos Creek.
■ Any native species used in plantings on the site shall be of local genetic stock to prevent possible
hybridization with native indigenous species growing along the adjacent Los Gatos Creek.At
minimum, the planting area along the eastern edge of the site shall include scattered plantings of
locally sources native coast live oak, which would eventually serve to expand the tree canopy at the
interface with the creek corridor as the trees mature.
• The few existing trees along the eastern edge of the site shall be retained along this planting area
given their importance for existing screening of the creek corridor. Existing non-native shrubs along
the eastern fence line shall be replaced with native species, if locally sourced plantings are available.
• The design and selection of plant species used in this buffer area along the eastern edge of the site
shall be selected in consultation with staff from SCVWD to ensure compatibility with Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding:Through Mitigation Measure BIO-5, the project would provide a continuous buffer
along the eastern edge of the project site.The adoption of Mitigation Measure B10-5 into the EIR would
require the planting plan to be updated and ensure that implementation of the proposed project would
be consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to cause a substantial
change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or
construction, construction personnel shall be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the
immediate vicinity of the suspected resources and the City and a licensed archeologist shall be contacted
to evaluate the situation.A licensed archeologist shall be retained to inspect the discovery and make any
necessary recommendations to evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines prior to the submittal of
a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the City for review and approval prior to the
continuation of any on-site construction activity.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding:Through Mitigation Measure CULT-2, the City would maintain processes and
procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of archaeological resources, including tribal cultural
resources, that may be encountered during site work for project construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to directly or indirectly
affect a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geological feature.
Mitigation Measure CULT-3: In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during
construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor
shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.The paleontologist shall document the
discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding
under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the
appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to
resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the
qualities that make the resource important. The project plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to implementation.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding:Through Mitigation Measure CULT-3, the City would maintain processes and
procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of paleontological and geological resources that may be
encountered during site work for project construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact CULT-4: Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Mitigation Measure CULT-4: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation
or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The
City and the Santa Clara County Coroner's office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner's
office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a "Most Likely
Descendant (MLD)."The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall
formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to,
respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere.
Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding:Through Mitigation Measure CULT-4,the City would maintain processes and
procedures to ensure the proper handling, and appropriate treatment plan for the find of any exposed
human remains that may be encountered during site work for project construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb tribal cultural
resources.
Mitigation Measure CULT-5: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-2 and CULT-4.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure CULT-2 and CULT-4 provide procedures to be followed in the
event that any buried resources are encountered during site work for the project.These procedures
would apply to any tribal cultural resources that may be discovered and would ensure the ongoing
protection of tribal cultural resources.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Demolition of the existing office building on the project site may create a significant hazard
by exposing construction workers to asbestos containing materials and/or lead-based paints.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the disturbance of any suspect asbestos-containing materials and/or
lead-based paint, a certified consultant shall conduct a comprehensive survey to determine if the suspect
materials are present. If such materials are identified, a licensed abatement contractor shall be consulted
and demolition activities shall be conducted in compliance with abatement recommendations.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure the existing structure is examined for any
asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint and would require demolition activities to be conducted
with abatement recommendations. Implementation of these abatement recommendations would avoid
any significant release of asbestos containing materials or exposure to lead-based paint that may occur as
part of project construction.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
NOISE
Impact NOISE-1:The project would not cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the City of Campbell's and Town of Los Gatos'General Plan or Municipal
Code,or applicable standards of other agencies. However, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 is recommended
to ensure that feasible measures,such as those included in the Municipal Code,are instated to minimize
construction noise impacts.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the
construction contract agreement documents to be implemented by the construction contractor during
the entire construction phase of the project:
• The project sponsor and contractors shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan. The details of
the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included as part of the permit application drawing set
and as part of the construction drawing set.
• At least 21 days prior to the start of construction activities, all off-site businesses and residents within
300' of the project site shall be notified of the planned construction activities. The notification shall
include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction
would occur, and the construction period's overall duration. The notification shall include the
telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to
respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to
the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well
as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned
to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative
receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the
action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall
utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use
of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds),
wherever feasible.
• Require the contractor to use impact tools (e.g.,jack hammers and hoe rams) that are hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources shall be located as far from
sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary enclosures
or insulation barriers to the extent feasible.
• Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along
queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment
shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing
signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The
construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level
based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in
compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would ensure compliance with construction BMPs,
which reduce noise pollution during demolition and construction. The incorporation of these practices
into project construction would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would minimize any
increase in noise levels.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Impact NOISE-4:The project would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity,which would result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-4: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would ensure compliance with construction BMPs,
which reduce noise pollution during demolition and construction. The incorporation of these practices
into project construction would ensure that the project would not result in any significant temporary or
period ambient noise increases.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact TRANS-la: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project, Background plus Project,and
Cumulative plus Project conditions,the intersection of San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps
(Intersection#6)would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F with or without the addition of
project-generated vehicle trips. However,the addition of project-generated trips would increase the
volume-to-capacity ratios by more than 0.01 and increase the average control delay for critical
movements by more than four seconds. During the PM peak hour under Cumulative plus Project
conditions,this intersection would worsen from LOS E to LOS F with the addition of project-generated
vehicle trips. During the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative plus Project conditions,the queue on
the SR 17 southbound off-ramp right-turn lane would extend to 26 vehicles, which is two vehicles more
than the estimated storage capacity.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-la:The recommended mitigation measure would be to widen the westbound
(off-ramp) approach at the intersection of the San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 southbound ramps
(Intersection #6)to include a second right turn lane, resulting in two left-turn lanes, one through shared
left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes(with the right-turn-on-red (RTOR) movement prohibited). Also,
the right-turn lane should be extended by 50 linear feet(plus a 120-foot transition taper)for the off-ramp
to accommodate the anticipated vehicle queuing. Extension of the existing right-turn lane would include
modification of the roadway pavement, pavement striping, metal beam guardrails and roadside
embankment to accommodate the added length.
However, any improvements to this intersection would best be considered, adopted, and implemented as
part of regional transportation planning efforts, not as part of an individual project or plan. The SR 17 off-
ramp is a Caltrans facility and any improvements to the off-ramp would be within the Caltrans right-of-
way. Additionally, as San Tomas Expressway is a County-operated route and part of the CMP network, any
modifications to the intersection would require coordination and approval from Caltrans, the County of
Santa Clara, and the VTA.This mitigation measure is not part of VTA's current VTA Measure B regional
improvements list. As such,given these limits on feasibility, including physical constraints and the need for
inter-jurisdictional approval, the project's impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Finding: Because no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or further reduce the severity of .
Impact TRANS-la, it remains significant and unavoidable.
Rationale for Finding:The potential mitigation measures described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-la
would require inter-jurisdictional approval and have physical constraints, and therefore there are no
feasible mitigation measures to avoid or further reduce the severity of Impact TRANS-la. However, the
development of the proposed project would provide specific economic, environmental, social, legal,
technological, and other benefits that would outweigh the significant adverse effects of Impact TRANS-la,
as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.These findings are based on the entire
record of proceedings for the proposed project, including but not limited to the discussion and analysis on
pages 4.13-40 to 4.13-48 of the Draft EIR, which includes a full statement of this impact.
Resulting Significance:Significant and Unavoidable
Impact TRANS-1b: During the PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions, the addition of
project-generated traffic would cause the freeway segment of southbound SR 85 from Saratoga Avenue to
Winchester Boulevard to deteriorate from LOS E to F.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-lb:A typical mitigation measure would seek to widen the road to add travel
lanes and capacity. However, impacts to freeways would remain significant and unavoidable because
these roadways are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and not under the jurisdiction of the City of
Campbell, and as such implementation cannot be assured. In addition, freeway improvement projects,
which add travel lanes are planned and funded on a regional scale and would be too costly for a single
project to be expected to fund. A proportional (or fair share) contribution cannot be calculated for the
project because the cost for this improvement has not been developed.
Finding: Because no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or further reduce the severity of
Impact TRANS-1b, it remains significant and unavoidable.
Rationale for Finding:The potential mitigation measure described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b would
require the widening of a roadway that is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and therefore implementation
cannot be assured and there are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or further reduce the severity of
Impact TRANS-lb. However, the development of the proposed project would provide specific economic,
environmental, social, legal, technological, and other benefits that would outweigh the significant adverse
effects of Impact TRANS-1b, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. These
findings are based on the entire record of proceedings for the proposed project, including but not limited
to the discussion and analysis on pages 4.13-51 to 4.13-52 of the Draft EIR, which includes a full
statement of this impact.
Resulting Significance:Significant and Unavoidable
Impact TRANS-2: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project and Background plus Project
conditions,the intersection of San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps (Intersection#6)would
operate at an unacceptable LOS F with or without the addition of project-generated vehicle trips.The
addition of project-generated trips would increase the volume-to-capacity ratios by more than 0.01 and
increase the average control delay for critical movements by more than four seconds.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2:The recommended mitigation measure would be to widen the westbound
(off-ramp) approach at the intersection of the San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 southbound ramps
(Intersection #6)to include a second right turn lane. Although recommended widening of the southbound
off-ramp would improve traffic levels sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level,
implementation of the widening cannot be guaranteed as the off-ramp is a Caltrans facility and the
intersection is County-operated. Furthermore, the recommended improvement is not part of VTA's
Measure B regional improvements list.
Finding: Because no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or further reduce the severity of
Impact TRANS-2, it remains significant and unavoidable.
Rationale for Finding:The potential mitigation measure described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 would
require the widening of an off-ramp that is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and an intersection that is
County-operated, and therefore implementation cannot be assured and there are no feasible mitigation
measures to avoid or further reduce the severity of impact TRANS-2. However, the development of the
proposed project would provide specific economic, environmental, social, legal, technological, and other
benefits that would outweigh the significant adverse effects of Impact TRANS-2, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below. These findings are based on the entire record of
proceedings for the proposed project, including but not limited to the discussion and analysis on page
4.13-58 of the Draft EIR, which includes a full statement of this impact.
Resulting Significance:Significant and Unavoidable
EXHIBIT B: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Campbell adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project and the anticipated
benefits of the proposed project.
GENERAL
The City is considering approval of the 1700 Dell Avenue Office Development ("proposed project").
CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social,technological or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If
the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,those effects
may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a
"statement of overriding considerations"supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15903, Statement of Overriding Considerations.) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093,the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project in connection with approval of the proposed project.The
City Council finds that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be
substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the EIR and implemented with future
development and actions taken under the proposed project. Even with mitigation,the City Council
recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable
environmental effects, as identified in the EIR.
Adoption of the proposed project, with the specific changes included in the City Council's resolution,
would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
1. Impact TRANS-la: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project, Background plus Project, and
Cumulative plus Project conditions,the intersection of San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound
Ramps(Intersection #6)would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F with or without the
addition of project-generated vehicle trips. However,the addition of project-generated trips would
increase the volume-to-capacity ratios by more than 0.01 and increase the average control delay for
critical movements by more than four seconds. During the PM peak hour under Cumulative plus
Project conditions,this intersection would worsen from LOS E to LOS F with the addition of project-
generated vehicle trips. During the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative plus Project conditions,
the queue on the SR 17 southbound off-ramp right-turn lane would extend to 26 vehicles, which is
two vehicles more than the estimated storage capacity.
2. Impact TRANS-1b: During the PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions,the addition of
project-generated traffic would cause the freeway segment of southbound SR 85 from Saratoga
Avenue to Winchester Boulevard to deteriorate from LOS E to F.
3. Impact TRANS-2: During the AM peak hour under Existing plus Project and Background plus Project
conditions, the intersection of San Tomas Expressway/SR 17 Southbound Ramps (Intersection#6)
would operate at an unacceptable LOS F with or without the addition of project-generated vehicle
trips. The addition of project-generated trips would increase the volume-to-capacity ratios by more
than 0.01 and increase the average control delay for critical movements by more than four seconds.
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council has carefully considered each significant unavoidable project impact in reaching its
decision to approve the proposed project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that
implementation of the proposed project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as
identified in the EIR.The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified significant
adverse impacts for the proposed project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible
mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, that outweigh the project's significant
unavoidable impacts and support approval of the proposed project. Any one of these benefits as set forth
below is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. The substantial evidence supporting the
various benefits is in the record as a whole.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City's judgment, specific benefits of the
proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the
proposed project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The
reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
1. The proposed project will create a high-quality, regionally significant office development/technology
campus.
2. The proposed project will provide the City with an office development that can compete with other
cities and counties in Silicon Valley to attract high tech, med tech/modern medical, or other
innovative businesses.
3. The proposed project will attract a workforce population that supports local businesses and services.
The Propose Project would generate millions of dollars in revenue to City businesses as the Proposed
Project's high-wage employees spend locally, where it is estimate that 70 percent of the Proposed
Project's employees will make more than $100,000 per year, and where such revenues include $1.8
million spend in local retail shows and $112,000 spent at local hotels when clients and others with
interests in the Proposed Project's tenant visit from out of town.
4. The proposed project will create an employment center that utilizes the project site's development
potential and provide jobs for the local and regional workforce. The Proposed Project would create,
directly and indirectly, as many as 3,000 jobs in the City of Campbell (about 700 jobs at the project
site and 2,300 indirect jobs.)
5. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate $100,000 per year in tax revenue, in perpetuity.
LEGAL BENEFITS
1. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan land use policies, including:
Policy LUT-2.4: Jobs and Housing Balance: . . . encourage residents to work in
Campbell, and to limit the impact on the regional transportation
system.
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of
residential, industrial and commercial neighborhoods, each with
its own individual character; and allow change consistent with
reinforcing positive neighborhood values.
Policy LUT-5.3: Variety of Commercial and Office Uses: Maintain a variety of
attractive and convenient commercial and office uses that
provide needed goods, services and entertainment.
Policy LUT-5.4: Industrial Neighborhoods:Safeguard industry's ability to operate
effectively, by limiting the establishment of incompatible uses in
industrial neighborhoods and encouraging compatible uses.
Policy LUT-5.5: Industrial Diversity: Promote a variety of industrial use
opportunities that maintain diversified services and a diversified
economic base.
Strategy LUT-5.5b: Incubator Businesses: Maintain industrial space for small start-up
and incubator businesses.
Strategy LUT-9.1c: Land Use Objectives and Redevelopment Plans: Permit only
those uses that are compatible with land use objectives and
redevelopment.plans.
Strategy CNR-3.1a: Development Near Riparian Corridors: Cooperate with State,
federal and local agencies to ensure that development does not
cause significant adverse impacts to existing riparian corridors.
Strategy LUT-9.3f: Development Orientation: Orient new development toward
public and private amenities or open space, in particular:
• Orient front entrances, living/office area and windows
toward the amenity or open space.
• Orient high activity areas such as outdoor dining areas
and plazas, and major pedestrian routes toward the
amenity or open space.
Strategy LUT-9.3g: Pedestrian Amenities: Incorporate pedestrian amenities such as
plazas, landscaped areas with seating, pedestrian walkways into
new developments.
Strategy LUT-10.1c: Outdoor Common Areas: Encourage well designed and
landscaped outdoor common areas for eating, relaxing, or
recreation for new projects, and if feasible, when buildings are
remodeled or expanded. When possible, the common outdoor
areas should adjoin natural features.
Strategy LUT-10.1a: Natural Feature Retention: Encourage site design that
incorporates or otherwise retains natural features such as
mature trees, terrain,vegetation, wildlife and creeks.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040, as it would redevelop a site with existing
services and infrastructure, is within an urbanized area, would locate jobs near housing and transit,
and would not displace existing housing or residents.
SOCIAL BENEFITS
1. The proposed project will provide a socially vibrant and economically viable development in a location
that acts as a gateway to the city.
2. The proposed project would include an open space area on the northeast corner of the project site,
directly adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, with a public gathering space with shade trees, tables,
concrete pavers, benches, and seatwalls.
TECHNOLOGICAL BENEFITS
1. The proposed project will be a modern campus built to the current California Building Code
Standards, Energy Efficiency Standards, and Cal Green requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
1. The proposed project site's close proximity to the Hacienda and Winchester Boulevard Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority's Light Rail stations will reduce the anticipated workforce automobile
travel, and help limit traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and associated emissions.
2. The proposed project would provide a total of 58 net new trees on the project site, which would
provide additional shade on the project site, a buffer for nighttime lighting on the project site, as well
as nesting habitat for bird species.