14. Main Street Supplements c° c i lr,~ lL~ ~ -~i~
PIEASERESPC{.ID TO MORRISON k POERSTER LLP
M O R R I S O N I F O E R S T E R W
~ LOS ANG LES PALO ALTO,O~
A
rC1tEEK SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D.C.
CALIFORNIA 94596-8130 NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
IOSYGNACTOVAI.LEYROAD ORANGE COUNTY, DENVER,
SACRAMENTO, WALNUT CREEK
SUITE 4SO TOKYO, LONDON, BEIJING,
W~~I'(~EI{ SHANGHAI, HONG KONG,
CALIFORNIA 94596-4094 SINGAPORE, BRUSSELS
'TELEPHOI~: 925.295.3300
FACSIIvIILii: 925.946.9912
W W W.MO]?O.COM
Writer's Direct Contact
January 5, 2008 925.295.3310
DGold@mofo.com
Via Facsimile and Email
Planning Commission Chairperson Marty Miller
Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Main Street Project
Dear Chairperson Miller and members of the Cupertino Planning Commission,
'This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Apple Inc. ("Apple") to provide input to the
Commission concerning the proposed Main Street: project being considered at the
Commission's January 6, 2009 public hearing.
Apple owns properties at 19191 Vallco Parkway find 19333 Vallco Parkway, directly across
the street from the proposed Main Street project. In addition, its existing corporate
headquarters is sited at 1 Infinite Loop, and it intends to redevelop as its future corporate
headquarters a nearby 56 acre site currently improved with approximately 1 million sq. ft. of
office facilities (the "New Campus Site"). Both the proposed Main Street project and the
New Campus Site share eastern borders contiguous to N. Tantau Avenue. Apple owns
properties at 10300 and 10400 N. Tantau Avenue as well.
Given the proximity of so many of its properties to the proposed Main Street project site,
Apple has expressed its concerns with the Main ;street project on several occasions. We
indicated in an earlier DEIR comment letter dateli November 24 to Gary Chao that Apple
supports the general direction of this mixed use development proposal and its benefits to the
Cupertino community. At the same time, we have gone on record raising a number of
concerns, provided suggestions, and recommended further communications between Apple,
City Staff and Sandhill Properties. We have had useful meetings with Sandhill
representatives to explore mutual concerns.
We also appreciate that City Staff and the City's CEQA consultant have prepared responses
to our comment letter on the Main Street project DFEIR. Those responses address only
partially the concerns we have raised. Without c;omprehensively reiterating those concerns,
wc-140142
MORRISON ~ FOERSTER
Planning Commission Chairperson Miller
January 5, 2008
Page Two
we wanted to clarify for the Commissioners our primary ongoing issues regarding the Main
Street project.
1. Apple remains concerned that the proposal to reduce Vallco Parkway traffic lanes
is short sighted and threatens the viability ~vf the infill development contemplated by
Cupertino's General Plan. The proposal to reduce the existing 6 lanes to 21anes
could substantially degrade the level of se;r~ice in this critical azea. Based on the
response to our comment letter, the EIR consultant may have misunderstood that our
primary point was not one of physical acce~;s onto Vallco Pazkway, but rather that the
lane reduction, if implemented, will not accommodate the City's own General Plan
buildout assumptions for this area. We resl-ectfully request that either the City's
Traffic Engineer, or the EIR traffic consultz~nt, specifically opines whether this drastic
circulation modification will (a) be compatible with the City's own long term land
use projections and (b) accommodate future; growth anticipated by the City's General
Plan.
2. The massing presented by the proposed S Story parking garage fronting on Vallco
Parkway raises planning and policy considerations which may not be resolved by
design review level mitigations General Plan Policy 2-14, Strategy 3, entitled
"Parking Placement in New Development" states "Place parking out of sight, behind
or underneath buildings." While Apple apI-reciates that landscaping and additional
design level mitigations may soften the aesl:hetic appearance of this proposed
structure, we request that the Commission provide specific direction to the applicant
and the City Council recommending adjusbnents to this structure to provide for
underground parking. Apple believes this <<pproach would be more compatible with
the City's parking placement policies and v~~ill ensure that all parties fully
comprehend the City's position regarding p~azking structure design.
3. Apple remains concerned that the Main Street project's proposed transfer of Offcce
Allocations from other Special Centers could run counter to the City's economic
development and employment center policies, particularly if the office development
is at the higher end of the proposed range, We appreciate the City's response to our
comment letter acknowledging that no offi~:e allocations would be taken from the
Major Employer category. We further understand from the City's response to our
comment letter that the CEQA consultant believes there aze no significant impacts
from the proposed office allocation transfers, since the same background traffic and
air quality impacts would occur wherever c-ffice is developed within the City. As a
. result, the City concludes that the transfers proposed aze "generally consistent" with
the City's Development Allocation Policy. Assuming this remains the Commission's
position, we request that Apple be treated in a similar manner when its New Campus
Site transfer proposal is processed.
wc-140142
~.~,
.. `%%
MORRISON 1 FOERSTER
Planning Commission Chairperson Miller
January 5, 2008
Page Three .
The City's response to Apple's comment indicated that it anticipated the City would
transfer the office allocations to the Va11G~ Pazk South azea proportionate to the
amount of currently available allocations iin each Special Center area. Of course, City
Staff recognizexi that the City Council would ultimately determine which special
centers would have allocations reduced as a result of the Main Street project.
Alternatively, Apple requests, in furtherance of the City's employment and economic
development policies, that the Commission recommends allocations first be
transferred from the Monta Vista and Heart of City areas, before taking allocations
from the N. De~Anza and Vallco Park Noah special centers, where Apple's existing
campus is sited and our future headquarters will be developed. Apple supports the
Staff recommendation for Alternative A over Alternative B due to its lower office
development, and our preference is for the; City to transfer few, if any, office
allocations from the Vallco Park North and N. De Anza areas. This preference is
consistent with City policies to locate offi~ae development in the designated
employment centers.
Finally, we appreciate. that the City's response to qur comment letter acknowledges the
existing General Plan akeady assumes that appro:cimately 1 million sq. ft. of development
may be redeveloped as part of Apple's new campus proposal. Similarly, we appreciate that
at a minimum, this intensity of use is assumed for purposes of the sanitary sewer planning for
Apple's New Campus Site. While planning for the campus is still preliminary, the size of the
campus likely will substantially exceed 1 million square feet.. Please advise Apple when the
City anticipates that the Main Street project proponent will be finalizing its sewer flow tests,
in order that the parties can coordinate regarding infrastructure upsizing to accommodate
Apple's New Campus Site proposal:
On behalf of Apple, we appreciate the opportunit~i to provide this additional input to the
Commission.
Sincerely,
""~~„ '
David A. Gold
cc: Steve Piasecki
Kelly Kline
Gary Chao
Jim Fowler
Mike Foulkes
wc-140142
Grace Schmidt
From: Aki Honda
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:20 PM
To: Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt
Cc: Gary Chao; Ralph Qualls; Glenn Goe~~fert; David Stillman
Subject: FW: Monday's Council Meeting
Attachments: AppleCupertinoLtr.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Hi Kim and Grace,
Could you also add the attached email from Nick Ammann of Apple as a desk item attached to their Jan. 5th letter (this is
the same letter as I just emailed you).
Thanks,
Aki
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Kline
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:48 PM
To: Gary Chao; Aki Honda; Steve Piasecki
Subject: FW: Monday's Council Meeting
FYI
__
From: Nicholas Ammann [mailto:nammann@apple.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Kelly Kline
Subject: Fwd: Monday's Council Meeting
Kelly - fyi
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nicholas Ammann <nammann(u~apple.com>
Date: January 9, 2009 1:42:04 PM PST
To: Orrin Mahoney <orrinmahoney@comcast.net>
Subject: Monday's Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Mahoney:
On Monday January 12fth, the City Council will consider the Main Street project by Sandhill
properties. While Apple does not oppose the project, ~rve do have some concerns which we have
outlined in written communication to city staff and the Planning Commission. A copy of our letter to
the Planning Commission is attached.
In addition to the concerns expressed regarding narro~~ring Vallco Parkway and the proposed parking
garage, Apple is particularly concerned about the potential loss of office space allocation within the
City's major employment centers. City staff made a recommendation (finding 12 of the resolution) to
address the issue of office space, which would condition the project's allocation of 100,000 square
feet on the approval of a general plan amendment incireasing the amount of office space available.
Apple believes this will protect Cupertino's major em~~loyment centers while still allowing the project
to go forward. Whether or not this condition is imposed, the requested transfer of office space to this
project emphasizes the critical importance of timely increasing the available office space beyond that
permitted in the current general plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this imp~~rtant issue and we will follow up with you to
further discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
Nick
Nick Ammann
State and Local Government Affairs
Apple
P: 408-974-0343
~,~
=`'1
-1
CUPLrRT1NiD ~
~~<, r ~ `
a * S _.
« ~ w~
3M }T.A11£j ~
MrJ ,. 3 ~H~ ~{
!( ~ ~ ~;
I. 1 v
-.. Sj~..~3'a 'ass ~~~f~ l_ ~ .~ ~ -.. ~~}
,' ~'.~
..,,.,,.. ~n~
..~~..n .mnW4, ,,:~,
1 ~~:-1 ~.
~ j .) ` ~ ,~~r wwwr
u~'i1 ~ J :v
s r
~~. ,
~ •
~
C t/~P1= RT 1 N C7
~'~ 37ailable :~llo~ation Scheme A ~-Scheme Y,
ler tTle General Plan
C«nunelriaE
>31,Frt~ sE _
l.7„$9 sf (r+aazl sltopa)
I?0,33I s#
x~1S,$s~ sf (sports +.9n1>j
j Additional ret.lil shop area options will require
al1KTCdttt>x1i tfUlll OtlteC C,entM4 i.1.1 the Cihh
OtFice 0 '100,000 s£ 2~,tNxl sf
_ Hotzl '`.'S rornns 150 roools `.{i0 rooms
1~6tiTS1K3T~ltll. - ~tX1 lSnlt?. 1dQ t.tr1/L!'. 1~ LIIlitS
Cc i~(zlDq
DARREL W. LUM, DDS
20395 PACIFICA DRIVEISUITE 102
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
ORRIN MAHONEY, MAYOR
KRIS WANG, VICE-MAYOR
DOLLY SANDOVAL
MARK SANTORO
GILBERT WONG
RE: MAIN STREET
PLEASE FIND ATTACHED SOME COMMUNITY COMMENTS REGARDING
THE MAIN STREET PROJECT WHICH 'THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING ON
JANUARY 12, 2009.
DARREL W. LUM, DDS
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO
SHOULD BE LANDMARK PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND SAND
HILL PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTS OF (~UPERTINO.
SUPPORT (PAGE 1 4-2): "ON JANUARY 6, 2009, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PI20JECT WITH THE FLEXIBLE
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS THAT WOULD ~~LLOW THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP
THE 1 7-ACRE SITE IN RESPONSE TO MARKET DEMAND DUE TO THE
CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS."
HOTEL (PAGE 14-6)
SUPPORT:
THE TERRACING OF THE STEVENS CREEK BLVD FACADE OF THE HOTEL IS
AN IMPROVEMENT. AVOIDS WALL OF BUILDINGS ALONG STEVENS CREEK
BLVD.
THE TERRACE DESIGN OF THE 3 OR 5 STORY HOTEL WILL ALLOW IT TO COMPLY
WITH THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SUPPORT THE 5-STORY, 250 ROOM HOTEL. IF THERE IS A CONFERENCE/
CONVENTION CENTER
RECOMMEND THAT THE HOTEL HAVE SOME BELOW GRADE PARKING SINCE IT IS
NOTED THAT THE HOTEL HAS NO BELOW GRADE PARKING
BELOW GRADE PARKING AT THE HOTEL A,ND OFFICE BUILDING/ATHLETIC
BUILDING WOULD REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO BE SATISFIED BY THE
PARKING STRUCTURE
METROPOLITANISENIOR HOUSING (INTERFACE (PAGE 14-8)
SUPPORT:
"MINIMUM 2O-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN
CONDOMINIUMS AND SENIOR HOI.ISING"
"TERRACED UPPER LEVELS TO PROVIDE GREATER SETBACKS FROM
METROPOLITAN CONDOMINIUMS"
"ROOF-TOP GARDEN"
GENERAL PLAN ALLOCATIONS (PAGI; 14-1 O)
SUPPORT:
"THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO ALLOW UP TO
100,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE... TO BE DRAWN FROM EXISTING AVAILABLE
ALLOCATIONS IN DIFFERENT PLANNING AREAS AND REMOVED STAFF'S
RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO REQUIRE A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE OFFICE ALLOCATIONS NEEDED IN LIEU
OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TAKE OFFICE ALLOCATIONS FROM OTHER
CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY. THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF REQUIRING THAT THE
ADDED OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE BE OBT,4INED THROUGH A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT DIMINISH THE
OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER MAJOR CORPORATE INTERESTS."
FINAL EIR DATED DECEMBER 2008:
RESPONSE 7. 1 : "....THE CITY IS AWARE THAT APPLE IS PLANNING A NEW
ANEW CAMPUS, HOWEVER, NO APPLICAT1fON HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
CITY AND NO PROJECT INFORMATION (SUC:H AS THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED) IS KNOWN. FOR THESE REASONS, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DETAIL
REGARDING THE NEW CAMPUS TO ANALYZE ITS IMPACTS."
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DATED OCTOBER 2 1 , 2008
IT WAS PROPOSED THAT IF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WAS INITIATED,
THE COST, ESTIMATED TO BE $200,000 TO $300,000, SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE
THREE MAJOR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS (RIPPLE, HP AND SAND HILI..~. SAND HILL
SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THE GPA BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY
FUNDED THE SOUTH VALLCO MASTER PL~~N.
SENIOR HOUSING (PAGE 14-1 1)
1.
REQUEST A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOFt CONVENANT FOR SENIOR HOUSING ONLY
TO BE RECORDED.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
13. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PHASING (PAGE 14-17)
(PAGE 5 of U-2008-01)
SUPPORT:
A. "THE TOWN SQUARE, PARK AREA, AND THE FOUR RETAIL BUILDINGS
ADJACENT TO THE TOWN SQUARE...SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
TOGETHER AS PART OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PHASE,..."
B. "THE MAJOR RETAIL TENANT BUILDINGS, THE MIXED-USE OFFICE AND
RETAIL BUILDING, SENIOR HOUSING, HOTEL, ATHLETIC CLUB AND
PARKING GARAGE MAY BE DE~tELOPED FOLLOWING THE FIRST
DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT."
19. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (PAGE 14-19)
(PAGE 7 OF U-2008-01)
SUPPORT:
CORNER BUILDING
"ANY BUILDING(S) PROPOSED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD AND N. TANTAU AVENUE SHALL HAVE PROMINENT
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS TO EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CORNER AS THE EASTERN GATEWAY ENTRY TO THE
CITY..."
NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BLVD AND TANTAU AVENUE:
THlS IS AT A MAJOR ENTRANCE TO CITY OF CUPERTINO ON STEVENS CREEK
BLVD AS WELL TO TANTAU AVENUE
:3
THE BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEYENS CREEK BLVD AND
TANTAU AVENUE SHOULD:
SHOULD COMPLEMENT THE BUILDDING TO BE BUILT ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF STEYENS CREEK BLVD AND TANTAU AVENUE, WHICH IS SET
AT AN ANGLE
SHOULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO TANTAU AVENUE
SHOULD BE ATTRACTIVE AT THE CORNER OF TANTAU AVENUE AND
VALLCO PARKWAY SINCE THERE ARE PLANS FOR RETAIL IN THE
VALLCO PARKWAY PARKING STRUCTURE
PARKING STRUCTURE
Too MASSIVE
pA cE t4 ~ 1-.0
20. GATEWAY ENTRY (PAGE 8 OF U-2008-01)
SUPPORT
21. LANDSCAPE PLAN (PAGE 14.20)
(PAGE 8 OF U-2008-01)
SUPPORT
C. "LANDSCAPING ALONG STEVE:NS CREEK BOULEVARD AND N.
TANTAU AVENUE IN ACCORD~-NCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN."
27. HEART OF THE CITY DESIGN GUICIELINES (PAGE 14~--22)
(PAGE 1 O OF U-2008-01)
SUPPORT
A. "THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEART OF THE CITY DESIGN
GUIDELINES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PROJECT APPROVAL."
B. "IF ANY PORTIONS OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE MASTER USE PERMIT SIT
PLAN DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SETBACKS PER THE HEART OF THE
CITY SPECIFIC OR CONCEPTUI~~L PLAN, THE APPLICANT MUST
MODIFY THE BUILDING SETBACK AS PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ANC
SITE APPROVAL FOR THE BUIL.DING..."
DO NOT SUPPORT
C. "...OR OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A.N EXCEPTION APPLICATION TO THE HEAI
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC OR CO~,ICEPTURAL PLAN."
28. SOUTH VALLCO MASTER PLAN (PAGE 14-22)
(PAGE 1 O OF U-2008-0 i )
SUPPORT
"THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SOUTH VALLCO MASTER PLAN."
29. CREEK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (P~~GE i 4-22)
(P~~GE i O of U-2008-01)
SUPPORT
"THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTRIE~UTE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$65,000 TO THE IMPROVEMENTS OF A TRAIL CONNECTION ALONG
CALABAZAS CREEK FROM VALLC~O PARKWAY TO 1-280. THIS
CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE USED B~Y THE CITY TO ADMINISTER A CREEK
TRAIL PLAN AND NECESSARY APPROVALS AND IMPROVEMENTS."
FUNDS FOR MITIGATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PAGE 'I 1 6 OF EIR
"THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN IDENTIFIE:SA PROPOSED TRAIL LINKAGE TO
THE CALABAZAS CREEK TRAIL WHICH INCLUDES A SEGMENT THAT
PASSES THROUGH THE PROJECT SITE C1N TOP OF THE UNDERGROUND BOX-
CULVERT ALIGNMENT....THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PATHWAYS TO LINK
PEDESTRIANS FROM STEVENS CREEK I'30ULEVARD TO THE FUTURE TRAIL
HEAD NORTH OF VALLCO PARKWAY."
S
APPLICATION SUMMARY SUBMITTED TO TIRE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
DECEMBER 9, 2009 AGENDA ITEM # 1
PAGE 1-1 2: ALIGN FINCH ROAD NOR'T'H OF THE TOWN SQUARE OVER THE
HISTORICAL PATHWAY OF' CALABAZAS CREEK & PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK OVER VALLCO
PARKWAY THAT ALIGNS 1NITH THE FUTURE CREEK TRAIL
HEAD PLANNED ON THE ~rIORTH SIDE OF THE STREET
30. PARK AREA ALONG METROPOLII-AN (PAGE 14-22)
(PAGE 1 O of U-2008-01)
SUPPORT:
"A 0.4 ACRE PARK AREA SHALL EtE MAINTAINED ALONG THE WESTERN
PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THIE METROPOLITAN MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT."
37. GREEN BUILDING (PAGE i 4-24)
(PAGE 12 of U-2008-0 i )
LEED GUIDELINES
PROJECT TO BE BUILT TO AS HIGH A LEED GUIDELINE AS POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
"THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN LEED SILVER CERTIFICATE DESIGNATIOI
FOR THE HOTEL, OFFICE AND SEF~IOR HOUSING BUILDINGS...."
DUE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF PILANNING COMMISSIONER DAYID
KANEDA WHO HAS EXTENSIVE EXPEF'TISE IN THIS FIELD AND THE ASSURANCI
OF ARCHITECT KEN RODRIQUES WHC~ HAS RECENT EXPERIENCE IN ATTAINING
HIGH LEED CERTIFICATION IN RECEhIT PROJECTS, WE ALSO SUPPORT:
"THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO DE',31GN THE ATHLETIC CLUB AND RETAIL
BUILDINGS TO LEED CERTIFICATION STANDARDS, BUT WILL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO CERTIFY THESE BUILDINGS AS LEED CERTIFIED."
-~ ~ y
CITY OF CUF'ERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESC)LUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS CONCERNING MITIGATION MEASURES,
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MOl`1ITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES,
AND ADOPTING A STATEI`/IENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET CUPERTINO PROJECT,
FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCFi WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, the Main Street Cupertino Project ("Project") requires the City of Cupertino
("City") to approve a use permit and tentative map (file no.U-2008-01 and TM-2008-01, SCH
no.200808258); and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Res~~lution, the Planning Commission of the City of
Cupertino has certified that the Final Environmental [mpact Report ("FEIR"), for the Main Street
Cupertino Project was completed in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended, and state and local guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the project analyzed under the FEIR consists of a mixed-use retail, office,
senior housing, hotel and a sports club development on a 17.4 acre site located on the north side
of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of Wolfe Road grid west of Tantau Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for the
Main Street Cupertino Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of (:upertino. intends to approve actions related to
the Project as identified in Exhibit A, entitled "APPR:OVAL OF THE PROPOSED MAIN STREET
CUPERTINO PROJECT" attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that in connecti~~n with the approval of a project for which a
FEIR has been prepared which identifies one or morf; significant environmental effects, the
decision-making body of a responsible agency must make certain findings regarding those significant
effects on the environment identified in the FEIR; and
Model Resolution January 12, 2009
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE C]:TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO:
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed
the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein
including the written comments received on the FEIR and on the Project, prior to acting upon or
approving the Project, and has found that the FEIR represents the independent judgment and analysis
of the City of Cupertino as Lead Agency for the Project, and designates the Cupertino Director of
Community Development at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, 95014, as the custodian of
documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based; and
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby m;~ke the following findings with respect to the
significant effects on the environment of the Project a.s it is described in Exhibit A attached to this
Resolution:
A. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITA
B. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROTECT
An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternati~~es to the project, or the location of the project,
which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project. The project
applicant's objectives for the project are to:
n. Develop the underutilized 18.7-acre property at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch
Avenue into an economically viable infill, mixed-use project with retail uses, office uses,
senior housing units, a hotel, and possibly an athletic club;
B. Develop high-quality shopping, dining, and c~~mmercial area that will be community serving
while also holding regional appeal;
C. Create a "Main Street" style experience that is pedestrian oriented;
D. Implement Cupertino citywide goals as expressed in the General Plan encouraging
commercial-oriented development in the South Vallco Park area;
E. Connect well with the adjacent properties; and
F. Integrate useable open space into the project.
The decision-makers may reject the alternative if it is determined that specific considerations make
the alternative infeasible. The findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the FEIR are
described below.
1. No Project Alternatives
Description: The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a "No Project" Alternative.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Under the No Project Alternative, the project
site could continue to remain vacant and undeveloped or it could be developed with uses consistent
with the City's General Plan and zoning. Given the available development allocations in the Vallco
Park South area and the existing General Plan land u:~e designation and zoning on the site, the site
could be developed with 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 750 room hotel, and 400 senior
Model Resolution January 12, 2009
Page 3
housing units. For these reasons, there are two logical. No Project alternatives: 1) a No Project/No
Development Alternative and 2) a No ProjecdDevelopment Alternative.
Comparison to the Proposed Project:
No Project/No Development Alternative
The No ProjectlNo Development Alternative assume; that the project site would continue to remain
vacant and undeveloped. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all of the
project's impacts but would not meet any of the project objectives.
No Project/Development Alternative
The No Project/Development Alternative assumes th~it the project site would be developed with
200,000 square feet of commercial uses (of which co~.tld include an athletic club), a 750 room hotel,
and 400 senior housing units. The No Project/Development Alternative assumes no office
development on the project site.
The No Project/Development Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the
proposed project and could conceivably meet five of the six project objectives (objectives B - F), but
would not meet project objective A.
2. Reduced Scale Alternatives
Description:
Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative
The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative ass~xmes the development of 75,000 square feet of
retail uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 250 room hotel. This represents a 100 percent reduction
in proposed office and athletic club uses, and an approximately 50 percent reduction in proposed
retail uses.
The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid the project's impact to the
intersections of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Read (which would occur under both project
schemes in the AM peak hour) and Bollinger Road-1\~oorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway (which
would only occur under Scheme 1 in the PM peak hour), freeway segments on I-280, regional air
quality, and cumulative regional air quality impacts. However, this alternative would result in similar
traffic impacts at the intersections of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway and Lawrence Expressway/I-280
southbound ramps-Calvert Drive, as well as freeway segments on I-280, as the proposed project.
This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air quality, ambient noise and
construction-related noise, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project.
Since this alternative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of impact maybe
reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. In addition, if less
of the project site is disturbed, this alternative may result in lesser hydrology and water quality
impacts than the proposed project.
No Transportation Impacts Alternative
The Reduced Development/No Transportation Impa~;ts Alternative assumes 5,000 square feet of
commercial uses and 50 senior housing units are developed on the project site. The No
Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid the project's significant traffic impacts and
significant regional air quality impact. This alternati~/e would result in similar temporary
construction-related air quality, cultural resources, acid geology and soils impacts as the proposed
Model Resolution January 12, 2009
Page 4
project. Since this alternative reduces the amount of d'.evelopment on the site, the area of impact may
be reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. In addition, if
less of the project site is disturbed, this alternative ma.y result in lesser hydrology and water quality
impacts than the proposed project. Also, depending o:n the location of the uses in respect to the
surrounding land uses (e.g., existing residences to the west and roadways), this alternative may result
in lesser ambient noise and construction-related noise impacts.
Comparison to the Proposed Project:
Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative
The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative could conceivably meet five of the six project
objectives (B-F), but would not meet project objective A.
No Transportation Impacts Alternative
The No Transportation Impacts Alternative would not fully meet four of the six project objectives (A
- D) and meet the other two objectives (E and F).
Findings:
The No Project Alternatives are not environmentally superior to the project because they do not
meet all of the project objectives and are not economically feasible.
C. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Cupertino adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated
benefits of the Project.
A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts. With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition
of those facts that are included in the record, the City has determined that the Project will result
in certain significant impacts as disclosed in the FEIR prepared for this Project. The impacts
would not be reduced to a less than significant level by feasible changes or alternations to the
Project.
B. Overriding Considerations. The City Council. finds that each of the overriding
considerations set forth below constitutes a separatf~ and independent ground for fmding that the
benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an
overriding consideration warranting approval of the; Project. The City Council specifically
adopts and makes this Statement of Ovemding Considerations regarding the significant
unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. The City Council
finds that this Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant impacts on the
environment where feasible.
C. Benefits of the Project. The City Council has considered the FE1R, the public record of
proceeding on the proposed Project, and other writi:en materials presented to the City as well as
oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and does hereby determine
that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result
in the following substantial public benefits, which ~:ogether outweigh the unavoidable impacts:
Model Resolution
January 12, 2009
Page 5
• The project would create a stronger municipal tax base by increasing residential, commercial and
hotel development, promoting economic development and attracting businesses which are
particularly suitable to the area.
• The project is anticipated to provide positive annual revenues to the City of Cupertino, local
school districts and the State of California, collectively.
• The Project would promote the City's general €;oals of creating more job opportunities.
• The Project encourages "smart growth" and efficient use of land and supports the City's General
Plan policy for in-fill development within the C:ity's Urban Service Area.
• The Project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation, development parking resources,
connection to future trail system, and increase t:he City's housing supply.
• The Project will result in the construction of af~proximately 160 units of senior housing units, a
population particularly relevant to Cupertino, fifteen percent (15%) of which will be affordable.
This housing will promote the goals stated in the City's Housing Mitigation Manual, will
promote ajobs/housing balance in the City and Silicon Valley, and provide additional housing
opportunities for Valley residents. .
• The Project will result in the development of 1~D0,000 square feet of office and up to 150,000
square feet of commercial space. This new development will stimulate the local and regional
economy, and will increase the City's tax base and the jobs supply.
• The Project will improve the urban design of t}re South Vallco area in the City of Cupertino
through streetscape improvements, new park space, and the development of new public
gathering/plaza space. These improvements will improve the quality of life in East Cupertino.
Model Resolution
January 12, 2009
Page 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of Jarnzary 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Kimberly Smith
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Orrin Mahoney
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
That the City Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to significant
effects on the environment of such Project, as identified in the FEIR:
and/or Avoidance
Impact TRAM -1: The proposed project
(under either scheme), with the
implementation of the identified mitigation
measure, would result in a less than significant
impact at the intersection of Wolfe Road and
Vallco Parkway.
Impact C-TRAN -1: The project (under
either scheme), with the implementation of the
identified mitigation measure, would not result
in a significant impact at the intersection of
Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway.
MM TRAN -1.1: The proposed project
(under either scheme) shall implement one
of the two measures below to reduce impacts
at Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road to a less
than significant level:
1. Maintain the existing intersection
configuration, but install a westbound
right-turn overlap phase; OR
2. Add a second, westbound right-turn lane.
The additional turn lane could be
accommodated by re-striping the existing
westbound through lane as a shared-
through-right turn lane.
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Impact TRAN - 5: The proposed project,
with the implementation of the identified
mitigation measure, would reduce impacts to
significantly impacted freeways segments but
not to a less than significant level.
MM TRAN - 5.1: At the final design stage,
the project shall include programs or
facilities delineated in the "Immediate
Implementation Action List" of the Draft
Countywide Deficiency Plan (CDP) to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development. Measures from the list that
are appropriate for this project may include
providing pedestrian facility improvements,
bus stop improvements, HOV parking
Implementation of the
proposed mitigation.
measures would reduce
impacts to freeway segments.
However, impacts level will
remain Significant and
Unavoidable. Mitigation for
freeway impacts would
require adding lanes to
freeways, which is not
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
preference program, bike facilities, a economically feasible for one
pedestrian circulation system, and other project to implement.
Transportation Demand Management Specific economic, legal or
(TDM) measures such as providing future other considerations make
employees with transit passes at a reduced infeasible the project
rate and providing bicycle lockers and alternatives identified in the
showers for future employees. final EIR.
Impact TRAN - 6: The proposed project AM TRAN - 6.1: The project applicant Less Than Significant
(under either scheme), with the shall provide pedestrian crosswalk Impact with Mitigation
implementation of the identified measures, improvements at Finch Avenue and at the Incorporated
would not result in significant impacts to project's eastern driveway located in front of
bicycle facilities. the proposed athletic club in Scheme 1 and
adjacent to the 205,000 square foot office
building in Scheme 2. The final crosswalk
improvement plan shall be reviewed and
cl~J~IUVGIl Uy L11G VlLy ~111V1 LV 1JJl.la11VV Vl
building permits.
MM TRAN - 6.1: The existing bike lane to
be removed as part of the project shall be
relocated between the new travel lane and
the on-street parking. The new bike lane
shall be located five feet from the end of the
angled parking stalls. This relocation
requires the striping of sharrows (a sharrow
is a pavement marking or pavement legend
intended to help cyclist better position
themselves on the roadway where bike
lanes are recommended but might not be
striped for some reason) and signage
alerting motorists to the presence of
bicyclists.
and/or Avoidance
Impact TRAN - 7: The proposed narrowing
of Vallco Parkway and the addition of the on-
streetparking, with the implementation of the
identified measures, would result in a less than
significant impact to the existing bus stop at
Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road.
MM TRAN - 7.1: The applicant shall work
with VTA and the City to determine the
appropriate location of the existing bus stops
at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue
and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau
Avenue to ensure that existing bus service is
not disrupted by the project (e.g., addition of
on-street parking) along those areas. The
project shall include a 22-foot curb lane for
the existing bus stops at Stevens Creek
Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek
Boulevard/Tantau Avenue.
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
The project proponent shall coordinate with
the City and VTA on the final landscape
plans on cte:'ens ('reel{ R~,~„leyarrl alnna the
--o -
project site frontage; and coordinate with
VTA to provide bus shelters per VTA's
requirements. The bus stop at Vallco
Parkway/Perimeter Road shall be
incorporated into any designs for the
roadway.
AM TRAM - 7.2: The City and applicant
shall coordinate with Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, Caltrain, and private
employers to determine the appropriate
change in route for the Caltrain commuter
shuttle that currently uses Finch Avenue as a
turn-back along its route. It should be noted
that the route could easily be re-routed to
3
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
Wolfe Road.
Impact TRAN - 8: The proposed project MM TRAN - 8.1: When a restaurant use is Less Than Significant
(under either scheme), with the proposed on the project site, the proposed Impact with Mitigation
implementation of the identified mitigation restaurant use's tenancy shall be reviewed Incorporated
measure, would not result in inadequate by the City as follows:
parking capacity. • Up to 10 percent of the approved
commercial square footage shall be
permitted for restaurant use without City
planning staff review.
• More than 10 percent of the approved
commercial square footage for
restaurant use shall require City
planning staff review to verify that the
proposed use meets the parking
requirements outlined by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Urban
T ..«.7 T«..~: a..s,. /T TT T~ ...7......1 ..«...7 ..
L0.1111111J L1LULLi `V LlJ, of LLL'VLi1V~lLiLL 0.s
part of a parking analysis prepared by a
qualified parking consultant to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
If the review process indicates that the
proposed commercial uses exceed the
minimum parking required by the ITE, ULI,
or parking analysis, a Parking Management
Plan (PMP) shall be required. Components
of the PMP may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Provision of valet parking (either on- or
off-site);
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
• Provision of off-site employee parking
with a shuttle;
• Provision of off-site shared use with
nearby property owners during peak
parking periods; and/or
• Provision of off-site land for parking if
strategies to reduce total demand are
ineffective.
A condition of approval of the PMP may
include conducting a parking study at some
defined date (e.g., six months after full
occupancy of the commercial uses on the
project site) during evening and weekend
periods), which would include recording the
number of parked vehicles during peak time
-~- ^- --,~_ _r~,-- - -~---
~rciivu~. nGSuiw ui uic aiuuy iilay iiiggcl
additional conditions (e.g., a transportation
demand management program) be met to
continue the commercial uses [(i.e.,
restaurant use(s)] on-site.
Impact TRAN - 9: The proposed project MM TRAN - 9.1: The project shall Less Than Significant
(under either scheme), with the provide bicycle parking consistent with the Impact with Mitigation
implementation of the identified mitigation City's requirements outlined in the Incorporated
measure, would have sufficient bicycle Municipal Code 19.100, which state that the
parking. required number of Class I bicycle parking
spaces should be 40 percent of the number
of units and five percent of total automobile
parking spaces for office uses; and the
required number of Class II bicycle parking
spaces should be five percent of the total
number of automobile arking spaces for
Imnact ~ Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(sl ~ Finding ~
commercial and hotel uses. The project
proponent shall consult the VTA's Bicycle
Technical Guidelines when determining
appropriate bicycle parking siting and
design.
Impact AIR - 2: Scheme 1 would result in
significant regional air quality impacts related
to emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM,o, Scheme
2 would result in significant regional air
quality impacts related to emissions of ROG
and NOX.
Impact C-AIR -1: The project (under either
scheme) would result in a cumulative impact
on regional air quality.
MM AIR - 2.2: The project shall be
reviewed and appropriate bicycle amenities
shall be included to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. Bicycle
amenities shall include bike lane
connections throughout the project site. In
addition, off-site bicycle lane improvements
shall be considered for roadways that serve
the project site.
MM AIR - 2.3: Pedestrian sidewalks
and/or paths shall be provided throughout
the project site with convenient access to bus
stops within or adjacent to the site.
MM AIR - 2.4: The incorporation of
pedestrian signage and signalization shall be
considered, including convenient pedestrian
crossings at strategic areas with count-down
signals that would enhance pedestrian use.
MM AIR - 2.5: Office and large retail uses
on the site shall provide amenities to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use such as
showers, locker facilities, and bicycle
Implementation of the
identified mitigation measures
would reduce impacts, but not
to a less than significant level -
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact
Implementation of the
i~rntifPr~ mitirtatinn mnaciirPc
.......... ~ ............ b..... .............. ........
would reduce the project's
emissions but not to a less than
significant level -Significant
and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact
6
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
parking for employees. Bicycle parking for
retail customers shall be provided at
strategic locations.
MM AIR - 2.6: Project site employers shall
be required to. promote transit use by
providing transit information and incentives
to employees.
MM AIR - 2.7: The project applicant shall
work with the City to explore opportunities
for employers to implement measures that
would reduce vehicle travel by reducing
parking availability (such as an employee
parking cashout program).
MM AIR - 2.8: The project shall provide
outdoor electrical outlets, encourage the use
of electrical landscape maintenance
equipment, and provide 220 volt outlets in
each parking garage suitable for electrical
auto recharging.
MM AIR - 2.9: The project shall
implement "green building" designs, such as
a Leadership in Energy and Enviromnental
Design (LEED), Build it Green for
residential units, or an alternative
environmental and sustainable measurement
system/checklist, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development to
increase energy efficiency, which would
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
reduce the future energy demand caused by
the project, and therefore reduce air
pollutant emissions indirectly.
MM AIR - 2.10: The project applicant
shall create a landscape plan for the project
that ensures new trees would shade buildings
and walkways in the summer to reduce the
cooling loads on buildings.
MM AIR - 2.11: The project shall not
include wood burning fireplaces or
woodstoves in the proposed senior
residences or the hotel.
Impact AIR - 5: The proposed project (under Dust Control Less Than Significant
either scheme), with the implementation of the MM AIR _ 5.1 • The project shall Impact with Mitigation
identified mitigation measures, would not implement the following dust control Incorporated
result in significant impacts related to measures recommended by BAAQMD:
construction dust and construction equipment
exhaust. • Water all active construction areas at least
twice daily and more often during windy
periods.
• Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or
apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas.
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all
paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas and sweep streets daily
(with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is deposited onto the adjacent
roads.
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(i.e., previously-graded areas that are
inactive for 10 days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or
apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as
quickly as possible.
• Suspend construction activities that cause
~, , ~ -- ~ _a ti,._..._a ~,-,.
V151D1e uUSI ~1U111G5 lV GlitGllu UGyllllu yin.
construction site.
Construction Equipment Exhaust
MM AIR - 5.2: The proposed project shall
implement the following diesel exhaust
control measures during constnzction:
• Diesel equipment standing idle for more
than two minutes shall be turned off.
This would include trucks waiting to
deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other
bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete
trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were onsite
and located more than 200 feet from
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
residences
• Properly tune and maintain equipment for
low emissions.
• Construction equipment shall not be
staged within 200 feet of existing
residences.
• Use alternative powered construction
equipment (i.e., hybrid, compressed
natural gas, biodiesel, electric) as feasible.
• Use add-on control devices such as diesel
oxidation catalysts or particulate filters as
feasible.
• Require all contractors to use equipment
that meets California Air Resources
Board's (ARB) most recent certification
standard for off-road heavy duty diesel
engines.
Impact BIO -1: The development of the Tree Nesting Birds Less Than Significant
proposed project, with the implementation of
MM BIO-1.1:Removal of trees on the Impact with Mitigation
the identified mitigation and avoidance
project site could be scheduled between Incorporated
measures, would not result in significant September and December (inclusive) to
impacts to nesting migratory birds, loggerhead avoid the nesting season for birds and no
shrikes, burrowing owls, or raptors. additional surveys would be required.
MM BIO-1.2: If removal of the trees on-
site is planned to take place between January
and August (inclusive), apre-construction
survey for nesting birds shall be conducted
by a qualified ornithologist to identify active
nesting ra for or other bird nests that maybe
10
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
disturbed during project implementation.
Between January and April (inclusive) pre-
construction surveys shall be conducted no
more than 14 days prior to the initiation of
construction activities or tree relocation or
removal. Between May and August
(inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be
conducted no more than thirty (30) days
prior to the initiation of these activities. The
surveying ornithologist shall inspect all trees
in and immediately adjacent to the
construction area for nests. If an active
raptor nest is found in or close enough to the
construction area to be disturbed by these
activities, the ornithologist shall, in
consultation with the State of California,
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG),
designate aconstruction-free buffer zone
(tonically 250 feet) around the nest until the
end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other
birds shall be determined by the
ornithologist.
MM BIO-1.3:A report summarizing the
results of the pre-construction survey and
any designated buffer zones or protection
measures for tree nesting birds shall be
submitted to the Community Development
Director prior to the start of grading or tree
removal.
Burrowing Owls
MM BIO-1.4: Pre-construction surve s for
11
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
burrowing owls shall be conducted in
conformance with CDFG protocols, no more
than 30 days prior to the start of any ground-
disturbing activity such as clearing and
grubbing, excavation, or grading. If no
burrowing owls are located during these
surveys, no additional action would be
warranted. However, if burrowing owls are
located on or immediately adjacent to the
site, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented.
• Buffer Zones. If burrowing owls are
present during the nonbreeding season
(generally September 1 to January 31), a
150-foot buffer zone, within which no
new project-related activity will be
permissible, shall be maintained around
the occupied burrow(s). During the
breeding season (generally February 1 to
August 31), a 250-foot buffer, within
which no new project-related activity will
be permissible, will be maintained
between project activities and occupied
burrows. Owls present at burrows on the
site after February 1 will be assumed to
be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless
evidence indicates otherwise. This
protected area will remain in effect until
August 31, or at the discretion of the
CDFG and based upon monitoring
evidence, until the young owls are
foraging independently.
12
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
• If ground-disturbing activities will
directly impact occupied burrows,
eviction outside the nesting season may
be permitted pending evaluation of
eviction plans by, and receipt of formal
written approval of the relocation from
the CDFG. No burrowing owls shall be
evicted from burrows during the nesting
season (February 1 through August 31)
unless evidence indicates that nesting is
not actively occurring (e.g., because the
owls have not yet begun nesting early in
the season, or because young have
already fledged late in the season).
A report on the results of the pre-
consiruction survey(s) for burrowing owls,
including any required buffer zones or
protection measures shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director prior to
the start of grading or other ground
disturbance.
Impact BIO - 2: The proposed project, with MM BIO - 2.1: The project shall Less Than Significant
the implementation of the identified mitigation implement the recommendations outlined in Impact with Mitigation
measure, would reduce impacts to trees to a the tree report prepared by Arbor Resources Incorporated
less than significant level. in July 2008 including the following
measures:
13
and/or Avoidance
• Site plans shall be reviewed by the City
arborist to ensure tree protection and to
minimize tree impacts in conformance
with the recommendations in the tree
report by Arbor Resources in July 2008.
• Trees to be removed shall be replaced at
the following ratios per City Municipal
Code Section 14.18.185:
Tree Re lacement Ratios
Trunk Size of
Removed Tree
(measured at 4.5 Replacement Trees
feet above ade)
U to 12 inches One 24-inch box tree
Over 12 inches and Two 24-inch box
up to 18 inches trees
Over 18 inches and Two 24-inch box
up to 36 inches trees or one 36-inch
box tree
Over 36 inches One 36-inch box tree
An ISA certified arborist and/or a
member of ASCA (American Society of
Consulting Arborists) - to be named the
"project arborist" -shall be retained by
the applicant or owner to assist in
implementing and achieving compliance
with all tree protection measures.
• Prior to any demolition or site clearing
work, apre-construction meeting shall be
14
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
held on-site with the project arborist and
contractor to discuss work procedures,
protection fencing locations, limits of
grading, tree removals, staging areas,
routes of access, removal of existing
hardscape, supplemental watering,
mulching, locations for equipment
washing pits, relocation of trees, and any
other applicable tree protection measures.
• For trees to be preserved, a minimum tree
protection zone (TPZ) shall be
established. The TPZ shall be seven
times the diameter of the tree to be
preserved.
• Tree protective fencing shall be installed
around the TPZ prior to any demolition,
grading, surface scraping or heavy
equipment arriving on site. and its precise
location and placement approved by the
project arborist (in the form of a letter
submitted to the City Director of
Community Development) prior to the
issuance of any demolition, grading or
construction permit. The protective
fencing shall be comprised of six-foot
high chain link mounted on eight-foot
tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are
driven 24 inches into the ground and
spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once
established, the fencing must remain
undisturbed and be maintained throughout
construction until final inspection.
• Unless otherwise approved, all
development activities must be performed
15
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
outside the designated fenced areas and
off unpaved areas beneath the existing
tree canopies. These activities include,
but are not limited to, the following:
demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil,
trenching, equipment cleaning,
stockpiling/dumping of materials, and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
• The following shall be displayed on 8.5-
by 11-inch signs (minimum) and attached
to the tree protective fencing every 50
feet on the side facing construction
activities: "Warning -Tree Protection
Zone -this fence shall not be removed.
Violators are subject to a penalty
according to Cupertino Municipal Code."
These signs shall be posted prior to
construction.
• Removal of existing pavement beneath
canopies must be carefully performed so
no soil cuts and root/trunk damage occur
during the process. In doing so, the
hardscape surfaces shall, with a
jackhammer or pick, be broken up into
manageable sections that can be manually
lifted and loaded by hand into the bucket
of a small tractor (e.g. a Bobcat). Any
tractor or heavy equipment used during
the process must remain on pavement at
all times and off unpaved areas or
exposed soil, base rock and roots.
• Throughout construction during the
months of May thru October,
supplemental water shall be supplied to
16
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
retained trees. The specific trees,
methodology, frequency, and amounts
shall be prescribed by the project arborist.
• All equipment shall be positioned to
avoid the trunks and branches of trees.
Where a conflict arises, the project
arborist must be contacted to help address
the situation.
• The relocation of trees shall be performed
according to the standards set forth in
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) A300 (Part 6)-2005
Transplanting, and also by a company
that has an ISA certified arborist in a
supervisory role, holds a current
California state-licensed contractor's
license, carries General Liability and
Worker's C;~mnensatinn incnranre and
-r --------- -------------~ ----
abides by ANSI 2133.1-2006 (Safety
Operations).
• All tree pruning shall be performed in
accordance with the most recent ANSI
standards, and by a California state-
licensed tree service company that has an
ISA certified arborist in a supervisory
role.
• The disposal of harmful products (such as
chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that
allows drainage beneath canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the
trees' canopies; where used on site, they
shall be labeled for safe use near trees.
17
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
MM BIO - 2.2: The structural integrity of
existing trees that will be preserved and
retained on-site shall be evaluated by a
certified arborist to ensure public safety.
Impact CiTL -1: The proposed project, with MM CUL -1.1: A program of Less Than Significant
the implementation of the identified mitigation archaeological monitoring shall be adopted Impact with Mitigation
measures, would not result in significant for portions of the project site that require Incorporated
impacts to cultural resources. deep excavation for foundations and/or
underground parking facilities. Monitoring
shall be done at the discretion of a qualified
archaeologist until it is evident that
additional earthmoving will not affect either
prehistoric or historic deposits.
MM CUL -1.2: In the event of the
..~~....~.,~y .,~ ~.iuici ~.riciii~wiic ui iu~wri~
archaeological deposits, work shall be halted
within 50 feet of the discovery and a
qualified professional archaeologist shall
examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance
of the find and the appropriate mitigation.
The recommendation shall be implemented
and could include collection, recordation,
and analysis of any significant cultural
materials.
MM CiTL -1.3: In the event that human
remains and/or cultural materials are found,
all project-related construction shall cease
within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to
18
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
proceed with the testing and mitigation
measures required. Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources
Code of the State of California:
• In the event of the discovery of human
remains during construction, there shall
be no further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be
notified and shall make a determination as
to whether the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that
the remains are not subject to his
authority, he shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission who
shall attempt to identify descendants of
the deceased Native American. If no
satisfactory agreement can be reached as
to the disposition of the remains pursuant
to this State law, then the land owner
shall re-inter the human remains and
items associated with Native American
burials on the property in a location not
subject to further subsurface disturbance.
• A final report summarizing the discovery
of cultural materials shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning prior to issuance
of building permits. This report shall
contain a descri tion of the mitigation
19
litigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s)
program that was implemented and its
results, including a description of the
monitoring and testing program, a list of
the resources found, a summary of the
resources analysis methodology and
conclusion, and a description of the
disposition/curation of the resources. The
report shall verify completion of the
mitigation program to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning.
Impact GEO -1: The proposed project, with
the implementation of the identified standard
mitigation measure, would not result in
significant soil impacts related to the
undocumented fill and expansive soils on-site.
MM GEO -1,1: Buildings shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with
a final design-level geotechnical
investigation to be completed for the project
by a qualified professional. The final
design-level geotechnical investigation shall
identify the specific design features that will
be required for the project including
measures addressing clearing and site
preparation, removal, replacement, and/or
compaction of existing fill, abandoned
utilities, subgrade preparation, material for
fill, trench bacl~ill, temporary slopes and
trench excavations, surface drainage,
foundation design, and pavements.
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact GEO - 2: The proposed project, with
the implementation of the identified standard
mitigation measure, would be not result in
significant seismicity or seismic hazard
impacts.
MM GEO - 2.1: The project shall be
designed and constructed in conformance
with the Uniform Building Code guidelines
for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid or minimize
potential damage from seismic shaking and
seismic-related hazards on the site.
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
20
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
Impact HYD -1: The proposed project, with MM AYD -1.1: The project shall Less Than Significant
the implementation of the identified mitigation incorporate measures, such as berms, Impact with Mitigation
measures, would not be subject to significant modified garage ramps, and placing Incorporated
flooding or drainage impacts. residential floor elevations above flood
level, in the final design of the residential
area.
MM )3YD -1.2: The commercial area of
the project site shall be graded and designed
to accommodate the flood waters in the
parking lot and/or streets.
MM HYD -1.3: The final design of the
project site shall be reviewed by the
Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of building permits.
AM HYD -1.4: The project shall be
designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via
buried pipes) as necessary to avoid an
increase in .the one percent flood water
surface elevation of the culvert to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Impact l3YD - 2: The proposed project, with Construction Measures Less Than Significant
the implementation of the identified mitigation MM ITYD - 2.1 • The project shall comply
. Impact with Mitigation
measures, would not result in significant water with the NPDES
General Construction Incorporated
quality impacts. Activity Storm Water Permit administered
by the Regional Water Quali Control
21
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
Board. Prior to construction grading the
applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOl)
to comply with the General Permit and
prepare a Storm Water Management Plan
that includes storm water quality best
management practices (BMPs). The Storm
Water Management Plan shall detail how
runoff and associated water quality impacts
resulting from the proposed project will be
controlled and/or managed. The Plan shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works
for review and approval.
Post Construction Measures
MM HYD - 2.2: T'he project shall comply
with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit
Number CAS0299718, which provides
Pnl~anred nerfnrmanne stMndards f :r tli°
r V
management of storm water for new
development.
Prior to issuance of building and grading
permits, each phase of development shall
include provision for post-construction
structural controls in the project design in
compliance with the NPDES C.3 permit
provisions, and shall include BMPs for
reducing contamination in storm water
runoff as permanent features of the project.
The project includes the incorporation of
bioretention areas, bioswales, porous
concrete, and infiltration planters to reduce
the amount of runoff from the site. The
22
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
stormwater management plan shall be
consistent with the landscaping plan and
trees to be preserved.
The specific BMPs to be used in each phase
of development shall be determined based
on design and site-specific considerations
and will be determined prior to issuance of
building and grading permits.
MM HYD - 2.3: To protect groundwater
from pollutant loading of urban runoff,
BMPs which are primarily infiltration
devices (such as infiltration trenches and
infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum,
the following conditions:
- a viiu~ivii pr~v%i1~1Vi1 ailu JV UrV~. l+Vllu Vl
BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater;
• Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or
contribute to degradation of groundwater;
• Infiltration BMPs must be adequately
maintained;
• Vertical distance from the base of any
infiltration device to the seasonal high
groundwater mark must be at least 10
feet. In areas of highly porous soils
and/or high groundwater table, BMPs
shall be subject to a higher level of
analysis (considering potential for
pollutants such as on-site chemical use,
23
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
level of pretreatment, similar factors);
• Unless storm water is first treated by non-
infiltration means, infiltration devices
shall not be recommended for areas of
industrial or light industrial activity; areas
subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000
or greater average daily traffic trips on
main roadway or 15,000 or more average
daily traffic trips on any intersecting
roadway); automotive repair shops; car
washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck,
etc); nurseries; and other land uses and
activities considered by the City as high
threats to water quality; and
• Infiltration devices shall be located a
minimum of 100 feet horizontally from
any water supply wells.
MM I3YD - 2.4: Best Management
Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and
designed to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works in accordance with the
requirements contained in the most recent
versions of the following documents:
• City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP
Section Matrix;
• SCVURPPP "Guidance for Implementing
Storm water Regulations for New and
Redevelopment Projects;"
• NPDES Municipal Storm water
Discharge Permit issued to the City of
Cupertino by the California Regional
24
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region;
• California BMP Handbooks;
• Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association (BASMAA) "Start
at the Source" Design Guidance Manual;
• BASMAA "Using Site Design Standards
to Meet Development Standards for
Storm water Quality - A Companion
Document to Start at the Source;" and
• City of Cupertino Planning Procedures
Performance Standard.
MM HYD - 2.5: To maintain effectiveness,
all storm water treatment facilities shall
include long-term maintenance programs.
MM HYD - 2.6: The applicant, the project
arborist and landscape architect, shall work
with the City and the SCVLTRPPP to select
pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide
use, as appropriate, and the plant selection
will be reflected in the landscape plans.
Impact NOI -1: The proposed project, with MM NOI -1.1: Specific determination of Less Than Significant
the implementation of the identified mitigation noise insulation treatments necessary shall Impact with Mitigation
measures, would not result in significant be completed on a unit-by-unit basis during Incorporated
interior noise impacts to the hotel use. detailed project design of the hotel. A
design-level noise assessment of the final
site plan shall be completed for the project
by a qualified acoustical consultant. Results
25
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
of the design-level noise assessment,
including the description of the necessary
noise control treatments, shall be submitted
to the City along with the building plans and
approved prior to issuance of a building
permit.
MM NOI -1.2: Building sound insulation
requirements shall include the provision of
forced-air mechanical ventilation for the
hotel so that windows could be kept closed
at the occupant's discretion to control noise.
MM NOI -1.3: Special building
techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows) may
be required to maintain interior noise levels
at or below acceptable levels. These
treatments shall include, but are not limited
to, sound rated windows and doors, sound
rated wall constructions, acoustical caulking,
protected ventilation openings, etc.
Preliminary calculations indicate that hotel
rooms nearest Stevens Creek Boulevard
would require sound rated windows and
doors with ratings ranging from STC 26-28
to achieve the 45 dBA DNL indoor standard
Impact NOI - 2: Construction of the MM NOI - 2.1: Pursuant to the Municipal Less Than Significant
proposed project (under either scheme), with Code (Section 10.48.053), noise-generating Impact with Mitigation
the implementation of the identified mitigation activities shall be restricted at the Incorporated
measures, would not result in significant short- construction site to daytime hours only.
term construction-related noise impacts. Construction within 750 feet of residences
shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays,
26
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
holidays.
MM NOI - 2.2: All construction equipment
shall conform to the following standards: 1)
no individual device produces a noise level
more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or
2) the noise level on any nearby property
does not exceed eighty dBA (Cupertino
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053).
MM NOI - 2.3: Equip all internal
combustion engine driven equipment with
intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
MM NOI - 2.4: Unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines is prohibited.
MM NOI - 2.5: Stationary noise generating
equipment such as air compressors or
portable power generators shall be located as
far as possible from sensitive receptors.
Temporary noise barriers shall be
constructed to screen stationary noise
generating equipment when located near
adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary
noise barriers could reduce construction
noise levels by five dBA.
MM NOI - 2.6: "Quiet" air compressors
and other station noise sources shall be
27
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
utilized by contractors where technology
exists.
MM NOI - 2.7: Route all construction
traffic to and from the project site via
designated truck routes where possible.
Prohibit construction related heavy truck
traffic in residential areas where feasible.
MM NOI - 2.8: Noise from construction
workers' radios shall be controlled to a point
that it is not audible at existing residences
bordering the project site.
MM NOI - 2.9: The contractor shall
prepare and submit to the City for approval a
detailed construction plan identifying the
schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities.
MM NOI - 2.10: Notify all adjacent
businesses, residences, and other noise-
sensitive land uses of the construction
schedule in writing.
MM NOI - 2.11: A "disturbance
coordinator" who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about
construction noise shall be designated by the
28
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
project applicant. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and will require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the
problem be implemented. The telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator shall
be conspicuously posted at the construction
site and included in notices sent to neighbors
regarding the construction schedule.
MM NOI - 2.12: If pile driving is required,
multiple-pile drivers shall be considered to
expedite construction. Although noise levels
generated by multiple pile drivers would be
higher than the noise generated by a single
pile driver, the total duration of pile driving
activities would be reduced.
MM NOI - 2.13: If pile driving is required,
foundation pile holes shall be pre-drilled to
minimize the number of impacts required to
seat the pile. Pre-drilling foundation pile
holes are a standard construction noise
control technique. Pre-drilling reduces the
number of blows required to seat the pile.
MM NOI - 2.14: If pile driving is required,
shroud the impact hammer with noise
control blanket barriers.
Impact NOI - 3: The proposed project, with MM NOI - 3.1: Project-level acoustical Less Than Significant
the im lementation of the identified mitigation anal ses shall be com leted where stationary Im act with Miti ation
29
Im act Miti ation and/or Avoidance Measures Findin
measures, would not result in significant noise noise sources are located adjacent to existing Incorporated
impacts between the proposed uses on the site. or proposed noise-sensitive land uses (e.g.,
residential uses). Exterior noise levels at
residential land uses in the vicinity shall be
maintained in accordance with the standards
presented in the City's Municipal Code.
MM NOI - 3.2: Cleaning activities in
parking lots/garages shall be limited to
daytime hours only (8 AM to 8 PM on
weekdays and 9 AM to 6 PM on weekends)
consistent with the City's Community Noise
Ordinance 10.48.
MM NOI - 3.3: Trash compactors and
dumpsters shall be located away from
adjacent residential receivers or shielded
with noise barriers or other enclosures.
MM NOI - 3.4: Commercial deliveries or
pickups shall be prohibited between the
hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM weekdays
(Monday through Friday) and 6:00 PM and
9:00 AM on weekends (Saturday and
Sunday) and holidays (Cupertino Municipal
Code 10.48.062).
Source: City of Cupertino. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Main Street Cupertino Project. January 2009.
30