CC Resolution No. 13-082 Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Apple Campus 2RESOLUTION NO. 13 -082
F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT; AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: EA-2011 -12
Applicant: Apple Inc. (Dart hisen w-tt
Property Owner: Apple hic.
Location: Area bouu -ided by East Homestead. Road, North Tantau Avenue, I-280, North
Wolfe Road and includes properties located on the east side of North Tantau
Avenue
APN s : 316 -07-044, 316-07-045, 316-07-0461 316- -045, 16--06 --046, 316-06 -053, 316-06 -
0 2, 316 - 06-048, 316 -06 -033, 316-06-0517 316 -06 -050, 316 -06 -049, 316-09-028,
316-09-019,316-09-027,,316-18-033t 316-18-012,316-18-0251 316-18-027,316-18-
026, 316 -06 -039, 316 -06 -038
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, Apple Inc. ("Apple"') submitted an application to the City of Cupertino on August
9, 2011 for General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, a Development' Agreement, a
estmng Tentative Map, a Conditional Use Permit, a Plat -ied Development Permit, a Tree
Removal Permit, an Architectural Site Approval, and nvirom- rental review for the Apple
Campus 2 Project ("Project"), which will also involve Prua -teri l e .Avenue Vacation and
associated agreements, a Land Transfer Agreement, Utility Relocation and Easement
Agreements, and a Streamside Modification Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Project consists of demolition of all existing structures witl -iu-, the proj
Resolution Igo. 13 -082 EA-2011-12 October 1, 2013
Page
WHEREAS, the N E was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the
public for a total of 47 days, from August 19, 2011 through October 5, 2011, during which time
the City held a public scoping meeting on September 8, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012, .Apple applied to the Governor for certification of the Project as a
Leadership Project subject to streamImi ed environmerital review pursuant to the Jobs and
Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership .Act of 2011 ("AB 900""), California
Public Resources rces Code Section 21178 et se l.; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2012, Apple entered into an agreement with the it that, as required
by Public Resources Code Section 21183, all mitigation measures for the Project shall be
conditions of approval and those conditions will be fully enforceable; and
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board certified. on June 14, 2012 that the Project would
not result in any net additional greenhouse gas emissions relative to baseline conditions, and ft-t
June 2012, the Governor certified the Project as an eligible Project under AB 900 and on July 23,
2012, the Joint Legislative Committee concurred with the Governor's certification; and
WHEREAS, Apple supplemented its application for streamlh -Led environmental review under
AB 900 in .April 2013, and on May 24, 2013, the Governor's Office of Plai -ig and Research
fund the supplemental application consistent with apple's original application; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2013, the Draft EIT for the Project was distributed to the public for
review and comment for a -day period that ended. July 22, 2013; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review and comment period, the Responses to
Comments Document was prepared, which responds to the written comments on the Draft EIR
that were received, during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Responses to Comments Document was issued on Septel ber 23, 2013 ; and
WHEREAS, the City received continents f olio trig the close of the public review and coinment
period on the Draft EII and, although pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 1091 d 1
and CEQA Guidelines Section 10a written responses are not required, responses have been
provided with staff reports; and
WHEREAS, the F11-1al Enviro=ental Impact Report "Final EII " , consisth-ig of the Draft EII ,
the Response to Conunents Document, and all documents incorporated. theremi ,eras presented
to the Planning Commission on October 1, 2013 at a Joint Planning Commission and City
Council Studer Session; and
WHEREAS, prior to making arty recommendations regarding the Project, the Planning
Commission held a duty noticed public hearing to receive public testimony and reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EI , along with all staff reports pertami ng to
the Project, all other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received by the
Planning Coimnission prior to or at the public hear fthg on the Project and the Final FIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public bearing and voted -0 -1
(1-recusal)to recommend that the City Cotmcil approve Findings Revision #1 (October 1, 2013)
to adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS-23 (Alternate), as amended to delete the penalty
Resolution No. 13 -082 EA-2011-12 October 15, 2013
'age -3
provisions, to allow three left tuna lanes out of the project driveway on to N. Wolfe Load, a
Resolution Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of
Fildmngs and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adoption of Mitigation Measures, and
adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ffi substantially similar form to the
Resolution, as amended (Resolution. no. 6727); Approve the General Plan Amendment, GPA-
2 11. -03, h-i substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6728);
Approve the Zoning Map Amendment, Z-2011-03, substantially similar form to flie
Resolution presented Resolution no. 6729); Approve the vesting Tentative Map, TI T- 2011 - 3, h-1
substantially sin-dlar forin to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6732) ; Approve the
Development Permit, DP-2011-04, Use Perinit, U- 2011-11, Architectural and Site Approval,
A-2011-1 and Tree Removal Permit, TR- 2011 -39, in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented Resolution. no. 6731); and. Approve the Development Agreement, DA-
2011-01, in substantially similar Form to the Resolution presented Resolution no, 6730); and
WHEREAS, Supplemental Text Revisions, Apple Campus 2 Project Finial Environmental Impact
Report, which is part of the Fit -Lal EIR, identifies a third alternative mitigation measure for
Impact TRANS -23, a third alternative mitigation measure for Impact TRANS-27, and discloses
recent amendments to Chapter 6.5 of Division 13 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR;
as well as the following concurrent Project applications: amendments to the General Plan to
allow a change in the land use designation of a 1..1. acre area from Parrs and Open Space to
Industrial /Residential, a change to figure 2 -G to reflect the relocation of Glender n Barn,
changes to various figures to reflect the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue, amendments to the text
-. Policy 2-35, a change to the setback ratio for N. Tantau .Avenue, and other minor related
amendments to Figures and tables, an amendment to the Zonh -ig Map to change the zoning
designation of a 1.1 acre area from Part and Recreation PR to Planned h- idustrial Park P(MP ),
Vesting 'Tentative Map, Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural arc -td Site Approval for
Phase I of the Project, Tree Removal Permit, and street ar -id easement vacations and a
Development Agreement.
STOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testhnony, staff reports, public
om ents, and other evidence submitted i i this matter, the City Council does:
1. Certify that the Final EIS. for the Project has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sect., and.
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
2. Adopt the Fixidh -igs and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, attached
hereto as "Exhibit FA -1," and incorporated hereixl, by reference.
3. .Adopt and make conditions of approval of the Project all of the mitigation measures for the
Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are iden- tified in the
Findings.
Resolution Igo. 1 -082 EA-2011-12 October 1, 2013
Page -
4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoririg and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto as
"'Exhibit A--2," and h-teorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an Adjourned Regular Meeting the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 15th day of October 2013, by the following roll call Grote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
Mahoney, Wong, Chang and Santoro
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
ROTS:
Sinks
ATTEST:
Grace Schmidt f Q•— J"7
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Orrin Mahoney
Mayor, City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT EA -1
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEItATIQNS FOR THE
APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT
1, INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act E A ,Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project (State Clearbaghouse No.
2011082055) (Final EIR). The F al EII is a project -level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the
Guideffi- .es for implementation of the California Environmental Quality .Act (State CEQA
Guidelines).' The Fifial EIR consists of the June 2013 Public Review Draft Apple Campus 2
Project Environmental Impact Deport Draft EIR), the September 2013 Response to
Comments Document, and the October 2013 Supplemental Text Revisions, Apple Campus 2
Project Final Environmental Impact Deport.
Ea determin.il-Ig to approve the Apple Ca -inpus 2 Project (Project), which is described in more
detail h -L Section II, below, the City snakes and adopts the following findui lgs of fact and
statement of overriding considerations, and adopts and makes conditions of project
approval the mitigation measures Identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial
evidence hl the whole record, of this proceed7ng (adlylimistrative record). Pursuant to Section
15090(a) of the State CE QA Guidelines, the Ffi-tal EIR was presented to the City, and the City
reviewed and considered the information contain -ied in the Final EIR prior to making the
.fig -idings in Sections II tluough XIV, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are
based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As fuller described h-i Section III of the Draft EIR, the Project involves the consolidation of
several parcels, demolition of existffig buildings, and redevelopment of the project site into a
new research and development campus for Apple Inc. (Apple or project sponsor). The site
currently is developed with corporate campus buildings, some of hich are behig used by
Apple and some of which were formerly used by Hewlett Packard. . The campus woul d be
secure and self - contained and would include office, research and development space,
parking, employee amenities, a Corporate Auditorium, and a Central Plant. In addition, the
Project Ulvolves vacating and closhig a segment of the Pr ,neri.dge Avenue public right-of-
way, including certain access and public service easements, 'to allow for the development of
a secure and uu-iifxed campus. As past of the Project, Apple would, alter local roadways in the
vicinity of the site in order to acconu- nodate fficreased traffic generated by fl-.e Project. The
'The state CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.
Project would result i-n the demolition of all e istir -ig structures withhi the project site
(consisting of approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space) and construction of
3,420,000 square feet of office, research, ar -id development uses; 245,000 square feet of
auditorium, fitness center, and parking reception uses; 92,000 square feet of utility plan -its;
and parkitag and ancillary buildings (such as security reception areas m-id landscape
maintenance buildings). The buildings would be designed to be energy efficient and to use
renewable energy, much of which would be produced on-site.
Apple applied to the Governor for certification of the Project as a Leadership Project
pursuant to the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Enviro:nmental Leadership Act of
2011 (AB 900), California Public Resources Code Section 21178 etseq. Among other things,
AB 900 requires that the Project "creates high -wage, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing
wages and living wages" and that the Project "does not result i-ri any net additional
emissions of greeiihcuse gases." As required by public Resources Code section 21183(d),
Apple has entered into a binding and enforceable agreement with the City that all
mitigation measures for the project shall be conditions of approval and those conditions will
be fully enforceable.
The California Air Resources Board certified on Jw-ie 14, 2012 that the Project would not
result in any net additional greenhouse gas emissions n compared to baseline conditions. In
June 2012, the Governor certified the Leadersl -ip Project as are eligible Project under AB 900.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee concurred with the Governor's certification on July
231 2012. Apple supplermented its application w -ider AB 900 in April 2013, and on May 24,
2013, the Governor's Office of Plying and Research fund the supplemental application to
be consistent with Apple's original application. As set forth in Section. III of the Draft EI ,
the ah-i objective of the Project is to redevelop the project site with a new, ur -tified, M-1d.
secure Apple campus. Section III lists the City's objectives and the project sponsor's
objectives for development of the project site, The it "s project objectives are as follows:
• Encourage the retention of Apple's corporate headquarters in Cupertino within a world
class corporate campus.
Allow for the expansion of .Apple's operations while e1 -d- .amcir -Ig the physical
environment of the project area al-id being sensitive to cozx unit r needs.
• Allow for the location and design of phase 2 of the Project in a way that is sensitive to
surroua-id.ir -tg neighborhoods.
• Preserve the City's existing and plarmed part space.
Preserve and enha -rice the historic integrity of Glender uig Darn and provide for Its
adaptive reuse and relocation.
• Protect the riparian zone around Calaba as Creek.
•
Ei-diance e viro=ental features within the project area, iricludirig stormwater quality
ithh -L the City storm drain system ea-id re ewfi -ig water bodies.
T -2r
• Maintain consistency with u.pertino's 000 -2020 General Plan, aaad further General Ilan
goals and strategies for economic development, neighborhood connectivity, and urban
conservation.
• Provide comaections and enhance wall abilit r bil e ability between the project site and
sorrow -iding areas, while prornoth -ig the mobility of Apple employees and the public
throughout the vallco Industrial Park and the greater region.
• Improve traffic circuiation., traffic volumes and level of service (LOS) through a
combfilatron of consolidation of office locations and. additional T M measures.
• Increase the use of landscaph -ig compared to paved park g and thereby erdiance the
urbaxi environment, reduce impervious surfaces, and reduce storm water runoff.
• Retain and improve bile and pedestrian comiectivit r between the project site and
surrounding areas,
• Avoid additional fiscal impacts to the City from the Project by cost reimbursement and
the collection of fees covering the City's actual costs.
• Encourage public art placed locations visible to the public.
• Increase City revenues from the Project in order to enhance the City"s City" general fund.
The project sponsor's project objectives are as follows:
Primary Objectives:
Create an innovative and beautiful campus near Apple's Infinite Loop f acifity that
consolidates many of Apples engineers and support personnel in a skigle distinctive
office, research and development building, and supporting facilities. The purpose of
consolidation is to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur ft- ention of the
next several generations of Apple pr ucts.
Achieve the security and privacy required for the invention of new products by
eliminating any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against
un utl -.ori ed persons.
Secondary Objectives:
Maximize green space, and design this space m accordance with the cur ate and history
of the area.
• Provide on, -site amenities for Apple's employees in order to promote employees" health
and well-being and reduce off-campus travel.
Provide an on -site venue for the introduction of Apple's new products that will generate
surprise and delight, and enable the products to be int oduced at Apple's corporate
home.
I-
• Create a physically unified campus community that improves internal circulation and
elimffiates uraiecessary access port -its by consolidating the existing properties within one
campus.
• Create a campus plan that incorporates flexibility to respond to Apple's fixture business
needs.
• Achieve a net zero energy development by constructing energy-efficient buildirigs W -td
generatifig a significant unount of the calnpu.s' energy from on -site renewable sources,
and developing partnerships with renewable energy providers for grid - purchased
renewable energy.
• Miiu4mi e use of potable water through the use of drought- tolerant l and scaping, water-
efficient icient fixtures, and recycled water, if available as a result of projects now under
consideration, and improve runoff quality by increasing permeable surfaces.
• Enable a commuting culture inhere thoughtful site plarning and regional com- tectivity
coupled with a robust TDM Program prioritize transit and active commute modes.
• Improve traffic circulation while avoiding measures that would unduly restrict
employment growth within the project site.
• Exceed economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals through integrated
design and development.
• Enhance the ity's tax base.
• Create a campus that reflects Apple's business and design practices, and alloys for a
long -term presence in Cupertino.
111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
On August 19, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR. The
IM P was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for a
total of 47 days, from August 19, 2011 through October 5,, 2011, durmi g which t=* e the City
held a public scopirig rneeth -ig on September 8, 2011. Public notices for the scoping session
were mailed to approximately 20,000 households in Cupertino, advertisements were placed
in local newspapers, and the City posted the N P and hearing notice on the City's website.
Notices were also sent to households in Santa Clara and Sul- nyal.e within Soo feet of the
project site. Comments on the N P were received by the City and considered during
preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review on June 6, 2013, and distributed to local,
regional, and State responsible and trustee agencies, and to federal agencies. Paper and CD
copies of the Draft EIR were available at the City of Cupertino Community Development
Depaitment, and an electronic version of the Draft EIR and all appendices were posted on
the City's website, which included an electronic coi=ent portal to receive public comment
hours a day, seven days a ire. Under AB 900, the City was also required to post the
I-
Draft EIS. and all admh- tistrative record documents on the City's website. Public Resources
Code §§ 21186(b)-(f). The City continues to final e these documents available on its website
for the Project at the following URL: http: ww.eu rt* .org/h -i ex -as x ?page =l1 .
Notice of availability of the Draft EIR was made in several ways. The City sent a postcard
=punch -Lg the availability of the Draft EIR to all mailing addresses within Cupertino and
to mailh -fig addresses within 1,000 feet of the project site. In addition, in accordance with
EQA, the City mailed the Notice of Availability NO to all properties adjacent to the
project site, and on -site notices were also posted on each parcel constituting the project site
and at City Hall. Me N A was also posted on the City's mah-i website and the project
website. The City sent emails providing notice of the Draft II 's availability to all persons
who had Mndicated an i iterest in the Project. A press release was sent out at the sane tine.
The City also passed out over one hundred of free USB drives that contained the Draft EIR
and all tecl- z -iical appendices.
In addition to the City of upertino's public review, notification and coiyLment process, and
as referenced in City staff reports, the City is info=ed that Apple has engaged in a
community outreach process for Apple Campus 2 over the past two years. As part of these
efforts, the City understands that Apple held more than 150 outreach meetings and
presentations with over 2,000 stakeholders; conducted personal outreach with its humediate
neighbors, local residents, neighborhood leaders, surrounding property owners, community
organizations, businesses, goven rent agencies, and other stakeholders in Cupertino and
throughout the region; delivered regular email updates to more than 2,000 interested
residents; visited over 350 Cupertino retailers and nearby businesses to share information
about the new campus; and responded to more than 1,000 questions and requests for
information about the new campus. The -day comment period on the Draft EIR ended on
July 22, 2013. A.genci.es, organizations, and members of the public submitted written
colnl ents on the Draft EII . The City also held a public rneeffi-fig during the comment period
on June 26, 2013. At that meeting, the City solicited comments real tine via web login,
written response card, mail, email, tent or recorded lntervi.ew. The City has also distributed
hundreds of Quick Response coded cards to the conununity to efficiently conu ent on the
Project. Section 3 of the Responses to Comments Document provides responses to the
conu ents received during the comment period on the Draft EI .
The Responses to Comments Document was issued for public review on September 23,
2013. On October 2, 2013, the City Plannh -fig oi=ission, at a duly noticed public hearing,
recommended that the City o -umcil certify the Final EIT .
The findifigs, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth below
(the "'F ndffig " ) are made and adopted by the Cupertino City Council as the City's fh-1 ungs
under CE QA and the CE QA Guidelines relating to the Project. The Fh -0ngs provide the
written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Projeces environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to -the Project, and the overriding considerations
I-
that support approval of the Project despite any remahuing environmental effects it may
have.
IV. FINDINGS
These fh -tdings summari ze the environmental determinations of the Fh-i I FIR about project
impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each
environmental i1 pa t contained in the Fft -ial EIR, Instead, these findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified n-1 the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified i-n the Final EIR, and state the City's
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's. determffiations
regardifig mitigation measures and the project's impacts.
In adopting mitigation measures below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. cordn -lgly, in the event a mitigation measure
identified h-t the Ffi -tal EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these f - Id.ings, such
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval in the
findffigs below by reference. In addition, ffi the event the language of a mitigation measure
set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure .in the Final EIR due to
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 these findil -igs,
Sections V through V111, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR
identifies as either significant and, unavoidable or less than significant with adopted
mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V, SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AN
DISPOSITION of RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING IN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Fig-al EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the approval of the Project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a
less - than - significant level., tlixough implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Fh -ial EIR. Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). In addition, the City ar .ot require adoption
or implementation of mitigation measures for some impacts, because they are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Pub. Res our es Code § 21081 a ) (2).
Therefore, as explained below, some impacts will remain significant and unavoidable
notwithstanding adoption of feasible mitigation measures. To the extent that these
mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the envixon vent,
I-
and because the City cannot require mitigation measures that are within the responsibility
and Jurisdiction of other public agencies to be adopted or i- mplemented by those agencies, it
is hereby determined that any remarnh -tg significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are
acceptable for the reasons specified in Section XIv, below. Pub. Resources Code
21081(a)(3). As explained Mn Section X, below, the findings Mn tl-is Section v are based on
the Fir -Lal EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated 1*111 full by this
reference.
A. Impact PLAN -2: The proposed project would not fully implement
some policies in the Land Use/Community Design Element of the
General plan related to the provision of bike and pedestrian access
due to the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue, resulting in an
environmental impact.
The Final EIR finds that the Project will cause the loss of bicycle and pedestrian access on
r rur- .erid.ge Avenue due the vacation of the street, resulting H-t the loss of connectivity across
the project site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PLAN-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -
than- significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to mfinimize
the potential for impacts on bicycle and pedestrlai networks. Even though alternative
routes are available, the project will result in the loss of a bicycle and pedestrian connector
that is not being replaced and some impacts would still occur. `Wherefore, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure PLAN-2:
The project sponsor shall implement the following measures to the satisfaction of fl-te City:
Fund, constrict, and, where necessary, provide dedications of meal property (fticluding
costs for plmu -.ing, design, construction au. -.d maintenance, all bike, pedestrian,
landscaping, and sidewalk improvements fi-i the public right -of -moray along all properties
bounded by East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, vallco Parkway, and North
Wolfe Road. In locations where the huprovei ents are adjacent to property with past
project approvals, the design details shall be consistent with all other improvements
approved by the City.
A coordinated wayfinding s i.er e shall be introduced along the entire alternate east-
west loop (North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, vallco Parkway, and North
Tantau. Avenue). Wa rfir -iding signage shall be designed to orient visitors and residents,
pointing them to area attractions, retail areas, pedestrian and bicycle access routes, and
other important destinations. Signs shall also be designed to direct those on Poet or on
1-7
bike to the safest bicycle and pedestrian routes, as Well as other bicycle and pedestrian
amenities.
Enhanced bike lanes, pedestrian paths, fencing, guard rails if feasible), and pedestrian -
scaled lighting shall be installed along the North Wolfe Road bridge over I -O.
Other bicycle and pedestrian amenities, such as high visibility crosswalks, "yield to
pedestrians" signag , leadh -tg pedestrian intervals at signali
Mitigation Measure LAN- -:
The project sponsor shall implement the following measures to the satisfaction of the City,
as illustrated. h-i Figure IV-3 of the Draft EIS.;
a. -id, and construct to the satisfaction of the City a pedestrian/bike alternate creek
trail e tendn' ' from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and Calabazas Creek,
south to Vallco Parkway, r, on both sides of North Tantau Avenue, and then west
along the north side of Vallco Parkway to the intersection of Calaba as Creek. This
funding shall account for plannhig, design, collaboration with other agencies, and
construction and r aixiten.ance of the alternate trail route. The trail shall include a
comb h ation of the f ollowir -ig features that reference Calabazas Creel:
0 ignage along the route including both a.yfinding ,Laps and information on
creep habitat and ecology;
• Appropriate plantir -.gs that mimic creep -side habitats and provide a lit -,ear
reference point between the creek-side portions of the trail and the trail detour
(wherever possible);
• Special pedestrian scaled lighting;
• Rest areas or picnic tables at trail 7ntearsecti ns along North Tantau Avenue and
Vallco Parkway, as .feasible, to highlight the route`s recreational nature while also
not di inishi g its role as a transportation route;
i Additional recreational amenities such as water fountains and trash receptacles;
• Appropriate pavement tTeatrnents that reference the creep and/or water; and
0 Decorative fencir,.g ardor guard grails on North Tantau Avenue along the bridge
over Calabazas Creek and the bridge over IR2 and, where the creek meets
Vallco Parkway, that reference the creep and strengthen the linear connection
between the creep and the trail detour.
b. Partially fwi.d, In the sure of $250,000, a study of a fall Class I separated trail, where
rights-of-way are adequate, along the dray age chw el that rmis parallel to
southbound I -280 between North De Ana Boulevard and Ca.laba as Creek, and then
south along the western bank of Calaba, as Creek to Vallco Parkway. The stud
would only assess the feasibility of such a trail in the general area. If the City
determines such a trail is feasible and determines to carry out the project, the trail
would be subject to further environr ental review and subsequent approvals. The
potential future trail would, connect to the project-related bicycle lane improvements
on North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway. The east -west connection would be
publicly - accessible and would be used for c r nuti��g and recreation.
I-
Impact PLAN-5: The proposed project would not fully imp le a .t
several provisions of the Circulation Element of the General. Plan
related to the provision of trails and the provision of bike and
pedestrian access, and these conflicts would result in an
environmental impact.
The Fi1nal EIR finds that the Project would not fully support all of the elements in Policy 4-3
of the Circulation Element of the General Plan due to the vacation of a portion of Pr ieridge
Avenue and the inability to construct a pedestrian ai -id bicycle trail along Calabazas Creek.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PLAN-5, set forth below, l -dch is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-
than-significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to reduce
the impact to bicycle and pedestrian circulation, but some impacts could still occur.
`Wherefore, tl-ds impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure PLAN-5:
Implement Mitigation atioxn l easu.res PLAN -2 and PLAN-3.
Impact PLAN-6: The proposed project would not fully implement
provisions of the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element
of the General Plan related to the provision of trails and the
provision of bike and pedestrian access, and these conflicts would
result in an environmental impact.
The Fix -ial EIR finds that the Project would result in signifi aznt adverse envirom nental effects
related to the diminishment of public bicycle and pede trim -L access along Calabazas Creek,
which will not fully implement provisions of the Environmental Resources u,stainabilit
Eleinent of the General Plan,
Implementation o Mitigation Measure PLAN-6, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -
thm- t- signific ant level. TI-ds TI-d mitigation measure would provide for specific r ra ys to Mai -li i e
janpacts to bicycle and pedestrian access, but some impacts could still occur. therefore, this
iinpact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure PLAN-6:
h nplement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3.
I -i
E. Impact L -1: The proposed project would not be fully consistent
with applicable lard use plans and policies adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating are environmental effect.
rIhe Faunal EIR finds that the Project would not fully implement ent policies in the General Plan
related to the development of parks and open space, the provision of trails, the provision of
bicycle and pedestrian access, and the protection of a historic resource if not appropriately
relocated and proof {voce.
hnpler entation of Mitigation Measure LU-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less- that -t -
significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific wars to minimize e the
impacts related to the loss of the Parks and Open Space designation within the site and the
relocation of the Glenderu rig Barn, to a less - than, - significant level. However, impacts
related to the closure of a portion of Pruneridge Avenue witf -i the project site and the lack
of provision of a segment of the Calaba as Creek trail would remah -i. Therefore, tl -ds impact
would remant significant and w- iavoidable.
Mitigation Measure LU-1
h element Mitigation Measures PLAN -1, PLAN-2, PLAN-3, a1id CULT-1.
F. Impact TRANS-1: Under Existing plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #21
Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps to operate at an unacceptable
level (change from LOS B to LOS E during the AM peak hour based
on City of Cupertino LOS standards.
The Fir -iai EIR finds -that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound R -irtp
during the AM peak hour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, set forth befog, would reduce these
impacts to ar'i acceptable level. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 is hereby adopted. As a
condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS -1, including seeping approval from Caltrans, and, x.f approved, shall
implement Mitigation Measure "BRANS -1. If successfully implemented, tl -ds mitigation
measure would provide for specific ways to r iiirni e the potential for impacts on existing
traffic conditions. However, because the off -ramp M' tersection is Lmder the jurisdiction of
Caltrans, which can and should adopt and ilnplemen.t Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, the
City of up rth -t care -tot ensure the implementation . of N itigation Measure TRANS -1 and
the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
1-11
Mitigation Measure TRANS 1,
As part of the project, the project sponsor would construct an additional westbound nd lane at
intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps to provide for dual left -tun-i and dual
right -tum lanes. With the additional lane, the filtersection would operate at acceptable LOS
(17.1 seconds) durmng the AM pear hour.
G. Impact TRANS-3: Under ]existing plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #3
Stevens Creek Boulevard /Calvert Drive/1-280 Ramps (west) to
operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D to Lo F
during the BM pear lour based, on CMP guideline,
The Final EIR filds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at intersection. #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard /Calvert
Drive/1-280 Rapp (west) during the PM pear lour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure ure TRANS - , set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 TRANS-3 is hereby adopted. As
a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall difigentl r pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-3. including seeking approval from Caltrans and the City of Santa Clara,
and, if approves, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-3. If implemented
successfully, this mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to ininililIze the
potential for impacts on existing traffic conditions. However, this intersection is a C.MP
intersection and is located within the City of Santa Clay ;a and is also iLmder the jurisdiction of
altrans. Both the City of Santa Clara and Caltrans can and should adopt Mitigation
Measure TRANS-3. Therefore, the City cant-iot ensure the iirrple entation of Mitigation
.
Measure ure TRANS-3 and the impact is considered significant a-nd unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3:
At intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard /Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west), the project
sponsor shall construct an exclusive eastbound right -turn, lane (for a total of three through
lanes and one right -tum lane) and provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. This
would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+. To accommodate the added
lane the existing buffer between the roadway and sidewalk would, need to be eliminated
and the sidewalk pushed closer to the existing Fence on the south side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. This instigation measure would also require relocation of an existing streetlight,
fire hydrant, and utility pole. The project sponsor would-be required to coordinate with the
City of Santa Mara and Caltrans to construct the identified physical improvement at the
Stevens Creep Boulevard /Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramp (rest) intersection.
1-1z
H. Impact TRANS-5: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #21
Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound ramps to operate at an unacceptable
level (change from LOS B to LOS E ) during the AM peak hour based
on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
The Final. EIR finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound I amps
during the AI peak hour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-5, set forth below, would reduce ties
impacts to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 TRANS-5 is hereby adopted. As
a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-5, including seeking approval from Caltrans, and, if approved, shall
implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-5. If implemented successfully, this mitigation
measure would provide for specific ways to ininiLmize the potential for impacts on existing
traffic conditions. However, the ff -ramp intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans,
which can and should adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS-5. Therefore, the City of Cupertino
cannot ensure the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS - and the impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-5:
TRANS-5: At ii -iterse tion #21 Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps, the project sponsor
shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 (provide dual left- and right -turn lanes on
the off-ramp), wl-d h would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS B (18.0
seconds).
T. Impact TRANS- 9: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable
operations of intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert
Drive/1-280 Ramps (merest) during the BM peak hour based on CMP
guidelines.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at it -Lterse tion #36 Stevens Creel- Boulevard /Calvert
Drive/1-280 Ramps (west) during the PM peak hour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -9a, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to an acceptable level. Mitigation Measure TRAITS -9a is hereby adopted. As a
condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-9a, hi.eludi_ng seeping approval fr rn Caltrans and the City of Santa Clara.,
and, if approved., shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-9a. If successfully
I -1
n pler. ented, this Rdtigation measure would provide for specific ways to 1 inimi e the
potential for impacts on existing traffic conditions. However, because the intersection is
under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City of Santa Clara, which can and should adopt
and implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-9a, the City of Cupertino carmot ensure the
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS --9a, The impact is therefore considered
significant and unavoidable.
In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures TI AN R9b, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but
not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b would provide for
specific ways to sir =e the potential for impacts on e isthag traffic conditions, but some
impacts could still. occur. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS-9a.
At intersection x36 Stevens Creep Boulevard /Calvert rive/1 -280 Ramps (west), the project
sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRAMS -- (add exclusive eastbound right -tun-i
lane), which would improve intersection operations to 112.2 seconds LOS F). However; the
Stevens Creek Boulevard /Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west) intersection would continue to
operate unacceptably. Pr vidm* g a chary -teli ed free right -turn lane with a third eastbound
receiving lane on the col -a- .ector link between Stevens Creep Boulevard and Lawrence
Expressway, for a distance of approximately 1,250 .feet including a pedestrian - actuated
traffic signal -to allow for protected pedestrian crossings to the pedestrian refuge island,
would improve intersection operations to LOS + with 38.6 seconds of delay.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-9b:
The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact per
the TDM Program Expansion subsection. lncreasiing the TDM participation and associated
alternative mode share froin 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS
(142.8 seconds) without implementation of TRANS-3; however it would not reduce the
impact to a less- than-significant level. A robust monitoring program is identified M the
TIM Program Expansion subsection and shall be required to ensure t%at this TDM program
mitigation measure is implemented and that the required trip reduction is achieved. Details
of the TDM program are set forth in the TDM Program Expansion subsection on pages 441-
447 and Figure VI -11 of the Draft EII .
I -1
J. Impact TRANS- 10: Under Background. plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause operations of
intersection #40 Stevens Creed Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (east) to operate at an nac eptabl level (change from LOS
to LOS during the AM peak your based on CMP guidelines,
The Fixial ETR Finds that the project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operatYng conditions at intersection x40 Stevens Creek Boulevard Lawrence
Expressway Ramps (east) durla-tg the AM peak hour due to it -tcreased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-10, set forte below, would reduce these
impacts to a less - than- sxgnlflca-rit level. Mitigation Measure TRANS -10 is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS -10, including seekh -ig approval from the City of Santa Clara, w-td, if
approved, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-10. If successfully implemented,
this mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to mm* iml e the potential for
impacts on exlstia -ig traffic conditions. However, this intersection is a CMP intersection
located wltl- n the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clara, which can and should adopt and
implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-10. Therefore, the City caainot ensure
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-10 and the impact is considered signiflcai 'it
and unavoidable,
Mitigation Measure TRANS -10:
At intersection x#40 Stevens Creek Boulevard Lawrence Expressway (east) the project
sponsor shall construct a northbound left -turn lai. -te (for a total of two exclusive left - .rn
lanes, one shared left-turn/through lame, and shared throug /right-turi-t lane) from
northbound Lawrence Expressway to westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This mitigation
would improve niter ection operations to LOS D (49.7 seconds). This n provement is
physically feasible; however, it would require the construction of a reta -ting gall and
modifications to the eastbound approach to accon nodate the additional left -turn la ie. The
project sponsor would be required to coordinate with VT. , City of Santa Clara, and other
responsible agencies to construct the identified physical improvement at the Stevens Creek
Boulevard /Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) intersection.
1-15
K. Impact TRANS -11: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause operations of
intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Southbound Ramps to
operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS E to LOS F ) during
the PM peak hour based. on CMP guidelines.
The Final EIR fft-ids that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280
Southbound Ramps during the PM peak lour due to h -i rea ed congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -11, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less -than- sign- .ificant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-11 is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS -11, including seeking approval from Caltrans and the County of Santa
Clara, and, if approved, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -11. If successfully
implemented, this mitigation measure would provide for specific -mays to min .1mi e the
potential for impacts on existing traffic conditions. This intersection is a CMP intersection on
a County expressway and portions are likely within Caltrans right-of-way. Both the County
and Caltrans can and should adopt and implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-11. The
project sponsor would be required to coordinate with VTA, the County of Santa Clara, and
other responsible agencies to construct the identified physical .improvement at the Lawrence
Expressway/1-280 Ramps intersection. Because this intersection is outside of the City of
upertino's Jurisdiction, the City cal -u -tot ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure
TL AI S-11 and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS -11 would require widening the e isting bridge that crosses the
creed running parallel to the vest side of Lawrence Expressway. The widening would cause
secondary impacts to the creek. Potential secondary impacts to the creek associated with
widening the existing bridge as a traffic mitigation measure are addressed in Draft Eil
Section V.D. Biological Resources. Mitigation Measures B10-1 and I - , adopted in Section
DTI below, would reduce these secondary impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-11:
At intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Southbound Ramps, the project sponsor
shall construct an exclusive eastbound through lane (for a total of one shared left -
turn tl -ir ugh lane, one -trough lane, and one right -turn lane), which would hnprove
intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+ (56:9 seconds). The mitigation measure would
require the construction of a new retau4 m' Ag wall along 1-280, since Calvert Road would need
to be curved to properly align with two receivh -tg lanes at the on -ramp. There is e isting
right -of -moray to acconu n.odate this mitigation. measure.
1-16
L. Impact TRANS-13: Un der Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #8 De
Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard to operate at an
unacceptable level (change from LOS E+ to Lo E ) during the PM
eat hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds,
The Final E1R. finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
Lmacceptable operating conditions at intersection #8 De Anna Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard during the PM peak hour due to h-t reased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-13a, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less- than- sigrdfl ant level. However, this improvement is not physically
.feasible, because widening the roadway to accommodate the southbound right - trirn lame
would impact an .d.ergro -id garage I elongir -tg to the office development on the
northwest comer of the fie Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection. For this
reason, Mitigation Measure TRANS-13a is hereby rejected.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-13b and TRANS-13c, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and made conditions of project approval, would reduce these
impacts, but not to a less than significant level..
Because Mitigation Measure TRANS-13a is infeasible and implementation of Mitigation
Measures TRANS-13b and TRANS-13c would not reduce the un a t to a less than
significant level, the impact at the De Anza Boulevard /Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection
is considered significant and -iavoidable.
Mi gation Measure TRANS-13a:
At intersection #8 fie .Ana Boulevard/Stevens Creep Boulevard, the provision of a-t
exclusive southbound right -turn lane (for a total of two left -turn lanes, four through lanes,
and one right-turn lane) and adj stir -ig the signal - tunings to accommodate the added turn
lane would improve intersection operations to acceptable levels at LOS + with 58.9 seconds
of average delay. However, this improvement is physically not feasible, since the widening
of the roadway to accoiTanodate the southbound right-tum lane would impact an
ndergrour-id garage belonging to the office development on the northwest comer of the De
Anna Boulevard/Stevens Creep Boulevard intersection; therefore the impact at fl-te fie Ana
Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRAMS -13h:
The project sponsor shall expand the TD1 I program to reduce the severity of the impact.
Increasing the TI M participation and associated alternative mode share from 28 percent to
1-17
4 percent would improve operations to LOS E (62.1 seconds); however, the increase in
TI M participation would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-13c:
The project sponsor shall provide a $50,000 fair -share contribution towards the
implementation of a traffic-adaptive traffic signal system along e Anna Boulevard between
Homestead Road and Rainbow Drive. Irnplementation of an adaptive traffic signal system
will improve Ultersection operations; however, it will not reduce the impact to a less -than-
significant level.
A Impact TRANS-14. Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #21
Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps to operate at an unacceptable
level (change from LOS B to Lo E) during the AM peak hour base.
on City of Cup ertino L 0 S impact thresholds.
The Final EIR fh-ids that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
uuia cepta le operating conditions at intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps
during the Alin peak hour due to increased, congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-14, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-14 is hereby adopted..
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Nfitigation
Measure TRANS-14, including seeping approval from altrans, and, if approved, shall
implement ent Mitigation Measure TRANS-14. If successfully implemented, this mitigation
measure would provide for specific ways to m=' ' ni e the potential for impacts on existing
traffic conditions. However, because the intersection is under the jurisdiction of altrai -is,
which can and should adopt and implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-14, the City of
Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-14 nd the
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-14:
At batersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps, the project sponsor shall
implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 (provide dual left- and right-turn lanes), which
would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS (18.1 seconds).
I -i
N, Impact TRANS -19 Under Cumulative plus Project C n iti nsY
completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable
operations of intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert
Drive/I-280 Ramps (merest) during the PM peak hour based on CMP
guidelines.
The Final PAR finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at ii- .tersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert
Drive/I-280 Ramps (west) d.u.ri g the PM peals hour due to i -icr as d congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure re TRANS -19a, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS -19a is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRAITS -19a, including seeking approval from altrans a-lid. the City of Santa Clara,
and, if approved, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-19a. These Mitigation
measures would provide for specific ways to n1 i-iimi e the potential for impacts on existing
traffic conditions. However, there are right-of-way constrain -its that make Mitigation
Measure TRANS-19a infeasible. Additionally, this intersection is w thm* the responsibility
and jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clara, which can and should implement Mitigation
Measure TRANS-19a if the right -of -way constraints can be addressed. The City has no
responsibility or jurisdiction over the implementation of - Mitigation Me TRANS- 19 a
and cannot ensure its implementation. entation. Therefore, the impact is considered significant an
unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-19b, set forth below, which is hereby
adopted and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a
less than significant level. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and miavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-19a:
Potential physical improvements as mitigation measures for intersection. #36 Stevens Creek
Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1-280 Ramps are discussed ru-ider Mitigation Measure TRANS-9
(add two exclusive eastbound right - tarn. lanes). However, there are right-of-way constraints
that render this mitigation measure infeasible. Additionally, this intersection is w1thin the
City of Santa Clara, and the City has no control over the implementation of the mitigation
measure; therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoldable. The project
sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRAMS -9a (add free eastbound right-turn
lane), which would improve kites {seati.on operations to LOS D (41.5 seconds). This
improvement would reduce the impact to a less - than- significant revel. However {, because
this intersection is rider City of Santa Clara and Caltrans jurisdiction, the City cm -snot
guarantee that the improvement would be constructed and the Impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
1-19
Mitigation Measure TRANS -19b:
The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact
(Mitigation Measure TRANS-9a). . Increasing the TI M participation and associated
alternative node share from 28 percent to 34 percent would Improve operations to LOS F
(145.8 seconds) without h plementati n of Mitigation Measure TRANS -9a; however the
increase in T M participation would not reduce the impact to a less -than- significant level.
o. Impact TRANS-20: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause operations of
intersection #40 Stevens Creek Boulevard /Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (east) to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS I
to LOS F during the AM peak hour based on CMP guidelines.
The Final EII finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable op rath -ig conditions at intersection #40 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence
Expressway Ramp (east) during the AM peak hour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-20, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TI AI S- 0 is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-20, including seeping approval from the City of Santa Clara, and, if
approved, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-20. If successfully implemented,
this mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to m��imI e potential for impacts
acts
on existing traffic conditions. However, this intersection is located ithh-i the jurisdiction of
the City of Santa Clara, which can and should adopt and implement Mitigation Measure
TRANS-20. The City of Cupert itno therefore cannot guarantee implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRANS-20 w -id the impact is considered significant and w-t voidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-20:
For intersection #40 Stevens Creels oulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east), the
project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-10 add exclusive northbound
left -turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to LOS D- (52.3 seconds).
1-20
P. Impact TRANS -21: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause operations of
intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Southbound Ramps to
operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS E to LOS F ) during
the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines.
The Filial EIR finds that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/I-280
Southboun -ld Ramps during the PM peak hour due to increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-21, set fonth below, would reduce these
h- pa is to a less - than- significm-it level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-21 is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-21
1 0 - tcluding seeking approval. from the County f Santa Clara, and, if
approved, shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -21. If successfully implemented,
this mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to minimize the potential for
impacts on existing traffic conditions. This intersection is a CMP intersection located within
the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara, wl-dch can -td should adopt and implement
Mitigation Measure TRANS-21. The City of Cupertino therefore al-Lnot ensure the
unplement tion of Mitigation Measure 'BRANS -21 and the impact is considered significant
and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-21:
For i'Lterse tion #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Ramps, the project sponsor shall
implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -11 (add exclusive eastbound through. lane), whIch
would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+ (58.3 seconds).
Q. Impact TRANS-22o, Completion of the proposed project would add
substantial amounts of traffic to the twenty -nine nixed flow
segments and three HOV freeway segments operating at LOS Fr
below,
• 1-280, Southbound, El Monte to Magdalena
0 1 -280, Northbound, SR 85 to Foothill Expressway
ia I -280, Southbound, Foothill Expressway to SR 8
ID 1 -280, Southbound, SR 85 to Ede Ana Boulevard
1=280, Southbound, De Anna Boulevard to Wolfe Road
0 1 -280, Northbound, Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road
0 I -280, Southbound, Wolf e Road to Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creel
Boulevard.
• 1 -280, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway /Stevens Creel
Boulevard
I -21
• 1-280, Southbound, Lawrence r r St n Creek Boulevard to Saratoga.
Avenue
• I -280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue
• I -280, Northbound, Winchester Blvd. to I -880
• 1-280, Southbound, Winchester Blvd to 1-880
• 1-280, Northbound, 1 - o to Meridian Ave
• 1-280, Southbound, I -880 to Meridian Ave
• I -280, Northbound, Meridian Ave to Bird Ave
• 1-280, Southbound, Meridian Ave to Bird. Ave
! 1-280, Northbound, Bird Ave to SR 87
• I -280, Southbound, Bird Ave to 7
0 1-280, Northbound, SR 87 to loth. St
• I -280, Southbound, SR 87 to 10th St
• I -280, Northbound, lost to McLaughlin
• 1 -280, Llov, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway
0 I =280, HOV, Southbound, Winchester Blvd to 1-880
• I -280, HOV, Southbound, 1-880 to Meridian Avenue
SR 85, Northbound., Winchester Boulevard to SIB 17 + HOV
• SR 85, Northbound, ound, Saratoga Avenue to Winchester Blvd
• SIB 85, Southbound, SR 17 to Bascom. Avenue
• SR 85, Northbound, SR 17 to Bascom Avenue + HOV
• SR 85, Southbound., Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue
• STS 85, Northbound, Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue
• . 85, Northbound, Union Avenue to Camden Avenue
• I -880, Southbound, Bascom Avenue to Steven Creek Boulevard
The Fit -Lal EIR finds that the Project could impact these freeway segments under the Existing
Plus Project Conditions based m CW guidelkies. The Draft EIR identified that the Project
could have a significant and unavoidable impact on the level of service of freeway
segments because the project would contribute greater than 1% additional traffic to 10
mixed d flo r segments and one HOV freeway se.gment operating at LOS F. Additional study
of freeway segments was conducted following con unents received on the Draft FIR, which
refined this impact to include additional freeway segments. The percentage traffic increase
from project traffic R`I the newly identified segments would not exceed the percentage traffic
increase from project traffic identified the previously impacted segments. As a result, the
i-r tensit ' of the impact has not nicreased. In addition., the newly identified segments h�clude
segments that are more distant from the project site and thus the project contributes fewer
new trips to these newly identified segments. Therefore, there is no new significant impact
or substantial increase in the severity of this significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-22, set forth below would reduce these
impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation. Measure TRANS-22 is hereby
adopted. As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue
I -22
Mitigation Measure TRANS -22, including seeking approval from VTA, and, if approved,
shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -22. if successfully implemented, this
mitigation ineasure would provide for specific ways to milifi i e the potential for i np acts
on existil -ig traffic conditions, but sol e impacts could still occur. Additionally, it is wild ely
that the Express Dane or BRT project would be implemented prior to project completion and
that these ii provements would reduce the impact to a less - than- sigi -tifica-rit level. In
addition, Mitigation Measure TRAITS -22 is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
VTA, which can and should adopt and implement Mitigation Measure TRAITS -22. The City
of Cupertino therefore cannot ensure hnplementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -22 ar -id
the 11,11pact to the freeway segments is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-22:
The project sponsor shall pay a $1,292,215 fair share contribution towards planned
transportation projects that would improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway
segments and provide added transportation capacity ort parallel facilities: 1 SR 85 Express
Lane project (converting the e istil -tg HOV lane to a toll lane to allow single occupant
vehicles to drive in the HOV lane for a fee ) between Mountah -i view and San Jose; 2
elimmiating the existing bottleneck on southbound 1-280 between BX Monte Avenue and
Magdelena Avenue; and either the Bus Rapid Transit BRT stations proposed. within
Cupertino, or an alternative improvement ent or study towards the improvement of the
impacted 1 -280 corridor or a parallel corridor that would provide capacity relief for the 1-280
corridor or a parallel corridor that would provide capacity. The fair share contribution
amount was calculated ki consultation with VTA staff based on the project's contribution to
project growth on the impacted freeway segment.
R. Impact TRANS -25: As p art of the prof ect, the prof ect sponsor would
widen the northbound 1-280 of f -ramp at Wolfe Road to accommodate
two lanes and reduce excessive queue s ill a k onto the freeway. If
Capra s does not approve this improvement, excessive queue
s ill ack would occur (City of Cupertino).
The FM* al EIR f h-ids that the project could exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operating conditions at the northbound I -280 off -rat p at Wolfe Road, due to
increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-25, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less- than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-25 is hereby adopted..
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-25, hIcludiig seeking approval from Caltrans, and, if approved, shall
l.j.uplement Mitigation Measure TRANS-25. If successfully implemented, this mitigation
measure would provide for specific ways to .minimize the potential for i1-npacts on ex th-q
traffic conditions. However, the off-ramp is under the jurisdiction of Cal.trans, which can
T -23
and should implement and adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS-25. Therefore, the City of
Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-25 and the
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS-25:
The project sponsor shall widen the northbound 1-280 off -ramp at Wolfe Road to
accommodate two lanes. The project sponsor would need to work with City staff, VTA, and
Caltrans to plan, design and construct the widenir -tg with all fum -iding provided by the
project sponsor.
S. Impact TRANS-26: As part of the project, the project sponsor would
widen the southbound 1-280 off -ramp at Wolfe Road to
accommodate two lames and reduce excessive queue spillbacl onto
the freeway. If Caltran.s does not approve this improvement,
excessive queue spillback would occur (City of Cupertino).
The Fijaal EIR finds that the project could exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause
unacceptable operaftg conditions at the southbound 1-280 off -rainp at Wolfe Road due to
increased. congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-26, set forth below, would reduce these
impacts to a less - than -- significant lever. Mitigation Measure TRANS -26 is hereby adopted.
As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue Mitigation
Measure TRANS-26, including see mng approval from Caltrans, and, if approved, shall
implement Mitigation. Measure TRANS -26, If successfully implemented, this mitigation
measure would provide for specific ways to mir ni the potential for impacts on existii -tg
traffic conditions. However, because the off -ramp is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans,
which can and should adopt and h plement Litigation Measure TRANS -26, the City of
Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of Mitigation Leasure TRANS-26 and the
impact is considered siglufic nt and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-26:
The project sponsor shall widen the southbound I -280 off -ramp at Wolfe Road to
ccomin d to two lai -tes. The project sponsor would need to word with City staff, VTA, and
altrans to plan, design, and construct the widening with all funding provided by the
project sponsor, Widening of the freeway off -ramp to accommodate a second off -ramp lane
and shoulder would likely require the removal of e isth -ig landscaping ft-i front of the
soundwali.
I -24
T. Impact TRANS-28: The provision of two northbound inbound right-
turn lames and six lanes on the east leg of the Wolfe I o d/prof ect
Access intersection with the associated high traffic volumes would
interfere with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas
(City of Cupertino).
The Fh -tal EIR finds that the Project would interfere with pedestrian. accessibility to the site
and adjoining areas (City of Cupert -h-t due to high traffic volumes and the addition of
vehicle laries.
Implementation entation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-28, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-
than-significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to mfiuimize
the potential for impacts on the ped stria-ri environment near the site and adjoinifig areas,
but some impacts could, still occur. Therefore, this impact would rem am' significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-28:
To lessen the impact the project sponsor shall Mnstall a "'Yield to Iced s" sign that is activated
by a pedestrian push button. Additionally, the project shall install a high visibility crosswalk
i.e., with ladder striping at the east leg of the Wolfe Road/Project Access .intersection to
help male the crosswalk more pr mffient. These treatments would lessen the impact, but
would not nriitigate the hupact to a less - hal -.-significant level, as pedestrian access would still
be impeded.
Impact TRANS-29: The increased traffic volume at the 1-280 ramps
with Wolfe Road would create a challenging condition for
pedestrians that currently does not exist City of Cupertino).
The Final EIR finds that the Project would interfere with pedestrian accessibility near the I-
280 ramps and Wolfe Road (City of Cupertino).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TI ANN- 9, set fonth below, would reduce these
impacts, but not to a less- tl-ia-ii- signif i.ca-i-Lt level. Mitigation Measure TRANS -29 is hereby
adopted. As a condition of project approval, the project sponsor shall diligently pursue
Mitigation Measure TRANS -29, inclu.d.ing seeping approval from Caltrarts, and, if approved,
shall implement Mitigation Measure TT AN -29. If successfully Implemented, this
mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to inla- i i e the potential for impacts to
pedestrian accessibility near the vicinity of the Project, but would not mitigate t1le impact to
a less - than - significant level., as the increased vel-dc lar volum -es would still exist. Further,
the feasibility of this mitigation measure cannot be assured as the on- r i p is under the
jurisdiction of Caltraris, which can and should adopt and implement Mitigation tion Measure
i -2
TRANS-29. Therefore, the City of Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRANS-29 and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-29:
To enhance the pedestrian environment and lessen the pedestrian impact at the six 1-280
ramps with Wolfe Road, the project sponsor shall provide erffianced crosswalks at all ramp
crosswalks. Additionafly, for the 1-280 southbound loop on- ramp, the project sponsor shall
design, construct, and fund the following to improve the sight distance to an industry
standard of 20 feet for a 35 mph roadway include:
• Replacing e isth -ig fence on overcrossing with one that has better transparency;
0 Trimming and maintani -ing vegetation on northwest corner of the Wolfe Road/1-280
southbound loop on- ramp;
0 Redesigning the ramp to move the crosswalk further north; and
Adding a pavement legend to indicate pedestrian crossh -tg.
V, Impact TRANS-31. The proposed closure of I ru.neridge Avenue
between Wolfe Road and Tanta. Avenue would have significant
impacts on pedestrian access because it would reduce accessibility
for pedestrians and eliminate existing pedestrian facilities (City of
Cupertino.
The Final EIR fMnds that the Project would have significant impacts on pedestrian access due
to a reduction in accessibility near the project site and the elil� illation of select pedestrian
facilities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure sur TRANS-31, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-
than-significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to mm' ini e
the potential for impacts to pedestrian access and pedestrian facilities, but because the
lhminati n of some pedestrian facilities would still occur, some impacts would remain.
Therefore, this impact would remair-I significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-31:
Implement Mitigation Measures PLAT -2 and PLAN-3. The multi -use paths and the
pedestrian improvements proposed as part of the project would lessen the impact, but
would not mitigate the Uylpact to a less- thart- significant level as the elimh- Cation of existing
pedestrian facilities ruld still occur.
i -2
W. Impact TRANS-32: The proposed closure of Pruneridge avenue
between Wolfe Road and Tanta u. Avenue would have significant
impacts on bicycle access because it would reduce accessibility for
bicyclists and eliminates existing bicycle fac *lines (City of
Cupertino).
The Final EIR fM ds that the Project would have significant ii pacts on bicycle access due to
a reduction in accessibility near the project site and the ehmm* ation of select bicycle facilities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-32, set forth below, w, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these ftnpacts, but not to a less -
than- significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific wars to minimize
the potential for significant impacts to bicycle access and bicycle facilities, but because the
elimination of ex ist. -r.g bicycle facilities would still occur, some impacts would remain 'I.
Therefore, this impact would. re .ah-t significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-32:
uplernent Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3. The multi -use pates and bicycle
improve. meats proposed as wart of the project would lessen the impact, but would not
mitigate the impact to a less - than- signlflc nt level as the elimination of e istilig bicycle
facilities would still occur
X. Impact TRANS-33: The proposed closure of Pruneridge Avenue and
associated reroute of Route 81 to v l.lco Parkway would sign if .tl
reduce transit access for The Hamptons residents (City of
Cupertino),
The Final EIR finds that the Project would significantly reduce tray -.sit access for The
amptons residents daze to an associated rerouting of Route 81 upon the closure of
Pruneridge Avenue.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to restore trax -tsit access to Route 81 for The
amptons residents, therefore the impact is considered significant and Unavoidable.
Y. Impact TRANS-34: The proposed closure of Pruneridge Avenue
between. Wolfe Road and Ta tau Avenue would have significant
impacts on access to The Harnptons for those with destinations east
of Tanta. Avenue (City of Cupertino),
The Final EIR finds that the Project would have significant impacts on access to The
an ptons for those with destinations east of T ntau Avenue daze to the closure of
Pnmeridge Avenue.
1,27
Inaplementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-34, set forth below, which is reby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -
than- si.g .ificalit level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to p i e
the potential for impacts to access for those with destinations east of Tantau. Avenue, but
some hnpacts could still occur, Therefore, this h p ct would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-34:
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less - than- s7ornifica t level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-32 would lessen the impact, but not to a
less - than- signific ant level.
Z. Impact AIR -1 Construction of the proposed project would generate
air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards.
The F l EIR finds that the Project would generate pollutant emissions due to construction.
Implementation entatio of Mitigation Measure Arlo -1, set forth below, hid-1 is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-
significant level.. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to rnirtirTU'Lze the
potential for impacts to air quality due to the construction of the Project, however, the Final
EIR. finds that air quality thresholds of significance would still be exceeded even after
i plementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Therefore, this impact would re ai -I
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AIR -1:
Consistent with guidance from the BAAQ M, the folio wig actions shall he required are
relevant construction contracts and specifications for the project:
• All exposed surfaces e.g., parking areas, stagii -ig areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall he covered..
• All visible mud or dirt tracked. -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
vet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
0 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mfles per hour inph .
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to he paved shall he completed as soon as
possible. u.ildh -Lg pads shall he laid as soon as possible after gradh. -ig unless seeding or
soil hinders are used.
I -28
• Construction equipment idling times shall be minuni ed either by shutting equipment
off when not in use or reduchig the maximum idling time to rr m* utes as required by
the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCRI). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintah -ted and properly tuned ii-i accordance with
the manuf acturer"s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and d.etermfi -ied to be rur ng in proper condition prior to operation.
• The project applicm -it shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and
person to contact at the City of Cuperth -io regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond to complaints and tale corrective action rithh -i 48 hours. The AAQM 's
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to mahitain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or a moisture
probe.
• All excavation, gradhig, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average
wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• vegetative ground cover e.g., fast - germinating native grass seed) or other plants that
offer dust mitigation measures shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible
and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground -d,i tu.rbh -tg
construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. To the extent
feasible, activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one
time.
• All trucks and equipment, hicludffig the tires, shall be washed off p��lor to 1.eavi��g e
site.
• Sandbags or other, erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
• Use lour volatile organic compound i.e.,1 coatings beyond the local requirements
i.e., Regulation 8, rule : Architectural oaten* gs .
• To the maxirnurn extent feasible, all construction equipinent, diesel trucks, and
generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission
reductions of N x and PM.
• To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors shall use equipment that in.eets ARB's
most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
• Excluding the followffig equipment, ensure that all diesel-powered off-road equipment
used on -site meets U.S. EP A "Tier 2" exhaust emission standards, and that en es are
equipped with California AR "Level 3 verified. Diesel Emission. Control Strategies ",
1-
(which include diesel particulate filters) or are certified to meet the U.S. EPA "Tier
Interim" standard for particulate natter emissions. Equipment that will feet U.S. EPA
"Tier " exhaust emission standards but will not be equipped with California "Level
Verified Diesel Emission Control. Strategy" shall be limited t:
o Scrapers 6G
o Scrapers 633E
Four of the sic proposed Scrapers 657G
Ensure that trucks used at the site to haul material and/or soil are model year 2007 or
newer or meet equivalent U.S. EPA ernission standards).
• Require all aerial and persoi-,nel lifts less than 50 horsepower to be fueled with natural
gas or propane.
A.A.. Impact AIR-2: operation of the proposed project would generate air
pollutant emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD criteria and
ould substantially contribute to a violation of air quality standards.
The Final EIR finds that operation of the Project would generate pollutant emissions that
would exceed BAAQMD significance criteria and may substantially contribute to a violation
of air quality standards.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, set forth below, wl -tich is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-
significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to nh -iH' e the
potential for air quahty impacts due to the operation of the Project; however, some impact
may still occur. Therefore, this impact would remain sigi- ificant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2:
AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b (which requires Apple to expand its T M
Prograin and increase the reduction in pear hour trips from 28 percent to 34 percent).
BB. Impact All =: Construction and operation of the proposed project
would result in a significant cumulative net increase in criteria
pollutant emis io s.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would result ii-i a significant cumulative net increase in
criteria pollutant emissions due to the construction and operations of the Project.
Implementation~ of Mitigation Measure AID. -3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a conditions of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -than-
significant level. This mitigation measure would provide for specific ways to irdnimi e the
potential for alT quality impacts due to construction and operation of the Project; however,
X-
some impacts may still occur. TI -terefore, this impact would remain significant and
unavoida le.
Mitigation Measure AIR-3:
Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR -2.
.
CC. Impact S -: The proposed project would contribute to a shortage
of park facilities f or C it r residents and would preclude the
development of an open space trail through, the project site.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would contribute to a shortage of park facilities for City
resides -tts by precluding the development of an open space trap through the project site.
Implementation entation of Mitigation, Measure PSU- , set forth below, w i -t is hereby adopted -nd
made a condition of project approval, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less- that -L-
ignificant level. This mitigation measure mould provide for specific wars to minimize the
potential for impacts to the availability of future facilities for City residents; however,
impacts cold still occur. Therefore, this it pact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation. Measure P - ;
Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN -1 and PLAN -3.
VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR
THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY
MITIGATION MEASURES MADE COIVDITiONS OF PROJECT
APPROVAL
The Final EII identifies the following significant Unpacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby detearmil -1 d that the impacts addressed by these initigation. measures will be
mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by making these instigation measures
conditions of project approval. Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(1).) As explamied R01 Section
X, below, the find gs in this Section are based on the Final EIR, flie discussion and analysis
in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. Impact PLAN -T: The proposed project would charge the designation of a
1.1 -acre portion of the site designed Parks and open Space, and would
reduce the acreage of land desi
Implementation. of Mitigation Measure LAI -1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less- than,-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure FLAT -1:
The project sponsor shall implement one of the foilowitig options:
. Provide sufficient funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of property by the City for
future park development; or
b. Agree to purchase (unless other property currently owned by Apple is proposed),
designate, and dedicate to the City 1.1 acres elsewhere R'l the City as Parks and
Open Space, subject to the satisf action of the City, provided the land would be
publicly accessible.
Impact PLAN -4: The proposed project would not be consistent with
the identification of the Glendenning Barn as a Historic Site in the
General Plan.
The Final EIR fit ds that the Project would not be consistent with the identification of the
Glendenning Barn as a Historic Site in the General flan.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PLAN -4, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approv 1, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure PLAN-4:
Implement Mitigation Measure �C TIT-1-
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project may result in the destruction or
abandonment of rests occupied by special- status or non-special-
status bird species that are protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result i1-i the destruction or abandonment of nests
occupied by bird species that are protected, under the Migratory Bird Treater Act and Fish
and Game Code due to the construction and operation of the Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI O-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval., would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
I-
Mitigation Measure B10=1:
A. qualified biologist shall conduct surveys prior to tree pruning, tree removal,
transplantation, ground disturbing activities, or construction activities on the site to locate
active nests ontalnin g either viable eggs or o -tg birds. Pre onstru Lion surveys are not
required for tree removal, tree pruning, or construction activiti
Main Building and North Ta tau Structures
6 From outside most buil,di�gs, glass often appears highly reflective, reproducing habitat
and appearing attractive to some birds. To limit reftectivity reflectivity and prevent exterior glass
from attracting birds, the project shall ut' ' e low-reflectivity glass percent reflectivity,
ercent ultra-violet transmittance). . This low-reflectivity glass shall be used f or the
entirety of the building's glass surface (not just the lover levels nearest trees where bird
collisions may be the most common ) to provide additional avian safety.
• The Main Building shall include 10-foot-wide awnings at each story or a similar feature
to create "visual noise"' by covering i- nd.ows and muting it .age reflections.
• All indoor potted plants shall be placed away froin the glass perimeter so that birds do
not attempt to fly into the vegetation.
0 All roof rnechataical equipment shall be covered by low - profile angled roo.fir -.g so that
obstacles to bird flight are m1 imi ed.
Interior light "pollution"' shall be reduced during evening hours through the use of a
lighffi-ig control system..
Main Parking Structure and North Tan au Parking Structures
• The above -grade part it -ig structures shall be designed with open -air facades. No glass
shall be utilized so birds can access open through- passages.
Corporate AuditoriunilCorporate Fitness Center
To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting birds, the project shall
utilize low-reflectivity glass percent reflectivity, 0 percent ultra -- violet transmittance).
terioar light "pollution." shall be reduced during evening hours through the use of a
lighting control system.
• The Corporate Fitness Center skull iriclud.e - foot -vide awnings r a similar feature) to
create "visual noise,"' by covering windows and inutu -.g image reflections
B. Impact B10-3: The proposed project would result in the removal al o
trees that are protected under the City of Cupearti o's Tree Protection
Ordinance, and could thus conflict with a local policy or ordinance
protecting; biological resources.
The Fh -ial EIR fhads that the project could conflict with a local policy which protects
biological resources due to the removal of trees that are protected under the City's Tree
Protection Ordinance.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI - , set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
jade a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
1-34
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure B10-3:
Replacement/compensation of all protected trees shall be undertaken in accordal. -tce with the
review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project and City
Municipal Code requirements, prior to the initiation of construction. Recommendations
noted within the review of tl-,e Consolidated Arborist Deport for the Apple Campus
Project, as modified by the adjustments to response to the review of the Consolidated
Arborist Deport per EIR Plan revision and a review of the trees recommended for transplant
at the Apple Campus 2 Project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Coimnunity
Development ent ]fir {ector. Protected trees that are damaged or removed durin construction or
roadway improvements shall be subject to replacement /compensation according to the
City's tree protection ordinance. However, replacement for removed trees subject to the
City's Protected Tree Ordinance shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 14.18
of the Protected Tree Ordinal-ice. Trees that have been identified as beir -.g suitable for
transplantation shall be relocated in accordance with the Free Transplant Schedule
approved by the Community Development Director.
F, Impact CULT -1: The project would relocate the Glendenning Barn, a
designated Historic Site under the City of Cupertino General Flan
and a historical resource under CEQA.
The Final EIR finds -that the Project would cause the relocation of Glendentiffig Barn, a
designated Historic Site under the City's General Plan.
Implementation of either Mitigation pleasure CULT-la or Mitigation Measure LILT -1b,
depending on whether Apple elects to relocate the barn on-site on off -site, as set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce
this. impact to less -t . . -t- significant levels.
Mitigation Measure CULT -la on -site relocation;
The Glendennh -ig Barn shall be relocated to one of t he following two sites within the Apple
Campus 2 project site, subject to the approval of the City: 1 to the northeast of the
Corporate Fitness Center, south of East Homestead Road or at the proposed eastern
termination of Prue. -teri lge Avenue, near The Hamptons. The barn shall not be relocated to
the second potential relocation site identified by Apple, to the west of the Central Plant, near
the southwestem property line of the project site. This site is unacceptable to the City
because it would be difficult to allow for the barn to be visible from a public right -of -way.
The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant
adverse changes to the resource are fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures. The followbig stipulations shall apply to the barn's on-site
i-
relocation:
0 The following character- defining architectural elements of the barn shall be substantially
visible from a public right -of -way, per the discretion of City staff: 1 size /scale of barn; 2)
board and batten siding includhig windows, if possible); and rooflm* e.
0 The new site for the Glendenning Barn shall include open space and/or land that can be
converted to such use. The amount of open space shall be sufficient to reference the
area's historic agricultural roots.
0 The Glendem -ung Barn shall be relocated by a qualified structure- moving company with
experience moving historic buildh -tgs.
• Relocation of the Gl ndem -iing Bang shall be overseen by a qualifi.ed historical architect.
The architect shall ensure that the barn retains its significant character-- definh -ig features
at its new location, including its form, proportion, structure, plain, style, and materials.
The historian shall be responsible for documenffi -Lg relocation of the bane from its
current, historic site to its new site. Documentation shall include production of a report
that includes photographic documentation of the move and a historical context for the
barn that describes the resource's significance in local history. Copies of ti-i
documentation shall be offered to local libraries and local historical societies, and
submitted to the Northwest information Center at Sonoma State University.
The Secretary of the h- iterior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(Standards) shall be applied to the barn at its new location. The Standards consist of four
possible treatments for historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction. Depending on the nature of the barn's use at its new location and its
current condition, one or more of these treatments shall apply.
The applicant shall provide a plague, reader board and/or other educational tools to
exl lank the historic significance of the barn on the project site. The plague shall include
the City seal, name of the resource, elate it was built, a written description, and
photograph, and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information,
not necessarily on the barn.
Mitigation Measure CLJLT -1-b (off -site relocation:
The Glendenning fam shall be relocated off the project site to a new site within Cuperth -1 ,
subject to the approval of the City. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures
to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes to the resource are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The following stipulations shall
apply to the barn's relocation:
The new site for the Glendenr iiig Barn shall include open space and/or land that can be
converted to such use. The mount of open space shall be sufficient to reference the
area's historic agricultural roots, Appropriate uses of the new site cold include
I -6
educational uses determined by the City. Public access could be permitted and is
encouraged, but is not required to reduce impacts to the resource.
If located on private property, the following character- defrni g architectural elements of
the bam shall be substantially visible from a public right -of -way or if the barn and/or its
surroundings are publicly - accessible) a public viewpoint, per the discretion of City staff:
1 size /scale of bang; board and batten sidii -tg iiicludffig whadows, if possible); and 3
roo rne.
The Glendenning Barn shall be relocated by a qualified structure-moving company with
experience moving historic buildings.
Relocation of the Glendera ng Barn shall be overseen by a qualified historical architect.
The architect shall ensure that the bare retains its significant character - defining features
at its new location,, M' cluding its form, , proporti.on, structure, plan, style, and materials.
The historian shall be responsible for docwnent'
Mg
relocation of the barn from its
current, lfistoric site to its new site. Documentation shall include production of a report
that includes photographic documentation of the trove and a historical context for the
barn that describes the resource's sigi -tific nce hi local history. Copies of this
documentation shall be offered to local libraries and local historical societies, and
submitted to the Northwest h f orr ation Center at Sonoma State University.
The Secretary of the .aterior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic properties
(Standards) shall be applied to the barn at its new location. The Standards consist of four
possible treatments for historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction. Depending on the nature of the barn's use at its new location, and its
current condition, one or more of these treatments shall apply.
The applicant shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools to
explain the historic significance of the ban-t, both on the off -site location and on the
project site. The plaques shall hiclude the C.1ty seal, name of the resource, elate it was
built, a written description, and photograph, and shall be placed a location where the
public can view the information, not necessarily on the bare.
G. Impact CULT-2: Ground - disturbing activities associated with . site
preparation and the construction of building foundations and
underground utilities could adversely affect archaeological
resources.
The Final EIR fii ids that the project could, adversely affect archaeological resources due to
round- disturbri -ig activities associated with site preparation and the construction of
building foundations and underground utilities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures sures CULT - a aiad CULT-2b set forth and adopted
below, which are hereby adopted and made conditions of project approval, would avoid or
reduce these impacts to less-thaxi-sIgia ficant levels.
I -37
Mitigation Measure CULT-2a:
The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project ground-
disturbing activities. Prior to project ground -- disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall
prepare a Monitoring Ilan for the project. The Monitoring Plan shall h. -Lclude: 1 a review of
historical maps, photographs, soil inventories, and ge technical reports to identify those
locations where subsurface historical features may occur and areas of prehistoric sensitivity;
and a Discovery Plan that describes the specific methods and procedures that will be
used in the event that archaeological deposits are identified.
Archaeological monitors shah, be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of
a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource wl-ile the
finds are bemng evaluated. Monitoring shall continue untilin the archaeologist's judgment,
cultural resources are not likely to be encountered.
If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during
project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the
archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes
reconendatx.ons for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological
deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for eligibility for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, mitigation
is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits shall be
mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit mn accordance
with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelkies Section 1 1 . b C and standard
archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered
archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, fir - ,dings, and
Significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of
archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.
Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document
the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the City of
Cupertbao and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University upon
completion of the resource assessment.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2b: If archaeological deposits are encountered durf ag project
subsurface construction when an archaeological monitor is not present, aH ground-
disturb ing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected, and a qualified archaeologist
contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make
recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. The project applicant shall inform its
contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits. T Le City shall
verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:
1-
"If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered durmg project activities,
all work withfi -t 25 feet of the discovery shall he redirected and, a qualified archaeologist
contacted to assess the situation., consult with agencies as appropriate, and make
recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not
collect or move any archaeological materials or human re .ah-ts and associated materials.
Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile poffits, Ixdves,
choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolrnakh -tg debris; hone tools; culturally
dart erred. soil i.e., r idden soil often containiig heat -- affected rock, ash and charcoal,
shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone- milling equipment e. .,
Mortars, pestles, handstones , Prehistoric archaeological sites often contah -1 human
remains.„
Adverse effects to archaeological deposits shall be treated mn accordance with Mitigation
Measure CULT-2a.
Impact CULT-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with site
preparation and the construction of building foundations and
underground utilities could adversely affect paleontological
resources.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could adversely affect paleontological resources due to
ground -di turbh -ig activities associated with site preparation and the construction of
foundations and underground utilities.
Implementation of Mitigative. Treasure CULT -3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than -
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure CULT-3:
Should paleontological resources be e co -ttered d .r project subsurface construction
activities, all ground-disturbing activities withiY-t 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified
paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and
make reconunendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant, -id
project activities caraiot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to
paleontological resources shall be instigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recordil-ig
the fossil locality, data. recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessionii -ig the fossil
material and teclu-iical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach
may r also be apps {oprIate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report do x entn-i
methods, findmngs, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of
Cupertino for review, and if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological
repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Z-
The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for
paleontological resources. The City shall verify that the following directive has been
included in the appropriate contract documents:
"The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If
paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a
paleontologist is not on -site, all grow -id- disturbing activities wid -tin 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with
agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treat -rent of the discovery.
Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological
resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as
tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and
oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion
bones. vertebrate land mammals may illiclude bones of mammoth, ca .el, saber tooth cat,
horse, and bison. Paleontological, resources also h-iclude plant imprints, petrified wood, and
animal tracks. ""
Impact CULT -46 Ground - disturbing activities associated with site
preparation and the construction of building foundations and
underground utilities could adversely affect Native American
skeletal or crenated remains.
The Final EIR fig -ids that the Project could adversely affect Native American skeletal or
crenated remains due to the ground - disturbing activities associated with site preparation
and the construction of building foundations and underground utilities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-4 set forth and adopted below, which is
hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or recluse these
impacts to less - than.- significant levels.
Mitigation Measure CULT-4: If humma remains are encountered during construction, the
project shall implement Mitigation Measure CULT-2a archaeological monitoring) to
identify and treat any human remains that may be present.
In addition, any human remahis encountered du.r g project ground- disturbh -tg activities
shall be treated h-i accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The
project applicant shall inform its contractors of the sensitivity of the project site for humai
remains. The City shall verify that the following directive has been included in the
appropriate contract documents:
"If human remains are uncovered., work ritl -i 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected
and the County Coroner notified, immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be
contacted — if one is not already on site — to assess the situation and consult with agencies as
appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any hm-nan remains or associated
I-
materials. If the human remains are of Native American origil, the Coroner must notify the
Native Ar ericart Heritage Commission within 24 hours of tliis identification. The Native
American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to
inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the rernah -ts and
associate, grave goods."
J. Impact GEO -1; Occupants of the development proposed as part of
the project would be subject to seismic hazards.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would subject occupants of the development to seismic
hazards.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GE O-1, set forte, below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
Prior to the issuance of any site- specific grading or building permits, a design-level
geotec nical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Cupertino Building
T epa7rtrnent for review and approval and ha accordance with adopted City standards. The
structural designs shall adhere to the 2010 California BuIlding Code (C BC) or the
appropriate building code, as adopted by the City of C pertir -,o. Examples of the kinds of
measures that would typically be used to meet these requirements include pile - supported
foundations, use of pre - stressed concrete materials, slab reinforcement, compaction
specifications, d.ra .a e requirements, use of control joints, m-td appropriate safety factors.
The report shall identify specific bu,ildxng techniques appropriate for xnjnhnizM* g damage
from seismic events, micluding liquefaction and lateral spreading. In addition,, the following
requirement for the geoteclmical and soils report shall be met:
The seismic hazard analysis presented in the geotecl -Lical report shall include w -i
evaluation of liquefaction hazards in the Calaba as Creek area, and shall co _form to the
California Division of Mhles and Geology recommend ations presented ire the Gu.i leli7 -tes
for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
Design review for the project shall include evaluation of fixtures, f rnishn* -igs, and
fasteners with the intent of minimizing collateral 11- 9rxries to building occupants from
f allrng fixtures or f rnishilI s during the course of a violent seismic event.
All design critena and specifications set forth in the design -level geotecl cal report
shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This feport shall address the
final specifications for design m-id construction intended to limit the effects of seismic
hazards to structures and utilities, including but not limited to; founda -tion design,
riven piles, utility corridor design, excavation subgr de preparation, fifl. materials and
compaction specifications, retair�Ing walls and concrete pavement specifications, and
1-41
drainage and de watering desip-i. This report shall be completed as a condition of
approval of the vesting tentative map or adoption of the development agreement.
K. Impact E = ; Damage to structures or property could result from
expansive or corrosive soils.
The Final EIR fizads that the Project could result in damage to structures or property from
expansive or corrosive soils.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GE - , set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-
than-significant ,levels.
Mitigation Measure GE - :
The design -level geotechu. -,zeal report shall include recommendations for foundations and
improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that tale into
consideration the potential effects of expansive and corrosive soils. ` -te report shall be
submitted to the City of Cupertino Building Department for review and approval. All
design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotecl..ial report shall be
implemented as a condition of project approval.
I�. Impact YES -1; Development of the project could result in localized
flooding impacts dine to inadequate storm drainage infrastructure.
The Fig -tal EIR finds that the Project could result in localized flood zng impacts due to a
reliance on inadequate storm dram4 age infrastructure.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure YD -1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
significant levels.
Mitigation. Measure -1:
As a condition of approval for construction permits, the City Engh -teer shall review storm
dr it -.age puns and calculations for the project, and verify whether existing storm draft -i
infrastructure affected by the project will meet current City requirements, including the
ability to convey a 10-year storm event, as storm events, are calculated per standards set
forth in the Santa Mara County Drah -iage Manual (2007). Should the City Engineer
determine that the existing storm d.razn facilities are h -fade luate to convey a 10-year storm
event, the project applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of the
necessary modifications. Upon completion the improvements will be dedicated to the City
and the City will be responsible for ongoit. -ig maintenance, repair, and other liabilities
associated with the improvements.
I -4
M. Impact AZ-1: Upset and accidents involving hazardous materials
releases and transport and use during construction activities could
result in adverse effects to public health or the environment.
The Final EIR finds that the project could result in adverse effects to public health or the
envirom -nent if upsets or accidents involving the release of hazardous materials occurs
during construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation. Measures HAZ -1a and AZ -1b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval., would avoid or reduce these
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure H -1a:
The contractors shall designate storage areas suitable for material delivery, storage, and
caste collection,. These locations must be as far away from catch basins, gutters, d.rair -tage
courses, and Calabazas Creep as feasible. All hazardous materials and wastes used or
generated during project site development activities shall be labeled and stored Ri l
accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. In addition, an accurate .p-
to --date inventor', including Material Safety Data Sheets, shall be rnaintair -Led on -site to
assist emergency response persons -tel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
All maintenance and fueling of vehicles and equipment shall be performed in a designated,
bermed area, or over a clap pan that will not allow runoff of spills. VehIcles and equipment
shall be regularly checked and leaks shall be repaired promptly at an off -site location.
Secondary contai -tment shall be used to catch leaks or spills any ffine that vehicle or
equ�pr ent fluids are dispensed, changed, or poured.
Mitigation. Measure I -1b:
Emergency preparedness and response procedures shall be developed by the contractor(s)
for emergency notification in the event of an accidental spill or other hazardous materials
emergency during project site preparation and development activities. These procedures
shall include evacuation procedures, spill eontah -anent procedures, and required personal
protective equipment, as appropriate, in responding to the emergency. The contractor (s)
shall submit - these procedures to the City of Cupertir -io for approval prior to demolition, site
preparation, or development activities.
Compliance with these mitigation measures may occur in coord.ir -tation with compliance
with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan anal Best Management Practices required
for the proposed project (see Draft EIR Section v.G, Hydrology and Water Quality, for
additional detail).
i-
N. Impact A -: Exposure of construction workers and the public to
existing or previously unknown contamination in soil and/or
groundwater, other safety hazards encountered during site grading
and excavation activities, or exposure to hazardous materials
following project development could result in adverse health of teas.
The Final ETA. finds that the Project could result in exposure of construction workers and the
public to previously unknown contamination from soil and/or groundwater due to ground-
disturbing activities during site grading and excavation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures H Z- a and HAZ- b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these
impacts to less - than -sig - Cdicant levels.
Mitigation Measure HA - a:
Construction at the project site shall be conducted under a project- specific Environmental
Site Management Plan MP that is prepared fi-i consultation with the RWQCB. -te
purpose of the E MP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the
environment, and fut .re site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously
identified at the project site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown
contalnh -cation or hazards in the subsurface. The E MIR shall summarize soil and
groundwater analytical data collected on the project site durh -ig past investigations; identify
management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are
encountered during sleep excavations; and identify r onitorh -tg, irrigation, or other wells
requirh -ig proper abandoranent in compliance with local, State, and federal statutes and
regulations.
The E MIR shall include measures for id.entif yiu -ig, testing, and managifig soil and
groundwater suspected, of or known to contain hazardous materials. The E MIR shall: 1
provide procedures for evaluating, handlit -.g, storing, testhag, and disposh -tg of soil and
groundwater duriRg project excavation and dewateri g activities, respectively; 2 describe
required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to
hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3)
designate persom -tel responsible for implementation of the ESM .
Mitigation Measure HAZ- b:
For areas at the project site with potential residual VOCS in soil, soil gas, or groundwater
that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied buildhag, a vapor fitrusion
assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. These areas
include the northwestern corner of the site at the Hewlett-Packard and uilding 42 area and the
I -4
10400 North Tantau Avenue property. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment
it -idicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion it -tto an occupied building, project
design shall it -tclude vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with
regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could h- 1clude passive
venti Ig and/or active ei -tting. The vapor i�Atrusion assessment ar -td associated vapor
controls or source removal care be i - icorporated into the ESMI Mitigation Measure HAZ-
a.
o, Impact . _ : Demolition activities at the project site could result
in exposure to a air .ou.s building materials,
The ft -ial EIR finds that the Project could result in exposure to hazardous build M* g materials
during the demolition of existh -ig structures.
Implementation entation of Mitigation Measure H Z- , set .forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -t art -
signif icant levels.
Mitigation Measure A, - :
Hazardous building materials surveys shall be conducted by a qualified and licensed
professional for all sia- u.ctures, not previously inspected or abated, p
p ro osed for demolition
or renovation at the project site. ACM shall be included in the hazardous materials building
surveys for buildii-igs constructed prior to 1981. Lead -based paint shall be included in all
hazardous ardous material surveys. All loose and peeling lead. - based pailat and ACM shall be
abated by certified contractor(s) in accordance with local, State, and federal requirements.
All other hazardous materials, sud-. as "universal wastes," shall be removed, from uil in s
prior to demolition in accordance with DOSH regulations. The completion of the abatement
activities shall be docrunented by a qualified environmental professional(s) and submitted
to the Oty of Cupertino prior to the issuance of construction and demolition permits
P. Impact JH Z- : The Project involves hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials within 1/4- mile of a school.
The Final EIR finds that the Project irwolves the storage and use of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials within ' i -mile of a school.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure H Z- , set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure H Z- :
Iinplement Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ- .
I-
Q. Impact TRANS-2: Under Existing plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #31
Tantau Avenue vallco Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level
(change from LOS C to LOS + ) during the AM peak hour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds,,
The Final EIR finds that the Project would cause intersection #31 Taxitau Avenue all o
Parl tray to operate at are unacceptable level during the AM pear hour daze to h-i reased
congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid, or reduce these impacts to less-thm -t-
sigrdfica .t levels. Mitigation Measure TRANS -2 could have secondary iinp acts to the trees
along the east side of Tantau Avenue. The roadway would need to be widened to the east to
provide for a hike lane to the right of the travel lane and the sidewalk adjacent to the bike
lane. Therefore, secondary impacts associated with the removal of trees that are protected
under the City of Cupertino. "s Tree Protection Ordinance could. occur. Impacts BI O-1 and
BI O-3 in Section V. D, Biological Resources in the Draft EIR address these potential
secondary impacts, and previously adopted Mitigation Measures B10-1 and BI O-3 would
reduce these secondary impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure re TRANS= :
At intersection #31 Tantau Avenue all o Parkway, the project sponsor shall construct an
exclusive northbound through lane (for a total of one left -turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through /right -turn lane), and a receiving lane on the north side of the
intersection which would improve h -ttersection operations to acceptable LOS C (26.1
seconds).
Impact TRANS-4: Under Background Plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable
operations of intersection #5 De Anza. Boulevard /Homestead. Road
during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact
-thresholds.
The Fit -ial EIR finds that the Project would exacerbate una eptabl perati ns at
intersection #5 De Ari a Boulevard/Homestead Road ur .g the PM pear hour clue to
increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4, set fort elo r, l ich is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
sxgiificant levels. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 could have secondary impacts associated
I -4
with the removal of trees. Trees are protected under the City of upertino's Tree Protectivn
Ord M* an e. Impacts BI O-1 and BI O-3 h-L Section v.I , Biological Resources fi-t the Draft EII
address these potential secondary impacts related to potential tree removal, and previously
adopted Mitigation Measures BI -1 and IO -3 would reduce these secondary impacts to a
less - than- sxgnifxem -,t level.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4:
At intersection #5 De Anna Boulevard Homestead Toad the project sponsor shall construct
an exclusive southbound right --turn lane for a total of two left -tuna lanes, three through
lay -ies, and one right-turn lame) which would improve haterseetion operations to LOS E+.
Although still considered an unacceptable LOS based on Cupertino's standards, this
mitigation measure would improve operations over a kgrow -id No Project Conditions.
S. Impact TRANS- 6: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #27
Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road to operate at an unacceptable level
(charge from Lo + to LOS L ) during the AM peak hour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
The Pit -tal EIR fizids that the Project would cause intersection #27 Tantau A enue Hor estead
to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM peak hour due to increased congestion,
hiaplem'entation of l itigation Measure TRANS -6, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a eonditio -n of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -th -.-
signifi amt levels. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6 could have secondary h pa is associated
with the removal of trees. Trees are protected under the City of upper t- h-Lo's Tree Protection
Ordinance. Impacts B10-1 ar -id B10-3 in Section V. D, Biological Resources ffi -the Draft EIT
address these potential secondary impacts related to potential tree removal, and previously
adopted Mitigation Measures B10-1 affil BI O-3 would reduce these secondary .0 paefs to a
less than sig-nificant level.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-6:
At intersection #27 Tantau Avenue Homestead Road the project sponsor shall construct an
exclusive right -turn lame from.. eastboumd Homestead Toad to southbound Tantau, Avenue
(for a total of one eastbound left - turn, lane, two eastbow -id through lazes, and one eastbow -id
right-turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to eptable LOS -- (52.6
seconds.
I-
T. Impact TRANS-7: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed prof ct would cause intersection. #
Tantau Avenue val.l o Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level
(change from LOS C to LOS + ) during the AM peals hour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds,
'I`he ft-ial EIR fMnd that the Project would cause intersection #31 Tantau Avenue Nallco
Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level duril -.g the AM peals hour due to h-1creased
congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-7, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or Reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS-7:
At intersection x31 Ta-titau Avenue vallco Parkway, the project sponsor shall implement
Mitigation Measure FL AI LS- . (add exclusive northbound through lane), which would
improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS C (28.x' seconds).
LI. Impact TRANS-8: Under Background plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #3
Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creep Boulevard to operate at are
unacceptable level (change from LOS D to Lo E- ) during the PM
peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
The Fh-ial EIR finds that the Project would cause h- itersection #32 Tantau Avenue /Stevens
Creek Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level during the PM peale, hour due to
increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure VI AL S- , set .forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-8:
At intersection #32 Tantau Avenue /Stevens Green Boulevard, the project sponsor shall
construct a loo -foot exclusive southbound right -turn lane (for a total of two southbound
left -turn la-ries and one southbound right -turn l -Le ), with associated improvements in the
right-of-way, which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS D (46,8
seconds).
1-48
V. Impact TRANS-12.- Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable
operations of intersection #5 De Anna Boulevard /Homestead Road
during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact
thresholds.
The Final E1 . finals that the Project would exacerbate unacceptable operations of
-itersection #5 De Arita Boulevard/Homestead Road during the PM peak hour due to
increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-12, set .forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-- thax -1-
significant levels.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS-12:
At intersection #5 De Ana Boulevard/Homestead Road intersection, the project sponsor
shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -4 add exclusive o .tht nd right -turn lane),
which would improve intersection operations to LOS E+ (58.9 seconds). Though LOS E+ is
not considered acceptable at the #5 De Ana Boulevard/ Homestead Road it -itersection, the
LOS would improve to better operating conditions thm-i under the Cumulative No Project
scenario and the impact would be considered less than significant.
W. Impact TRANS-15: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable
operations of 'Intersection #23 Wolfe oad wall o Parkway during
the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact
thresholds,
The Fig -ial EIR finds that the Project would exacerbate Unacceptable operations at
intersection #23 Wolfe Toad /Vallco Parkway during the PM peak hour due to increased
congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-15, set forte below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condifion of project approval, would avoid or reduce these .impacts to less- than --
significant levels.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS -15
The project sponsor shall contTibute a pro rata, share to modify the traffic signal operations
to provide m-i overlap phase for the westbound right -tum o ement, which would provide
for a green right -turn arro w while the southbound left -turn movement has its green time.
Southbound U -turns shall also be prohibited. To accommodate the overlap phase the
I -4
geometries at the westbound approach would be modified to provide one left-turn lane, one
shared left - tarn /through lane, and two right- -turn Xaa -tes.
Providing a westbound overlap phase could have secondary impacts, since southbound
vehicles wanting to gavel northbound would have to travel to the Stevens Creel
Boulevard /Wolfe Road intersection to access northbound Wolfe Road. Field observations
were conducted to determine the existii -ig percentage of vehicles ,al ing U-turns at the
intersections. The field data was used to estimate the impact of diverting U -turns from
vallco Parkway to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The LOS results show that both the Wolfe
I oad/vallco Parkway (42.4 seconds and LOS D ) and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road
u -iters ctions (49.9 seconds and LOS could operate acceptably with the proposed
southbound -turn restrictions at the Wolfe Road /vallco Parkway intersection. The project
unpact would be reduced to a less-than-sigi-tificant level.
X. Impact TRANS-16: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause 'Intersection #27
T'antau Avenue/Homestead Road to operate at an unacceptable level
(change from LOS + to LOS E ) during the AM peals hour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would cause intersection #27 Tantau. .venue /Homestead
Road to operate at an unacceptable le level during the AM peak lour due to increased
congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-16, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
ignificant levels,
Mitigation Measure TRANS-16:
At intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/ oinestead Road, the project sponsor shall implement
Mitigation Measure TRANS -6 (add exclusive eastbounad right -turn lane), which would
improve 1*111tersection operations to acceptable LOS D- (52.6 seconds).
Y. Impact TRANS-17: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, the
project would cause intersection #31 Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway
to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS C to LOS +
during the AM peal hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact
thresholds.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would cause intersection #31 Tantau Avenue /vallco
Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM peak hour due to hi-tcreased
congestion.
1-
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -17, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS -17:
At intersection #31 Tar tan Avenue vall o Parkway, the project sponsor shall implement
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 (add exclusive northbound through lane), which would
improve h.- .terse tion operations to LOS C (28.7 seconds).
Z. Impact TRANS-18: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions,
completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #
Tantau. Avenue /Stevens Creek Boulevard to operate at an
unacceptable level (change from Lo _ to LOS F ) during the PM
peals hour based on City of Cu.pertxno L 0 S impact thresholds.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would cause intersection #32 Taxitau. Avertue /Stevens
Creels Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM peak hour due to
increased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-18, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a. condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these hnpa is to less- thart-
sYgnifi ant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-18:
At intersection #32 Tantau venue /Stevens Creels Boulevard, 'Lhe project sponsor shall
u pier ent Mitigation Measure TRANS- (add exclusive southbound right-turn lane), d which
would improve hatersection operations to LOS D (49.4 seconds).
AA. Impact TRANS-23: Based on City of Cupertino standards, the design
of the pro] ec with three left-turn lanes on the Wolfe Road driveway
approach would cause a substantial increase in conflicts due to
vehicles wearing on Wolfe load between the driveway and the 1-280
ramps in order to merge and align into the correct lanes to enter the
freeway upon exiting the campus.
The Final EIR fh -tds that the Project would cause a substantial increase hi conflicts due to
vehicles weaving on Wolfe Road between, the Project driveway and the 1-280 ramps fi-t order
to access the freeway upon exiting the a-i pus. The Draft EIR fully analyzes the impacts of
three left turns lane ith-ig the project site on to Wolfe Road (see Draft EIR, pp. 414-418),
and concludes that the impacts on traffic operations would be less than significant but that a
I -1
three -lane driveway exit design would have a significant impact on safety due to
`• weaving ." Mitigation Measure TRANS-23, identified in the Draft EIR, requires the number
of driveway left turn lanes to be reduced from three to two and would reduce this impact to
a less - than-- significant level (Draft EIR, pp. 416-418).
At the request of the project sponsor, the City considered an alternative mitigation measure
that would allow free left turn, laws exciting the project site on to Wolfe Road.. TTle project
sponsor requested the City to consider replacing Mitigation Measure TRANS-23 TRANS-23 with a
mitigation measure that would reduce the weaving impact to a less-than-significant level,
witliout requiring a reduction to two lanes, through the use of clear signage at the exit
approach including overhead signs, painted directions on lanes and appropriate lane
striping; ir- .ternal employee education; and traffic monitors. The project sponsor proposed
that these measures would be implemented for a nine -month period during which the
driveway exit would be monitored by an independent observer at the expense of the project
sponsor. If the weaving behavior predicted by the EIR is observed, the third lane would be
closed.
City staff and Fehr & Veers reviewed two versions of the proposed, alternative mitigation
measure - - one with penalties for weaving violations (TRANS-23 (Alternate and one
without penalties TRANS- (Second Alternate)) - - for their ability to mitigate the eavi. -Ig
impacts, and the City has concluded that Mitigation Measure TRANS - (Alternate), set
forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of project. approval, would
avoid or reduce these * acts to less -than- significant levels,
Mitigation Measure TRANS - (Alternate):
The project sponsor may be permitted to construct three left-turn exit lanes from the project
site to Wolfe Road if all of the following measures are implemented:
Clear signage, including but not li
independent from the project sponsor, shall periodically review the video
footage at the direction of the City, wad provide a report at the end of each
month to the Public Works Department. This report shall document any
-.safe or illegal lane changes (violations) observed, noting accidents caused
by unsafe lai. -Le changes and noting whether, in the professional judgment of
the h- idependent observer, the observed violations constitute a safety problem
that should be addressed and, if so, recommending measures to address
then.
If, at any time following the nine -month trial period implementation of the
measures listed above do not substantially prevent violations, nil the
professional opinion of the independent observer wid the City, the City shall
determffie whether additional measures are required, or whether th number
of lanes must be reduced to two exit lanes. If the number of lanes is reduced
to two, monitoring shall be discontinued.
A penalty of oo per violation during the PM 2 -hour peak period per day
shall be paid by the project sponsor to the City. The number of violations
shall be determined by the independent observer based upon review of the
video footage and extrapolated to account for daily activity durh. -.g the PM 2-
hour peak period should daily video footage not be reviewed.
The project sponsor shall develop employee education materials, to the
satisfaction of the City explaining the proper use of the driveway exit lanes
without weaving among lanes.
BB. Impact TRANS-24: Completion of the proposed project would cause
excessive vehicle queues on the southbound Tantau Avenue at
vallco Parkway based on City of Cupertino standards,
The Final EIR fii -ids that the Project would cause excessive vehicle queues on southbound
Tantau Avenue at vallco parkway.
Rnplementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-24, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
significant levels.
Mitigation. Measure TRANS-24:
The project sponsor shall provide a dedicated southbound right -turn lane at the Taritau
AvenueVallco Parkway intersection.
C. impact TRANS-27: The proposed location of the project driveway
intersection on Wolf e Road and the associated congestion would
I-
result in hazards f or vehicles exiting the southernmost Wolf e Road
driveway to the Cupertino village shopping center (City of
Cupertino and E A ).
The Final EIR finds that the Project would result i-ii hazards for vehicles exciting the
southernmost Wolfe Road driveway to the upertir -io Village slopping center due to
congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-27 (Second Alternate), set forth below,
which is hereby adopted and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce
these impacts to less - than - significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-27 Second Alternate):
The southernmost driveway to Cupertino village shall be retain -Led as a right -turn in and out
driveway with the implementation of adequate safety features approved by the Director of
Public Works. These safety features, such as added traffic signal heads and signage, shall
prohibit vehicles turning right out of the driveway when southbound Wolfe Road traffic has
a red signal indication at the intersection of Wolfe Road and the project driveway. The
safety features shall also accommodate pedestrians crossing Wolfe Road..
DD. Impact TRANS -30: The added traffic on Wolfe Road and around the
project site would result in increased congestion and could induce
transit demand and increase transit ridership in the area, which
currently has minimal transit stop amenities (VTA).
The Final EIR finds that the Project would increase congestion and potentially increase the
derna-rid for transit ft-i the area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-30, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-30:
The project sponsor shall upgrade transit stops along Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and. Homestead Road, on VaUco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau
Avenue, and on Tanta. ,Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road.
EE. Impact TRANS-35: The project may result in a parking shortfall if
Apple does not achieve a 34 percent TDM participation rate.
1 -4
The Final EIR finds that the Project might result in a p arlda -ig shortfall if Apple does not
achieve a 34 percent TI M participation rate due to the Ih ited parking availability on the
project site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-35, set forth below, wl -dch is hereby adopted
and made a condition of proj
and ect approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-35:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-9b.
FF. Impact NOI -1: Project-related construction activities would create a
clearly noticeable temporary change in the noise environment and
create noise levels that would exceed the noise level standards in the
City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
The Rnal EIR fii -ids that the Project will create a noticeable temporary change fi-t the noise
environment and generate noise levels that would exceed the noise level standards of the
City.
Ir plementation of Mitigation Measure N I -1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure NOI -1:
The project applicant shall i-mplement the following measures at the project site du.rir -ig all
demoliti
Homestead. Road to project construction areas in the northern portion of the project site.
This sound wall shall be set back from the property line as much as feasible to still allow
for project construction activities to occur.
The project contractor shall designate a construction liaison that shall be responsible for
respondir -tg to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison shall determine
the cause of the noise complaints e.g., starting too early, bad muffler and institute
reasonable measures to correct the problem. A telephone number for the liaison shall be
conspicuously posted at the perimeter of the construction site and provided to all
adjacent property ow ners prior to commencement of construction.
The project contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment has appropriate high-
quality noise muffling and abatement devices, which would be properly mail'itained and
used at all trines such equipment is m operation.
The project contractor shall, to the extent feasible, place all stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
project site.
Exterior project noise-generating construction activities (te., grading, construction and
demolition) shall be permitted within 750 feet of any residentially zoned property only
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and :00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends. No such wort shall be permitted on holidays i.e.,
New Year's Darr, Memorial Darr, independence Darr, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day,
Christmas Day), except as approved by the Community Development Director. A Noise
Variance may be obtakied from the Noise Control Officer for each occurrence of specific
temporary construction activities.
Construction activities, other than street construction, shall be prohibited on holidays,
urdess they meet the City of upertino's nighttime maximum permissible noise level
standards.
GG. Impact NOI- : Implementation of the project would result in
significant contribution to cumulative traffic noise levels
experienced in the project vicinity.
The Final EIR fhads that the Project will result ir-i a significant contribution to cumulative
traffic noise levels in the project vicinity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less -than-
sxgnif is nt levels.
Mitigation Measure IOI� :
T -6
The project sponsor shall resurface the followi-rig roadway segments with RHMA-0 or
sil ilar quiet pavement:
East Homestead Toad, from North Wolfe Road. to North Tantau Avert e; and
North Wolfe Road, from PrLmeridge Avenue to the 1-280 northbound ramps.
NCH. Impact AIR-4: Without the construction practices identified in the
Apple Campus Construction Equipment Summary,, construction of the
proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
The Final EIR finds that the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations if the construction practices identified h-t the Apple Campus Construction
Equipment Summary are not followed.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-4, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less- tha.ii-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure AIR -4:
:
The project sponsor sl-ia11 implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and the following additional
measure:
To the maximum extent feasible, material staging roads shall be set back from the curb
by at least 65 feet.
1 . Impact PSU-1: The prop ose d project could adversely affect the
ability of the Santa Clara County Fire Department SC F to meet
response time objectives.
The Final. EIR finds that the Project could affect the ability of the SCCFD to meet response
time objectives due to fi- .creased congestion.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure I II -1, set forte, below, which is hereby adopted and
made a condition of project approval, would avoid or reduce these impacts to less-
than-significant levels,
Mitigation Measure PSU -1:
The project sponsor shall h-nple e t signal preemption signals at the following M' tern cti.o s
(identified by the City and SCCFD as the ones most Uely to be used by ernergency vehicles
accessn-Ig the project site). The signal preemption signals would allow emergency vehicles to
pass through approximately 30 seconds before arrival.
Y-
• North. Blaney Avenue and East Homestead Road
• North Tantau Avenue m -Ld East Homestead Road
• North Tantau Avenue and Prmieridge Avenue
• North Tantau Avenue and vallco Parkway
• North Tantau Avenue and project Entrance
• North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Aveltue
• North Wolfe Road and Project Entrance
• North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Toad.
• North Wolfe Road and I -280 (two ii -tterchanges
• North Wolfe Road and vallco Parkway
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue
• Heron Avenue and East Homestead Road
VIL CUMULATIVE IMPACT
Final EIR is required to discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when -the project's
incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a)(1).
EQA defines cumulative hupacts as }.two or more individual effects, which, when
considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or ft-tcrease other
environr ental impacts." Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EII
evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
significant. These impacts can result from the project alone, or together with other projects.
Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: "The cumulative impact from several
projects is the change i�� the enviroi-Lment which results from the i icremental impact of the
Project when added to other closely related past, present, ar-.d reasonably foreseeable
probable future projects." Cumulative impacts can result from hadividually minor but
collectively significant projects tal il-.g place over a period of time. " umulativel
considerable" means that the increinental effects of the Project are significant when viewed
in colmection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects. State CEQA Guidehries § 15065(a)(3); Pu.b. Resources Code § 21083(b)(2).
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, presertt,
and probable future projects, mi clud.ir -ig projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a
summary of projections ft-i an adopted p1mming document. The cumulative as -ial sis ii-i the
Fir -ial EIR uses primarily the first approach: a list of past, present, and probable future
I-
projects. This list is included in the Draft EIR Appendix F and fficludes a mix of infill
projects h-t the City, inclu.dil -ig residential, commercial, and ffistitutional projects ranging
from new hotels to senior residential developments.
The Final EIR analyzes the cumulative impacts of the Project in combiriation with
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects at the end of each topical section and are
further summarized below. As explah -ted in Section X, below, the f ind.mngs in this Section are
based on the H 'Ial FIR, the discussion and analysis ir-i which is hereby incorporated Rl full
by this reference.
A. Cultural Resources
The project, in conjunction with other development in Cupertino, has the potential to affect
cultural resources. If a potential for significant impacts to cultural resources is identified at
the time development is proposed., an h. -Lvestig tion. is required to determine the nature and
extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future development fi-i upertir -lo is not expected to
have a signdicant effect on cultural resources,
The number of historic resources in the City has diminished substantially as the City has
urbanized; remaining resources e.g., Union Church of Cupertino and Nathan Hall Tai -i
Douse) are generally surrounded by modern development. However, these resources are
generally protected, in place by the City's Historic Preservation policy. If relocation is
proposed for any individual resource, the merits of this relocation would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. The provisions of the Historic Preservation Policy would be expected to
prevent a significant loss or inappropriate relocation of remaking historic resources in the
City. Therefore, future development i1-1 the City is not expected to result in a significant
cumulative effect on historic resources.
The project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on cultural resources, with
h- nplementation of the mitigation, measures identified this section. As discussed in Section
Vi, above, Relocation of Glendennhag Barn, in accordance with Mitigation Measures CULT-
la or CULT-lb would avoid adverse impacts to the historic h -ite rit r of the barn or ensure
these cumulative impacts are reduced to a less-tha-ri-significant level. Therefore, the Project
would not make a significant contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts.
B. Transportation and Circulation
Development of the Project, along with past, present, m-id reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would increase traffic on. the local and regional roadway system. As discussed in
Section DTI, above, implementation of the mitigation measures in the Final EII , the following
I -59
transportation linpacts would be considered to have a less - than-- slgliffrcant contribution to a
cumulative ftnpact:
•
Impact TRANS-12: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would exacerbate ul -tacceptable operations of intersection #5 De An a
Boulevard/Homestead Road during the PM peals hour based on City of Cupert i --,o LOS
impact thresholds.
• hnpact TRANS-15: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would exacerbate unacceptable operations of h- itersection #23 Wolfe R adNallc
Parkway during the PM peak lour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
• Impact TRANS-16: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would cause tersection #27 Tantau. Avenue Homestead Road to operate at an
unacceptable level (change from LOS D+ to LOS E ) during the AM peals hour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
• Impact TRANS-17: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, the Project would cause
intersection #31 Tantau Avenue allco Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level.
(chm-ige from LOS C to LOS E+ ) during the AM peals hour based on City of Cupertino
LOS impact thresholds.
• Impact TRANS-18: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would, cause intersection #32 Tantau. Avenue /Stevens Creek boulevard to operate at an
unacceptable level (change from LOS - to LOS F ) during the PM peals lour based on
City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
As discussed. irt Section v, implementation of the mitigation measures s h-i the Final EIR, the
following transportation impacts would be considered a significant al-id unavoidable
contribution to a cumulative impact:
• Impact TRANS -13: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would cause f.- .tersection #8 Lie A.n. a Boulevard /Stevens Creek Boulevard to operate at
an unacceptable level (change from LOS E+ to LOS E ) during the PM peak lour based
on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
• Impact TRANS-14: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
could cause intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps to operate at an
unacceptable level cha-ri e from LOS B to LOS E during the AM peals lour based on
City of Cupertino LOS finpact thresholds.
• Impact TRANS-19: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection #36 Stevens Creek
Boulevard /Calvert Drive/1-280 Ramps (west) durifig the PM peals lour based on CSI'
guidelines.
• Impact TRANS-20: Tinder Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would cause operations of intersection #40 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence
I -o
Expressway Ramps (east) to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D to
LOS F) during the AM peak hour based on CMP guideliaies.
•
Impact TRANS-21: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the Project
would cause operations of intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 uthb und.
Ramps to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS E to LOS F ) during the PM
peals hour based on CMP guidelir -tes.
C. Noise
Project -- related it -tcr as s in traffic noise levels would create a cumulatively considerable
contribution of the Project to noise conditions along some roadway segments ent in the project
vicinity. A full discussion of the impacts related to increased traffic noise can be found Yn the
Draft EIR Section v., Noise. As discussed hi Section vI, above, implementation of Mitigation
Measure N I- , would avoid or reduce cumulative impacts discussed in Impact NOISE-2 to
less - than -sign df cmat revels.
D. Air Quality
Implementation n of the project, i a,tim with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable .future project, would generate additional. air pollutant emissions in the air basin,
primarily r due to vehicle trips. Construction and operation of the Project would result ir-i a
significant contribution to criteria pollutant emissions in the air basin, as discussed in
Impact AIR-3 and Mitigation Measure AI R-3 zn Section v, above. This cumulative impact
would remain significant and unavoidable even with the * lernentation of Mitigation.
Measure Air-3 identified in flw Final EIR.
However, the Project's contribution to construction- period or operation - period health risk
impacts due to exposure to criteria pollutants Would be less than significant.
VIII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which
the project could foster economic or population growth,, or the construction of additional
lousing, either directly or indirectly, fi-t the surrounding environinent. State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.2 d) Pub. Resources Code § 21100 (b) Direct growth inducement
would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of sub stm -ttial new h u ing
that would support increased population in a coiYmunity or establishes substantial ne w
permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase
demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. IZidirect growth
inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires physical
development or removes an obstacle to r wth and development (e.g., increasing
infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. State CEQA Guidelines § 1. 12 . d . Section VII of the
1-61
Draft EI analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. As explained in Section X,
below, the f Mnd ings in this Section, are based on the Final EIl , the discussion and analysis an
which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Implementation of the Project would not result in direct population growth because the
Project does not include the development of new housing units. However, as discussed in
the Draft EIR Section V.C, population, Employment, and Housing, the Project could
indirectly i crease the area's population through an expansion of employment.
Nevertheless, overall indirect population growth associated with the Project would not be
considered significant when evaluated on a regional or sub- regional level. Assuming every
new employe associated with the Project would move to the area from elsewhere (which
would substantially overestimate the likely number of new residents generated by the
Project), the Proj
EIR Chapter III, Project Description, and the potential Ir muental effects of
implementing the Project are analyzed in Chapter v, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, hacluding discussion of significant impacts resulting from the Project and
mitigation measures recommended to avoid these impacts.
Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the
Environmentally Superior Alternative is also h- iclu.ded. As e pl fined in Section X, below, the
findings in this Section are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is
hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A, The No Project Alternative
CEQA requires consideration of a no project alternative. Consistent with the State CEQA
Gnideliaes, the No Project Alternative assumes that the site would generally remain in its
existing condition. The site would remain developed with low -rise buildings (comprising
approximately 2,657,000 square feet of buirdin space) used for office and research and
development uses. Apple employees would ultimately occupy all buildings within the
project site and, because some existing buildings are only partially occupied, the number of
employees on the site would increase from approximately 4,844 under existing conditions to
approximately 9,800 a net increase of 4,956 employees).
No major construction projects would occur on the site, although minor building
renovations could occur in the short -term to change the configuration of infer *fir uil uffig
space. None of these renovations would. substantially increase the employee capacity of the
site.
The amount of surface parking (9,220 parking spaces) and open space (approximately 3
acres) on the site would remain the same as existh -fig conditions and Glendenning Bam
would remain at its present location. In addition, the segment of Prutierid.ge Avenue wi.th10111
the site would not be vacated by the City and would remain a public right-of-way. Nnew
security fence would be developed around the perimeter of the site a portion of the site is
already bounded by fencing), although security mechanisms might be implemented around
individual buildings or groups of buildings. No changes to off -site roadways (*including
North Wolfe road, East Homestead Toad, and North Tantau Avenue) would occur. None of
the requested entitlements and approvals sought as part of the Project includirl.g General
Plan and Zonii:ig Ordinance amendments would be required.
The No Project Alternative would avoid, all potential const- ruction - related impacts to
biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, and air quality, because no new facilities would be constructed
and the use of construction equipment, site grading, earth work, paving or faculties
I-
construction would be avoided. The No Project Alternative would also avoid operational
impacts associated with land use and plasm ng policy, aestb.etics, biological resources,
cultural resources, transportation and circulation, and noise because the occupancy of the
site could increase to only 9,800 employees a-ristead of the 14,200 employees antid acted. by
the Project.
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Cit "s project objectives, which are
as follows:
• Encourage the retention of Apple's corporate headquarters in Cupertht withi a world
class corporate campus.
• Allow for the expansion of Apple's operations while enhanciaig the physical
envirolu .ent of the project area and being sensitive to community needs.
• Allow for the location and design of Phase 2 of the Project in a wa. y that is sensitive to
surround hng neighborhoods.
• Preserve the Cit "s existing and plan -ted park space.
• Preserve and enhance the historic fi-ttegrity of Glen.d.ennn -tg B am and provide for its
adaptive reuse and relocation,
• Protect the riparian zone around Calaba as Creek.
Enhance environmental features within the project area, including stormwater quality
within the City storm, drain system and receivin,x water bodies.
Maintah -i consistency with Cuperth -io's 2000-2020 General Plan and further General Plan
goals and strategies for economic development, neighborhood connectivity, and urban
conservation.
• Provide cormections and erd -iance call ability bil e ability between the project site aid
surrounding areas, while promoting the mobility of Apple employees and the public
throughout the Vallco Industrial Park and the greater region.
Improve traffic circulation, traffic volumes and level of service LOS through a
combii -tation of consolidation of office locations and additional TDM measures.
• Increase the use of landscaping compared to paved parking and thereby enhance the
urbal -. env lron ent, reduce impervious surfaces, and reduce storm water runoff .
Retain and improve bike and pedestrian com-Lectivity between the project site and
surrounding areas.
Avoid additional fiscal impacts to the City from the Project by cost rehab .r ement and
the collection of fees covering the City's actual costs.
• Encourage public art placed in locations visible to the public.
0 h- tcrease City revenues .from. the Project in order to enhance the City's general fug. -id,
1 -6
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project sponsor's objectives,
mcluding the followh. -tg:
I r niary Objectives:
Create an fi- novative and beautiful campus near Apple's L- Ifinite Loop facility that
consolidates many of Apple's englr -teers and support personnel in a sii.gle distil -ictive
office, research and development building, and supporting facilities. The purpose of
consolidation is to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur ft- ventzon of the
next several generations of Apple products.
Achieve the security and privacy required for the it -ivention of new products by
elu* niriating any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against
unauthorized persons;
Secondary Objectives:
• Ma cnni e green space, and design this space a*-i accordance with the climate and history
of the area.
• Provide on -site amenities for Apple's employees ii-i order to promote employees' health
and well -being m-id, reduce off- cmnpus travel.
• Provide an on -site venue for the introduction of Apple's new products that will generate
surprise and delight, and enable the products to be f. -itroduced at Apple's corporate
Dome,
• Create a physically unified carpus community that h prToves Internal circulation and
effinm* aces unnecessary access points by consolidating the exr til -ig properties wifhmi one
campus,
• Create a campus plan that incorporates flexibility to respond to Apple's future business
needs.
For the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected,
B. The Pru .eridge Avenue Alternative
The Pruneridge .Avenue Alternative would allow for fhe development of a new corporate
campus while preserving the segment of Pruneridge Avenue i h -i the site as a public
right -of -way. The site would be approximately 4.6 acres smaller ft-I order to preserve the
Pruneridge Avenue right-of-way. Under this alternative, the preservation of Frtmeridge
Avenue would require adjustnents to the Project's security program, transportation
logistics, utility infrastructure, employee and building services operations, buildilig
configuration and location, open space provision, access points, construction logistics, and
many other elements of the Project.
1-
The Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would generally require the same entitlements and
approvals as the Project, except that Pruneridge Avenue would not be vacated. Such
entitlements, approvals and General. Ilan amendments would not be required as part of this
alternative, although a General Plan amendment would be required if the Main Building
were to have a height i-n excess of 60 feet.
Contrary to the City's objectives, the Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would discourage the
retention of Apple's corporate headquarters because Apple might not proceed with the
alternative. The loss of .Apple's corporate headquarters would result in an adverse fiscal
impact on the City. Otherwise, the Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would substantively
achieve the City's objectives for the Project.
The Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would avoid the land use and planning policy impacts
and transportation and circulation, impacts related to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue. The
Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would not reduce impacts to traffic, noise, air quality,
housh -tg popu.lation, and pu lIc services or reduce construction- related impacts.
The Pruneridge Avenue Alternative would not achieve the following project sponsor
objectives for the Project:
Primary Objective:
Achieve the security and privacy required for the invention of new products by
eliimm�ating any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters i-n t
unauthorized persons.
Secondary Objectives:
Create a physically unified carpus community that improves internal circulatim and
eliminates unnecessary access p h -its by consolidatIlIg the existilag properties withh -i one
campus.
Create a campus that reflects Apple's bu.shaess and design practices, and allows for a
long -tear presence irl Cupertino.
In addition, the following project sponsor objectives would be achieved, but to a lesser
extent than the Project:
Priiiiary Objective:
Create an innovative and beautiful campus near Apple's Infinite Loop facility that
consolidates many of Apple's engineers and support personnel in a sh-igle distinctive
office, research and development building, and supporting facilities. Me purpose of
consolidation is to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur invention of the
next several generations of Apple products.
X-
(Although the Pruaaearid.ge Avenue .Alternative would allow Apple to consolidate
many of its engineers and support personnel in a single distinctive office, research and
development building, and support facilities, the unified open space is an important
part of creating an environment that promotes shared creativity and collaboration.
Dividing the campus with Pruneridge Avenue would finped.e that aspect of this
Primary r Objective.)
Secondary Objectives:
Maximize green space, and design this space m accordance with -te climate and history
of the area.
Exceed economic, social, and environmental sustaft-tability goals through hategrated
design arid development.
Although the Prunearidge Avenue Alternative would avoid the impacts associated with the
closure of Pruneridge Avenue, tl s Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not
achieve numerous City objectives, including retaining Apple's headquarters in Cupertftio,
which might not happen with the Pruneridge Avenue Alternative. As for the project
sponsor objectives, the primary r objective is acl- iev7ng a secure and private campus, w id-i
could not be achieved with the Pruneridge Avenue Alternative. Other irnportamt project
sponsor objectives would also not be achieved. For these reasons, and as further discussed
m the Final EII , the Prunerid.ge Avenue Alternative is considered infeasible and is hereby
rejected.
C. Reduced Construction Item ti e
The Deduced Construction Alternative would allow for the development of a new corporate
campus while reducing impacts related to short-terin construction impacts associated with
excavation.
The Reduced Construction Alternative assumes that the same arnorxnt of developed square
footage would be constructed on the project site but with a different campus configuration
and design that would resemble a traditional office complex, with multiple office buildings
and rnrnnnal sub -grade building space. The Deduced Construction Alternative 1s intended
to allow for th -e development of an expanded corporate campus while producing
substantially reduced short -term fi pacts from construction-related noise, constr- action
traffic, airs quality, and grading and soil disturbance compared to the Project.
Compared to tl -te Project, the Reduced Consixudion Alternative would. hicrease the footprint:
of bull-dings because less it -tt rior* square .footage would be accommodated h-I sub- grade
areas and would decrease the amount of available permeable surfaces. Approximately
acres of permeable surfaces ould be provided on the site under the Reduced Construction
Alternative, compared to approximately 102 acres that would be provided as part of the
I -67
ro)ect. Similar to the Proj
Create a a im -lovatIve and beautiful campus rear Apple's h- ifinite Loop f ac' 'ty that
consolidates many of Apple's engineers and support persor-Lnel in a single d.istirictive
office, researdi and development buildi-tig, and su.pport7ng facilities. n-te purpose of
consolidation is to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur invention of the
next several generations of Apple products.
Secondary Objectives:
• Maximize green space, and design this space in accordance with the climate and history
of the area.
0 Create a physically unified arnpus community that improves internal circulation and
limiiiat s w-mecessary access poin is by consolzdatil-ig the existing properties within one
campus.
• Enable a commuthag culture where thoughtful site plaruaftag and regional connectivity
coupled with a robust TDM program prioritize transit and active cominute modes.
• Exceed economic, social, and environmental su.stam* ability goals through integrated
design and development.
• Create a campus that reflects Apple's business and design practices, and allows for a
long -term presence in Cu.perthio.
0 Mirdmi e use of potable water through the use of drought tolerant landscape, grater
efficient fixtures, and recycled water, if available as a result of projects now under
consideration, and improve runoff quality by fticreasing permeable surfaces.
In additional, the following project sponsor objectives would be achieved, but to a lesser
extent than the Project:
rU a y Objective:
Achieve the security and privacy required for the invention of new products b y
lima- nathig any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against
unauthorized persons.
Secondary Objectives:
Provide on-site amenities ities for Apple's employees ul order to promote employees" health
and well -being and reduce off-campus travel.
Provide ari on -site venue for the trodn Lion of Apple's new products that will generate
surprise and delight, and enable the products to beYntroduced at Apple's corporate
home.
Create a campus plan that incorporates flexibility to respond to Apple's future business
needs.
I -69
Although the Reduced Construction Alternative would reduce short term construction
impacts, this Alternative is rejected as infeasible because It would not achieve numerous
City objectives, both for the City and Apple. Several City objectives focus on the distinctive
design achieved by the Project, -tcluding its wall ab` `ty bil eability and increased
permeable surface, which could either not be achieved, or to a much lesser degree, with the
.educed Construction. Alternative. As for the project sponsor objectives, a priLmary objective
is achieving an innovative and beautiful campus that consolidates Apple's engineers in a
s7ngle building, which could not be achieved with the Reduced Construction Alternative.
Other project sponsor objectives would similarly not be achieved, or to a much lesser extent.
While the Deduced Construction Alternative would be simpler to construct and could avoid
some significant short terra i]npacts, because it would not achieve numerous objectives,
includh -ig primary objectives, it is considered infeasible. It is also noteworthy that the
Reduced Construction. Alternative would only avoid short tenm impacts and would have all
the same operational significant and unavoidable impacts. Further, the Reduced
Construction Alternative would not provide some of the Project's enviroranental benefits.
For example, the Deduced Construction Alternative would include substantially more
surface parking and would have greater impermeable surface. For these reasons, the
Reduced. Construction. Ateemative is considered infeasible and is hereby rejected.
D. Reduced Density Alternative
The Deduced Density Alternative would reduce the effects of the Project on the
transportation system (and achieve other environr rental benefits ) by reduckig employment
at the project site. Under this alternative, the Main Building would be reduced In size and
the project site would accommodate 8,000 .Apple employees (6,200 fewer employees than
could occupy the site as part of the Project and 1,800 fewer employees than would occupy
the site as part of the No Project Alternative), This alternative would result in a total of
approximately 2.2 million square feet of office, research, and development uses (compared
to approximately 3,420,000 square feet under the Project). Similar to the Project, the segment
of Pruneridge Avenue within the site would be vacated, allowing for the development of a
unified campus. Overall building site coverage would remain approximately the same as
the Project.
To accommodate the 6,206 employees that would otherwise be located at the project site,
Apple could construct one or more additional campuses at other locations. While no off -site
locations have been identified at this time, a ley consideration would be proximity to
regional transit systems, particularly if the campuses are located ixt the Bay Area. For
example, Apple could consider a location h-i San Jose (currently home to 24 percent of
.Apple's employees ) along a light rail lm�e or a location in San Francisco (currently home to
13 percent of Apple's employees) that is well- seared by Fay Area Rapid Transit (FAIT) or
Galt- rain. Greater proximity to regional transit systems would enable Apple to acl -deve a
higher level of TIM participation than the level currently contemplated, for fl-te project.
Furthermore, in developing any new cainpu es, Apple would retain its commit - ,ent to
renewable energy and no net new greerd -touse gas emissions.
I -o
The Deduced Density Alternative would require the same entitlements and approvals as the
Project.
The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid or reduce significant traffic, noise,
greenhouse gas, and air quality impacts due to lower levels of employment on-site
compared to the Project. The Reduced Density Alternative could also be constructed in a
shorter timefarame than the Project, resulting i1-i reduced construction activity and reduced
construction impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and greerhouse gas emissions. The
reduction in operational traffic impacts is particularly important, because increased traffic
affects most members of the commw -tity and is one of the key concerns identified by the
community during the EII scoping session.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce local employment yment growth by moving the
Project's growth elsewhere in the region. Although the growth that is not accommodated in
Cupertino under the Reduced Density Alternative would also generate traffic and
associated air quality, noise, acid greenhouse gas emission impacts, these impacts on a per
capita basis could be reduced if Apple were to locate the additional employees ffi a transit
hub such as pants of San ,dose and San Francisco.
The Deduced Density Alternative would not achieve the .following City project objectives:
Encourage the retention of Apple's corporate headquarters ji-i Cupertino withmn a world
class corporate campus.
• Allow for the expansion of Apple's operations while er -iancing the physical
envi rora ent of the project area and being sensitive to eommur dt r creeds.
The Reduced Density Alternative would not fully achieve many of the project sponsor's
objectives for the Project, includng the following:
Primary bjective
Create an innovative and beautiful car .pus near Apple's Inf it -lite Loop facility that
consolidates Apple's ngmne rs and support persoru-iel ir-t a snlgle dist-h-t ti e office,
research and development building, and s .pporth -ig facilities. The purpose of
consolidation is to promote shared creativity ai-id. collaboration and spur ir- vention of the
net several generations of Apple products.
Secondary Objective.
Create a campus that reflects Apple's business and design practices, and allows for a
long-term presence in upertia-t .
The followi -ng project sponsor objectives would be achieved, but to a lesser extent than the
Project:
1-71
Secondary Objectives:
Create a carpus plan that incorporates flexibility to respond. to .Apple's fixture business
needs.
• Enhance the City's tax base.
Improve traffic circulation while avoidilig measures that would unduly restrict
employment growth within the project site.
Although the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts, this Alternative is
rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve numerous City objectives, both for the
City and Apple, h- tcluding reta=` Ag Apple "s headquarters h-L upertirlo, which right not
happen with the Deduced Density Alternative. As for the project sponsor objectives, a
primary objective is consolidating its employees in a single distinctive office, research and
development building, and supporting facilities, but the Deduced Density Altemative
would significantly limit the number of employees who could, be located at the new
campus. Several other key objectives identified above would not be met, or to a much lesser
extent. For those reasons, the Reduced Density Alternative is considered infeasible and is
hereby rejected.
E. Environmentally Su rio Alternative
CEQA requires EIRs to identify the environmentally superior alternative, The No Project
Altemative would be environmentally superior ft-i the strict sense that environmental
impacts associated with its implementation would be the least of all the alternatives
analyzed in the EII , h- ichiding the Project although the traffic impacts of the No Project
Alternative would be greaten than the Reduced Density Alten -tative . In cases life this where
the No Project Alternative is the enviror nentally superior alternative, State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the EIR "also identify an environmentally
superior alternative among the other altematives."
As discussed i1-t Section IVT of the Draft EII , the Reduced Density Alternative would be the
enviromnentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In particular, the
Reduced Density Alternative would avoid or reduce significant traffic, noise, and air duality
impacts due to lower levels of employment on -site compared to the Project. The Deduced
Density Altemative could also be constructed in a shorter tix eframe than the Project,
resulti� g in reduced construction activity and reduced construction impacts related to
traffic, noise, air duality, and greenr -iouse gas emissions. The reduction in operational traffic
impacts is particularly *
IMP
ortant, because h -tcreased traffic affects most members of the
conununity and is one of the key concerns identified by the community during the EII
scopulg session.
Z -'2
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce local employnient growth by moving tl -ds
growth elsewhere in the region. Although the growth not accommodated in Cupertino
would also generate traffic, and associated air duality, noise, and greenhouse gas emission
impacts, these unpacts on a per capita basis could be reduced. if Apple were to locate the
additional employees mn a transit hub lire parts of San Jose and San Francisco.
Because the Reduced. Density Alternative would reduce traffic and associated impacts
compared to the other alternatives, it is considered the environmentally superior alternative
for the purposes of analysis under CEQA.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These find irAgs incor orate the tent of the Fay -ial EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitori -ng and Reporting Program, City Staff Reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, -by reference, ire their entirety. Without
limitation, this it -icorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation
measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for deterring the significance of
impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the determination of the
enviromnentafly superior: alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.
XI. RECORD of PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Apple Campus 2 Project constitute the
record of proceed.f. -.gs upon which the City bases its f dh-tgs and decisions contained
herein. Those documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the
documents and materials, which is the City of Cupertino Community Development
Depart rent, Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202.
XIT. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and cormnent i hen "sIgnif icaxit new - information,, is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No
significant ant new information was added to the Draft EIR. as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies acid makes
ins.xgnificant modifications to the Draft EIR.. The Final EIR does not identify any new
significant effects on the envirom -nent or a substantial increase in the severity of alt
environmental ire- .pact. Therefore, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
At Caltrans "s request, the Response to Comments Document contains information on
freeway on -ramp fueuirig due to ramp metering. On-ramp queuing is generally not
considered a CEQA impact., but rather an operational consideration, The City reviewed six
metered freeway on -ramps to leterinine if further operational analysis should be
conducted. (creased queuing at only one location, the southbound I -280 on -ramp at
Lawrence Expressway, would warrant ramp Improvements. Iii the PM peak hour, the
I-
existing queues extend fhe length of the on-ramp. Because the Project would add a
considerable amount of traffic to this ramp, Caltraxis requested that the project sponsor
provide additional capacity by adding an HOV preferential lane. The increased queuing
would not lead to capacity or intersection impacts, so the increased queum* g does not
represent a significant impact according to CEQA. Therefore, recirculation is not required.
The City will continue to work with Caltrans to determine the operational queuing
considerations for this location. Although not a CEQA impact, the City of Cupertino will
require the Project to fund improvements to the on-ramp as a, Condition of Approval.,
because the addition of project traffic would ificrease ramp queues.
The Draft EIR identified in Impact TRANS-22 TRANS-22 that the Project would have a signific a -it and
unavoidable impact on the level of service of freeway segments because the project would
contribute snore than I percent additional traffic to 10 mixed flow segments and one HOV
freeway segment operating at LOS F. Following continents received on the Draft EI ,
additional study of freeway segments was conducted, and this irn.pact was refined to
include more freeway segments. The percentage of project traffic in the newly identified
segments would not eceed the percentage of project traffic identified in the previously
impacted segments. As a result, the intensity of the Impact has not increased. For these
reasons, there is no new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of this
significant and unavoidable impact; therefore, recirculation is not required.
III. STATEMENT of OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the .Apple Campus 2 Project will result �n project
and culnulati.ve significant adverse envirom ental impacts related to air quality, land use,
plam-ting policy, public services and utilities, and transportation and circulation that cannot
be avoided following adoption and implementation of mitigation measures described in the
EIR and made conditions of project approval. fin addition, there are no feasible project
alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project's significant environmental
impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of
the public agency results H'l the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency must state writing the reasons to support its actions.
See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic, legal,
social, tecl ological or other benefits of the Project, fi-Lcluding region -ride or statewide
environmental benefits, against its significant and miavoidable environmental impacts, the
City finds that the project benefits outweigh its uu -tavoid.able adverse enviromnental effects,
and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City's judgment, specific benefits
of the Project outweigh eigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence
supporthn.g the benefits of the Project can be found in the precedh-ig sections of these
Findings, in the Project itself, and fi-i the record of proceedh -tgs as defined ffi Section X1,
above. The City further fil -ids that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate
I -74
and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final
EIR and other information in the administrative record..
A. The Project will occur on an irifill site in an e istir -ig urbanized area in Cuperth-to and
will result i1-i regional enviromnental benefits, because it will not require the
extension of utilities or roads into undeveloped areas, and will not directly or
indirectly lead to the development of green.field sites in the San Francisco Bay Area.
B. The project site is currently built up with outdated and outmoded buildings
surrounded by dozens of acres of surface parking. The Project will consolidate all
buildings and provide parting in underground and structured parking facilities,
resulting in an increase in pervious surface fr in 42 acres to approximately x.09 acres.
This increased pervious surface will reduce stormwater runoff, reducing flows to the
sewer system and improving water quality in the nearby Calaba as Creel.
C. The Project will replace predominantly non-native tree species with predominantly
native species, and result in the planting of several hundred fruit trees on -site. The
total number of trees will increase from 4,506 to at least 6,200, and the trees will
primarily consist of native trees, as well as other climate appropriate species.
Additionally, it is anticipated that fruit from the fruit trees will be used at the on -site
restaurants as a sustainable use of the land. The increase in the number and quality
of trees will have beneficial biological impacts by providing i�rT�proved habitat for
avian species.
D. Pursuant to the jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental
Leadership Act, also -iown as AB 900, the Governor designated the Project as the
State's first } "Environmental Leadership Development nt Pr ject" h-t recognition of its
innovative and leading environmental attributes, as well as its economic and job -
producing benefits. The City finds that because the Project meets each of the
requirements to qualify as a Leadership Project pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21180(b) and 21183, as described below, the Project provides significant
benefits to the City of Cupertino and its residents, the region and the State. In order
to qualify as an Envirorunental Leadership Development Project, a project must meet
the following criteria:
1, Be certified as LEER silver r. or better file United States Green Build.��
Council: By achieving a LEED silver or better certification, the Project will
replace the existffig outmoded and. inefficient buildings with more energy
efficient office and research mad development buildings, and ancillary
buildings, that include state -of-- the -art green building elements, thereby
reduch -tg energy demand, water usage and hazardous materials, among other
benefits.
i -f7
2. .Achieve a 10--percent greater standard for trm-isportation efficiency for
coM arable proi ects: One of the challenges faced by Cupertino mid the region
is how to meet the demands of gr rmng companies, while lninimi ing
congestion. The City finds that while the Project may have significant traffic
related impacts, it is a significant benefit that the overall },transportation
efficiency" of the project will be more than 10- percent better than comparable
projects due to implementation of the Transportation Demand Management
Program, as described 'n Section MILE, below.
3. Result in a minimum h- ivest'nent of one hundred million dollars
($100,000,DOO): The Project will result in an investment that far exceeds
$100,000,000, which, as discussed in more detail. in Sections XIII.G, below,
will have direct and h-i direct fiscal benefits to .e City and econoinic benefits
to the entire region.
;
. Create hi ,h-wage, high t� at pay living wage,
�1
Sections XIII.G.5 and XIII.G. , below, identify the numerous direct and
indirect jobs related benefits of the Project, includi -ng but not limited to high -
wage, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing and living wages.
5. Not result in any net additional elnlssion of greenhouse gases, i .clud�n
from em loy e trans ortationr as determined by the State Air Resources
Board "AR " : After conducting an ii -idep ndent review of the information
submitted by Apple, on June 1, 2012, the .Air Resources Board adopted
Executive Order LP-12 -002 making ing a formal determination that the Project
will not result h-i any net new greenhouse gas emissions, a determination that
was reconfirmed on April 29, 2013 after considering Apple's updated
application to reflect minor modifications to the Project. h -i making that
d tenmi- nation, ARB found that, without the Project, the existing build.zi�gs on
the project site would likely be re- occupied at their full occupancy, as had
been the casein the past. Therefore, ARB determined that the appropriate
"baseline" to assess net greenhouse gas emissions is the emissions associated
with the existing buildings as if they were fully occupied. ARBs independent
analysis determined that while the "fully occupancy baseline" would cause
greenhouse gas emissions ii-i the arnomt of 54,482 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent per year MT 2e /year , the p'roject's emissions are
expected to be 38,258 MT 2e /year. That is, ARB found that while the
employee capacity of the project site will increase from 9,800 employees to
14,200 employees, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to decrease by
16,224 MT 2e /gear. -i reaching this conclusion, ARB reviewed all of the
Project's sources of greenhouse gas emissions and tools account of the
Project's following innovative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions:
I
(a) Apple's commitment to net zero energy for the Project, which will be
achieved through a three - tiered strategy, cornbinir -tg efficiency and
conservation, on -site renewable energy from solar panels and bi gas
sustained fuel cells, and off -site renewable energy through Apple's
participation in California's Direct Access r gr in for commercial
customers and from the purchase of renewable energy credits.
(b) ARB found that there will be a reduction in energy use by at least 30
percent compared to a typical cornrnercial development through
energy efficient, green building design. -t.
(c) For the onslte generation of renewable energy, ARB projected that the
solar arrays will have a capacity of 12 MW and the on-site fuel cell
installation, powered by loo percent directed biogas, will have a
capacity of 6 MW.
(d) For construction related greenhouse gas emissions, ARB concluded
that .Apple will frilly offset such emissions by participating in
California's Direct access program.
E. The Project will foster the development and use of efficient transportation systems
by including an enhanced. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
designed to reduce the use of single - occupancy vehicles, improve transit amenities
in. the vicinity of the project site, an area already well - served by tray -,sit, and improve
the overall existf. -ig bicycle and pedestrian environment on surrounding roadways.
Apple will expand its current TDM Program to achieve a 34 percent alternative
mode participation rate (which is, a 6 percentage po7nt peals hour tarp reduction and
an increase of 1% over and above its existing TIM alternative mode participation of
28%) and associated peak grip counts at frill b .il . ut and occupancy. The expanded
TDM program includes elements such as: expanded Apple coach services areas and
frequency, improved off-campus bicycle infrastructure, prioritized walking and
cycling options, new transit Center, new par"-ig monitoring system, expanded
bicycle - sharing program, electric vel -icle charging stations, among other strategies.
F. The lender . -ilrig Barr, which is a listed historic resource, is located on the project
site, but it is not publicly accessible and minimally visible. While it is a resource that
has the potential -to enable citizens to connect to the City's agricultural past, it
currently sloes not perform that function due to its location. As a result of the Project,
Apple will relocate the Barn either on -site ir-i a publicly visible location or elsewhere
in the City to a publicly accessible location. Apple will also renovate the Bata
consistent with the Department of h-iterior Standards, resulting in an improved
structure.
1,77
G. The Project will have the follo h-tg economic benefits, rhich will promote policy
objectives iii the Land Use Cornrnunity Design Element related to economic issues,
including maintaffim�g the vitality of business and manufacturing, e ist .ig major
companies within Cupertino, a strong tax base, and the City's fiscal well -- being,
which are found *n General flan Policy 2-40 1 aintainh -ig the vitality of Business
and Manufacturing), Policy 2-20, Strategy 3 (Diversity of Land Use, Major
Comp ar des ), Policy 2-42 Revenue Analysis of Office Developments), and Policy 2 -4
(Mam*tain Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks).
Apple is the City's largest employer and taxpayer. The current inventory of
office buildings available in the City will not accommodate the company's
c ntm* , d expansion. Therefore, the project will enable Apple to meet its
current and future business needs in Cupertino.
2. The Project is a significant redevelopment of outmoded office parks, and it
represents a major ki est ent on the part of Apple. The Project will provide
stability and predictability for the development of future facilities,
encouraging Apple to continue its growth within fl-te City. As sucli, it is
expected that Apple will remain on the site and in the City for a long
duration, contributing to community prestige and stability.
3. Keepir. -ig Apple's company head carters in Cupertino and further expanding
its operations ir-i the City will enable the City to rnairitain millions of dollars
per year in sales tax revenues and significantly increase ,Apple's contribution
to property, sales, and other taxes.
4. In FY 2012 - 2013, Apple paid $9.2 million in a a-tcal tax revenue to ffie City's
general fund2. The largest single component of Apple - generated revenues is
certain sales taxes h-t Califon. -ia. In fiscal year 2011 -2012, these taxes totaled.
$6.5 million. Linder the terms of fife Projec Development Agreement, the
existing Tax Consulting Agreement between fl-te City and Baz Industries, Inc.
(an Apple subsidiary), which is scheduled to expire in 2014, will be extended
(until the expiration of the Development Agreement) and amended to reduce
the percentage of compensation paid to the consultant from 0% to % oil
new local tax revenue amounts over $250,000. By 2016, the sales and use taxes
generated by Apple is estimated to be about $13.7 million, of which about
$9.3 million would be paid to fl-t City's general fund. In 2012, Apple
generated approximately $25 million of local property tax revenue, which
helps to Band. City municipal services as well as the Cupertino and Santa
2 conopiic and Fiscal Inn acts Generated by Apple in Cupertino - Current Facilities and apple Campus 2, Keyser
Marston Associates (May 2013). This report sets forth other economic benefits not detailed this sur=ary.
I--
Clara Union School and the Fremont High School Union Districts, the Santa
Clara County Library, the Central Fire Protection District, Santa Clara
County, and other local service tax7ng agencies. The project is expected to
generate an additional $32 million in annual property tax revenue to local
public agencies, with total recurring property tax revenues from Apple to
local public agencies expected to exceed $56.5 million each year. Recurring
ar+u -ival sales tax revenues to the Santa Clara valley Transportation Authority
CWTA"') will also be substantial. VTA tax revenue results from voter -
approved initiatives that lever a 1.125 percent tax on taxable sales. Apple's
exi ting upertino facilities generated $1.3 billion of taxable sales in 2012,
yielding over $1 million of annual tax revenue to the VTA. Upon project
completion, it is estimated that Apple will generate an additional $1.1 million
of VTA tax revenue, for a total anticipated annual VTA tax revenue of $15.4
million.
Over the past five years, the number of apple employees based i-1-1 Cupertino
increased at an average annual rate of IS percent. The Economic and Fiscal
Impacts report used a growth rate of 10 percent when estimating that 7,400
employees will be hired between June 2013 and the completion of the Project
ft-t 2016, resulting fi-t a projected total company employee count of 23,400 by
the time the project opens. Without the Project, due to the limited capacity to
grow i-n Cupertino, many of those new jobs could go to other surroundit -ig
communities. With the project, apple will be able not only to Tema M* the
City, but also could accoi=odate significant new growth h�to the future. The
Economic and Fiscal Impacts report .finds that Apple also indirectly creates
jobs. Apple currently generates approximately 12,100 jobs indirectly, and the
Deport anticipates that there will be over 25,000 jobs ffidirectl r created by
Apple in Santa Clara Courity, wl-dch will bring he total number of Santa
Clara Countywide jobs supported by Apple to more than 40,000.
6. I etainh -ig and iditensifying employment at the project site also will result in
indirect .fiscal and economic benefits to Cupertino, such as increased
spending and sales taxes in the City due to the proposed increase in
employees on the project site, transient occupancy taxes paid by Apple
visitors, and sales tax generated from retail e penditar *es of apple employees
livh -Lg and worl h -ig xn Cupertino. Direct, hidirect and Ri lduced effects of the
pi ;eject will increase Apple's armual employee income and e penditnrie
potential in the greater Santa Clara County from approximately $2.7 bllholt
(Mi 2012) to $3.9 billion including the expenditures from growth il-t jobs
predicted by the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Report (upon completion of
the project). In addition to employee spending, company purchases create
additional jobs, income and expenditures for .perth-ro and broader Santa
Clara County region. In 2012, Apple ..a.d e $4.6 billion in purchases frorn. over
I -7
700 businesses located within Cixpertfio, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale alone. In
2010 and 2011, local purchases a-nd the number of vendors used by Apple
increased at average any.-t al rates of % and %, respectively. The
multiplier effect of these purchases on the larger supply chain is substantial.
In 2011-2012, Apple generated approximately . billion of gross sales for
non -Apple l u.smnesses M* these same cities. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts
report estimates apple's increased employment to generate an additional
$2.7 billion in local business revenues h-t Cupertino, Sunnyvale m -td Santa
Clara, for an Dual total of $8.6 billion.
7. The Project will generate one -time Construction Tax to the City totalii -Ig
about $10.7 million., and will result fi-i a significant number of short term jobs
during the construction period, cludii g 9,200 high- quality m-id high-paying
construction jobs, as documented in Apple "s AB 900 application..
Ir I, The Development Agreement will result in substantial l a ditional public benefits,
including the following:
., Although the Housing Mitigation Fee and Construction Tax are not typically
paid until the issuance of building permits, and even in that case, only for the
project phase for which the permit was issued, .Apple has agreed to pay a
two times the adopted housing mitigation fee in the it "s 2013-2014 fee
schedule for net new square footage associated with the project as housing
fund contribution, and the constxuction tax for the first 2.4 million square
feet of construction no later t ma thirty -one 1 days after the Effective Date
of the Development Agreement. These up -front payments will siga. -iificantl r
accelerate the tinning for the City's receipt of these funds.
2. Apple has agreed to include requirements in its contracts with significant
general contractors performing work at the project site to cause Construction
Sales Tax arising from purchases of materials, fixtures or equipment for the
Project to be allocated to the City, to the extent allowed by law, thus
i axi
4. If lendennh -tg Barn is located off -site, Apple will provide about $2.64
million as payment for land, cost of repairs and to maintain and conduct
capital repairs over at least a 20 year period.
5. A 1.1 acre portion of the project site is currently zoned for public park use,
although a park has not been built and the land is currently developed with a
par fig lot. Apple has agreed to pay $8,270,994 to the City, whi -L constitutes
sufficient funds to acquire 1.1 ages of part Im -id., improve it with park
equipment and provide a mah-itenan e and capital replacements endowment
for twenty 20 years. As a result of the Project, the City will have adequate
fur ids to purchase, construct and maintain a new park. , Altematively, h. -istead
of providing funds to purchase a park site, Apple may acquire a 1.1 acre part
site acceptable to the City and dedicate it to the City.
6. Apple has agreed to install an additional separate fiber optic conduit along
Wolfe Road between the 280 Freeway and Homestead Load, fi-t order to
accommodate City's usage. This will improve the City's communication
systems related to traffic signal operations at no up -front cost to the City.
7. Apple has agreed to fund signal preemption throughout the City, beyond its
obligations tuider CEQA,, which will improve emergency response times,
provide benefits to the entire community.
Based on the entire record, includilig the EIR and the Economic and Fiscal impacts report,
the specific economic, social and enviromnental benefits of the project, as stated above,
outweigh and override any significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result
from future project implementation. The Council has determined that any significant
environmental effects caused by the Apple Campus 2 Project have been mitigated to the
extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified hereili and adopted and made
conditions of project approval, and, where mitigation is not feasible, has been outweighed
and counterbalanced by -the economic, legal, social, tecl- z -tological and other benefits of the
Project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits.
XIV. SUMMARY
1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained ixt the record, the
City has made one or more of the .f ollowitig Findings with respect to each of the
significant environmental effects of the Project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substm- itially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIS..
1 -81
. T1 -Lose changes or alterations are wit the responsibility and jurisdiction f
another Public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other public agency.
c. Specific economic, legal., social, tecl- nologiaf, or other considerations, make
mfeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significalat
en irom ental effects of the Project.
2. Based on the foregoing FM�dings and the information conta .ed. in the record, the
City deter m es that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eltnxr -.aced or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant effects on the enviror a nt f o -id to be - .avoidable
are -acceptable due to the factors described, ha the Statement of Overridixig
Considerations, above.
1-
EXI -IIBIT EA-,2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. INTRODUCTION
This document ent describes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP for ensuring
the effective implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Cupertino (City) and
made conditions of approval of the Apple Campus 2 Project (project). The project would entail the
redevelopment of an approximately 176 -acre project site into a new campus for .Apple Inc. (Apple).
When a' lead agency adopts findings pursuant to Section 21051 of the California Environmental
Quality Act E A l and Section 15091 of the CEQA GuidelineS2upon completion of are Environmen-
tal Impact Report (EIR), it is required to adopt a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to
Section. 21081.6 of CEQA and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. TI-le purpose of the MMRP is to
ensure compliance with the measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts
during project implementation. This MMRP will not only direct the implementation of mitigation
measures by the specified responsible parties, but also facilitate the City's monitoring, compliance,
and reporting activities, including the activities of any third-party monitors it may designate.
B. PROJECT T BA K OUND
The project site is currently developed with structures that contain office and research and
development uses. These existing structures will be demolished and replaced with new development
as part of the project. The project involve the construction of 3,420,000 square feet of office, research,
and development uses; 245,000 square feet of auditorium, fitness center, and parking reception uses;
92,000 square feet of utility plants; and parking and ancillary buildings (such as security receptions
and landscape maintenance buildings). As part of the project, a segn -tent of Tyruneridge Avenue will
be vacated by the City to allow for the development of a unified and secure campus and Apple will
also implement changes to local roadways in the vicinity of the project site. The environmental effects
of the project are analyzed and identified in the Apple Campus 2 Project Final EIR.
The Final EIR identifies potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures in the following
areas:
• planning policy
! land use
• biological resources
1 The California Environmental Quality Act is found at Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, Hereinafter, the
MMRP will refer to the Pub Iic Resources Code sections of CE (A as " Sec tion [number] of CE QA. "
The State C E QA Guidelines " Gui delines" are found at C aliforrda Code of Regulations, Title 14, Se ction 150 0 0 et seq.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EI
AUGUST 2013 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
0 cultural resources
• geology, seismicity, and soils
• hydrology and water duality
• hazards and hazardous materials
• transportation and circulation
0 noise
air quality
public services and utilities
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As the lead agency under CEQA, the City will be responsible for ensuring full compliance with the
provisions of this MMRP and will have primary responsibility for implementation of the MMRP. The
City has the authority to halt arty activity associated with the construction and operation of the Apple
Campus 2 project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or the
adopted mitigation measures.
D. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING OGRAM
The attached table presents a compilation of the mitigation measures in the Final EI , together with
the required monitoring and reporting actions, and timing.
The attached table includes columns that shove: 1 each mitigation measure identified in the Final
EIR; 2 the procedure for implementing each mitigation measure; the City entity responsible and
procedure for monitoring and reporting implementation of each mitigation measure; 4 the timing
for implementation of each mitigation measure; and verification of mitigation measure
completion.
2
M
F4
F4 mm
Fw p ,�
am
Z
�
��.►_� , .
o, a •�
aj
4-1 bC
_ �
4 try
CD Q.
Imo'( V g VJ { Pay �7 VJ h"�I.,., S.JJa
L
ct
0 bb
bra 4 q
' rr�
o 44 � • �
4-J a
r-CS blo
.,�
v
u o
Ln { ;..I '�
C)
V) lIi
cn ,u
bl.. ,.
,r-(,
+j - ' '
O
I F-q a) 0 0 4
rn Q; 4
K4-4 ft ' ,..,, '
Ln
'
M rd
9 �-H
. CL4 P
rn r
t� v}
CD ' m ter 0 � • CD "' Q b
CD (D FL
�-Av 9.
n `* m �
CD CD n PM
coq C rL
o' �`
rD C-: C� � ' Cry � �`. �`-� �
. CAD ~ CD r+ ' " CD � ., , ' rn
m,`
,7
9 C) z � 4 E ;J)
�".. "nil Cb
CL (D Qn
•r r ' `
H CD CD
C�} `�' O O
I:L
cr �j � C-` 9 o
(D ro ., r �
p CDl M
�J,
Ord Ln rD
C,
CD CD}
�. 71, �$
crq
CL --+
r+
rxa+5
Y 4 }j M
CD
CL
C
rL
SD PL4
r�
M CD i:L
"C
rD
CD 0
rD
O
C > r
x�
W
m
0 cl ' o
CD
0
W�
i �..M
O'
Pi 0
A4
Ln
w
0
0
H
0
t
d
i
C
W
O 4 C1
•, X
rs
7J ,�
4 cry .� � 01 �„� (1) , �
Cd
' cd 4- 0 rn
C ,
r-,--' � O
zr-..q --� •A
tn
CJ US M 0
X7 Z Z
t cu -6 � ` '
00 . � a.,__�
F ,� o o
CD w �, ' o
D w 9 L
,rt n
-►
COQ
r) CD �-2 S
d 00
rp w ff m
ro H - ,
ro
uo
CD w p rD
CD
CD
CD m
rD
CD CD
CL
0
ro
0
J-j �-j�
cm
CD >
.+
CD
IdRa
tl-
W�
� oa
� o �
co
c T'j
' c
CD
a) E '",
.
14 Cl) '
4-4
. �.�
En
_ 0 49
.ro i
Oro r-
v ` } '
r p ,� rd
-+� -�
' ' ba o 7:�
' o ,
c
Cd
,.s 41 •,� ,.
-rte
b!J v ;A
�,.,,, b ,
*
rd 0
>
' + c +
0 m 74� T:s r-4 r) P-.4 -k (1)
4 �--r . ,� OJ ,-r . ,..1 .5 v
cu) � pff f R
Q' A+
r!� W
C*AA]
V3 C�
p
1k
�j..�.
CD
CA
PL
CD
0
M
CD
(FD
cr
+
V
�
L1
S�+TVy
9
a
l4CD
PfS+�}
F
+J J
Y f
Vwr
CD
m
CD
I�
rD
5
rD
cm
ONO 0
ro
Fes,
�I
h'J
FBI
F
Y�
h�
'
r M
o
RMAI
0
Uri
ai a;
O
'�., ,— r c
' ■.0 z
0
b
1 � 0 '
bjO 6.0
6,3 Ln
a
■
a c
41
V 4 * N
' cd
S
C v cn w
cc
4 LA
a, a
a)
c '.�
V
l/Tk4J
17, 5JJ
{••� L
�a
[ '}
CD
.,,
�:L
W
I
CD
5./�
4�}y�
}1 T +
JYV'/e�iJ
V J
LVT]
T
�••�
f'
5�
w
4 V
0
t V
V J
1 J
0'
((j }}
4 i,j
4 .! ]
T
'r/+.'}}+'
�y
rD
CL
F ,
�+•�
�J
.
('
LJi
,
t!]
t� L
ems► .s
i D
aq
T
* T
1_" L4
�••�
f
'''�
+
lot
t
(*D
rD
��
}
CD
i �
�I
I"r
r�
�'•J T
�
IDS
J�
4f J
�
fir•%
,,..44.. as
��
�lei
� F
�
lei
}
}
�j
L
H•'�T
Yf
V +rr
1�
+
C)
-rot
M
}
jj�•,�y.Y,.i ;L �.�L�.�.j�I
2-. r) V J I•�
ID
HO
um
�
T
� +
ro
CD
+
g.
0'+
w
1 F
f"F'
rppq
LO
CD
CD
0
i
Y
�••� T
;V
LO
"��
no
4 LI
r•�1 •
j/�'',L
I
i
CL
m
CD
�{
1••E'
ry.�7
a-•
i
Y'
rD
�.I
Wes•
�+
4 V
l Z
�fiV
rD e 0
*•.
�++y
1
F•-•+1
cr
�`j
CrQ
{`
r•+r
{ -
A••�••
2)
411
CDF
UO
tj
wo rr
�} 4F
% ry
-r1T��Y
jj.yy� Vl
4i
j11�1/+•� %�
Ji��
g
W �
V CU
PA g4
p'
go
w
0
o
0
i
o
t4)
.
C) LJ p
4.4 WD
,• a t
a .,-4 „
;, ''�
4-1 WD p '
c '.+ , •'� " • ` cry ,
a. b '.
44 C, F u s:., 44
L4 rf�
cn
' fTq
o • `'
F-i a) V ,� � 4-)
r"
rR-�
CA Lo�
M CD
to to $ `,-
`. ` Cn
CL 0 co
J..J4 2 n w ""I 5� �j 0
+ iii u �rq CD M-# ` i ice+. � /' �" m ( '
O' CD
ull p..* 5 ztw i �::
Pr. 10 j`. ` Ln
On rD
ph rD
R� �,E UP �L 0 0 rD p-4
F.,i ,'
? r+
CD
IrD
� 0 n .
C "4 OPQ
rD
PW
' q fD
qrq
(D (PG
lam/
4 CD
F CD
CD y
i rn
0
CD
�r
Er m
w ��
CG
W �
w
a,
o
0
v
cu
Gel
+, •
D C31
4
',C
• '
y,
• + r #- 4 r—q
7d j
tz o CU tz 4 cn E7�
. 75 Ird,
r-4 ' Cd ' Cis
xj 0 rd t 4-4 OJ
+j
C�
WO
CtQ C-4
c ice.
m CD
Orq � � ��, +-* to �' c
{ FT {.+ C
�:L 9
CD n
CD
rD
rD 2) cp; rD
aQ -�'
C!]
CD
�j 9. �r
�G
cm
CL
O
C)
O
4
O *�
a
L
tQ C) `
H .*�
+�--�
�' a •� o
ri .° `
•, s.� r
un UM ` q F�"'I .may LL
*: 4-j , W 4-, CCU
5:�- 6 -,t
'
a. r `
0
-` ,u
E6
[ cn +� V
d+ . ;.4
' D
cd
o
i ' U u cu
``�' ` cry '
' u bb U
• ', 4-J o �` o "Ij .
$z 1 •, o - .
. ," ! o C'
;.4 B u
� o , o CL)
.,� - a a
cn
cu
' , , .
..� C} -+
M u cl) cn PH
J �, . ,-�
-
o
~ ` (-) "I -I- C) r)
# '.
FD a
ILI
fb+ ,
ID P6.4 w
w`. CL
. t7' r C
PJ
M ' # {U
3 ral (4
tz;4_
PJ
rD
fD
`
�-- o
CL
CU r+ �" D
R ,.
m
rD
n
rD
* CL ter,
crQ
Lo
w
� + C
rD
CD
CD 0 -
�- �..
CL
rD
' � a
# M 0r)
w
W�
x p,,
w
a�
a�
o
i
*.� + 1••I
z
O
ILA
I--r
ft -1
FBI
�i
# T•i
4Lf
i
J i
` l +�� . o
Cd 4-j
m 0 re 0
y P-4
En
cu
cn
a
,.� .a .
• . �
C) C
En
o o
;. ' ;.
Ct
4-1
cu 0 0
Cl 4-J �
0-4 0 ,
, 4-1 � ,, r
•,� --,
~"
•c E >-) Ul)
• P- Q * , r—s "` ,. -� CIS t.2
rf� o t •,
:z w ►` +� [
o 0
F4 P-4
cd ■ ■ ■ ■
cn
{'D �--t * '_'"' CJ's ' --4 �' . .. C) r, �:: �
[{j,�, i * r+++�ti]
� � ,..� `� � } � }}rr,J�/�jjy r'y ► , � �' }may , ,L- -yyJ.�
ID CD
�i ro ,, p " M
y 'D pQ
CD m
�. +- ,
C! "''
CD
+'D W rD Z �j N %q
C # F". C), /.'.4i �--}'' t"� P-'' -� fib H LO (n 9. r-, (1) 5. 9
INNNNNNNI
CL
4
CD
Q
cm
00
Pm
F+
J
0
y
W �
H • rw�
L
w
Z
z
0
Uri
a�
0
bt
-
CL) a) `
r---� o
Tj
Cd _
' v •' `�
o `
cu
4dj cu ,-.., M C) p €
a
WD
o 1 ,�
LOD
UCH 0,S�' 2
w ■
�4 Ul)
r�
CD Ln
0 CD
RL
F ,.
4 CAD (D ' i
`-`•
w ; tom' �--� ,' '
` i '"- i`• n
Cry Hn (-D w , rn.,
Uri
1---
art-►
CD
O
rD
14
0
z
o
r
v
�a
t
w
NZ
w
u
P
dp
UD
cu
cu
o �
o •
0
H
0
R�
cu
5
cu
o4
4-; ,.4 ,
w • �--�
-'
cry '-� + � , C) 4) ,� , t ?-. +j
C) , i ,. m �
"� o
cn
fi '� •u •� ,
O
s c
w ctS C Cl
�w
r *+ CL >
CD
r CD
F.4 r
0 '`. w
f k�' alp w CD
."'
c (*
cp; CD
cm
It
CD cm
}
D r)
CL 2
CD
cm o
Q rD
�j �-4, �3
n
a�
r�
JV '•
Ho
CD
i W
0
rD
P`
MID
OH °
w�
a
z
o
a
cu � v �
� ' trl
V F W �/ � i AI S h�• �iy�y
bA a Cd 4-J O
i O cry '
. ,-
4,1 � a) a)
a)
, 4111 .,� 4� ; U) g C)
4-1
'.` r3 P-� Zi c) u
cu
• u ,��+ e u
0 m 4-j a) V
m �-A CIZ r--.4 r
u ,W
o
Q` ` +�-1 + cry
Fml r �j J. rd �-(
cn
}, � p .
q ' `"' + "i
+ u +
'.
"' ' � iu r n
-, C }` 4. '
try bA v c ' +
Q?
cc� 0 U0 u 75
w ' a o, 4 a
,.a
� .
M
CN
t
o
CL �-h 5 r) w �L 2 W r)
C) t7, -1 "m 0
r C r � (D
r-k- M CD ','' W CD CD
V "
CL i
kt CD i
�#
`. 0,
CAD �-* . fiq �. �+, CG CD
Q
C3- = "
CD C ()
CD
cm
W �r
CD
M
aQ
•
FK
M�
FBI
F*+S
■
0
W
C.7 �
D
ca �`
W
P�
4
G�
O
F•;
O
E�
F
w
. rK
r�
CJ
Imo[
Q) U�
1—u cn
•*� cu
cd �.) 9 "---1 141 �>
C-+ '
.; },
. .,..t c)
CN
co
cry
N
CD
/fix * 0
ADD '..,.' ,, ', ' ' ' ,
CD
o
r. r 0
CD
' r Fl
'
ro
rD
CIO
O
QQ �
CTS
n
cry
bl
a
W
0
P61 Z
u
Uri
rd
z
+
.,
+ +� r q
,
+ + r W + W 4-f
o
• H ,. .2 ,.
' 0 4-j 5 '5
o
J '
0
�. 7J CU 0
7:1 ul
'"4
r Cd -'
'-, c +
W bD
a.+ 1p
M Lo
Z
r-I , P-4 m
I CC LLii
7:� +
r m �
Cd p p to
-�-�
car} (a ": u -,
CE U
.� ,Q 1-1 4-J �., p cd
o,,
r
ct
� r
Lr) ,., +� °' + co
� .', j u C5
rd tjD bb 0 O •+-� p
rul) '424
a r�
cq
00
Cf}
�
"N
�`
w
�z-'
w
w
�•-r,
F
ri-
may+
ol
CSI}
{+'-h�
�
t If
r�.1•�'
i 1%
r�`1
�
�
�
�
�
4!J ' i
i V
1�"� �
ICI
V 1}
VJ
W
l 11
1+4V'/y
U
y '�
V r
�n
off
4r �D
m
pi
�"�`F
yL1
i
f `�
h�
�I
r
+J!-��
CD W
1
'7
,,
ri
rI l
#
{I`'mo
3Fa
PL
F�
LO
m
I
�l
Irt
Y+
POOL
L �
It
Y
i
Y+-1
ri
hh�
FF
F.I
I..I
i
Y
h�
F�
V
4 �
f
cl
CPU
POr
Fn.l
ON
cq
7 u
P4 0 •�--�
o
�..� , '
I�L, Cs
�• .4-j
O `w
btu 1,� b
.''
.5 8 o
'i�—i 4
cn cn
. cul '
.�
A ' �u
D '- U, .
o
'
' u
Lf) ' rd +
a °' .'.,'
Uri In 7�
. '' ` . . - r-f .,..1 9
,--� --�
4-1 to .,..4 .9 ;:, 0
„�--� '
cu bb .
Cl) Z cu r4 C) 0 •�--�
° ' °
'� --• '
rt tj h f
. u cry t ,..
r
C+ 0
� o
a '
ro " ' ' '
{ Q ' w rD
cn 1 0 CL
v �.,. rG w
CD 0
C ° "�' ~ ` L
�-A' n`
.�
.-. i- .;
0
.. CD ,
0 0
9 0, �l k-.!� 9 0
,. CD m
C n
P-4 r+ �* rG
O cr,
rD
0
CD 0
yam"
r C
rD
CL
ro
}
r-r
C
' o
o
0 �
0
PO
rD PO
0
' o
o
t
rn
J6.4 0
us
w
o �
0
i
E c
O
n
40 PO4 ,
64 4-j
.,.�}
''� "� �
Uri
� Q)
Eb .rj u
i A '
• rpK
uo
a�
C Q-4 IS a)
En ' 4 a
cd
0 cu cu
CU CJ
Cd
?5 ' bA bb
7;1 cn cd cu
A '
M ,� Q �'' '� • ,—
p CI-4
was 0 CL,
AK } C r Q Q)
cc 'o �5 2�
LO Yn 5, r
rD
CD
Le,
CD CD
m + CD u J}�}J y`y1 /i rAy4l y�
i V F T V �. Imo' A" CD 4 1
�D
"-` r) ran
ei pro rD
LO
del rD 0 LO
alp (D
e
fD
a
H
o
>r
Iwo
CD
o�
o�
W
Uf) CIO
ct cd
pa lz W
,.1-4 '.6..4 0 .
W u cu
C4 U
OUT
C
"{ dy M
. D ,
C)
V cu
cu rd Q
rd cd
' ,�
.,� .
ul
P1.4 2
` .a--� cry ' ' CF-4 4-)) �- 4
,-..� p c i
C14 4-1
t 0 1 m _ 0 0) C) 4 4
-+ cn
e-4 m P-4 �D tz e Cl)
sy
GO cu cu
'd u 0
e-I 7�
so coon
. C W
M
rmy
�3
'may F�
4y�
Y
Vf
yk,s
L
CL
i
CL
`
,'�
(D
(
(
D
r-L
{
(
0
o
M
W
0
0
rD
R
r
*1
PL
(D
�ryry
rr
+Y f
W+ #
H�
411
,7,
�T
CD
�i
y
P
1'� CD
f
r-L
S V
CL
�
,i
5.f�
1 ] + 5R{1�
CD
T
}�{i,.,..�/�y
0
.}}•��..1
/}.,
�{
y�
Yom{
I�
����...-
�'�'j
+
ti
0
(D
�r
{
O
rri
U3
C
rD
4 V 4 V
s �4 LL�� i
+
12 r
i�
1"�"
`+5?
4„� +
F D
E*
V
CL
W
5•rrrJ
(D
o
OQ
rD
ro
W
OD
Q.,
0
CD
1
f
"I
5 Y
'may F�
4y�
Y
Vf
yk,s
P�
0 Gi
O
Po
PH
o
0
F
cu A D
coo
con
M
79
cu
its
cu
cui�
cu Ti a a ..
D ��
� o �
Qj ' ' Q` c
` ' ''� M V O cry (D to
�n (U 0 C) u
C�� cu
.,-� a
yn
rn
rK
�-�- �-
'�-�
c D " A "' ' ., `- A ;:r
�j,
■ ■
a CD
CD (D � C m
d' ' ', (D R CD
Y
rD
11C 0
f'D CD '' f
rD
CD rD
ID
+--r (D
(D �*`►
(b CG
CL
p CD
rD
LO M
C)
+ , #
r) CrQ
r+ .
n,
ro
(D
rr ■
CD 0
G rD
W
CD
PL
CD
rD
rD
rD
fD _
o
CD
� w
w
v�
t�
Q
tl o
ON
rm
CD
0
Aw
sw
lz
w
0
z
0
� a
° +J
. ,
7'�'�
CU 4-4
1 r-J -0
,-•� -a try '
,, cry ,.
r ;
4-1 ,- r� r
ed 0) 01) . '—f (d ':�j -C 4 � (,� cn 7:� W 6-J
ci c
^�� 0` "'
O # { v bA ,. rc�
0 r.4 cd
A-K • --�
a�
4 b •� ,� ,.
CD (D (D 91 -0 �-
CD
CD
cn rD 0 C4
o C n 5� CD r. �
' '
cn i CD rD,
Lo CL +"� I-�I�, sue!`
rn '`.D CG
' F r-v'
CD
cry ' •
CD
ro
CD
eD
D
0
G
�r
a
rD
uj
oa
W�
0
� . .
eq
POO
-2
0
W 4 v
0 i
I
U
D •'
D �
cu
�--�
u
-
., '
(u . ' i
UA 7�
r?
c r • �--�
cd
4E ,. 4, +j
cl -{ • F F,
CD
�
,
v ., ,�,
,.
z c q.) + a)
' , , �--�
0 cu
0 �7-4 B (D 0 • , cn
a
' c .,.•� v u ,. ►a--t �. �- `r c�J Cam` .. U 7�
LO
9
a
r
�>
rsl C,/2
F�
w
Fly
0
FBI
rD
CD
(D
'.+
f+--rJ
V Q
�P
rD
..
Cn
N
�.
Y
�.
�
�
W
H
#
s
Fes"
o
�J
L
4f
�.�,
M
/"i
/"
w.r
A
S 1�
I� *
rD
Fes+
o
' F
W
I�
0 0 0
(D
]�I
c
UQ
(D
,.
J/I�]
i
+
cn
�--_
ilJi
'/ J
1�
Y
"
M
r�
4 V F
4i
/
z
F
to
a 1
r -Y
+
#*
ro
CL
0 CL
i
W
W
V�
y
44
14
* ^
}
C
+%
"
0 w co
F
r..r
%4-4 .�
(?-.{
C) I
0
cu
0
Ts
r 7_•I
V J
i
rho
�i 4U
V r V
0 rd
1�"•'•�
• f-
cn
V
LU
cd
F--I
kf 'IrSYS
• LJ
V
P•-I
{
I .a'•►
0
40
co
Fyn
J III•r
*•r
r�
a�
Vi„1 T� /may
i
�
U
!
r7 lu
*+�
1 Y.,
ktJ
7rM
V
J ,
b p
* r-i
r- rs
Q
0
_ L �
*';Y'(..)
�
� k�l
1 •7
0
�
r �
\+�•LJ�
�
' �'•� 'w!
1i'T4C1
Tom/
LOD
LU
T"'•"�
m � UO
!•.1•.[
T---I
Ln
y�
4 /
w
0
z
�K
f'1
1y+�
y� N
�F
�y
zr
n
CD
(D
{p `'
I
" "tea'
��
r -�
H�
1+
J"■'
(D�
441
P7-
F"}
"
['t }r
I�+
+
'
+'3
+
5 V
CD
rD
m
'may
'
'r�Jp
1
5
_
1
CD
�IJ
r
4/
jjj
■T■
5
rr��
T—
o
411
LJ.L
Ln
�n n'""'
r
r
j
�
�.�j
7Y
+
m
W
P
�.
CD
�1
ate—■
R� ��
l
r
y �
�
� i
�
rU+U JJ
41�i
CL
�
h■�
jtyjyj�j�' -''''yy���-�1�����Y�
rJrr1
r
ry I}.,�
i.�+
�5
CD
CL
+
CD
co
V '+�(
�h
Qn
CD1y
?
V {
f of
r+
i L1
.1,
CD
p
4
M
V�
Uq
rl
l
r
r-f-
~4
}+�
rD
i y
•
CD
{ D
f
rp CD
{
(D
r
"iii
/L�
L
i{
rD
rD
r.y Y
rD
ray
fk/�3
1 D
F }
CD
4 Y�
Ln
y�
4 /
w
0
z
�K
f'1
1y+�
y� N
�F
�y
r4 M
V D GJ
rd
,. 4o• ., '
CU P
.,� • a ,
cu
;-4 t 8
PF
+� 0.., •+ ,-
a C -, '
0
C u
o
�.
4
ct ' „
�•+-�
•� _
Lol •„ -d A 'y
� � '
O O
,+ ZJ '
■ • , r i�
cu
Cd
d '�
[a
F.1 [/j
CPO
l.i
F�
4
4
0 �
i+A
r,
f.+
i
!--■ 0
{�
('
B
( LJi
(D
00
I:L
8
�T'
0
ad
j�')
5
w
RL
CL
Y
�
�I
'a■IF.y
iy��
/
_ J ;}y+Y��}
F
FD
/
� y
■■
1a�1Va
I�
1 V
w
�
to
V
Ate^
�"■
44f
fCL
W
�+y
jZ'w1
4 V
1�`V
i
CD
*1 :�
{%S
L
(D
'�
k
S L+
rJ■r'
"'ii
t V
/�5
S�Jay
Lt'
i
}
rp
i
'� l*
5 Y
Q
��■■■■��
* 1 Y
p
CD
•
M
CL
ID
CD
On
Y
rD'1114'
5 V
}l■�■jj
CD
CD
m
44/
j+
■
{
CD
`
fr,
2.
L/ f
V '7
rD
tj
rD
CD
F.1 [/j
CPO
l.i
F�
4
4
0 �
i+A
P
{ Co
Czl �
0
F�
(�
O
0
W[
F.r
z
�a
a
w
G�
cu
■ i
A
PEI
0
i
a
a
0
cn
0
'�+�✓
•
+ 7�
4�
dLV
Le) [
CU
4-b
s) i
* f
i
0
V
A
�ry y
W
Q
#
f ]
u
0
"..K
0
• lf
.1
0
0 c::)
CPO
ILq
cz
cn •, �" `'� .
cu
0 C14 0
r-q
. T-4 ` ;-P.-I
'� C�
Cc
•
Cc cn
`) rl: '
F V�
''-�+, • .,.� 4-h cry
.-' p 0
i
a
_ cry .,
i
C, 1 0 11 11
00
An
0
a
a
CU
4-b
0
a
0
0
'
1
0
� 0
. ,
Cd
7� 7:j
� 0
kn
I�
F�
w
rVy
i�
rD
AD
00
OD
017
F�
jay
jam`
tT
C)
0-4*
f
+
W
CD
/x••+
.w r
r'
�"}
�✓
Imo-} +
0
/'j
4 4�
�
j
�"■ +
•
p7j
CL
'+r �J
r)
LFJ
0
g:
i
�
Y �
�
i"�'r
��•`•`�i
h+R
Vf
'!
!`Y'
*'
V
�2,i
f
y�
�j
�- ,
t V
Pill
0
y
f-k.
gy`''p'
�-d +
+
r+
+
+
�J
4J J
'!�'�/!3■�
c
CD
It
12 W
44
"t
!=
t Mai
5 +
C�
C)
I.J
(D
s{5!eJfr4II „yy
r
PL
�./
r+
I +
r
fir■/
I�
F�
w
rVy
i�
W �
F {_7
�4 C7
AK �
W
A� ►►��rr
F-{
F+i
F�
V
F•I
o�
a�
�a
L VZV
0 ,, C 4-1 u
a � '' t •, �
i a �� -`
,. �, o`
,�,, .�, .,..; +cry
4-j 4 v
. cry c 4 + , A ,
,� tr
CIO
o o
•-� c - 0 a
41 7-4
i 00 ,. ) N . � '
CU 0) Cd
IF v 0 cu
Q Lo M a) "r. W u W
b} cry b • '
c 4 . �--•
.. m 7 ,
r 0 - ,- m 4-4 %t r
a( +�
a �►-�
c big b �"'� . bJD O C }
' � Q ,. '
cn
�. � i5
W * 4 o
oo `-�' o
' u . r--f
r-�' • '
X , U
WD
4-j Cd
CZ V
rd 4-4
CD 0
00 -05 b
bl 1 •
CU En � O � �
.,
tl-
,It
G�
LO
{
C1
C
4
C
.
'�
••••++
h�``•y` r'
C)
5
4/
YJ
- 4 7''�II
•i: --�!
J(�}i 1�V
F
�
r
Y
� 1
W
}
V/
a f`�
�UJ
IF
!T*''r11+.
iF
/•
[�
i
� j
RI/
�5
cn
� ,
.
�
�
r�
LIB
��liY��
V J LV
We'
e I ,
r-q kiy
CUB'
`
+
,
F
f.
f
i V
C6
ti L� f U
�I
V J
f 1
V 1
T�
4-1
't
L VZV
0 ,, C 4-1 u
a � '' t •, �
i a �� -`
,. �, o`
,�,, .�, .,..; +cry
4-j 4 v
. cry c 4 + , A ,
,� tr
CIO
o o
•-� c - 0 a
41 7-4
i 00 ,. ) N . � '
CU 0) Cd
IF v 0 cu
Q Lo M a) "r. W u W
b} cry b • '
c 4 . �--•
.. m 7 ,
r 0 - ,- m 4-4 %t r
a( +�
a �►-�
c big b �"'� . bJD O C }
' � Q ,. '
cn
�. � i5
W * 4 o
oo `-�' o
' u . r--f
r-�' • '
X , U
WD
4-j Cd
CZ V
rd 4-4
CD 0
00 -05 b
bl 1 •
CU En � O � �
.,
tl-
,It
tn
Zn, rD
�-t ; w
w r
ID
eD
CL
CD
ti
°.
cm FL
CD
CD
' O
try �-, s--�• �n r � ,� c ,,� ,� '�.-,` " � �
0 0
0 CD CD (D W ro
m
a W ch 0 c"U '' 0
CD M
rr
�!' �$
CD
410 rD CD
rD
rD
` ° '
. �-,� � CL
ID q
CM
,� rD ,
�- '
CD �`
CL
� '
rD
o
rD M rD It
U-� 'rte' ' ' - '.
rD
CD Ch 5 r+ x
'- ` rD
� Z
''
a�
UO
rD
rD
r
G�
W�
0
c c q
AK 0-4
"`C {
�y
4.5 , ,
w rib
u '
tz D C , cry
4-4 •� -� ,� � 6
+# ,
4b CU bJO
rppmr
aj
F—+
cn E
-6-j CL)
WD cu 4-A
cu i 4-j (3)
cu
'C • 7, c '''
' -4 ,
0 Q) m .,
, ,
c
-� ,. •� C' ,
r-K
kn rd
GJ
O
z
00
Lon
H
0 0
CD
(D •• °
■
rD
rD
P-4 r)
' a
�. pa - ,--�
W "j. rD g. 6 n a Ul) n eD
w Jo.. n °;" rD M
56 5� C) 0
Ln 20 �:r C, in
, "c� , CD
ro
}� rj}
rD CL
F M
qr,
rD
Fit ro
a`;
CL
CM
rD l7i
W
rE,.NNN�
r-*
t4
rD 0
�i
W �
0
PH Z � aria
L)
.. V 0
i ��, �
Ct
o i ,
4-J
co
;64 •
Qj ` v
.,..� .U)
D
4-J ,Ib CIS - �—�' ''�'
4., . , 4-j
7 "
;_� ' ;-,
4 , r+ -
,� '4
• �� c
7:5 tA
°' 4-1 V V
cu rPE4 cu
C+-�' +�
�--�
c c
CU
CL) . F
� -
'
Lo
c ,--� c .
r---C
N
W
u
r�
�I
J�k
T 4�J
5�
y
Y
rD
CA
rD
�
+
\
{ 1
CD
■
M
•
+
#
]"`"
V 1
n
20
0D
_
+
~
C
rD
fj L}
* ^
�"�
��
+
W
�., o f
CD
F' w
}c Q
I� iyy+y
Imo*
+
crq
CL
*
n n
I1+1J
CD
�
i"�` �*
�
/fir,
'
CD
+
fD�y`
r
R
ID
1 4f
Ham#
ti V i
h5}
�
4
tiD 4 V
+
l M
S1�
�4J���+
F
y{wfj
f�+�/
CD
r4 V•r
F+D
0
CD
w
pot
rD
N
W
u
r�
�I
J�k
T 4�J
5�
y
Y
W�
U CJ
,..
W
u
V) U
A
4 ',�
.�, v .
' a 1 "
F
pw4; "
r b
to
ILJ CD .44
try '
Zj
ro 4-4
r
-' .- xj ra� t -d
c ` G.? .0 ,
"'J 1 "
,� .� , _ ' CO 75
C
c '+' j . " r
G o.' .+j
�--, O �
F � -- m � �
.,__,
ago .� '� � � ,� ,� °�' � i� �
d � 'm a
cl B C) �-4 g �>� 7� o
'' bJ '
r V
M r r-.4 4-j C)
0
m 4-j
` c cn
D-4 C:'Yq 2
cu
m
Ln
r �
It CA
s r j f
con
-+ to C �..�: �t w
P—LI ; 0: 0 r
CQ
CD
, " CD �j c
CL
�-s 0) ' ' O
p - M �7 H
{�D
lot
CL
CD
DD
CD
cm
cr
C1�
T
-F CD
cn
M f �
cl
Zv
n
9
pd
w �
Of
C) . .
0
4
I
CU A-i
.., c �
Uri LO 0
P
' cn Uri
cu
cp
4-0 '
4—,'
.�,
F T
r-( C6 -d z ;--, m 7:� m � �i +-+ Q + }
9b 7:� 'm la� C) 06
�--r 0 'a--� rj * �•—� { ,',�" . iii C 1 fJ
,-� try ,.{ U
P--� 14 P-11 q D-4
rK
La
Er
rL
CD
-r, rD to`
CD ' p
c cm t uq
CG
r D '` C O q s rb
'—` `
` '-
CD
44 w
Lo
c►'
c O + ll�
cm
CM
CD
CD* `
n
' 14
+ ' rrD `•
cp
CD
}
r
0
r
Ln
X
ra °
04
W �
a CIO
V)
o
'
4-1 4
.
a�
u
0
�y 5 • . ,
✓ c � iI ■
Jam. Y
P-04 Z
*. r
rj
'
Cj
(ai 4 .,
• c�n � .
c
Q c D a--` Q) -� [mil � m
w a) fi
rd CIA
Fo • r� try ' ..£$ --� � , C:) `; *� [ -+"' . `.
--� "� cry oC Zi
CU M
P 0 cu p '-
r F.-4
tl-
V)
00
C
4
kP
FBI
F�
ry1 {fj
Y
' Y
F=
IW
nD
0
w
4
w+
��
iLi
i
�f
4LJ
}r
i .,V
1r'i'"
t(D I
�
f
'1//1I\4JI
�..L
/!�-
4/
+
lot
f
i
j-.
W It
r
i
'- !
r�
CD
ItCD
V�
' y+Y,
LA
GO
i
y
�y`
IFL
CL
C +
1 V
r
rD
ro
F�
�i
ID
C
4
kP
FBI
F�
ry1 {fj
Y
' Y
F=
IW
I-�
V�
CD
r4
biD
1
P.1
►�
4-j
u
H
'
U)
CD #
0-4
4J
f
(
C!}
� +1
4-1
u
*
�
�-{
Ln
c}
4
W
W
i
4-1 r�l
s
V
V
j
V
" QD
U}
,.
9
0
w
-
a)
u
4
a)
to
4 -j
�+1
* r-.4
z
(
Lr)
F
V
7�+
*
�c,'yJ
"{
^
0
P4
* .. �
4-1
''�
[�.j
�.y
r"i F`B`I
■ +
t
r'4
r-�
�.{ 4 Cd
4 U
}r...y"
T�
t"k
*•L�
.�,��
�
f11
4%
l--�-I
F ■
[
F'�'�
A --
Syr
L
+ /7
CL)
L 5}
["!
Ln
+"�
rte+
rrF7[
L�
5
>
1 "I
r-4
1
Tq
`
y�
V
%'�
�y W
V-7
�i
0
C!
S
r-�
IBS r w
�} �, ' � CAD '-t' �--�. "'-'' �� `, � ',� CD ' Cp � �`•
ID
ff.
Ho
�--�
CD
tTJ � , --
�h
�. '�`
r......4 i
rD
i-- rr CD
CD w p m
D O
rD o0
CL �-,
CD
0
CDi
CD �*
CD
CD
r)
0
8
C�
I�
a�
w
y
C�
�<
94 L)
. w
w
" ,
o,
c�
w F
' � ' , 4� 72n V
cu 0) co 0
cn 0 4-J 7.-j 4--f cu
cn
*i •-, U U
7� O m
con Cl
MM
cu
qj 4-J
bjD
Q
cl� - 4 bt
• 4
' "
? ,
cu
c , a
o. `
wD
Cd
�..�
Q)
ct
_ .
• +� '—' ,�
`-+ ., ? Sj
a.
cd
' y 7:5 ,
0 .
.,
-ZI ,. c '-o '
•'�
cry �'rppq ., Q ,'.
Ln
Ln
un
WA coon PI
OD
CD
CD
CD X13
w
,c m � D ,
+` ,+ , Gd
P- ,-�' F '
�-... F o ,
aCD Uq R—), t �j 0 2)
CD CD
` O
r Lo '. rD CD
Ste- ,.A.-;
ro
� tb+
�+ " " CD
� , o C rD 9' � � � cry � * � C, fi�4
r-r Can � � � �
Cb-'
► rD
..D'`
CL
0
0 k
rD
P
0
WSJ
w W Gj
e i . POO
Po cul
F�4w
u
w�
o •
z
0
2
o
o
7:5 ,. .
bid CD '. (D
o 7:5
"--I
cu
a
-q �' � ', 7:5 "
v 4-1
O ,
a) U 4 (0 0
i
LO
-H cd ;, ` 0
F * Am ,—� cry � ;..4 ,� O m � 7� c15 �+
`� +� `
ul -� � ' " "'
� ' O as 7 - t ,
En � . � 7-
Q.
° VT § 7J 0
at w
No
4 -/
��y�y rVy�y
5fY Yom.
i
w
� YJ
LM
ID
l
ILIT*
tii 7"+
a
CD
+ +
Q
" 9
Cq
i
CD
■
1
] 4 a
VJ
C)
9
a
�,
r
yy
r..d
lj
0
00
V ]
y7'w i
W
H�
{r`y
1
CD
41
CL
CD
Y•�
i
C)
V
W
r IA
'+
rp
w
Y`..++
�..r
�
' `
D CD
UJ
F-4
}.�
[ }�
LPL
=i
cp
t
tI f
Y�
+
Ln
�
1'X Yf
�
��...//
fig,+•,
]]- -]--�}
�]
j� ICJ
L
1� +
*
rD
��r
CL
m
o*
*
a
fppta
W CD
Y� +
'
(
!'
(
�;,ti'
M
CCU}
�
ra
(Q
PL
0
�+
s
CD
4 +*
} #
} V
4 -/
��y�y rVy�y
5fY Yom.
i
w
� YJ
LM
P4 g
cu
Cl)
p
w
4-J E :5 o a) "1 0)
(:) -tj v A 's
o '
c
P P* , X cry r --� +
S a.. C
H
0
� o
D
O
q
rm
rd rc�
" p p..q 4
C13 u
�} r
,r-f
cd
Coll
co M
0
Fly
y�y
V
�Vy
h�
Z
jy
I
F�
M
w
*
i�
i
4)
h++
(}y
*
eVFf
1J1
V''i~
I.w
YYt
�./
111
1��
''�*
f11 �y�
,
1x
RL
Y�
r
rD
IW ii
L 1
f3.�/
Crq
CD
fib
i�V
�..I
ro
CL
03
cL
CD
f
CL
CL
m
ID
i
*
{
Y l
ref
CD
~,
4`}
crQ
CL
%
CD
CL
CD
V)
CD
rD
tr
rpoL
CD
.r,
W
4 L1
r1 #
r
i�
#
1"�
Imo" �3
f'!4yy
F i
rD
L,
+
r{L/
n
*,i
/'i'w
1.11
�+ 1
rD
�� 411 �. *1
�n F.a.� V
J
}
I_
��''V{
w
W
�
t r
4 v
� L%
�R'^r'+
/}�
s L1
�
�✓ �],J r i
r D
u
4JJ
+
Fly
y�y
V
�Vy
h�
Z
jy
I
F�
M
w
M
W �
4i
Pi
U
wcry
4
*
rL1
cu
0
44
a
0)
V/
%4--4
' �"t
�kSly LU
fps
i�l
t
�
�
k U
S,Lf
�/
V J �
Cl)
�
ti+�.l �
cu
+•F�
�
� � ��'{
F+S
cu
1�L
4-1
F
W
W
T�
1�
14-f
�y �y
cu
cu
W
4-1
r�i ti iJ
W
W-4
W
a
rl-
IC
I'm
con
C�
r+ �J
w rn
0
h-i
F"]
IM {�
41 1 I■■�
M
CM
CD
ID
CD
OT
�{
rD
1 J
I'+�r
4
i/i
!
ID
A
�1 ■
iii
�y�.,71i
• T;
CL
CL
ro
/■��
1+�{
r I ,
�{
i S
[V� L'y7
fw#a
F
�i�+
�j i
y
laV.- .�f�_'
� {
rD
11
rCD k
/�I
I'^
• "l
11��y
I"'�
�
1y��jj /� fi
CD
CD
CD
r.
511JJ
}
/ y
I�4
In
Lei
CD
i
W
Z)
rD
Nay
rD#Y#
F+�i
*
j
V '+�
f'�
■"
j�'�}'j
V '�T
�*
HIV
rD
i
ell,
1
■�y�
�■ i
}
1
I '�
V
r-
�
W
i
M
�� �
+ar
cn
eD
��.1. *i
/r,
CD
CD
CL
f■■■■��
rrte�,
w
V 1
CD
■y
�
CIA
rL
(D
i
(D
Z*
rD
w /y
Tr
cn
pt
* i
*�1/
CD
r+
i D
Y
CD`S
CD
CD
It
/
W
I J
rya+
l
FD
�I
m
CD
n
(D
C)
crQ
# #
� #
Ili'R
#+■� #
V
rD
con
C�
r+ �J
w rn
0
h-i
F"]
IM {�
41 1 I■■�
8
O �
*' +� • ,
g-4-1 k4l
0.? ,—,", ,--� c cry 0 E .2 "' ' O • DJ
bf) u
Ln'..
. a
b--� ;
H a Zc a
'-+ D
' c = �,
` '
o
r. . `
c.� 0 g ,.-+
P-4 4"� 0
7� N -, c
00 0 ', •'
',
c
cu q ' v
•.., ,.
F� �
�...�
Cl) cn 7:5
WD 4-1
9 u ' +-
m CD
Cd rd
ce
j
Q
CD
CD.
r}
w
CD +
CD
'
CD
�,�
CD
CD rD
Lb
CD
w
0
i
CD
D
CL
4
V+
4V
11CD
Olt
rD
W
c4l
CL
5 R
jj..
i � t
rD
�.+
#
CrQ
r
F
r.r
'
0
cs
'
(D
CD
CL
4
ru�r+=�
ID
rD
9
rD
m
PL
m
4
'
CD
rD
I%r-�
V
5V
�`
CD
~�
V J
Imo^
+
f
/
i� i
f}J
�•�•
u
Y�
(D
CD
p�
W
w
w�
""`
q INS(
o •
0
a�
.�
rl, 0
cu 0
' 4-0 V V `
cj Q. c 775 ' - a)
a a W 4
,a U v
0
.�
.P-4
U
rA x
w
�j
R3
�,
4 J
CD
0
41
l�..YJ f
j.■�
k!]
V [ 7
y
I-+
urj
VW
+
1[//•}•�L 4/4•%t
xlJ +f
ID
r
iC1IV7"
V
j■■■■■�
Q-4
CD
tiM
�
Imo•{ i �'��
� �1•,
It+#
�•+�}
j..�+
I••{
Ir-
1
crq
-■/(
rj
V
a
4V
CL
cm
■
FL
w
rD
CD
CD
}
rD
t74
2
It +
!
CD
IIQ
r°
Cl�
ry
M�
rr
u
Lei
0
0
W
0
p
.,� ,
w
■
C64 Cl CIS Cd
cn
.,� ■ 0 0 '
o
r Ln 0 i
O
CU v
W F --� ;
C!) 0 0 c
cu
�i
c ,U)
Ito Cd cu
., c� O
O 0 ,0 bt '
D N 2 CU U CA
4-J Y) PIO +�" 4-'
44 tp 5 , tj
Cl} cots'
t u C)
Ln CU to 0
'w
C) .�
4�
.. '. '
i Cd *�
� °
4-J r r
' cn .�, ' o cd
"-4 ;� 1p-� ch t 0 um 0
4-1 Cd i D ,- 4) -g i V:�"� ,
4
;� I 1� 4 .. r-4
f ■d-
a) . ,. CO ,
cu . },
W ,� .� � �
CA
CO
CA 1
ID m
144 d
rn
Uri
CD a-
m rD
CD
CD-�
cry
rD
CD
crq
no
P woo
CD
t�
v�
-�6
1
fx] px,
PW 4
P
w
0
0
. Poo
.,.,� ,
v
a o ° 4-'
rppl
r C
cn
' T W � V r
_ ,"
C*1 ~� Ij L � r Mj W +F,.,� +� �i.J 7"'r� 4/ T---4 " F R' VJ +
O -6-' 4 4 /cam} I�4y, ru� E -1 9
M C) �j �,- t T.5 R
t 0
I�I�yy
ua Y+
y
4
Fy
0
Fy
IW
YFF l
l +
rM
0
y
s
shy„
'
cr
�.
m
fl
��`j
[CD C
f�'j''
+
rr,
7
~�
�]
{may y
V
LJ
o
1"�F
~��i
CD
I
�1f
++
�,2, r
f
"m
lLf
p
* Rey
Ln
}
�'�
t I
'+
}
j..l■
rD
rD
k!J
CD
eD
5 M
!yam }y
pod
@-.40
cm
W*
t 0
I�I�yy
ua Y+
y
4
Fy
0
Fy
IW
YFF l
l +
rM
0
y
g
W
0 4.
+. (U . .
A4
eq W4 �z 5 k 4T�
PL( a.(
• r r C!]
9 cn > cry ,."`
C) C) rko a. ,� . r-.—N >
. z o 0 .,
• ropf ""
Gi C v
tb O
s 7j ,
cn 4—)
CU
•+ * . U 4—
•, +,� m lzi
4-j cn
cu
,, 4-1
.,--�
.� ,.
.,� +
,, ,--,
Ln
. CJ] 421 O
Q (a) Q1 z
b�4 4
a +
r�
cu r '
c„ +•
w ;—f c A+ ;--I
Ln
+ `�, , Ln (1) B
rpq cu
C I M M
Cd
i--� r ' u)
�.j cry Q GO 0 �
rl-
t-
R R ■ ■ R C�
,-&+ CD
+ W � ' cD y '
Icyq
D
� ' �
r*
► D `'.'' CD to � l Lam+ � , y- � -j rL
0 (D ' m CL
pt C '.+ ` "�31 A "-� " fig
Cry M ' § { ?
CG
cR 0 C;�
(G ' CG r
fD
C) M
r
crq
rD
Ln
HO 0
x
a
o
� o
w
G�
p Ad
,� ,► #
. r-I
W
a�
o
bo
o
"
z
0
H
P-4
.,w
R�
.Pon( "
CA
rEk
cu
cu
b
cu
_
4
cli
4
•
pp�
�--q
cc
M
a
,C
b
O
''
.
;
T7
v
;�.yV.y�
�--I
r� '
�{J
lU
r-Ik
�y
,
• y FF
, �['
"'
'
*-F%
k
, }-{
47TU •�"'�
L}
rah i
7J
TAI 4
T'1
T-7 F
L 1�
T7
T�
-05 '�^'k
Q! w
F
f�•I
V/ VU
0.4
•-j
V
rl
W
;••q
4-•
U
cn �
m
En
LI'hJ
LJ
d" pa
C�1
0
con
k�
1y #�
F! ~
y�
W!
FK
rq
m
on
JV
cl
F}�y
Ft
Lo
m
Po
0
lYl 4'1F
Y
�rJJ% �I!l�rr�yy '/�lal
1 Y
f 1
I
i
�
i
�J��4y
1 V
�h
���yR1
� Y
'A+..I
1 V
�%'�
1II
i
i
'� }j
tiR
;�/ )
=^
f�
�L i
#
MI,
rr--- r"'��1
h
17x
}
H�
# +
Fr +
.B
ro
r
o
-
r
p..t�
. •
�
!"�
F-`.{
�I"F'
�J
+
V 1
/��V
r-+
V
i
x,.
CD
.
th
*
C CD
rL
r
OQ
It
I
r
�r
F� k
� ice% i
r
con
k�
1y #�
F! ~
y�
W!
FK
rq
m
on
JV
cl
F}�y
Ft
,--q
00
F-4 0 IP PO4
L
w
0
[� • r-t
O
G
4-1 H
' D
D
r
a +�
' '
Q
cu r. C
i� c c
..
f ,--t U] ,
o
fjo
0-4 � i 4 44 4
H
N
,
4 4
CD- i
rD
} `� ICIE�D!! 00 r� 1� .1� Im � '"'' 'rt w � � r .� .� `. w
,rt
CR
H Z)
D �
w C2 0 aq
C2
�--w► ' 4 CAD
(D
CD
17, 5� w 0 ID
r—�
� D
CD
crq
CD Pi
me cam
En
LO
CD M
rD
rD
ID
Imp �.y
0
n
a Imn
H
ro
{R �2-+
oq
Qi
c�
PM
o
NO
H
cu
0
Ad ,
w
Ad
o a
4-j CU
., w r
*-0
o a +
co
CO
It
V
I�
+
LO a) to 0
tD
ja+ ,
Ln ,
Cd
cm
aj
cz
5�H
�--, +
Irmo
o
GO
f r I
+.� a) b � c +
+ T + o
Kq
-1 SID o
Aw Irl
a
00
{� to
4�
�M
w
w
I�
Ft
� + It
N
m
r
■
0
rD e
{D
CD
nm
CD
}
e
CD
'
"
•
O
P4
PL
crq
l+r r
�"�
�i
Fii
j
1�r
{
I""*
CD
0
w cTq
It
T •
r—I
CFO
CL
r M
N
f`Y q
V
�ri
C
pt
ad
(D
CL
m
f'i 3
G
+J
w
"1
z
rD
{� to
4�
�M
w
w
I�
Ft