Loading...
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